ECTS 2003

ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
edited September 2003 in Science & Tech
"ECTS (Electronic & Computer Trade Show) is held in London each year. With the likes of Intel, nVidia, Valve and ATI exhibiting; Short-Media set out to find out just why Intel says it has no plans for a 64 bit processor in the near future, take an inside look at Half Life 2, marvel over the Nokia N-GAGE and snap a few shots of the infamous computer show booth babes!"

Read the rest of the expose here

Comments

  • Al_CapownAl_Capown Indiana
    edited August 2003
    Quite a read. Makes me feel ashamed for selling my 9700 :-/ but oh well hl2 should run fine on a ti4600.
  • shwaipshwaip bluffin' with my muffin Icrontian
    edited August 2003
    Cool.

    Time crisis 2 is really cool ;)
  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited August 2003
    Al_Capown said
    Quite a read. Makes me feel ashamed for selling my 9700 :-/ but oh well hl2 should run fine on a ti4600.

    Keep it man. Half Life 2 will run on that 4600 but with so many details turned off. You will lose the effect for sure.

    Im still totally blown away by how amazing it is. The whole environment is totally alive. Nothing seems static anymore. Everything reacts. It's outstanding!
  • GnomeWizarddGnomeWizardd Member 4 Life Akron, PA Icrontian
    edited August 2003
    i lucky person you! I wanted to go ecept I live in Florida!
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited August 2003
    EXCELLENT ARTICLE, shorty. WTG!
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited August 2003
    ects026.jpg

    I <3 SICILY TOO!

    There's something very sexy about the confidence of a female that knows <i>she's</i> sexy.
  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited August 2003
    We have more :cool:

    Il post those in the babe thread ...
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited August 2003
    :rockon: I suppose that means I should pay one of my first three visits to it.
  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited August 2003
    Thrax said
    :rockon: I suppose that means I should pay one of my first three visits to it.

    I will not post them until you tell me why you have blatantly ignored everything Intel said to me :eek2:

    I mean c'mon Thrax... talk about bait...and you say nothing ;D

    :p
  • GnomeWizarddGnomeWizardd Member 4 Life Akron, PA Icrontian
    edited August 2003
    0o0o0o I am in love with those sicily babes! Shorty you are one lucky man to have been able to photgraph those women!
  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited August 2003
    Gnomewizardd said
    0o0o0o I am in love with those sicily babes! Shorty you are one lucky man to have been able to photgraph those women!

    It was the hugs they gave me and Coaster... we are both married men... Coaster just had to take photos and we resisted their charms (admirably I might add)....
  • GnomeWizarddGnomeWizardd Member 4 Life Akron, PA Icrontian
    edited August 2003
    0o0o0o U got hugs!!!!!!!!!!!! NO FAIR!
  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited August 2003
    Gnomewizardd said
    0o0o0o U got hugs!!!!!!!!!!!! NO FAIR!

    Apart from our dear wives murdering us ... you wanna know the other reason for careful hugs?
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited August 2003
    <p align=center>Hail the Products of True Engineering
    27158B_ATH64_E.gif25988B_OPT_E.gif</p>

    I was thinking about all the bull**** that they fed you, but I was gonna be nice and not post it to retain the positive energy this thread has. But since you've asked:
    64Bit?

    Intel confirmed that they have no current plans for a 64bit desktop processor. Their reasoning was very clear.

    "64bit is simply not necessary as there is still plenty of life in the 32bit platform"

    Sixty-four bit processing may not be a substantial necessity now, however AMD is providing a necessary stepping-stone towards the future (Which IS 64 bit) right this very moment. Intel's going to get caught with their pants down when AMD starts advertising 64 bit computing. People won't even know what it means, but they know 64 is double 32...And AMD will make SURE to contrast Intel's 32 bit processors with their own 64 bit. People will buy because Intel has shown that performance is irrelevant, only large numbers matter.

    Intel has planned (I believe) to go pure 32 bit, then jump immediately to 64 bit when the situation demanded it, forcing everyone to buy new boards, procs, operating systems and other such items on the drop of a hat. They'd rake in thousands doing it.

    But AMD jumped the gun on them. AMD is providing a transitional platform and cutting the legs out from underneath Intel's future plans. Whilst Intel has tried to supress Yamhill and its production, the quantity of information that exists makes it more than just a rumour. Furthermore, the sources that have provided the information have proved themselves as credible. Intel knows that if X86-64 works, they'll be caught fumbling for a competitive solution. Thirty-two bit is viable now, but AMD is making 64 bit viable right now as WELL.
    Intel were keen to state their position clearly. Making references to HyperThreading technology and it's advancements in process and shear speed. Intel said that they have offered a 64bit processor (Itanium) for close to two years. Intel also feel that true 64bit desktop/server development has considerable time to go before it is "truly 64bit".

    "If a single application, DLL, EXE, driver module, operating system module is 32bit, then the system is 32bit. Everything has to be written, developed and tested to fully function in 64bit mode to truly have a full 64bit system. One weak link will lose the potential performance available"

    There is some shred of truth to this, but AMD (And independent sources) have proved contradictory evidence. We have Microsoft's Windows XP optimized for X86-64. It allows 64 bit apps and 32 bit apps to function side by side, to coexist with one another. The potential performance increase is NOT lost when running 32bit compat/64bit pure modes in tandem. The 64 bit programs run slightly faster. Programs that require large address sets run significantly faster...Yet 32 bit tasks fail to slow the system down.
    Short-Media pressed Intel to tell us how their current development cycles with software developers were in relation to HyperThreading. Intel responded that

    "HyperThreading has been shown to be extremely effective in applications, games and OS compatibility. Half-Life2 and Doom III for will be optimized for HyperThreading. As more developers build in native support for HT, it allows us to push the limits of application performance higher. "

    HyperThreading has been shown to be extremely effective in slowing 75% of the applications down. Let it be known that it's an impeccably reserved number. Fact is, very few applications are optimized for HT, and only programs that require assaulting the processor with requests receive a benefit. Only programs that can adequately split sections of requests and keep efficiency notice an improvement. That's audio rendering, tile-based 3D rendering (Brazil + Max). HyperThreading doesn't even increase compatability. What bull****.
    Intel made their case very strong that to achieve full 64bit performance requires alot more than just a backwards compatible processor. Windows 64-bit still at beta stage and traditionally a release candidate stage is a good six months away. They feel that AMD are pushing the release of the 64 processor before the software industry is fully ready to be compliant.

    Even despite the lack of X86-64 WindowsXP, the Hammer line of processors takes the p4 architecture to school, kicks its ass in the parking lot, steals its lunch money, buys a pizza, and manages to eat the pizza in time to kick the P4's ass again when it wakes up from its drubbing. A whole GHz slower, and the Hammer line can task a p4 in 98% of all tests thrown at it. The hammer isn't even completely optimized...In fact, far from it. The p4 on the other hand has been around since late 2001, seen 2 (Almost 3) cores, and several chipset revisions AND IT STILL SUCKS. The room for performance increases on the p4 are almost gone. What does it have left? Higher clockspeeds, and DDR2. DDR2 isn't coming until LATE 2004, early 2005, and it's obvious Intel is going to suck at ramping the clockspeeds on the Prescott.

    The fact that the Hammer is ALSO 64 bit is just a bonus. The fact that a 1GHz slower chip can task a p4 is where the magic is at. Intel won't admit this fact.
    So what do Intel have lined up ready to fight the AMD Athlon 64 and Opteron 64 bit processors? The "Prescott".

    Prescott

    The "Prescott" processor is expected to ship in late Q4 2003/Q1 2004. A slimmed down 90mn process, lower power usage and a beefy 1mb of cache are just some of the improvements that Intel will be touting with this new core. The Prescott will also have thirteen new instructions and optimizations. Intel have a proven 90nm process in the bag and say they have absolutely no issue scaling beyond the current 3.2GHZ Pentium IV.

    -90 Amps through the motherboard traces
    -104w of dissipated heat

    What defines the speed in which a processor can operate? The dissipation of heat from the core. The smaller amount of heat dissipated, the better the processor scales. 104w is the highest dissipation rate ever. EVER. And Intel thinks that they have a proven scaling architecture? No. They'll be lucky to push it past 3.7GHz without having to resort to exorbitantly expensive cooling techniques. The lower power usage is irrelevant when all that extra power is going towards the monster fan (Water pump?!) necessary to cool the bitch. Their .09u process is proven to be nothing more than a space heater with the ability to meekly calculate.
    No official launch speed was stated by Intel but they did say it would be the next logical step in processor development. Included in this new core will be the new version of Intel's "virtual processor" HyperThreading technology. They feel with that staying in the 32bit domain but adding more raw GHZ, optimizations, HyperThreading II and 1mb of level 2 cache will give them the edge over the feverish 64bit desktop. To quote Intel...

    "Why wait for the world to catch up with 64bit? When you can have the advantages now with the prescott?"

    Alright. So what next? We pull 3.33GHz out of Intel. That's called a wild guess from me. The ENTIRE fault with Intel is summed up in the top paragraph:

    -More GHz!
    -More cache!
    -More worthless instructions!

    MORE MORE MORE! PEOPLE LIKE NUMBERS! Forget the fact that it still has a piss-poor FPU, and a piss-poor ALU, and a piss-poor pipeline. Forget the fact that the processor is as efficient as a fork for a screwdriver...No, ignore that! NetBURST CACHE PWNS YOU.

    God dammit Intel. That's right. **** innovation, **** refining what doesn't work quite right. We'll just make up for it by adding bigger numbers to the processor. People will buy it anyways, because they're retarded. Why wait for the world to catch up to 64 bit? WTF. God dammit.

    It was intel who pulled the 64bit Itanic out of their ass a few years back, even took 11 years to develop the thing. Now what good is it? Nothing. It's worth NOTHING. They tried to make the world catch up to 64 bit, and desktop processors still trounce the bitch. Now they have the gall to scold AMD for doing the same thing, 1000000000 times better than Intel did it (As usual)? Shame. <b>FOR SHAME</B>.


    As usual. As has been since the dawn of the K7, Intel keeps flinging bigger numbers upon the brain-dead consumer whores. AMD is where the real engineering takes place. AMD's managed to make a chip that's 1GHz slower, and make it faster than its Intel counterpart. They made the thunderbird faster than two pIIIs and two revisions of the p4 (Katmai, Coppermine, Williamette, Northwood A, Northwood B), they made the XP faster than THREE revisions of the p4 (Willamette, Northwood A, Northwood B) they're making the hammer faster than three P4s (Williamette, Northwood A, Northwood B), and possibly revisions of the p4.

    How is that a good chip? How the hell does a chip that's 1GHz faster, yet 15-40% slower than a Hammer deserve any of the respect it has?

    I acknowledge the P4C's speed, but I just cringe at the crude, infantile architecture that it uses. Hell, the p4 still hasn't learned its multiplication tables.

    GG Intel. You suck, I hate you, your crappy products have made sheep of idiots, and whores of sheep. My gameboy has a better processor. Learn to engineer you n00bs.

    Hey, atleast NetBURST cache makes TCP/IP packets of your intermawebaphonemodem send faster. :rolleyes:

    Pics plzthx.
  • GnomeWizarddGnomeWizardd Member 4 Life Akron, PA Icrontian
    edited August 2003
    Shorty, I would be aweful carefull around those big guys too!
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited September 2003
    Thrax said
    GG Intel. You suck, I hate you, your crappy products have made sheep of idiots, and whores of sheep. My gameboy has a better processor. Learn to engineer you n00bs.

    My Ti-89 can kick a P4s ass!
  • danball1976danball1976 Wichita Falls, TX
    edited September 2003
    mmonnin said
    Thrax said
    GG Intel. You suck, I hate you, your crappy products have made sheep of idiots, and whores of sheep. My gameboy has a better processor. Learn to engineer you n00bs.

    My Ti-89 can kick a P4s ass!

    And it has a Zilog Z-80 20MHz CPU at that!:D
  • HawkHawk Fla Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    Way to go Shorty! Great review. I enjoyed it all. You get the medal of reviews dude.
  • MachineGunKellyMachineGunKelly The STICKS, Illinois
    edited September 2003
    Good job shortstuff. I bet you could'a handled that musclehead! I'd a kicked him right in the nuts and sqeezed the crap right outta that blonde bimbo! ;D
    One question tho. What the hell was Vince Desi of "Postal 2" doing to that wine bottle? ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.