Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Scuddie on May 18, 2005, 07:20:38 pm
-
It seems everything and it's counterpart is biased because of what it is, and not what it isn't. For example, speed and power. We have XBox vs PS2, HEI vs Diesel, ATi vs nVidia, boxers vs briefs...??
XBox is much faster than PS2;
PS2 is much more powerful than XBox
HEI is much faster and efficient than Diesel;
Diesel is much more powerful and durable than HEI
ATi is much more hardware effective than nVidia;
nVidia is much more software effective than ATi
Boxers allow much more freedom than briefs;
Briefs are much more supportive than boxers
Discuss. If you want to.:blah:
-
POWAAH, I CAN FEEL THE POWAAH!
-
Here I was thinking that this was going to be a thread about combat. I had my arguments for both sides worked out in my head, too :(
-
Boxers!
-
Boxers are faster than briefs.
Briefs are more powerful than boxers.
:nervous:
-
'A useless and nonsensible debate: Speed Vs. Power '
'Have we been seeing the XBox 120?'
'+1 for the XBox360'
'*cries*'
'Nintendo Revolution Pics'
'Here come the screenshots'
'PS3 revealed'
That's 7 threads on one page, I know this is a gaming board, but any chance of a merger here?
-
6 of those 7 are from DeepBlue :p
-
ummm...as far as hardware is concerned, isn't speed the same thing as power?
-
Not really. Intel chips are fast, AMD chips are more powerful :p
-
Lightside > darkside: Speed
Darkside >lightside : power
-
Originally posted by Carl
ummm...as far as hardware is concerned, isn't speed the same thing as power?
A good example is Macs and PC, PC's are powerful, they use brute force to get the job done. Macs are fast, they don't have chips that are as powerful, but are designed to get the optimum out of them. Though this can still be confusing, because Power in a chip is measured by how fast the clock is in most cases ;)
-
Vanilla FS2- Speed
FS2 SCP- Power, lots of power!
:nervous:
-
SCP is faster than Vanilla, though. :wtf:
-
Y'know, in some of the given cases, speed and power are the same thing.
Speed and power of what is the question... In the case of clock speed, discussing power makes no sense. In the case of data processing, power and speed are one and the same.
-
Originally posted by Descenterace
In the case of data processing, power and speed are one and the same.
For word-for-word processing, that is true. However, one big thing that you didn't see (which happens to be right in front of your face), is the application of what is in question. Clockspeed is one FACTOR! Word size is another factor. BUS size/speed is yet another. Memory is yet again another. Independant factors mean absolutely nothing! It is when the factors of a component come together when the power and speed are determined.
The only validity your statement has is with comparing single factors alone. Like a $125 2.4GHz P4 CPU vs a $10k+ 1.65GHz Power5 CPU. If you want to compare clockspeed alone, then the P4 is more powerful. However, don't forget why a Power5 costs over 10 grand. By that example alone, proves your ideas invalid.
EDIT: BTW, this post is not to be inflamitory, please dont confuse emphasis with insult. I apologise in advance if you are offended, and I take it back if you aren't. :p
-
x86 archetecture is ancient as hell, i dont see why we still use it. theve managed to make the busses wider, the chips faster and crank out more maths per cycle, but they havent optimised the designt of the way theese subsytems are integrated. this is one thing i kinda respect apple for, because they are always trying new archetecture concepts, and successfully i might add. the new console systems coming out are another example of advancemnts in archetecture.
a big problem with x86 is that one processor no matter how fast it is, will be stopped by some stupid piece of hardware which doesnt know what to do with itself. its like when the manager of a store has to fill in for a cashier because shes an hour late for work. the interupt system, a control mechinisim which tells the processor to stop what its doing so that it may talk to a device. processing shouldnt stop because a piece of hardware is being stupid. devices have been becoming smarter and in some cases they can operate without cpu intervention, a video card is a good example of a smart device, in most cases they can usually crank out more math than a cpu ever could, but because they rely on the cpu to control it, it makes the system slower.you shouldnt be using a system that was designed for centralized processing, on a system that has the capability of delegating menial tasks to inexpensive low-end processors and complecated task for greater chips.
id like to see an asymetrical system where you have a simple processor handeling device control , while more andvanced chips can be allowed to focus fully on crunching function (rendering, communications, audio, ect) specific code. multiple processors designed with a specific task in mind. even with symetrical multiprocessing, you are simply combining there power so they can work harder, but they still arent working smarter. and a system that works smarter is more effietient.
as for boxers vs. briefs, im gonna switch to thongs :D
-
Apple doesn't do a thing to design their processors. They're just cut down IBM PPC cores. And as for x86 not being optimized at all, what do you call things like the integrated memory controller on Athlon 64s?
On the topic of the consoles, all we can say at the moment is that IBM is going to love this generation, given the fact that all three are going to be designed and/or built by IBM.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
A good example is Macs and PC, PC's are powerful, they use brute force to get the job done. Macs are fast, they don't have chips that are as powerful, but are designed to get the optimum out of them. Though this can still be confusing, because Power in a chip is measured by how fast the clock is in most cases ;)
Um, actually, Macs are both more powerfull and faster. ;)
I don't want to start a PC vs Mac war though... :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
Apple doesn't do a thing to design their processors. They're just cut down IBM PPC cores. And as for x86 not being optimized at all, what do you call things like the integrated memory controller on Athlon 64s?
On the topic of the consoles, all we can say at the moment is that IBM is going to love this generation, given the fact that all three are going to be designed and/or built by IBM.
x86 is always going to be hamstrung by its CISC history and backwards compatibility, though. Simplicity favours regularity and whatnot.
-
Originally posted by Grug
Um, actually, Macs are both more powerfull and faster. ;)
I don't want to start a PC vs Mac war though... :nervous:
Um, actually, you are wrong, as is flipside. A Mac system and an AMD system are nearly identical in performance. Speed and power are about the same. Intel systems are the faster, but less powerful ones.
I don't want to make a PC vs Mac war useless though... :nervous:
Oh. And Grey Wolf, PowerMacs use PPC cores, which are just a cut down version of IBM Power cores. Just thought I'd clear that up :D.
-
It all depends on the standard of measurement. Intel chips (the X86 in general) has a higher clock speed but equivalent or lower throughput when compared to the PowerPC chip in a Mac. (of equivalent age, I'm not trying to skew that representation). What ultimately is the concern is compatability; you're starting to see it crop up in the consoles, and it's still a problem on the Macs, but what allowed x86 to flourish in the first place was not its architecture but the fact that a) it was first (16-bit commercially produced), and b) software and compilers are already written for it and were and still are supported by future generations of the architecture. If your processor changes format and has to have all of its software recompiled every time you upgrade, you can't carry forward the old stuff that you may still want/need. How many of us are still playing games that came out on the previous generation of Intel chips? I'd wager most of us. They still work (unless it's due to a change in Windows, another issue but largely unrelated). Apples don't always do that, for example; the new MacOS will only run on processors made after a certain date, the old (9.x) will only run on processors made before a certain date. So it's as important a measure on the topic of computing as any measure of speed, though few people realize it.
-
Once again, you are still a bit flawed. Netburst-based processors, namely Intel Pentium 4/Pentium D chips, are the ones that lose clock for clock against a PowerPC processor. Athlon 64s, the Banias and Dothan cores in the Pentium Ms, and even Pentium IIIs for that matter, are roughly equal in IPCs to the PPC chips.
And thanks for the correction on the whole PowerPC and Power thing, Scuddie.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
Apple doesn't do a thing to design their processors. They're just cut down IBM PPC cores. And as for x86 not being optimized at all, what do you call things like the integrated memory controller on Athlon 64s?
thats like putting a supercharger on a model t, it would shake itself apart. eventually you need to design the whole car from scratch to get the full capability of the new tech.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
'A useless and nonsensible debate: Speed Vs. Power '
'Have we been seeing the XBox 120?'
'+1 for the XBox360'
'*cries*'
'Nintendo Revolution Pics'
'Here come the screenshots'
'PS3 revealed'
That's 7 threads on one page, I know this is a gaming board, but any chance of a merger here?
@Raa:
Not true, Rictor started the "Here come the screenshots" and "Nintendo Revolution Pics" threads. I did 4/7... We do need a merger though...