Random Chit Chat

annnnnnnnnnnnnd my OS drive is shot..................

I'm going to scrap trying to fix this and just migrate to the lapop. effing drive failures and your stupid set setbacks.....
 
Yeah right and black cows have chocolate milk. :rolleyes:

iPwn, AMD were fantastic CPUs in the old days and I was a fan of theirs. Trouble is that as we progressed to faster CPUs AMD are having trouble controlling heat in their cores.

Intel has a copyright on their designs and they've been producing cooler chips and still do. The board I gave Dan was my last AMD and I upgraded to Intel Celeron because I found it cheaper ($50) and better and I was impressed.

Since the i3 was decently priced ($100) I wanted to try it because of HTT and I was really impressed. That was when I decided to build an i5 system and since been running on it.

Now I'm an Intel fan. :hide:
 
And.... as much as I'm erking not to agree... I can say that in all my years, I've had more trouble with AMD rigs than Intel. I'm a die hard AMD fan and they just keep letting me down and it's making me sad.
After the "8 core FX" bust, I'll think long and hard before buying AMD again.
 
After the "8 core FX" bust, I'll think long and hard before buying AMD again.

Now that's a funny thing about it. A fella on a forum somewhere I forgot which tested that 8 cores. He said that in a way they are 8 cores because he was able to isolate each core and test its performance.

You can't do that with a 4 core with HTT as there's only 4 cores.

Now you can take that with a grain of salt because I don't know wether to believe him or not but he's known to be an electronic expert.
 
This weekend I had to break into the Dell desktop at work that powers my test setup. I am buying a new clock battery, a 4.5v model that I've never seen before, and I had to futz around with the floppy drive.

Turns out the drive manager is broken for a: drives so I have to switch to b:

I was worried I might have to repair or [shudder] replace it... it's an old DOS 6.0/Win 3.1 machine with 450MB hard drive and ISA slots. My equipment depends on those ISA slots, because the specialized card would cost much dollars if we decided to upgrade to a more modern machine.
 
Now that's a funny thing about it. A fella on a forum somewhere I forgot which tested that 8 cores. He said that in a way they are 8 cores because he was able to isolate each core and test its performance.

You can't do that with a 4 core with HTT as there's only 4 cores.

Now you can take that with a grain of salt because I don't know wether to believe him or not but he's known to be an electronic expert.

There are 8 physical cores, each with it's own L1 cache, but they work in pairs, sharing the FPU.
 
In terms of performance, how does this compare with hyperthreading? I imagine that it would produce somewhat similar results—excellent in some areas, mediocre in others.
When the CPU is performing integer calculations, it performs as 2 normal cores. When doing floating point, it performs as one. That's why the no one buys 8350s for video editing.
 
When the CPU is performing integer calculations, it performs as 2 normal cores. When doing floating point, it performs as one. That's why the no one buys 8350s for video editing.

Right. However, apart from very specific uses that utilize only integer or floating-point operations, how do the two compare?

E: My point isn't that the behaviour is exactly the same as Hyperthreading, but, rather, I am questioning the overall benefits of the system in comparison to intel's implementation.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom