Originally posted by monraaf
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
R800 3D mesa driver is shortly before release
Collapse
X

Originally posted by monraaf View PostLet's be a little realistic about this. AMD's open source driver team is heavily understaffed, and unless they are going to do something about that
Comment

Originally posted by monraaf View PostI remember the same thing being said about Evergreen. The ISA was mostly the same as R600/R700, just with a few new instructions added and some registers moved.
Comment

Originally posted by elanthis View PostThey've been pretty explicit that their plan is for the community to get more involved, not for them to spend more money on staff.
 with the *current* level of staffing and community involvement there has been much more progress than is immediately obvious, as a consequence of (a) catching up on several years of new hardware introduction and (b) community focus on moving to a new architecture for the driver stack rather than adding features & performance to the old architecture
 with the *current* level of staffing and community involvement we are approaching the point where we can be considered "caught up" and are working entirely on new HW support rather than backfilling for old HW and working on architectural changes
 with the *current* level of staffing and community involvement we expect that you will see more timely support for new hardware
Comment

Originally posted by bridgman View Post with the *current* level of staffing and community involvement we expect that you will see more timely support for new hardware
Comment

Originally posted by trapxvi View PostThis has nothing to do with typed vs. untyped lambda calculus. If you want to write a type signature for emulate, it would be State⊗Integer → State⊗Integer. In general, typed lambda calculus is less expressive than untyped lambda calculus, since the latter can obviously express any welltyped expression. In this case, the typedness of the lambda calculus you're using has nothing to do with this.
No values are changing at all. He's expressing an algorithm by recursion. At cycle zero, the machine is in a known initial state. To this we apply the emulation operation which maps the old state to a new state and increments the number of cycles. If you wanted to expand this out, you'd have:
emulate(emulate(emulate(...emulate(initial_state, 0))...)))
alternatively, in a language like C, you'd have:
These are completely equivalent computations. In both cases, there's a serial data dependency: you can't compute the next state until you know the current state. Expressing this in lambda calculus or a purely functional style does not in any way remove this fundamental computational property. It would be like claiming that Fermat's last theorem is true in a base12 number system but not in base10: it's a mathematical property that's completely independent of a particular representation.
cycle_count = 0;
state = initial_state;
while(1) state = emulate(state, &cycle_count)); // emulate increments cycle_count
If you claim to have a fasterthanserial way to solve this emulation problem, congratulations, you've solved the halting problem and disproved one of the most fundamental theorems in computer science.
Quad, I respect you for your ability to find interesting info. I'm not sure if you're trolling or just confused, but you need to give this up.
i found something: http://www.heise.de/tp/blogs/3/148161
this means "P!=NP" is maybe not valid because no one check this Theory
this also means a Quantum computer maybe can turn an P!=NP into P=NP
so if no one can valid "P!=NP" up to 100% then a speed up by parralism can be unlimited
Comment

Originally posted by bridgman View PostActually no, I'm saying you're wrong today
CPUs are directly connected to the memory controller, but (a) can use HT links to access memory connected to another CPU, and (b) can respond to access requests over HT from attached IGPs and other peripherals. Normal CPU memory accesses do not go through HT.
simple question: can the APU(gpu) fusion access over a ht link into ram to another fusion cpu in a multisocket system ? to enable functions like Crossfire?
Comment

Originally posted by Lynxeye View Post@Qari: Real people talk about real hardware available at the time of the talk or in a reasonable period of time. You are talking about highly theoretical stuff while you apparently have no clue of real hardware.
Comment

Q, P=NP has nothing to do at all with halting problem which in term has nothing to do with P=NC.
P=NP is about whether a certain set of problems are solvable with polynomial time (might be possible to be done, who knows).
Halting problem is whether you can have a machine that can draw the conclusion that an algorithm will loop indefinitely (can't be done with a Turing machine ie any currently thinkable computer).
P=NC is the one about parallelism. Don't mix them up.
Comment

Originally posted by nanonyme View PostQ, P=NP has nothing to do at all with halting problem which in term has nothing to do with P=NC.
P=NP is about whether a certain set of problems are solvable with polynomial time (might be possible to be done, who knows).
Halting problem is whether you can have a machine that can draw the conclusion that an algorithm will loop indefinitely (can't be done with a Turing machine ie any currently thinkable computer).
P=NC is the one about parallelism. Don't mix them up.
if you build an Sedeniondimensionquantumcomputer you get an high probability of the result in one of the dimensions on the first cycle.
Comment

what if you need 'no clue' to be free to think free and without blocking limitations ?
Any Lynxeye's comments regarding classical vs quantum computing still stand. Nothing is added to a discussion by saying "If you build this highly theoretical computer then it might solve this problem but it might not."
Comment

Originally posted by archibald View PostIf your premise is false, you can prove *anything*. You seem to be advocating the idea that knowing less about a subject makes you more likely to succeed in it.
Any Lynxeye's comments regarding classical vs quantum computing still stand. Nothing is added to a discussion by saying "If you build this highly theoretical computer then it might solve this problem but it might not."
random an number and you get a tiny chance to get the same result.
on an Sedenion based system you can have 16 dimensions of random numbers in the same time.
you only need to valid the result in the future after the calculation.
means if you calculate more than 1 problem you can get results faster by checking multiple speculativ versions in the same time and get the result faster than on an normal way.
Comment

Originally posted by Qaridarium View Posti found something: http://www.heise.de/tp/blogs/3/148161
this means "P!=NP" is maybe not valid because no one check this Theory
this also means a Quantum computer maybe can turn an P!=NP into P=NP
Originally posted by Qaridarium View Postwhat if you need 'no clue' to be free to think free and without blocking limitations ?
Comment
Comment