Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

R800 3D mesa driver is shortly before release

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by darkbasic View Post
    Come on, the games are still dx9 with some dx10/11 shit.
    When dx11 will be available the 5670 will be old and slow enough to be useless.
    read my writings right.. faster for the SAME result means zero00000 dx11 effects ;-)

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Kano View Post
      So for which games you want to use that card now? When you want to play dx10 games you can buy a 4850 too which should be much faster.
      no the 4850 is slower per WATT usage!

      Comment


      • #63
        That does not really matter. Especially not for your 12 core opteron

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
          no the 4850 is slower per WATT usage!
          Yeah they are really at the bottom end. Probably good material for cooking eggs

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Kano View Post
            That does not really matter. Especially not for your 12 core opteron
            i know you don't know what you are talking

            the Opteron 6000 12 core is the world best cpu for performance per WATTT usage!

            so you are complete FAIL!

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by monraaf View Post
              Yeah they are really at the bottom end. Probably good material for cooking eggs
              kano just fails...
              kano burns our green planet into HELL

              kano likes Atom-power-plans for this bad performance per watt nvidia card.

              and this just turns our Children into Zombies...

              thank you kano!

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                kano just fails...
                kano burns our green planet into HELL

                kano likes Atom-power-plans for this bad performance per watt nvidia card.

                and this just turns our Children into Zombies...

                thank you kano!
                kano can please 300 women in 1 week.

                nazi zombies in call of duty 5 was kanos idea.

                kano can create nuclear weapons while sleepwalking.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                  i know you don't know what you are talking

                  the Opteron 6000 12 core is the world best cpu for performance per WATTT usage!

                  so you are complete FAIL!
                  I really doubt an x86 cpu of any kind would be the worlds best performance per watt cpu.
                  Source please.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    And I really doubt you're constantly using all 12 cores all the time. So you're still wasting power.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by pvtcupcakes View Post
                      And I really doubt you're constantly using all 12 cores all the time. So you're still wasting power.
                      You DO know about speedstep, coolnquiet, etc? Cores sleep if unused, and immediately eat everything up what appears infront in 1 second and go sleep again, yet desktop one core needs 12 seconds, consuming even more wattage in that long period AS WELL as wasting 11 seconds of your life. So no, thats bad argument, cores are usefull if can be loaded and we know opensource CAN load any amount of cores.


                      Qaridarium, awesome cpu, thanks for pointing me to 6xxx series! Looks MAJOR ROCK even for Desktop use.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by pvtcupcakes View Post
                        I really doubt an x86 cpu of any kind would be the worlds best performance per watt cpu.
                        Source please.
                        http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldu...os-966187.html

                        "Sehr hohe SPEC-Performancewerte, hohe Energieeffizienz"

                        high SPEC points and High speed per WATT

                        4 socket version: "759 SPECint_rate2006 und 621 SPECfp_rate2006"

                        "Unter Volllast mit SPECjbb2005 beschränkt sich das Opteron-6170-Testsystem auch auf 376 Watt "

                        max power consuming: 376watt

                        idle : 132 watt

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                          Qaridarium, awesome cpu, thanks for pointing me to 6xxx series! Looks MAJOR ROCK even for Desktop use.
                          for desktop use : http://www.lantronic-it.de/product_i...8SGL-SG34.html

                          single socket G34 supermicro board 273€

                          and : http://geizhals.at/a508671.html

                          AMD Opteron 6128, 8x 2.00GHz, 80 watt TDP 273€

                          yes not cheap but the most Performance per Watt

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                            Cores sleep if unused, and immediately eat everything up what appears infront in 1 second and go sleep again, yet desktop one core needs 12 seconds, consuming even more wattage in that long period AS WELL as wasting 11 seconds of your life..
                            A small but important point here: a a dual-core processor is not twice as fast as a single core. It can be UP TO twice as fast (minus a certain amount for the overhead of managing both cores) but only if the task being performed can be parallelised and the program has been parallelised, even then, it needs to be done properly. I believe the overhead increases with the number of cores.

                            Some problems are trivial to parallelise, others are impossible, so be careful when making the "(time taken by a single core) / (number of cores)" assumption for parallel processing.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Also, a core that is "sleeping" doesn't necessarily consume trivial power (particularly if it's on the same die as cores that are working), and it doesn't necessarily take a trivial amount of time to get in/out of a sleep mode (e.g. you might need to wait for PLLs to lock, caches to flush/fill, etc.).

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by archibald View Post
                                A small but important point here: a a dual-core processor is not twice as fast as a single core. It can be UP TO twice as fast (minus a certain amount for the overhead of managing both cores) but only if the task being performed can be parallelised and the program has been parallelised, even then, it needs to be done properly. I believe the overhead increases with the number of cores.

                                Some problems are trivial to parallelise, others are impossible, so be careful when making the "(time taken by a single core) / (number of cores)" assumption for parallel processing.
                                this is wrong because there are Super-linear-speedup-cpus..

                                2 cores is faster than 2 single cores and 4 cores are faster than 5 or 6 single cores and 8 cores are faster than 12 single cores and so one.

                                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedup

                                and Amdahl's law is refuted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

                                because of the Super-linear-speedup-effect


                                the Opteron 6000 is a Super-Linear-Speedup CPU thats because 1 core can use the L3 cache of all other cores!

                                so all 48 cores have 48mb of L3 cache! and 1 single theat can use this cache!

                                the opteron 6000 is also superlinear because 1 core can use all ram channels of all other cores !

                                so an opteron 6000 48 core system do have 16 channel ram !

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X