Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Building The Fastest Desktop Possible

Hemos posted more than 13 years ago | from the cramming-money-into-it dept.

Hardware 228

hero_or_what writes "Tom's Hardware has built one the fastest PCs on the planet. Its basically an overclocked Athlon running at 1600MHZ!! The beast is described here. I wonder how long this monster would take to do a "make world"."

cancel ×

228 comments

Not redundant (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#418030)

This is not redundant. It looks like someone's viewing in newest first, since they modded a later post as funny and this as redundant.

Redundant is so stupid anyway. I've been modded as redundant for comments posted at the same time (same time stamp) as someone else, but getting just later. It's silly. Fine hide the duplicate comments, but don't take karma away as a result.

Re:Time to make world (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#418032)

Actually, Moore's "Law" is more 1.5y => 2x speed

Maybe you should recalculate.

Athlon 1,6GHz on HARDiNFO (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#418033)

A Danish hardware page was first. They have a Kryotech 1,6 Athlon. And they postet the article 17/2. http://www.hardinfo.dk/artikler/default-a.asp?ID=1 96

only 256 RAM? (1)

topher1kenobe (2041) | more than 13 years ago | (#418037)

I have that much! Why not a gig? Seriously. Is there some limit I don't know about beyond which more ram is unused?

Re:faster 'n faster (1)

djweis (4792) | more than 13 years ago | (#418039)

It's old IBM-speak. Speed of processing and feeding the card readers.

Re:Fast is good, but stable is better... (1)

alumshubby (5517) | more than 13 years ago | (#418041)

If you're an 31337 overclocking ultrageek, why would you deign to run windows for some snarky boss?? Oh, wait....well, I guess there's always WINE... ;o)

Re:Fast is good, but stable is better... (1)

Oo.et.oO (6530) | more than 13 years ago | (#418042)

did you read the article? did you even look? productive work for their bosses means getting people to read their articles. it's been /.ed already, i'd say people are reading it.
they clearly state on the front page that it's beyond the reach of most readers. just like a porsche, etc.
This was done for the same reason that most hackers do stuff... to see if it can be done. It's all about fun. The work machine should just chill and do stuff i want it to... agreed. for them this means, crank out more MIPS than any other PC.

even with that aside, processors are designed around margins based on reliability, and presumably lifetime, while balancing performance.
just like the guy who puts an eaton blower in his 72 rabbit to get 400 horsepower, some people are more interested in performance than reliability.

that said...
ATHLONS suck! ;-)

Re:Fast is good, but stable is better... (1)

aphr0 (7423) | more than 13 years ago | (#418044)

You have no creativity.

Re:Why must everything be so fast? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 13 years ago | (#418050)


I remember that, My TRS-80 COCO's tape drive was as fast as the Commodore64 disk drive, and the coco's disk drive was blazingly fast compared to the commodores... But then the C64 was limited to basic... you couldn't run os/9 like the coco, and you couldn't get the graphics the coco offered. The cocoII came out finally, but the toy computer craze had passed... the IBM was here with expandability, and something bizzare in rthe computer world.... a standard hardware interface designation. (GasP!)

Ahhh those lovely days of the 300bps handset modem.......

Re:Is this really necessary? (1)

maroberts (15852) | more than 13 years ago | (#418054)

Like come on, who REALLY needs an Athalon running that fast?

I remember someone saying "Who needs more than 640K?"

Whilst I have my doubts about how long the CPU will hold up when overclocked, no matter how fast you make a machine go, someone will want a faster one.

Re:Fastest Desktop?? (1)

TheCaptain (17554) | more than 13 years ago | (#418055)

Well...only a program that can take advantage of the dual CPU's is going to run any faster than it would on a single cpu 933 mhz machine though. The athlon was one cpu at 1600 Mhz. It gets alot done per Mhz, and it has ALOT of them. Anything will run like hell on there.

Gotta love the smooth multitasking on a dual though.

Re:"make world"... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 13 years ago | (#418056)

LMAO. That's another /. hall-of-famer, for sure.

--

Re:Intel should be scared at this news. (1)

Zoltar (24850) | more than 13 years ago | (#418059)

I have to wonder why they have not gone to bigger L2 caches. Even my old sparcserver has a 1MB L2 cache. (It actually keeps up fairly well for a box that came out in 95)

Is this due to cost factors? It seems to me that by having a larger L2 cache you can get a nice performance boost without needing any high-tech advancements. But then again I'm not a real hardware kinda guy, so maybe I'm being a bit simple here.

Re:Fast is good, but stable is better... (1)

Shadowhawk (30195) | more than 13 years ago | (#418063)

<sarcasm>
What website are you posting to?

It may not occur to you, but some people have PCs of their own. The keep them at home; you know, not work?

Besides, who wants to run Windows?
</sarcasm>

Re:Fast is good, but stable is better... (1)

MartinG (52587) | more than 13 years ago | (#418071)

Windows crashes all the time when you're not overclocking so what have you got to lose? :)

Re:It'll Never Happen (1)

radja (58949) | more than 13 years ago | (#418075)

drop the bikinis, and it may..

//rdj

I want one! (1)

Typingsux (65623) | more than 13 years ago | (#418078)

JPG decompression would be so fast, I could have a strobe light pRon slideshow!
I love technology. I have no need for another.

Re:Why must everything be so fast? (1)

Oddball (72298) | more than 13 years ago | (#418081)

I think this was just a slipup, but...
and lower incidence of stress-related industry
Perhaps that was supposed to be "injury" and not "industry"? I think industry makes an interesting bit of sense, too. =) Overall, I agree with your view. That was just one interesting freudian slip...

Imagine... (1)

mach-5 (73873) | more than 13 years ago | (#418083)

A beowolf cluster of these!

No, but seriously, how about a dual processor version of the same computer, now that would be the fastest desktop PC in the world! Wow!

Re:Why must everything be so fast? (1)

NTSwerver (92128) | more than 13 years ago | (#418085)

I agree with what you're saying, but capitalism and the economy have become so evolved that with pretty much everything:

Time == Money

As a direct result of saving x amount of time, I will save x amount of money.

----------------------------

Re:True (1)

NTSwerver (92128) | more than 13 years ago | (#418086)

Unfortunately opting out of that "slippery slide down the road towards work/slavery" is almost impossible in our society, unless you go and live in the woods and become self-sufficient - which is not easy, especially when you're used to your creature comforts (like surfing /., for example).

The only way that this could ever happen on a large scale is if there was a MAJOR worldwide revolution.

----------------------------

Re:Why must everything be so fast? (1)

RoufTop (94425) | more than 13 years ago | (#418091)

If you haven't been waiting for things to happen on your current system, then you clearly haven't been downloading the right things. There's ample time for fowers and birdsong when you're trying to grab a service pack for NT... :)

faster 'n faster (1)

RoufTop (94425) | more than 13 years ago | (#418092)

Isn't it funny how we continue to ooh and ahh about fast systems? In a year, this speed will be pretty fast; in two, it will be mediocre; in three, you won't be able to sell it for $200.

How many of you have been through this same experience: you buy the fastest thing on the market, and two weeks later there's something faster and cheaper?

Re:Why must everything be so fast? (1)

TicTacTux (99149) | more than 13 years ago | (#418095)

I wholeheartedly agree. The longer you have to wait for something the bigger the joy when it finally arrives. (Within certain limits, of course.) I remember our hooray hollering when the pascal compiler on our university's apple ][ finally did compile/link that three-liner...

When you're raising kids or do some gardening, time gets back its original value and meaning. Remember that story about the hitchhiking indian who asked to be dropped off after a few miles so that his soul was able to follow him?

I remember people complaining about Word Processor X version N being sooo slow; the manufacturer then placed the 'AboutBox.Show' call at the top of the code in Version N+1 and everybody was happy. (It still took ages to open the main 'window', though)
Why bother that your system takes 3 Minutes to boot when you are typing at a measly 0.3 characters per second?

Remember that grass doesn't grow faster when you're pulling it.

Re:Why must everything be so fast? (1)

TicTacTux (99149) | more than 13 years ago | (#418096)

That's why I had this (within certain limits) clause. There's a small gap between 'being the thoughtful type' and 'huh? what was the question again?'

Damn it (1)

11thangel (103409) | more than 13 years ago | (#418097)

I guess he's gonna be my record for kernel speed compiling now. =(

Re:Why must everything be so fast? (1)

jamesbulman (103594) | more than 13 years ago | (#418098)

Only the simple things are instantaneous, anything worthwhile, in and out of the sphere of computing, takes time.

The project that I'm working on at the moment takes f'ing twenty minutes to do a full build, so bring on my 10Ghz 32 processor workstation!!!

Does it support SMP?? (1)

doublem (118724) | more than 13 years ago | (#418105)

Dual Processor, overclocked to 1.6Ghz, 4 Gig RAM, 20GB RAID....

And 2,000 of them in a Beowolf Cluster....

Drool...

Put it on a T3 and I will be the Quake III God!!!!!!

http://www.matthewmiller.net [matthewmiller.net]

make {w|W}orld (1)

mikeage (119105) | more than 13 years ago | (#418106)

make world shouldn't take very long at all... make World might take a wee bit longer...

Re:Why must everything be so fast? (1)

not_cub (133206) | more than 13 years ago | (#418109)

Nowadays, everything's instantaneous, and people don't realize the fun of waiting. This is a problem with our culture I think. Everything has to be so fast.

I agree. In fact, I agree so strongly that I'd like to improve the quality of life for one lucky slashdot reader, by trading him his Athlon Jillion Mhz with NVidia GEForce for my 266Mhz Pentium II. I am currently running KDE2, so the pleasure of waiting would still remain in my life.

Or alternatively: screw that... No one likes looking at a splash screen for five minutes.

not_cub

You took the words right out of my mouth... (1)

Tyler Durden (136036) | more than 13 years ago | (#418111)

"Practically speaking, if timesaving devices really saved time, there would be more time available to us now than ever before in history. But, strangely enough, we seem to have less time than even a few years ago. It's really great fun to go someplace where there are no timesaving devices because, when you do, you find that you have *lots of time*. Elsewhere, you're too busy working to pay for machines to save you time so you won't have to work so hard."
-The Tao of Pooh

I wouldn't mind everyone insisting on speed and immediate satisfaction if it wasn't for the fact that they end up stressing out those of us who realize how worthless it all is in the end.

Make world? 6 days of course (1)

rvaniwaa (136502) | more than 13 years ago | (#418112)

:-) On the seventh day, he overclocked...

Re:Does it support SMP?? (1)

31: (144084) | more than 13 years ago | (#418115)

Well, remember... ya gotta be good at quake III first :)

---
I'm not ashamed. It's the computer age, nerds are in.
They're still in, aren't they?

Re:Imagine... (1)

Saint Mitchell (144618) | more than 13 years ago | (#418116)

No, but seriously, how about a dual processor version of the same computer, now that would be the fastest desktop PC in the world! Wow!

Yeah, it would be fast. The only drawback is that you would need a nuclear reactor for a power supply. One Athlon drains a lot of watts. Two Athlons drains a shit load of watts. Two Athlons plus two clamshells for your vapochill (gotta keep it cool) will require enough power to single handedly cause CA to black out.

Re:It'll Never Happen (1)

woody_jay (149371) | more than 13 years ago | (#418117)

I'd buy.

YES!!!! (1)

woody_jay (149371) | more than 13 years ago | (#418118)

Finally, a box that will run the NT Kernal for more than 24 hours. Give them time, and Microsoft will be able to bring that machine to it's knees.

Re:Is this really necessary? (1)

woody_jay (149371) | more than 13 years ago | (#418119)

Running games is not the only use for a computer.

Re:faster 'n faster (1)

woody_jay (149371) | more than 13 years ago | (#418120)

I agree completely. The speeds and feeds are increasing exponentially. What is makng news today, will be in a dumpster tomorrow. That's the way of technology, boys.

Re:Why must everything be so fast? (1)

Jasonv (156958) | more than 13 years ago | (#418125)

Pshaw. You like watching flowers grow? I want stuff faster than that. I want to be able to record the flowers growing on my webcam, have it sped up, shown to me on my super-fast laptop in a pop up window so I can see the live stock reports at the same time, all while going 300mph on a high speed train from LA to New York.

Why? It's exciting. It's adrenaline. It's fun. It's what I live for. I'll die 10 years before you do, but I'll get 30% more done. More of what? Well, it's all pretty much irrelivant in the universal picture. But, I love it, so why should I feel guilty for wanting to have the biggest/most powerful/fastest? I didn't like having to wait for my C64's tape drive when I had one, why would I enjoy it now?

Granted that's not your thing. No problem. Have your growing flowers, your 300 baud modem, your four hour productions of Hamlet. But don't be so presumptious to assume that what makes you happy applies to everyone else.

Sure, if the world was full of identicle people then blanket statments like 'Because things are fast people don't appreciate life' would hold merit. But (at least until this whole human cloning thing is figured out) that's not the case.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm sure there are a lot of people who need to mellow out and no one can keep up the high paced life without a rest once in awhile -- BUT I bet you can find a bunch of A-type personality people who would be much happier if they could just get out of the damn trailer park and become professional skydivers or stock brokers or 1600Mhz computer owners.....

Re:Is this really necessary? (1)

Rentar (168939) | more than 13 years ago | (#418128)

Do you use Jikes? It's about 5-10 times faster than plain javac ... try it [ibm.com]

Re:Intel should be scared at this news. (1)

zombieking (177383) | more than 13 years ago | (#418135)

I forsee AMD greatly increasing its share of the processor market this year.

You work for the AMD marketing department, don't you?
Haha.

Fastest Desktop?? (1)

_Elite_ (177862) | more than 13 years ago | (#418137)

So I'm assuming that this is the fastest single processor desktop ever made, becuase I made a 1,866 MHz machine a few weeks back, Dual PIII 933 MHz, surely this machine can out-perform the 1,600 MHz machine, since at the very least, it has twice the registers and twice the cache. Just a thought.

Re:Fastest Desktop?? (1)

Nullsmack (189619) | more than 13 years ago | (#418142)

Please.. you can't make a dual cpu system, take the speed of both procs and add them together!
Not with smp anyways. You'll be able to run a proggie that can use the proc time of a whole proc up and still use the other, or run two copies of this proggie at the same time, etc..

When a 1.8ghz cpu comes out, it'll still spank your dual p3 machine.
-since when did 'MTV' stand for Real World Television instead of MUSIC television?

Dream Machine : Lets get real (1)

h3llphyre (207808) | more than 13 years ago | (#418146)

I am waiting for the day that someone starts making a real platform for AMD's chips. Someone mentioned above ServerWorks. They make an excellent chipset, which allows for double the width of current SDR RAM using normal DIMMS. Why cant someone like this (uh hum, ServerWorks) design a chipset that doubles the width of the memory bus, but also uses DDR RAM? So, we could get a normally clocked Athlon, running with a 128-bit wide memory bus clocked at 266Mhz (133Mhz x 2). This would effectively give one 4x the bandwidth of current 133Mhz FSB motherboards. Personally, I would love to see Apple port OS-X over to x86 architecture, and specially build their systems like this (cuz they could), and this would lead to one bada$$ system, which would NOT be running windoze. I dont need the speed, but its nice to have it just in case

Additional uses (1)

platos_beard (213740) | more than 13 years ago | (#418149)

I have one of these and it's also my hot water heater!

Re:YES!!!! (1)

Paul Sheridan (220709) | more than 13 years ago | (#418152)

Its' significantly more than 24 hours though. Microsoft bashing is fun and all but Win2k is reasonably stable.

Re:Is this really necessary? (Forgot another ex.) (1)

NecroPuppy (222648) | more than 13 years ago | (#418154)

Math functions.

Yep, plain old 'ordinary' math.

For example, the Fibannaci (sp?) series alone requires over 3000 billion calculations, using the recursive method, to find Fib(100). And that's one of the easier functions.

Re:Why must everything be so fast? (1)

HongPong (226840) | more than 13 years ago | (#418157)

Ah just shut the fu

--

Running the fastest desktop possible... (1)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 13 years ago | (#418161)

...is easy. Don't install bloated window managers and 'environments' like gnome and KDE.

My personal favorite at the moment is WindowMaker + ROX-Filer

Good functionality, no extra crap, and very nice looking and intuitive to use.

Re:YES!!!! (1)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 13 years ago | (#418162)

Finally, a box that will run the NT Kernal for more than 24 hours. Give them time, and Microsoft will be able to bring that machine to it's knees. And if the NT kernel fails, I'm sure gnome and KDE are up to the task.

256 MB? (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 13 years ago | (#418164)

This box only has 258 MB of RAM? That seems like a serious bottleneck for most applications. Heck, I have that in my desktop right now at work.

not so impressive in the business world. (1)

rigor6969 (240549) | more than 13 years ago | (#418166)

Would you stick an overclocked cpu into a NOC? nope. Matter of fact would you stick AMD products in a NOC? nope. This might be a toy for the rich boys and girls, but otherwise, useless in business where reliability is number one. Case in point: Serverworks Chipset for intel p3's. Spank anything that is available for the AMD, they even spank the memory throughput of the DDR chipsets for AMD, using SDRAM.

Re:Is this really necessary? (1)

sctprog (240708) | more than 13 years ago | (#418167)

True.. but the larger games with large maps and high quality grafx tend to be of the more CPU intensive tasks out there. Twas just the first example that popped into my head:P
- Scott

What a pity! (1)

Kj0n (245572) | more than 13 years ago | (#418171)

Unfortunately this machine will be obsolete tomorrow (if not sooner).

Re:Woo, 1 step closer to being able to play Ultima (1)

enjar (249223) | more than 13 years ago | (#418172)

That rocks!

Got me going on a post-holiday boring work morning!

Re:It'll Never Happen (1)

dat00ket (249468) | more than 13 years ago | (#418173)

Somehow I don't think that babes in bikinis dripping over the latest PC system will sell magazines(I could be wrong).

Oh, I don't know. It'd be nice to be able to say "I only buy those magazines for the articles." and have people actually believe you.


________________________________________________ __

burn baby burn (1)

SGDarkKnight (253157) | more than 13 years ago | (#418174)

come on people, we all know that AMD is faster then the Pentium chips, the only questoin is, how long until it burns out. We all know its going to happen, sooner or later it will die just like every other over clocked AMD processor out there.

Re:faster 'n faster (1)

Cactii (255973) | more than 13 years ago | (#418176)

You sound like my boss "increase speeds & feeds"...

You run a machine shop or something like that...don't you?

Yeah Sure... (1)

Cactii (255973) | more than 13 years ago | (#418177)

Speeds all good...But shouldn't you set a limit on how fast you're mounting your hard disk???

Re:Why must everything be so fast? (1)

Cactii (255973) | more than 13 years ago | (#418179)

>>I wholeheartedly agree. The longer you have to wait for something the bigger the joy when it finally arrives.

You'll lose your virginity someday buddy! Thee longer you wait the better it'll be...honest.

True (1)

Yoshi Have Big Tail (312184) | more than 13 years ago | (#418195)

But that's symptomatic of the problem. You need to opt out of that slippery slide down the road towards work/slavery.

Productive use of CPU power (1)

Faust7 (314817) | more than 13 years ago | (#418198)

If I thought any of that processing power was going to waste, I'd just ask him to run SETI@Home in the background. (That's what I'm doing with my 800 MHz, since I'm away from it most of the time.) :)

This just in.. (1)

whanau (315267) | more than 13 years ago | (#418199)

The worlds fastest desktop PC has just been made obsolete within days of its introduction. This is not big news. It probably happens every week

stability (1)

twbecker (315312) | more than 13 years ago | (#418200)

Tom Pabst IS concerned about stability. Have you seen what he's using to cool this thing? It basically amounts to a refrigeration unit. I'd say your desktop PC is more likely to overheat than this thing. I don't overclock, but I know it IS possible to do so and still have "stability", or as close as you can get to it with windows. Besides, all CPUs generally come off the same die, so once they get the process dialed in, even 800 Mhz Athlons are probably capable of running at 1Ghz + with little to no extra cooling. . .

Re:Fast is good, but stable is better... (1)

mondoterrifico (317567) | more than 13 years ago | (#418202)

People who complain that things are too fast and that things should slow down are really annoying!! I mean how could getting things done faster be bad? The computer is really good at doing the repetitive things we suck at really fast. This is a good thing. Nostalgia is the root of all evil if you ask me.

Re:Why must everything be so fast? (1)

RotateLeft4Bits (317629) | more than 13 years ago | (#418203)

Damnit you obviously got a good computer, just waiting 40 seconds for my windows box to boot is forever, running any programs takes a good 30 seconds to load if i'm lucky, and i got myself a 900 mhz duron et al, runnign linux it still takes time to load, so unless your running, win 31 on a beast i can't see how you have don't have the time to wait.

Everyday i work i have to sit though annoying progress bars that take half an hour to fill up, installing Frontpage 2000 takes about an hour!

On my computer at home it takes 5 minutes to download an MB of data from the Net, I have to wait plenty, I want to swap computers with you now.

Bovine RC5? (2)

abischof (255) | more than 13 years ago | (#418206)

Heh, I'd just like to see what its Bovine RC5 [distributed.net] keyrate [distributed.net] is. I mean, an Athlon 1440 can get about 5 Mkeys/sec [distributed.net] , so I can only imagine what this beast gets..

Alex Bischoff
---

Re:Time to make world (2)

Zachary Kessin (1372) | more than 13 years ago | (#418207)

Well you are off by a few years there, its 5761 years not 6000 years. And I'm not sure that this exactly follows more's law.

Re:Time to make world (2)

Zachary Kessin (1372) | more than 13 years ago | (#418208)

The rather ironic thing is that by Jewish thought Hashem created the world, with a word, the first programing language.

Re:Is this really necessary? (2)

Tim C (15259) | more than 13 years ago | (#418214)

I could do with one too.

I write code, for fun and profit. Compiling code takes time; not huge amounts of it (I currently do all my coding in Java), but enough. (Previously, in C++, our in-house libraries could take an hour or more...)

With my current (work) machine, it can take anything between 2 and 5 minutes between making a change to the source, and getting so see whether or not that fixed the problem. That's time spent compiling the code (a few seconds), starting the server (a minute or so in debug mode), parsing and compiling the page(s) (a minute or so for an average jsp), etc. (I currently do jsp/servlet work, for web sites deployed on Linux boxes running Apache and Resin)

Much past 5:30pm, that's just too long (especially on a Saturday or Sunday...).

With a faster machine, the whole process would take less time (well, duh), and I'd be happier. I'd also be less inclined to read /. and k5 whilst waiting for stuff to compile, thus wasting more time than is necessary (as it takes time to notice that my stuff is ready and waiting for me, and time to "just finish the bit I'm reading now"). I also wouldn't be sat there waiting for it to be ready, thinking "if only I had a faster machine, this wouldn't take so long" (I have a P3 450)

No, the average user doesn't need that much speed; gamers, coders, 3d modellers/artists, people running number-crunching simulations, etc, do.

Cheers,

Tim

Re:Is this really necessary? (2)

fitsy (22336) | more than 13 years ago | (#418215)

"Do we really need this kind of processing ability? Like come on, who REALLY needs an Athalon running that fast? "

You REALLY haven't tried Visual Studio DotNet Beta1 yet ? Have you?

Re:Intel should be scared at this news. (2)

Tower (37395) | more than 13 years ago | (#418219)

Yeah, enlarging the L2 increases can increase the die size and decrease yield, both of which help lead to increased pricing. Since AMD likes to be able to battle on cost, this probably won't happen soon. What would be interesting is once the SMP chipset comes out if they would offer several options for cache size, trying to hit the entry server market... I would guess not, but who knows.
--

Re:Fast is good, but stable is better... (2)

FeeDBaCK (42286) | more than 13 years ago | (#418220)

Its all very well having a 1600GHz Athlon on your desk, but what use it it if Windows crashes every five minutes because you are overheating ? Is it just me or does anyone else agree that we should really confine ourselves to running our CPUs at the speed they were
designed for rather than some arbitary speed we choose ?

Did you happen to read the article? Tom used a Vapochill to keep the system at temperatures way below normal. Heat is definitely not a problem for this system.

Re:Fast is good, but stable is better... (2)

dboyles (65512) | more than 13 years ago | (#418223)

I don't think the point is that everybody and their grandma should be running a 1.6 GHz machine. Think of motorsports: companies invest a significant amount of money to make their car go around the track as fast as possible. They don't do this because they want to put an 800 horsepower turbo V8 in my Civic. But that racing technology certainly carries over to even practical cars.

I say overclock the hell out of those CPUs. And then give me one that runs faster and is more stable.

Re:Why must everything be so fast? (2)

Cplus (79286) | more than 13 years ago | (#418224)

I don't want this to be a flame, but it feels like one in my head already.

Why anything then? Why has man ever accomplished anything? Because accomplishment feels good, it helps us to advance. Go west, go farther, climb higher, have knowledge of the distant stars, see the smallest things imaginable........and yes, make your computer go faster. It's a pretty basic drive.

I'm sure you pine for the days of BASIC and your C-64, but the rest of us are trying to accomplish wonderful things and fulfill grand visions. It certainly was simpler and easier back then, and I would be the first to agree that the complexity of life, society, and technology may not be doing us a lot of good, but don't ask why.

Re:Why must everything be so fast? (2)

i244 (97221) | more than 13 years ago | (#418226)

fun to wait eh?

*yoink* no more broadband for you

instead we've decided to replace it with a trusty good ole 300bps modem which should provide you with years if not decades of fun on the net :)

Fastest today, obsolete tomorrow. (2)

meckardt (113120) | more than 13 years ago | (#418228)

I expect we'll all be able to buy systems at least this by next year.

I found this 1600MHz Athlon more entertaining... (2)

tinla (120858) | more than 13 years ago | (#418229)

http://www.pcfactory.co.kr/1600overclock.htm [pcfactory.co.kr]

These guys took a 1.2G chip to 1.6G and, frankly, the box alone makes the project cool beyond anything you're going to buy. Sure a Peltier (156Watt) isn't exactly standard kit in an OEM PC but 12x133MHz has gotta fizz.

Re:Is this really necessary? (2)

Mr.Phil (128836) | more than 13 years ago | (#418230)

Who needs this for games? Why games?!?

You're going to need this to run Windows XP + Office XP

that and a T3. Fear .NET

Re:Fast is good, but stable is better... (2)

Marty200 (170963) | more than 13 years ago | (#418233)

we are losing sight of the real reason we have a computer on our desktops - to perform productive work for our bosses.

I think you are losing sight of why most people got into computers... I don't overclock my machine so my boss can benifit from it. I do it cause I want that little bit of extra power for me... My games, my apps. If my boss want better proformance out of my machine at work he can buy me somethign better than the P2 400 I'm running.
MG

Re:Is this really necessary? (2)

NecroPuppy (222648) | more than 13 years ago | (#418235)

Do we really need this kind of processing ability? Like come on, who REALLY needs an Athalon running that fast?

I do. One of my hobbies is 3-D graphics. Now, admittedly, I use one of the lower end software packages, mostly because it does what I want, but even it has taken 5 days to render a 1000 x 1000 scene.

Of course, most of that was due to my (over)use of objects with their material set to diamond... But the multiple (10+) light sources refracted and reflected nicely!

(Note to self, stop imbedding light sources inside diamond objects.)

Too bad... (2)

Cactii (255973) | more than 13 years ago | (#418237)

Too bad ol' Tommy boy there didn't spend as much time building his server as he spent on his little 1600mhz gameboy! Seems he's been /.'d

Tom should use this box to power his web site! (2)

origin2k (302035) | more than 13 years ago | (#418238)

How slow can you go...

Why must everything be so fast? (2)

Yoshi Have Big Tail (312184) | more than 13 years ago | (#418240)

I remember when I was in school, programming my Commodore 64, and the joy was in just how primitive it all was. Just typing in those BASIC commands, waiting while that tape drive chugged away - that was half the fun of it.

Nowadays, everything's instantaneous, and people don't realize the fun of waiting. This is a problem with our culture I think. Everything has to be so fast.

It's all fast food, fast cars, fast living, and it's not good for us.

It is no coincidence that in countries where they take things slowly that they have lower rates of heart disease, and lower incidence of stress-related industry.

Sure it's nice to have fast things every now and then, but I worry that people will forget the experience of waiting - the thrill of anticipation as that new game installs, the pause while the computer boots up, etc. It would be great to just go to a nice restaurant with nice slow service, and then to come back and use that Commodore 64 again.

All this speed means that people don't appreciate what they've got - they don't appreciate the joys of living - the call of birdsong, the flowers coming up in the spring - because they're too busy. And busy doing what? Busy doing things too damn quickly. Of course I'm not saying that progress is bad, but just that this is symptomatic of the ever faster pace of life; the way we don't speak to each other, the fact we take minutes for meals, and seconds for just talking. We should take the time out to enjoy life every now and then.

Woo, 1 step closer to being able to play UltimaIX (2)

PureInsanity (315351) | more than 13 years ago | (#418241)

Or you could stick with that old comp and keep watching This Thing [rmitz.org] over and over.

Time to make world (3)

Zachary Kessin (1372) | more than 13 years ago | (#418242)

6 days, plus 1 day of rest. :)

Fast is good, but stable is better... (3)

Flabdabb Hubbard (264583) | more than 13 years ago | (#418244)

I cannot help feeling that with all the 31337 overclocking going on here, we are losing sight of the real reason we have a computer on our desktops - to perform productive work for our bosses.

Its all very well having a 1600GHz Athlon on your desk, but what use it it if Windows crashes every five minutes because you are overheating ? Is it just me or does anyone else agree that we should really confine ourselves to running our CPUs at the speed they were designed for rather than some arbitary speed we choose ?

There's no such thing as a free lunch dudes.

Intel should be scared at this news. (3)

Heidi Wall (317302) | more than 13 years ago | (#418245)

It is well known that the P4 is a huge disappointment. It has been shown to be outperformed by an Athlon running at 1.2 GHz, and is mainly hampered by its small cache size, which is relatively hampered. Its design was led my marketers, rather than engineers, and so its development was stymied for cost reasons.

AMD, however, still stick to the tradition of engineer led design. The Athlon, simply the most powerful processor on the market, should be much more scalable to higher clock speeds than the PIII, and will continiue to outperform the P4 until Intel get their act together and release it with the large cache it was supposed to have.

I forsee AMD greatly increasing its share of the processor market this year.

However, AMD's future still depends on the Sledgehammer. That processor might just give it a long term edge over Intel, for the first time.
--
Clarity does not require the absence of impurities,

Re:Time to make world (4)

radja (58949) | more than 13 years ago | (#418246)

well.. factoring in Moore's law (+1 year = x2 speed)
assuming a creationist view of the world (created 6000 years ago)

1 day = 24 * 60 * 60 sec = 86400 seconds
6 days = 518400 seconds
518400 / 2^6000 = 3.425 * 10^-1801 seconds.

Yup. That's pretty fast

//rdj

Re:Fast is good, but stable is better... (5)

volsung (378) | more than 13 years ago | (#418247)

Computers are designed to compute. That's it. You can use them comercially or personally. Some people want to tinker, and some want stability. These guys built a 1600MHz Athlon not to slap on their desk at work, but to play with and see what the current technology can do. I don't think anyone is going to tell their boss that making a server out of one of these things is a good idea.

I say run the processors at whatever speed you like. Just understand the potential consequences.

Re:Time to make world (5)

smartin (942) | more than 13 years ago | (#418248)

That was a long time ago, things have improved considably since then.

I'll take quantity over speed, thanks. (5)

benmhall (9092) | more than 13 years ago | (#418249)

Seriously, 1.6GHz sounds VERY impressive, but I'll take more CPU's and better components over a faster CPU any day.

I've had my Dual 466 Celeron for over a year and a half now, and it's absolutely fantastic, and rock-solid stable. Sure, I've upgraded the RAM over that time from 128MB to 512, but through it all I've felt no need to upgrade the processor(s)

The motherboard recently went south on me and I had to replace it. I got looking around and noticed that Asus now has a dual PIII board for ~$230CDN. I ended up just RMAing this board, but I know when I do eventually need to upgrade there's no WAY I'll be going back to a single processor board.

If you're running Linux, FreeBSD or Win2k (or even BeOS) an SMP system makes a world of difference under heavy load. Recompiling? Encoding MP3's? Running VMWare? These operations are sped up very noticeably.

For people looking for a new machine: Save your precious dollars on the fastest processor. Fill up on RAM, get a good video card, and get an SMP board. I'd rather have 2 800MHz chips than a 1.6GHz any day of the week.

AMD: I'd rather get an SMP chipset out of you than Yet Another "Fastest" Processor. I'd much rather own a Duron or Athalon than a crappy Celeron or PIII, but I'd take an SMP Celeron over a single Duron..

Lowrider (5)

Pope Slackman (13727) | more than 13 years ago | (#418250)

I wanna see a Lowrider computer magazine.
I mean, chromed RAID arrays, hydraulic monitor positioning,
overstuffed, ergonomic workstations, boxes covered with shaggy purple fur, golden G4 cubes buffed to a mirror-like finish...

THAT's where it's at.

--K

My 486 (5)

sharkey (16670) | more than 13 years ago | (#418251)

$make world.c
Hmmm.... immeaurable by the naked eye. Let's see if it runs.
$./world
"Hello, World."
Yippee! Don't need no 1600MHz Athlon to make my world!

--

Re:Why must everything be so fast? (5)

oops (41598) | more than 13 years ago | (#418252)

I didn't finish this. Who has time to read 6 paragraphs ?

"make world"... (5)

Snard (61584) | more than 13 years ago | (#418253)

I wonder how long this monster would take to do a "make world".

Six days?

Non x86 processors? (5)

sl3xd (111641) | more than 13 years ago | (#418254)

How 'bout some comparisons between some non-x86 processors?

I've never seen anything about how fast a fired-up Alpha can go.

Or how fast the 1.6 GHz Athlon compares to the 733 MHz G4 (Except from Apple, of course)

I use an X86 processor too... but there's better stuff out there.

Re:Fast is good, but stable is better... (5)

plover (150551) | more than 13 years ago | (#418255)

Its all very well having a 1600GHz Athlon on your desk, but what use it it if Windows crashes every five minutes because you are overheating?

News flash: processor heat is probably not to blame for Windows crashing.

The reason for the overclocking is really to get the Windows boxes to reboot faster after a crash. Have you timed an NT reboot lately? 1600MHz might make it endurable.

Is it just me or does anyone else agree that we should really confine ourselves to running our CPUs at the speed they were designed for rather than some arbitary speed we choose?

Seriously, I think it's just you. Remember, CPUs are designed to run as fast as possible. The limitations being sidestepped by the overclocking crowd are physical world limits: heat will cause failures in the CMOS semiconductor junctions. You sound like you are saying we should remove our fans and heat sinks and run our 500MHz boxes at 33MHz, because that's what God intended.

Don't confuse the engineering limits with the marketeering limits set by the Intel folks, either. They don't want people overclocking their cheap chips (and so avoid paying the premium for "faster" chips), so they put in circuitry designed to detect and prevent overclocking. They claim it's to "protect their name", but it's strictly financial.

John

Re:Why must everything be so fast? (5)

seanmeister (156224) | more than 13 years ago | (#418256)

....waiting while that tape drive chugged away - that was half the fun of it.Nowadays, everything's instantaneous, and people don't realize the fun of waiting.....We should take the time out to enjoy life every now and then.

...Which is exactly what you SHOULD be doing instead of watching your tape drive chug away. While I agree with you in that the "ever faster pace of life" can be kinda hard on the ol' personal well-being, I don't think that (topic)faster computers(/topic) are a part of the problem. I certainly have better, more fulfilling things to do than sit around while my kernel compiles. The quicker my system boots and connects to the net, the quicker I can check the local events, weather, whatever, and get the hell out into the sunlight.


Sean

It'll Never Happen (5)

TheNecromancer (179644) | more than 13 years ago | (#418257)

Tom's Hardware Guide is unfortunately not a car magazine (yet...),

Somehow I don't think that babes in bikinis dripping over the latest PC system will sell magazines(I could be wrong).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...