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!

cancel ×

309 comments

Just get... (-1, Troll)

dnahelix (598670) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424829)

...the G5, you'll be much happier.

Re:Just get... (1, Insightful)

hawkbug (94280) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424842)

No I won't. I prefer a system I can build - to get a dual core k8 all I'll need is a new board and a single processor that doesn't require 5 loud fans in the case to keep it cool enough so I can actually use it without crashing.

You response was half right and half assed (4, Informative)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425174)

doesn't require 5 loud fans in the case to keep it cool enough

While I understand the desire to build your own and preferring not to be vendor locked, you G5 fan comments are quite ignorant. The Apple G5's are well designed and exceptionally well layed out to create thermal zones serviced by different variable speed vans. It is a very quiet solution. Do not confuse the G5 with some of the homebuilt Athlon abominations that have poor layout, poor airflow, and require multiple screaming fans. YMMV.

Re:You response was half right and half assed (2, Interesting)

Lord Crc (151920) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425272)

My case is crap. Yet, with a 3000+ athlon, my two WD hd's are "outnoising" my 4 case fans + cpu fan by quite a bit (I notice when they're powered down).
Cpu temps in the mid 50's C. Not what I would call screaming...

Re:Just get... (2, Informative)

Exitthree (646294) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425249)

Say what you want about the merits of building your own box, but don't call the G5 noisy. It has multiple low-speed fans to keep it quiet. It has separate thermal zones with independent cooling systems to minimize noise. I have heard, or rather been near enough a G5 to know it is not a loud computer.

Re:Just get... (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424844)

Why?

Re:Just get... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9424902)

You will be wrapped in the moist warmth of the SJRDF.

Re:Just get... (-1, Troll)

alienw (585907) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424876)

Umm... Let's see, how many of today's PC games are available on the Mac? That's right, zero. So what's the point of having a fast CPU? Video encoding? Photoshop?

Re:Just get... (2, Insightful)

FirstTimeCaller (521493) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424930)

So what's the point of having a fast CPU? Video encoding? Photoshop?

Answered our own question, we have.

Re:Just get... (3, Informative)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424970)

garage band [apple.com] of iLife [apple.com]

Re:Just get... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9424980)

Games. Video encoding. Photoshop.

The only three reasons anyone would ever want to use a computer. You heard it here first folks: alienw has surveyed all computer users and found that those who use computers for anything else are an insignificant minority.

Mod me (+1, Aghast).

Re:Just get... (0)

Gyorg_Lavode (520114) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425006)

PORN

Re:Just get... (3, Funny)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425159)


We've had an internal joke in the office for years, that our in-house distribution should be named "Pornix". We think if it sold at $40, and included a one month membership to a couple of our adult sites, we'd make a fortune. :)

Re:Just get... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9425061)

Who let the WINDOWS user in here?!

Re:Just get... (4, Informative)

ps_inkling (525251) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425077)

Must... not... feed... trolls....

Diablo II, Starcraft, Warcraft [blizzard.com]
Unreal Tournament 2004, Neverwinter Night, Dungeon Siege, Civ III [macsoftgames.com]
Myst, Riven, Exile [ubi.com]
Medal of Honor and expansions, Battlefield 1942, Ghost Recon [aspyr.com]
Ghost Master [feral.co.uk]
Quake III, Beyond Castle Wolfenstein
Escape Velocity Series, among others [ambrosiasw.com]

There are plenty of other games for the Mac platform as well, check the Apple website [apple.com] for a larger list.

Re:Just get... (1)

zors (665805) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425194)

Well, not to say that Macs are gaming machines, but Halo, UT2K4, and others.

Re:Just get... (2, Funny)

Tsiangkun (746511) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425266)

Genome assembly, annotation pipelines,comparitive genomics, live video aquisition and encoding, image deconvolution.

Re:Just get... (4, Interesting)

ruiner5000 (241452) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424922)

Sure, if you are happier not only with liquid radiator cooling, and also having to have copper heatpipe cooling. That is right as I have discovered here [amdzone.com] Apple has had to implement not one, but two separate cooling solutions for their 2.5GHz PowerMac G5. What were you saying again? You do realize don't you that you will be able to swap out a single core dual Opteron system with two dual core CPUs and have Quad CPU power don't you? And that makes the G5 an advantage how?

Re:Just get... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9425047)

The reason people buy apples isn't to churn out SETI data blocks, it's for stlyle, and always will be (now). Apple is sort of like the Mercedes Benz of computers, they look nice, work nice, but aren't the power hungry rice rockets PCs are nowadays.

Re:Just get... (0)

ruiner5000 (241452) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425098)

I'm fairly certain I like the style of my gaming box, my Shuttle SN85G4 with the black case and the mirrored front finish. That and I like the cost, and the fact that I can fit three of them in a PowerMac G5 case. Now what will be even cooler is when I can make that a dual core box, and not have to upgrade the cooling. Even better yet is when I get that Iwill dual Opteron small form factor in the Summer from those guys, and am able to write an upgrade story on it a year from now when I have dual core Opterons from AMD. Yeah, I will get to enjoy style, and power. Sweet, two patties!

Re:Just get... (1)

Cyno01 (573917) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425168)

Screw the mirror finish front, finish the whole thing [metku.net] !

Re:Just get... (3, Informative)

dennism (13667) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425247)

Well, first off, I'm pretty sure that the G5 could be cooled via only convential fans similar to the P4 and Athlons. But, Apple has pretty much made it their mission to reduce fan noise on their machines.

Second -- actually, we don't know that we'll be able to swap out single core Opterons with dual core Opterons. They're not out yet. The G5 is. If later on it proves to be true, then you can say that you can swap them out.

Third -- the G5 gives you access to one of the better Operating Systems around, MacOS X. That has to give it a few advantage points.

BTW -- I happen to have both a Dell Dimension 8600 and a dual 1.8ghz G5 in my office at work. When the Dell is running, you notice it. It's quieter than the thrown together PC that's also in the office, but still loud enough to notice. On the other hand, the G5 is completely quiet. I never hear the fans in there at all. I can actually see one of the fans moving from the front, but it's moving at such a slow speed that you can't hear it at all. For some of us, that is a feature.

GNAA announces hostile takeover of Electronic Arts (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9424830)

GNAA announces hostile takeover of Electronic Arts
Zeikfried - Reuters, Nigeria.
In a hushed press conference held at the GNAA compound in blackest Nigeria, the cream of the journalistic crop from IGN, Gamespot, Gamespy and various other overpriced ad-infested shitholes gathered from across 4 continents to witness what has been described as the most shocking announcement of the post-E3 market. The purchase of a controlling stock in industry leading publisher Electronic Arts by the increasingly aggressive venture capitalists of the GNAA.
After keeping the illiterate troglodytes waiting for several hours, leading GNAA members Timecop, Penisbird and goat-see, along with Electronic Arts president and CEO John Riccitiello, pulled up in the specially commissioned GNAA Limo, now fully armoured to protect from the ever present threat of terrorism from zionist #politics oppers. All four were, as usual, stark naked due to the searing Nigerian heat, and were instantly greeted by a cacophony of flashbulbs and excited chatter from the wretched sodomites and college dropouts that populate the world of gaming, including a shower from the furiously masturbating IGN editor Matt Cassamassina.
"This is a new day for Electronic Arts" exploded the now fully erect Riccitiello, "and a new day for the Gay Nigger Association of America. Now no longer will the significant Gay Nigger minority be ignored by the racist cartels and Japanese Xenophobes that hold a tight noose on the gaming industry."
Shortly afterwards, following a brutal anal violation by nordic Gay Nigger DiKKy, the now broken and bleeding John Riccitiello was replaced by the newly appointed head of the GNAAs gaming division, Zeikfried Tuvai.
"This change is no mere financial step, or a changing of the guard, this will be an absolute fucking revolution. Work on our titles has already begun, I shit you not."
Tragically the conference was then cut short by a failed assassination attempt on the GNAA leadership by efnet #politcs opper and known fascist paedophile "Pickle", who was quickly disarmed by GNAA security and silenced by a large black phallus. However a press release has been issued to Reuters and the Associated Press, and is as follows:

Shitflood Gaia (GC/PS2/Xbox) Q4 2004 - A management sim, where the otaku scum of internet have gathered into a single drinking hole for quick extermination. The player must control his assets wisely to gain the maximum number of bites from the unsuspecting and unintelligent regulars in order to max out his LastMeasure meter and gain access to his most potent weapon, floodphpbb.

Americas Army - Operation #politics (PC (Windows Only)) Q4 2004 - GNAA/EA and the armed forces of the United States of America unite to bring the reality of the T.W.A.T to your Windows box this Christmas. This third-person shooter throws you in charge of the GNAA efnet black ops, as you struggle against corrupt IRC operators, Mossad agents, Nick Berg's head and eventually FreeTrade himself in an explosive struggle in the name of freedom and democracy.

Penisbird's Cock Perch Panic (GBA) Q1 2005 - A coup by OSDN shock troops threatens to overthrow the President, defeat the unwashed scum by guiding Penisbird onto their prone member, disarming them once and for all. As you move through the levels you must dodge traps laid by the increasingly desperate CmdrTaco, including CowboyNeal himself. Can you avoid his sentient rolls of lard to perch on CowboyNeal's notoriously miniscule penis? Find out for yourself in 2005!

About EA:
Electronic Arts (EA) is the world's leading independent developer and publisher of interactive entertainment software for personal computers and advanced entertainment systems such as the PlayStation®2 Computer Entertainment System, the PlayStation®, Xbox(TM) video game console from Microsoft, the Nintendo GameCube(TM) and the Game Boy® Advance. Since its inception, EA has garnered more than 700 awards for outstanding software in the U.S. and Europe.
EA markets its products worldwide under four brand logos and has over 33 product franchises that have reached more than a million unit sales worldwide.
EA headquarters is located in Redwood City, California

About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it.

Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA "first post" on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website

Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is Niggernet, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.us as our official server. If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the GNAA Java IRC client by clicking here [nero-online.org] .


If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

.________________________________________________.
| ______________________________________._a,____ |
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ |
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ |
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ |
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ |
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ |
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ |
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ |
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ |
| ______-"!^____________________________________ | This logo is (C) 2003, 2004 GNAA [idge.net]
` _______________________________________________'

(C) GNAA 2004

Re:GNAA announces hostile takeover of Electronic A (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9424981)

*Yawn*

Why not quad core? (3, Funny)

leonbrooks (8043) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424832)

If more is better, why not proliferate cores like crazy?

Re:Why not quad core? (5, Funny)

Haydn Fenton (752330) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424851)

2's company, 3's a crowd, and 4 is for the fat cats who wipe their ass with 50 dollar bills.

Re:Why not quad core? (0, Offtopic)

isorox (205688) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424995)

6 is the right number, it divides up so easilly. 6*1, 3*2, 2*3, or any combination.

3 is just ugly.

Re:Why not quad core? (4, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425044)

You mean 8. This is a computer, you're legally bound to use a power of 2.

Re:Why not quad core? (5, Interesting)

wmeyer (17620) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424870)

Interestingly, in a review of P4 vs. K8, the K8 had a clear advantage at the 4 processor level and above, apparently because of reduced bus conflicts with their individual memory spaces. If AMD were to proliferate cores on chip, they'd wind up contesting for the memory bandwidth, just like the P4.

Re:Why not quad core? (5, Informative)

ruiner5000 (241452) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425142)

actually there is plenty of bandwidth left in hypertransport to pull it off. also each cpu gets its own bank of memory. the design is superior to all others for SMP. even AMD's man CPU man says that at infoworld [infoworld.com]

AMD's dual-core server processors will share a single memory controller, Weber said. This won't create a bottleneck because a server with two Opteron chips, and therefore two memory controllers, already has more than enough memory bandwidth required to run that system, he said.

"It's always a juggling act to add a little more processing and a little more memory. Right now, we have plenty of memory and I/O bandwidth, so we're adding processing," Weber said.

The dual-core chips will work with current socket technology in motherboards that are rated for the specifications of the dual-core chips, Weber said. A BIOS change will be required, but otherwise the chips will work in the same sockets as single-core Opterons, he said.

Re:Why not quad core? (1)

stevesliva (648202) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425225)

Right now, we have plenty of memory and I/O bandwidth, so we're adding processing,
Wow, that's a helluva significant statement to make. More bandwidth and cache never hurts... you just get diminishing returns. Either it's marketspeak-- "You need two cores, pay up!" --or it flies in the face of some pretty basic assumptions I have about processor and cache architectures. Perhaps he meant, "Our cache and bandwidth is currently large enough to support two processes without being detrimental, given two processes that play nicely?" That could make sense...

Re:Why not quad core? (1)

ruiner5000 (241452) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425251)

Are you not aware of how well AMD's K8 core line of CPUs scales. There are hundreds of articles on the web mentioning it.

Re:Why not quad core? (5, Informative)

mp3LM (785954) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424880)

heat

Yes..the evil of all machines
the reason why when the AC is not on in my house, and it is 90degrees outside, my computer resets
and of course..the reason why we're not going quad core


well..at least that's my personal opinion...as for the real reason...probally for profit...

Re:Why not quad core? (4, Funny)

k4_pacific (736911) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424889)

This could ultimately lead to a reformulation of Moore's Law. Thus, I propose k4_pacific's hypothesis:

The number of processor cores doubles every eighteen months.

Re:Why not quad core? (2, Funny)

afidel (530433) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424943)

That's funny Moore's Law says that the number of transistors per area will tend to double every (18 or 24 months depending on which part of Gordon Moore's career you listen to him). More cores per chip with better processes does nothing to stop this progression.

A lot more info over at anandtech... (4, Informative)

MarkWPiper (604760) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424836)

linky linky! [anandtech.com]

In answer to poster's socket question: (4, Informative)

MarkWPiper (604760) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424940)

From the article. "If dual core Opterons do indeed have two memory controllers, the pincount of dual core Opterons will go up significantly - it will also make them incompatible with current sockets. AMD is all about maintaining socket compatibility so it is quite possible that they could only leave half of the memory controllers enabled, in order to offer Socket-940 dual core Opterons. AMD isn't being very specific in terms of implementation details, but these are just some of the options."

This news is old. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9424838)

As in a month old.

Dual core for a PC? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9424848)

Dual cores are awesome for phones because it relieves the OEM from having to license a second radio chip to handle the radio. It also makes the phone smaller, so that asian girls can handle the phones with their small hands.

I don't see the benefit of sticking a radio in the CPU of a PC. Expansion slots are cheaper and more reliable than second-core radios. Better to go with something that can be easily swapped out in the case of failure than having to replace the entire CPU.

Re:Dual core for a PC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9424882)

What the hell are you smoking?

for additional AMD dual core story links (5, Informative)

ruiner5000 (241452) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424852)

you can find them all here. [amdzone.com] It seems news has gotten around, and that AMD's dual core will consume just about as much power as a single core CPU at 90nm.

End of moores law? (0, Offtopic)

sploxx (622853) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424857)

Is this the end of moores law, at least in the form of CPU speeds doubling every 18 months?
There are essentially two CPUs, I doubt each of them will get 2x faster the next 1.5 years :)

Re:End of moores law? (5, Informative)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424883)

Moore's Law has NOTHING to do with CPU speed.

from a google search.

Moore's Law /morz law/ prov. The observation that the logic density of silicon integrated circuits has closely followed the curve (bits per square inch) = 2^(t - 1962) where t is time in years; that is, the amount of information storable on a given amount of silicon has roughly doubled every year since the technology was invented. This relation, first uttered in 1964 by semiconductor engineer Gordon Moore (who co-founded Intel four years later) held until the late 1970s, at which point the doubling period slowed to 18 months. The doubling period remained at that value through time of writing (late 1999). Moore's Law is apparently self-fulfilling. The implication is that somebody, somewhere is going to be able to build a better chip than you if you rest on your laurels, so you'd better start pushing hard on the problem. See also

Re:End of moores law? (1)

Kjuib (584451) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424898)

They could still very well double within 18 months. And they might have to if the specs for Half-Life2 are what I remember them to be... (or maybe that was Longhorn?)

Re:End of moores law? (1)

slash-tard (689130) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424908)

Moores law is doubling of transistors, not clock speed. This is an easy way to keep up, double the core, double the transistors.
http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.ht m [intel.com]

Re:End of moores law? (0, Redundant)

The Uninformed (107798) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424928)

no, Moore's law [wikipedia.org] covers the density of transistors on the CPU and not the speed.

Demise of processors predicted! (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424860)

As the number of pins continues to increase the mass does also, at some point processors will achieve such a large mass they will collapse in upon themselves.

actually it'll probably be more like the processors gets so big that you just clip things onto the outside of it and it takes the place of the motherboard.

Re:Demise of processors predicted! (5, Funny)

ocelotbob (173602) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424959)

The New AMD Blackholeteron processor! It really sucks!

Re:Demise of processors predicted! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9425106)

As the number of pins continues to increase the mass does also, at some point processors will achieve such a large mass they will collapse in upon themselves.

Nope. that's where the heat comes in. As they get larger they'll also get hotter. The heat will cause an internal pressure that will counterballance its own gravetational attraction.

Eventually fusion will occur and the power supply can be moved on chip also.

Re:Demise of processors predicted! (2, Informative)

ruiner5000 (241452) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425164)

funny, except that AMD's dual core is pin compatible with current motherboards. When you research your jokes punchline it becomes funnier.

Does dual core mean dual licensing costs? (5, Interesting)

schwep (173358) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424864)

I have seen some licensing schemes that apply to per-processor costs... 1 CPU = $1,000, 2 CPU = $2,000 etc.

How long will it take to argue that consumers with a dual core processor should pay 2x the price? I'm betting not long.

yes (2, Funny)

StandardDeviant (122674) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425034)

MSFT, Oracle, and others already argue that.

The commercial software vendors may be slovenly
about keeping up with security patches, but they
jump on extra money like rabid ferrets on raw meat.

Re:Does dual core mean dual licensing costs? (1)

Fooby (10436) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425036)

It's a lot simpler than that, really. If you have a single-CPU license the product will probably only utilize a single thread anyway. So that application will only use one core at a time and you won't benefit from parallelism in that application. If you buy a 2-CPU license and run two threads then it will take advantage of it. Unless you're talking about something like operating systems. Of course things get hairier if licensing is not enforced in the software. Personally, if I've got one chip with two cores I would say I still had one CPU, even if it looks like two from software. But I'm sure the bean-counters will clear this all up once these things get popular.

Of course the real solution is to use free software when practical.

Re:Does dual core mean dual licensing costs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9425090)

Yep, that would be $2794 for my next dual x dual core Debian boxen. Unfortunately it will be available only next year and certain company will certainly not be arround by that time. I am going to be very confused to whom address the money...

*BSD is dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9424878)

It is official; Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

What AMD is really doing (4, Funny)

bugnuts (94678) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424892)

They're making the first Desktop Fusion Unit!

AMD K9 barks up the wrong branch (prediction)? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9424894)

I thought AMD won't have dual core CPU until K9. Looks like the company is barking up the wrong processing branch. :)

Re:AMD K9 barks up the wrong branch (prediction)? (3, Funny)

ebrandsberg (75344) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425229)

If they waited for K9, then they wouldn't have any bark left in their bite. You have to throw them a bone for putting Intel in the dog house.

939 is now (1)

aka-ed (459608) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424905)

Why would you wait a year?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/01/amd_939/

Re:939 is now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9424972)

...because if the dual-core isn't socket 939, then he'd have to upgrade his mobo AGAIN when the cpu came out.

Re:939 is now (1)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425143)

...because if the dual-core isn't socket 939, then he'd have to upgrade his mobo AGAIN when the cpu came out.

Isn't that fairly obvious though? I've always factored in the cost of a new motherboard and new memory to go along with any new CPU purchase because I know the crap I'll have will be obsolete in a year or two when I go to upgrade the CPU. I have NEVER upgraded to a faster CPU by swapping it out and keeping the same motherboard because then I feel cheated as I'm left with a CPU with no home. I then invariably feel I need to go buy a motherboard and processor to keep the old CPU company and I end up building a whole new (old) system to act as a Linux server. It gets expensive to upgrade!

What about Apple? (-1, Offtopic)

artlu (265391) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424912)

I am an Apple lover, but the G5 is going to start feeling some pressure from the dual core chips. I wonder if the rumor of Apple possibly switching to an Intel Processor could becoming more and more valid every day.

I'll still take a G5 notebook within the next year :).

Im trying to get a new site off the ground, so if you guys are interested check it out GroupShares.com [groupshares.com] . It is a day trading/stock community.

Thanks,
Aj

Mod parent frickin' funny. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9424949)

Every time anyone says "Apple is moving to Intel" it's frickin' hilarious.

Re:What about Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9424994)

If anyone is prepared to move to dual core it is IBM with there POWER4 Chips, which the G4 & G5 are based off. If apple was to ask for it, I'm sure IBM could make a dual core PowerPC chip. Afterall the POWER4 chips ship as dual core chips as standard.

Re:What about Apple? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9425009)

Take your rumours and shove it up your ass, bitch!

Re:What about Apple? (5, Interesting)

HiredMan (5546) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425046)

Dual cores have been in the IBM PPC pipeline for quite a while - of course the (now old) Power4 arch has been multi-core all along.

In all probability the PPC little brother of Power5 (rumored to be called the 975) will debut at 90 nanometers and the next chip will be a ~60 nanometer dual core version possibliy called the 976.

Which if these will be called the G6 is left up to the reader as an exercise. My money is on the 976. Either way the PPC has some serious legs.

=tkk

Re:What about Apple? (1)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425201)

Which if these will be called the G6 is left up to the reader as an exercise. My money is on the 976. Either way the PPC has some serious legs.

Except it's legs are too expensive and too slow. Sorry folks, but x86 won the war. The ONLY reason I bought a Mac was to play with MacOS X. If it was ported to x86 tomorrow I would switch in an instant. PPC sucks donkey balls when it comes to speed. My 800MHz G3 iBook is horribly slow compared to my PIII-600 Intel laptop.

Well (3, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425064)

Seeing as the G5 is, more or less, a sinlge core from the larger IBM Power4 processor, I'm not seeing that it would be a large problem to make dual core chips.

I highly doubt Apple will switch to x86, it's a pride thing if nothing else. Also, at this point, a switch would upset everything. It could have been done, potentially, with the OS-X switch. Since software was having to be ported to a new OS, a new architecture port is just one more thing. Now, however, x86 Macs would be binary incompatible with PPC Macs. That means emulation, which isn't very efficient.

I think Apple is pretty much stuck on PPC for good.

Re:What about Apple? (2, Interesting)

Fooby (10436) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425079)

No. The PPC architecture has the RISC advantage which makes engineering them that much easier. It would be easier to make multicore PPC than multicore Intel.

Apples are the only RISC-based consumer desktop platform, it would be tragic if they moved towards Intel with all its legacy baggage.

Re:What about Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9425233)

The G5 is a somewhat cut down Power4 IBM chip.
Has alitvec added, 2/3 of the cache and ...tadaaaa... one of it's cores removed.

I see no reason to worry about Apple and the G5. All their G5's are currently dual processor. Look for a real Power4 machine soon I think. :-D

A year? (5, Funny)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424918)

"Will this be socket 939 or should I try to hold out another year to buy?"

You're planning on waiting more than a full year between computer upgrades? Are you sure you're on the right website?

Re:A year? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9425107)

Slashdot is divided into two groups - those that upgrade every two months and those still running a 486! [slashdot.org]

Re:A year? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9425228)

>Slashdot is divided into two groups - those that upgrade every two months and those still running a 486!

Also known as 'the winners' and 'the losers', respectively.

shall I invest in heatsink business? (4, Interesting)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424919)

I could see a big future of heatsink business in Intel and AMD's plans.

You'll need a new motherboard. (4, Informative)

filledwithloathing (635304) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424927)

Will this be socket 939 or should I try to hold out another year to buy?"

You'll need a new motherboard.

The DDR memory interface appears to wrap around both L2 caches, meaning that it looks like both cores have their own 128-bit memory interface; whether or not both memory controllers will be enabled is another thing, but if this is true we have a number of implications to talk about. If dual core Opterons do indeed have two memory controllers, the pincount of dual core Opterons will go up significantly - it will also make them incompatible with current sockets. AMD is all about maintaining socket compatibility so it is quite possible that they could only leave half of the memory controllers enabled, in order to offer Socket-940 dual core Opterons. AMD isn't being very specific in terms of implementation details, but these are just some of the options.

Re:You'll need a new motherboard. (1)

Penty (3722) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425093)

No you won't need a new motherboard. Look in this article [infoworld.com] at Inforworld.

"AMD's dual-core server processors will share a single memory controller, Weber said. This won't create a bottleneck because a server with two Opteron chips, and therefore two memory controllers, already has more than enough memory bandwidth required to run that system, he said."

Penty

Re:You'll need a new motherboard. (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425130)

Read up on the Opteron die layout.

This is NOT two ENTIRE Opteron processors plunked on the same die.

AMD have designed the ability to connect to TWO cores into the SysReq part of the processor since the beginning.

The SysReq connects on the other side to a crossbar that connects in turn to the HyperTransport Controller and the Memory Controller.

A dual core processor will still only have a 128-bit memory controller.

AMD have stated that the processors will be socket compatible. This also suggests that S939 and S940 are already future proofed for DDR2.

Re:You'll need a new motherboard. (5, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425169)

Nope. Sorry.

I understand your reasoning, but according to this article [infoworld.com] (I found the link on Ace's Hardware [aceshardware.com] ) the dual core chips will be compatible with current motherboards and sockets with as little as a BIOS flash (to recognise the new CPUID I assume). The downside of this is that the two cores will SHARE the dual channel memory bus. But because the bus is so effiencent, each core will probably STILL get more bandwidth than most P4s. At worst it shouldn't be much worse than having two single channel Athlon64s (which also are often faster than the P4). I think this is FANTASTIC news. For one thing, this means you could put FOUR CORES in that dual opteron SFF PC that was revealed a short while ago.

Really, it only makes sense. A dual channel processor has 939 pins, a single channel has 754 pins. So while some are power, you're looking at about 190 pins for the second memory channel. So that would mean that to have two cores on one die with their own memory channels, you'd need 1120 pins or so. That's a LOT of pins.

Instead of that enginering nightmare (you'd probably need 7 layer mobos to support that), we get drop in replacements that meet the same thermal requirements. Just think. You're dual operton not cutting the mustard any more? Buy two processors, drop 'em in, flash the BIOS, and now you've got FOUR processors without a new mobo or anything. All you'd have to worry about then is software licenses (unless of course you don't use any software that requirs that, for example you're all open source).

So to answer the grandparent's question, I'd say buy now. That said, I'm not sure if socket 939 will get dual cores or if it's only for 940s. I assume 939 will get them too.

Speculation: I'd like to know if the dual channel memory controler is shared by the two cores (like some kind of cross-bar architecture thing like nVidia used to promote) or if each core got exclusive access to one of the two channels. My guess is the former.

More speculation: Will there be a socket 754 dual core? That'd be cool, and I don't think the performance would be too much of a problem memory wise, unless you were doing memory intensive tasks. For CPU bound tasks I think you'd be fine.

Re:You'll need a new motherboard. (2, Informative)

ruiner5000 (241452) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425271)

No you won't. Infoworld got it right. Anand should have researched before he put up his story.

AMD's dual-core server processors will share a single memory controller, Weber said. This won't create a bottleneck because a server with two Opteron chips, and therefore two memory controllers, already has more than enough memory bandwidth required to run that system, he said.

"It's always a juggling act to add a little more processing and a little more memory. Right now, we have plenty of memory and I/O bandwidth, so we're adding processing," Weber said.

The dual-core chips will work with current socket technology in motherboards that are rated for the specifications of the dual-core chips, Weber said. A BIOS change will be required, but otherwise the chips will work in the same sockets as single-core Opterons, he said.

What we really need... (4, Funny)

rewt66 (738525) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424937)

is dilithium cores!

Hmmmm.... (1)

spikev (698637) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424941)

Will this be Sockett 939?

It seems highly unlikely that it will, seeing how the extra pin on 940 is supposed to deal with/control multiple processors.

should I try to hold out another year to buy? (3, Interesting)

polyp2000 (444682) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424963)

To be perfectly honest, it depends how rich you are. At the end of the day when it comes to buy now, buy later; the state of technology generally speaking is that in most cases (particularly with computer hardware) after only a short period of time , whatever technology you invest in becomes obsolete.

From my own personal point of view, my dual athlon 1.5ghz is still holding out beautifully. When the cash comes my way Im banking on a powerbook. Truth is I dont need another desktop just yet. However if i had a stupid disposable income, and one that predictably would hold out till these dual cores come out id proabably get one now, and get one later.

When I built this machine I bought the highest spec parts I could afford at the time and I havent upgraded for 2 or 3 years aside from upgrading the graphics card. The rule I live by is get the best available that you can afford at the time and it should keep you going for a good while.

Im running gentoo box; faster processors would be very nice for source compiles but I gave up on churning out seti blocks a while ago and dont have a massive reason for further processor power ...

Re:should I try to hold out another year to buy? (1)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425214)

The rule I live by is get the best available that you can afford at the time and it should keep you going for a good while.

Which is perhaps the most expensive way to get what you need.

I take a look at pricewatch [pricewatch.com] under "hard drives", here's the matrix:
CAPACITY PRICE PRICE/CAP

300GB $232 $0.77
250GB $158 $0.63
200GB $101 $0.51
180GB $100 $0.56
160GB $77 $0.48
120GB $58 $0.48
100GB $58 $0.58
080GB $48 $0.60
Notice that the price starts at a high of 77 cents per GB, then falls almost 40% in price per unit down to $0.48. It's quite a bit cheaper to get two 160GB drives than a single 300.

The price rise (per GB) you see going from 160 down to 80 is change from "best bang for the buck" to "cheap and works".

So, unless you really HAVE TO HAVE that top-end part, it's best to shoot for midline. You'll end up with a system for quite a bit cheaper that still plays all the latest games and does all the latest stuff, and you can spend the money you saved on your significant other!

Really nice alternative to dual processor systems (5, Interesting)

Vario (120611) | more than 10 years ago | (#9424987)

Dual cores processors seem to me like a pretty good alternative to a dual processor system. You don't have the hassle of 2 huge coolers blowing out hot air, the mainboards are don't have to be overpriced and it is already supported by all OS.

Some years ago I was thinking about getting a dual processor system. Alone the motherboard was two times as expensive as a similar single processor one, applications did not support it all and so on. I hope newer applications are ready for dual cores. Quake III was the first game I know that used two processors and finally I can consider that animated desktop background.

Is there a list which applications can effectively use dual cores besides obvious things like webservers?

Re:Really nice alternative to dual processor syste (4, Informative)

rebelcool (247749) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425029)

Anything multithreaded. Which is just about any modern GUI app.

Re:Really nice alternative to dual processor syste (2, Interesting)

Vario (120611) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425089)

Only if the application is doing time consuming stuff in at least two threads. You say any modern GUI app, so is Firefox rendering a page multithreaded? What about my DVD Player Software, Games, TeX, Maple?

Re:Really nice alternative to dual processor syste (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425211)

You also get benefits in multitasking. Sure your PC might be able to burn a CD, rip a DVD, play some MP3s, and run a ton of web browser windows now, but with two processors, things really seem smoother.

You'd notice the most difference if you had one CPU bound app and a ton of others that weren't. For example you were running some big simulation or POVray, and at the same time checking your e-mail and surfing the web. With two processors even if the prorams don't use them (they aren't SMP aware), as long as the OS is (Linux and Windows NT/2k/XP for example) things will be smoother because one CPU can do the heavy lifting, and the other can juggle the little tasks so you're not stuck waiting 100ms here and there for your interactive task to get CPU time.

It sounds a little odd and I'm sure I haven't described it very well, but trust me, things feel smoother on my dual PIII 600 even when heavily loaded than my PIII 933 when it's only mildly loaded. If you already have a 3.4ghz processor, the effect probably won't be as pronounced.

PS: Quake III did support SMP, but as I remember it didn't take full advantage and it didn't provide a huge performance boost. Are there any (big) games that DO take full advantage of dual processors? With HyperThreading and such, I would think that would be more common now.

Re:Really nice alternative to dual processor syste (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9425257)

Sim city 4 ?

Socket 939!? (1)

Temporal (96070) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425032)

Wait, socket 939 is real!? I thought the concept of a 939-pin CPU was some sort of hyperbolic joke!

Re:Socket 939!? (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425282)

Socket 939 is Socket 940 minus one pin.

They are identicle in features (dual channel) except the 939 lacks one pin. That pin just happens (wink) to be a HyperTransport link that was removed. This means there are not enough links to support multi-processor setups because you can't have the links to the other processors because you don't have enough. This is basically a marketing move to segment the workstation market from the desktop market. There is no (techincial) reason they couldn't have used socket 940 for dual channel desktop processors.

Also, from what I've heard, the pins are layed out differently so you can't put a 939 chip in a 940 board or chip and pin off a 940 chip and do the opposite.

Side note: Can someone clear this up for me? Opterons have three HT links. One for the chipset, and two for connecting to other processors (this allows for configurations of 4+ processors). The single processor desktop parts have one HT link to connect to the chipset. So if you chop a HT link off the Opteron, you get two. That should be enough to connect to the chipset and one other processor, right? Shouldn't a 939 be technically capable of dual processor configurations (although AMD has certainly disabled it)? Just wondering.

This really sucks. (3, Funny)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425052)

Now I'll have to pay SCO $1,149 instead of $699.

Yeah, right

Damnit, they had to come out with this (5, Funny)

foidulus (743482) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425070)

Just when I thought I had saved up enough money between upgrades to splurge on those fancy ramen noodles, you know, the one with the dried peas, this comes along.
Hey, Wal-Mart brand noodles are only 8 cents!

AMD was first, nitwit. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9425082)

AMD was the first to announce dual core. Intel had to re-adjust their roadmap to pull dual core in from 2006 to 2005.

Hi, I am a robot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9425103)

Robots are cool!

Longhorn (5, Funny)

colonslashslash (762464) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425118)

"We recently learned of Intel's plans to go dual-core in late 2005. Well it seems AMD has decided to follow suit."

Its amusing to watch the chip manufacturers scramble desperately to meet the recommend specifications for Longhorn in time.

Oh, c'mon don't look at me like that. A slashdot story without some kind of Microsoft snipe just wouldn't be the same now, would it?

Alright, fine. I'll pick on SCO or AdTi next time. Sheesh. /me crawls back under his rock

3DFX anyone? (1)

imstanny (722685) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425133)

multiple cores seems like a temporary solution to me... eventually the multiple cores will have to get smaller and deal with heat issues as well, so we'll be back at square 1.5

Attn marketers (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9425150)

The following people accidently mistyped their e-mail addresses, rendering them incapable of receiving your generous offers of impotence treatment and mail-order brides. Luckily I have corrected this oversight for the benefit of your hard working spiders. Enjoy.

psx@fimble.com
trivista@cox-internet.com
haydn @iceboarders.com
k4_pacific@yahoo.com
ocelot@oce lotbob.org
bonzobuddy@openspeech.org
artlu@artlu .net

why go for CMP and skip SMT (5, Interesting)

philipgar (595691) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425188)

While the idea of dual core cpus is really cool, and will take over shortly due in part to the fact that we need something to do with all those extra transistors, I wonder why the focus of the industry is on chip multi-processors (CMP).

While CMP processors can give us rougly the same performance of a standard SMP system (somewhat faster due to interprocessor communication and shared memory, but also slower due to a larger memory bottleneck) I don't think that a CMP system would compete with a simultaneous multi-threading (SMT) solution.

While Intel's response to SMT (hyperthreading) has some benifits the performance of it is rather lackluster. The reason has more to do with their particular implementation. If you've read about the initial observations on SMT an 8-way SMT processor was shown to outperform a 4-way CMP processor. Now, I must note that the 8-way smt processor had more functional units then the cores in the 4-way CMP processor, but the overall area of the 8-way SMT processor would be much much smaller (far less structures need to be duplicated for SMT as opposed to CMP). For more information on this check out some of the papers at http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/smt/ .

What I don't understand is the insistance of the industry to use CMP first. From everything I've read, an 8-way SMT processor should take up less die space then a two way CMP processor. Even assuming that the 8 way processor contains more functional units. It kind of makes sense that a CMP processor is faster when there aren't enough threads to fully utilize a SMT processor (say only 2 or 3 threads that want full cpu usage). I guess SMT is a big chance in the model of programming and application development (I'm currently running research on the subject which is why I'm so interested in it). Is the reason to embrace CMPs simply because there's less new technology to add (they "just" have to interconnect two cores as opposed to adding the extra logic for SMT).

Does anyone else have any other opinions regarding this matter, or any idea why no one seems to be fully embracing SMT's potential.

Philip Garcia

And with all of that processing power.... (2, Funny)

ShatteredDream (636520) | more than 10 years ago | (#9425227)

I will finally be able to run Linux in VMWare with a VMWare instance running Windows98 running Bochs running BeOS emulating OSX with PearPC. Thank you AMD, you have guaranteed me alpha male status in the CS department for a semester.
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...