Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

This was spawned by the computer upgrade thread started by... whomever, but I've mulling about this for the last  few days.

In case you didn't know, Intel is going to pull a Trust move and insert in its new Sandy-Bridge CPUs an integrated DRM system. I suspect they feel able to pull this dubious deed because of how AMD has lagged behind them in the CPU race.  So what do you think?

http://hothardware.com/News/Intel-Insider-Hardware-DRM-At-Home-In-Sandy-Bridge/

[GTM]

I've been a loyal Intel customer for almost 15 years - never failed me once - but if they put DRM crap in their chips, I'm out.

Let's hope AMD refuses to conduct its business in a manner antagonistic to consumers.  Even if the performance isn't as good as Intel, I'm all for it.

And if they both go bad, I guess I'll just buy old secondhand computers off craigslist until a new challenger arrives.

[Phmcw]

Amd is good. I don't understand this Intel trend lately : the 1090 and 1100 t are both very interesting comp for gaming.
I'll stick for them and advice them whenever I can because of this nasty DRM buisness.

[Fayrik]

Urgh, lost my post.

Basically, I just want to say, I've always been an AMD customer.
They don't come up with these "new ideas" that Intel boast so much about, instead they dedicate their time to making their processors faster, and more efficient.

There was one case I wanted to find reference for, but lost my post trying to do so.
Anyhow, I read that as AMD where still developing faster processors at around the 2gHz mark, Intel redefined the meaning of clock speed. It's a little more complex than that. But, basically, AMD processors had to become a little bit slower to branch out in the same way Intel did.

Then, Intel came along with this multi-core crap.
Don't get me wrong, it makes computers faster.. Except. It doesn't.
Not really. Give a hundred monkeys a task, and they'll do it slowly. Give a single, intelligent person a task, and that person will do it much faster.
While, I don't mind having a quad core processor in my computer or whatever... I really don't appreciate being sold a processor that's on par with another one, at four times the price.
(My point, nice and clear for less misunderstandings here: Multi-core is overhyped, and over priced. It's not the glorious thing they claim it is.)

And now -this-? While Intel can keep branching out, I hope this time AMD keep their track, and keep developing faster computers.
DRM is taking over way too much.

What happened to the times when you just baught something, huh?
Next, when you go out and buy an apple, it'll be chipped with some self-destruct mechanism, just incase you use it incorrectly.
...Or, knowing DRM, use it at all.

[Nikov]

I was going to post but realized saying something positive about DRM would probably be like injecting antimatter into this thread. KAPOW.

Instead I point out the 2.8 gHz processor on my old machine is now replaced by the 2.0 Duo on my new machine, and I have noticed a very nice improvement to CPU intensive functions and games, such as Arma2's "micro AI", which runs all AI management on a seperate core from the game engine itself. One map we play multiplayer has thousands of civilians milling around a city pathfinding their way about as they react to humans playing hide and go seek with AK's and attack helicopters. A single core would choke and die trying to do that.

[Phmcw]

Yes, dual, quad or six core are useful. You just need software designed for them.

Anyway, well see what bulldozer will bring.

[Fayrik]

I was going to post but realized saying something positive about DRM would probably be like injecting antimatter into this thread. KAPOW.

Yes, it probably would be. I understand the use for small amounts of DRM.
Heck, I wouldn't mind Steam at all, if they said they'd give me a patch to keep HL2 forever if Steam ever had to shut down.
Call me a conservative on the matter, but I prefer things the "good old way".

Instead I point out the 2.8 gHz processor on my old machine is now replaced by the 2.0 Duo on my new machine, and I have noticed a very nice improvement to CPU intensive functions and games, such as Arma2's "micro AI", which runs all AI management on a seperate core from the game engine itself. One map we play multiplayer has thousands of civilians milling around a city pathfinding their way about as they react to humans playing hide and go seek with AK's and attack helicopters. A single core would choke and die trying to do that.

This is where you've mistaken my point. Yes, slower Dual-core machines can do more at once. Like play ArmA 2, which is incredibly well multi-threaded. Kinda why you need a Dual-core machine to play it.
Hower, in one on one tests, single core CPUs do just as well.
I'd make a Dwarf Fortress comparison, but someone would enevitably chip in with "That's untill it's multi-threaded."
So here's my responce to that instead: Yes, programs can be run faster when you multi-thread them through a multi-core machine, however, you cannot break one task into two. And therefore, there is only an advantage on multi-core processing computers, in the same way there is an advangate to just installing two CPUs to your computer.
Except, having two CPUS would be faster. And cooler. (I mean, physically.. Thermologically.)

[Eugenitor]

Reminds me of when they tried to put a unique identifier in the Pentium 3 chip. That flew like a lead brick.

This DRM bullshit isn't even the worst part- there's a remote killswitch for these CPUs that can be activated over 3G. What could possibly go wrong?

[Fayrik]

This DRM bullshit isn't even the worst part- there's a remote killswitch for these CPUs that can be activated over 3G. What could possibly go wrong?

Oh god. It'll probably going to blackscreen out with a message saying "I'm afraid I can't let you do that."

This is actually probably the only reason I lothe DRM so much.
It's all about the killswitches.

[Nikov]

Hmm. Remote killswitches over 3G. That requires me to what, keep my computer in the basement surrounded by sandbags full of iron filings?

Thanks to reading an Army field manual on fortifications, my guerilla headquarters is proof against electronic warfare.
 

[Eagleon]

Yeah, not buying these CPUs on principle. I didn't care about AMD until now, but they just gained a new customer, assuming they don't follow suit.

So here's my responce to that instead: Yes, programs can be run faster when you multi-thread them through a multi-core machine, however, you cannot break one task into two. And therefore, there is only an advantage on multi-core processing computers, in the same way there is an advangate to just installing two CPUs to your computer.
Except, having two CPUS would be faster. And cooler. (I mean, physically.. Thermologically.)

The reason we don't have multiple CPUs on consumer-brand motherboards (they exist for cluster/research applications) is the space requirements and engineering difficulties they present. Single core CPUs are not designed inherently to function alongside one another this way - you have to build an entirely separate supporting architecture to make them run happily together, and that adds a certain amount of overhead, so even for multi-CPU systems, multi-core CPUs are often installed where possible.

Muti-core, on the other hand, is designed from the getgo to function as a parallel unit, with the inputs and outputs running smoothly together on the same chip. There are problems with heat, yes, but it's much easier to see improvements across multiple cores than it would be implementing two or four or more functional CPU slots on a motherboard. Other than that, multi-core is basically the same from the software-maker's point of view as multi-CPU.

The problem, speaking as a programmer, is that programmers don't want to learn how to use multi-anything when they're already burdened with optimization issues in other areas. But you can only make a transistor so fast before the data loses integrity, which is why clock rates have become a lot less important in recent years than other factors. It's simply a branching point, an option for programmers which is extremely useful for anyone that knows how to use it. Obviously other things are being worked on, but things like Nikov's example would be impossible until some point in the future, were it not for multi-core.

[Fayrik]

The reason we don't have multiple CPUs on consumer-brand motherboards.

Yeah, I've seen a home-built system with dual single cores. Was awhile ago. Think it was a home server unit, but man it had some specs.
Was the first computer I ever saw with a terrabyte of hard-disk space. Ran across four 250GB drives, I think.
Probably the most expensive box I've seen in my life.

The problem, speaking as a programmer, is that programmers don't want to learn how to use multi-anything when they're already burdened with optimization issues in other areas.

Now, I'm not denying the other points. Multi-core systems definitely add functionality. But Intel pushed them too hard too soon. And, I feel that right now, they're still being pushed a bit hard. Performing two tasks at once for half the speed of one of those tasks at once isn't really worth twice the price to me.

Also, probably a bit hasty... But... Logan's Run, anyone?

[Tellemurius]

well the bulldozer chips are supposed to destroy Hyper-threading, making the threads utilize the extra cores available.

[Eagleon]

Clock rate and number of cores is not the only area available for improvement. I see a 20FPS+ improvement when running DF on my partner's dual core 2GHz, compared to my 3.06 ghz p4. And when you consider that around 6 ghz is the limit until we invest in optical/graphene/whatever we end up using transistors, how about eight tasks at once at half the speed? Or sixteen? Heat management is mostly what's preventing us from just stacking CPUs into big 3D blocks.

I guess it really depends on what you're running here - I do neural network simulations, and because of how limited CPUs are in terms of cores I haven't even bothered updating my six year old processor. Instead I'm relying on OpenCL and a much more modern graphics card. Obviously not everyone is going to be doing what I am, but people are starting to tinker with the benefits.

[Aklyon]

(My point, nice and clear for less misunderstandings here: Multi-core is overhyped, and over priced. It's not the glorious thing they claim it is.)

Especially here