Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linus Torvalds Switches To AMD Ryzen Threadripper After 15 Years Of Intel Systems

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

  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by zyxxel View Post
    Or wait until after having had a long nights sleep.
    Glycine and magnesium can both improve sleep quality. If I also take 0.3 mg of melatonin (but not more!), I get the benefits of 9 hours' sleep in just about 6.

    Leave a comment:


  • zyxxel
    replied
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    Thanks for that.


    You can edit or delete you post, if you want. For now, I'll disregard.


    Do get your sleep, but L-Theanine can mitigate Glutamate toxicity and N-Acetyl Cysteine can quickly normalize Glutamate levels. Creatine is awesome for boosting mental clarity on low sleep, but you quickly build a tolerance to it.
    It's better people can see I f*kd up than pretend it didn't happen. The world has enough people who likes to pretend they can never be wrong, and instead tries to move goal posts when cornered. Lessons learned - think and reread a second and a third time if visiting a forum after having burned all energy on a full-night system update. Or wait until after having had a long nights sleep.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by Tomin View Post
    Did you just mix coder and duby229?
    Thanks for that.

    Originally posted by zyxxel View Post
    Yes, I just did.
    You can edit or delete you post, if you want. For now, I'll disregard.

    Originally posted by zyxxel View Post
    The result of spending all night doing an installation job. Makes the brain mushy. Sorry for the confusion.
    Do get your sleep, but L-Theanine can mitigate Glutamate toxicity and N-Acetyl Cysteine can quickly normalize Glutamate levels. Creatine is awesome for boosting mental clarity on low sleep, but you quickly build a tolerance to it.
    Last edited by coder; 08 June 2020, 07:12 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • zyxxel
    replied
    Originally posted by Tomin View Post

    Did you just mix coder and duby229?
    Yes, I just did.

    The result of spending all night doing an installation job. Makes the brain mushy. Sorry for the confusion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tomin
    replied
    Originally posted by zyxxel View Post
    Not at all. Further proof that I have a reason to see the market from multiple directions. One thing I work with is equipment for fixed installations. Equipment where there is a need to keep down the cost, and where a second memory channel would not add any value - just cost.
    Did you just mix coder and duby229?

    Leave a comment:


  • zyxxel
    replied
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    Further proof that you're just lashing out to get that dopamine hit, or else you might've actually read the part of my post where I specifically distinguished external memory bus width from on-chip feature disablement.
    Not at all. Further proof that I have a reason to see the market from multiple directions. One thing I work with is equipment for fixed installations. Equipment where there is a need to keep down the cost, and where a second memory channel would not add any value - just cost.

    The dopamine hit is something you focus on - or you wouldn't have entered this sub-thread debate with so much venom. Have you forgotten you called me prejudiced because I noted that not all people can afford to - or are interested in - paying for dual-channel memory? Secondly - who wrote "is so fucking wrong" etc? That's the language of someone looking for personal rewards by choice of how to argue.

    And your posts have been 100% focused on your anger at single-channel memory - which isn't a question of any on-chip feature disablement. That's a back-tracking when cornered.

    But even them are often very real questions of economy. When NVidia are making their chips, lots of chips fails the testing process and has to be thrown away. Except that it's possible to deactivate the broken cores and sell the chip as a lower-end variant. And this isn't a new concept. The original ZX Spectrum had 16 or 48 kB RAM. The 48 kB variant had one 16 kB bank of DRAM memory and one 32 kB bank. Just that there wasn't any 32 kB memory chips produced. Lord Sinclair bought failed 64 kbit chips and then bonded the address wires so that 32 of the 64 kbit that was working well ended up at lowest address. That gave him access to cheap memory chips - and the world got access to a 48 kB ZX Spectrum cheaper than otherwise possible.

    Was same with old Intel chips - i486DX chips with broken floating point module had the module deactivated and was sold as i486SX chips. Then the market ended up large enough - acual users interested in buying a cheaper chip because floating point wasn't much needed - that Intel ended up having to redesign and manufacture 486SX chips that was from start without floating point.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    You're so wrong. That bullshit is the same exact reason why Intel releases CPU's without features like virtualization hardware... And it's wrong... Who do you think you are that you think you can decide how poor people -have- to be?
    Further proof that you're just lashing out to get that dopamine hit, or else you might've actually read the part of my post where I specifically distinguished external memory bus width from on-chip feature disablement.

    Leave a comment:


  • zyxxel
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post

    See my last post. What you're saying is so fucking wrong. It's immoral to the very highest degree.
    Nothing can help you. Condolences to your poor family for having to put up with someone not too smart. I have to assume you get help logging on.

    Two or one memory channel isn't the difference between a 1 or a 2 in a text. It isn't a transistor that is on or off on the silicon.

    It isn't the same manufacturing cost. You have had this explained to you, but it's outside your ability to grasp. Just as you can't grasp why some people have a cheaper car than others. Or a cheaper apartment. Or a cheaper bike. Or cheaper clothes. Money matter - and in a fair world, someone have to help out and supply items even for people who can't afford the expensive alternatives. In your world, the car manufacturers are to blame that they can't sell Rolls Royce cars at Fiat Uno prices.

    If you were smart, you would look into the requirements to CAD a PCB for a single-channel board or a dual-channel board. If you were smart, you would consider the issue when every trace needs to be exactly the same length because the speed of light is slow compared to the frequencies used by modern memories. You would consider the PCB space needed for more memory modules. You would consider the manufacturing costs of twice as many modules. You would consider the actual gain from having them.

    But are you? Or did you decide one day that for the rest of your life you wanted to be ignorant?

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by zyxxel View Post

    There is another aspect for RAM. A RAM stick has a fixed size, so there is a limit to the number of chips that fits on the stick.

    When going for a high-end machine with really large RAM sticks, only the best fabs can make really large RAM chips. And these fabs have a limited capacity. So there is a premium price for the chips besides just the extra because they are larger.

    This means that if I buy a server motherboard with 8 RAM slots, it costs more if I go for 4 silly large RAM sticks or if I go for 8 sticks that are half the size each. So I can either decide to pay premium, and later add 4 more modules. Or go the cheaper route and later have to throw away 8 sticks to replace with 8 larger sticks. So for high-end hardware, it isn't an extra cost to make us of all memory channels.

    But when moving down to smaller RAM modules, the mechanical cost starts to matter. It takes more time in the factory to make two 4 GB sticks than one 8 GB stick. So at the smaller end of memories, there is a very real reason why a single, twice-as-large, stick is cheaper than two smaller sticks.

    So it isn't an arbitrary choice to be evil, that we see single-channel deliveries in lower range products. It really does affect the price of the product. And the price is a very important factor for the lower range products - either because the customer can't afford more, or the product is intended for a huge mass-market. 1 million kiosk installations means $5 difference per installation is a $5 million saving.
    See my last post. What you're saying is so fucking wrong. It's immoral to the very highest degree.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    Whoah. Somebody didn't get their outrage fix for the day!

    I think the point was that there are markets for which price is just a hard constraint, or maybe the overriding priority. If you only sold it in the more expensive configuration, some people and institutions who are on the edge of affording it would have to step down to something potentially much worse.

    Yeah, in a perfect world, everyone would have the best, most cutting-edge hardware and all the rest, but that's not the economic reality. So, the next best thing is to support a wide range of configurations and price points, to at least offer the most opportunities.


    Now you've veered off into sheer idiocy.

    It's one thing, when a manufacturer artificially limits core count or clock speed, just for the sake of market segmentation. However, you're talking about more physical RAM components, which means larger boards with more traces/layers and more physical chips (if not also more DIMM sockets and DIMMs). That costs actual money, and impacts on power, size, and weight.


    Also, it's not just about poor kids. There are kiosk and industrial applications that might run fine with a single-channel. If AMD didn't allow such configurations, they would lose at least some of that business.
    You're so wrong. That bullshit is the same exact reason why Intel releases CPU's without features like virtualization hardware... And it's wrong... Who do you think you are that you think you can decide how poor people -have- to be?

    Tieraside, it's what must happen.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X