Originally Posted by YouTube article "We're going to see HD content on YouTube in the future," Paul told assembled hacks.
This will surely be news to the chaps there, who are having a hard time paying for bandwidth in sub-SD, let alone HD. Maybe in a few years eh, guys? Or maybe Intel is offering to pay for the bandwidth?
genesisofthesith: I see your point but compression can only go so far. The gap in quality is WAY too big at the moment. But then again I could be wrong - I was once before B)
Hmm... youtube in HD? How? Aside from the fact that they really need to move up to LD first (and then SD would be nice after that), the only people with cams and whatnot that can shoot in HD are people who are doing professional work. IIRC, the 4/4/4 1080p cam that MacBreak uses costs something like $50k, not to mention the fibre channel RAID array it's hooked up to in order to have enough recording bandwidth.
AFAIK, youtube doesn't have a Google Video-esque option to charge for "real" content - the only place you'd find HD material from anyways.
Originally Posted by zero0ne I have to ask, why is all of the articles discussions being pushed into one thread?
It makes it a pain in the butt to be jumping around from one topic to the next.
Mmm... that always has bugged me a bit with these IDF/event threads in the past as well. Really hard to follow things.
Just curious though... is the quad-core ready game (among others) scalable beyond quad, or are game engines written to take advantage of only up to x processors/cores?
Markus also revealed that one whole core is used for physics calculations, and we saw a hurricane tear up the in-game world in a rather realistic fashion as illustration.
I think that once programmers get useed to parrallel programming, it will be able to scale. As they would be creating for a wide audiance, it would have to work on a wide range of equipment, so it should be able to utilise all cores regardless of how many there are. That is if the code is written well
Originally Posted by More Kentsfield details ...any motherboard that currently supports Conroe should be BIOS upgradeable to support Kentsfield
saddly "should" does not equal "will"
If I get a BIOS upgrade that will allow me to use the 45nm quad core I'll be happy and surprised (this would be a change from the Intel I know (to whom new chip = same socket but new chipset))
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firehed ...Just curious though... is the quad-core ready game (among others) scalable beyond quad, or are game engines written to take advantage of only up to x processors/cores?
Originally Posted by Engadget.com Intel's CEO told the audience that the chipmaker has already built a prototype with 80 processing cores on a single chip that can perform a trillion floating-point operations per second -- that's a teraflop to the layman -- and is aiming to ready commercial versions within five years.
...so, it's 32nm by 2010, and likely 80 core teraflop chips around late 2011.
2) Does anybody have a link to a good timeline indicating the flop-abilities of, say, the pentium I-IV line and core2duo from intel, along with perhaps the Athlon line of chips from AMD? I was hoping to figure out how much of a jump this would be in the historic progression of processor power. My quick google and wikipedia searches didn't give me the information I was looking for....although I did learn that high-end gpu's already claim 1Tflop or better (though that is based on specific tasks and not general purpose).
Originally Posted by mattyt And then the software side, which is where the real multi-core gains will come from, is going to drag it's heels all the way. Hardly any consumer software even has optimisation for 2 processors.
Call bs all you want mate! Was the architecture a bad move? Yes could it have been better? yes was the scalability there to reach 10GHz? Yes! And thats what this is about. However due to how crappy and inefficient netburst was we'd be running chips that gave off massive amounts of heat. You would need something like a prometeia mach ii to cool it, but the bottom line is that it could be done!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattyt And then the software side, which is where the real multi-core gains will come from, is going to drag it's heels all the way. Hardly any consumer software even has optimisation for 2 processors.
What the hell do you expect, its a new technology you cant expect the best software to be released and for people to take to it right away, these things take time. If people took to every new techology without holding out for a while to see how it performs we'd all be running physx cards!
This aint fair, i was planning a Intel Based Mod, but i wont be starting for a few months. Bit-tech, tell intel to put this mod plan back a few months so i can start on mine :D
Unfortunatly the competition isnt open to individuals :(
Moriquendi
;) thanks for the link.
Quote:
Originally Posted by case contest rules By entering, each Participant grants to Intel... Participants shall not recieve any compensation or credit for use of submissions.
Plus the money is for "co-marketing" and "hard tooling" only. Under those rules... meh
Re: "Robson, the technology that will bring flash memory storage onto your motherboard."
I understand that flash ram has a limit to how many times it can be flashed. I know that this limit it quite high. What I want to know is, how long this will last for the average user when used this way. (I'd hate to use it heavily only to have it die in two or three years)
Originally Posted by Tyinsar Re: "Robson, the technology that will bring flash memory storage onto your motherboard."
I understand that flash ram has a limit to how many times it can be flashed. I know that this limit it quite high. What I want to know is, how long this will last for the average user when used this way. (I'd hate to use it heavily only to have it die in two or three years)
On the other hand, even today I think a gigabyte of Flash RAM costs around $15-20 (I believe they've said that Vista is optimized for 1GB of this technology). As long as they were smart about how the Flash integrated with the motherboard (ie: some sort of standard card, and not some sort of chip that is both proprietary and varies from motherboard to motherboard), then replacing the flash every 2-3 years wouldn't be too much of a burden. In 2 or 3 years, a gigabyte will probably run you $2-3...and by then, with OS Service packs and what not, you might be wanting to upgrade to 2GB anyway.
Comments 26 to 50 of 74
genesisofthesith: I see your point but compression can only go so far. The gap in quality is WAY too big at the moment. But then again I could be wrong - I was once before B)
Well if The AA now call it fall in their TV adverts perhaps the UK is heading this way? .........
Oh and people messing around in their bedrooms in HD, whoop whoop I can't wait
AFAIK, youtube doesn't have a Google Video-esque option to charge for "real" content - the only place you'd find HD material from anyways.
It makes it a pain in the butt to be jumping around from one topic to the next.
Just curious though... is the quad-core ready game (among others) scalable beyond quad, or are game engines written to take advantage of only up to x processors/cores?
bye bye PhysX, you will not be missed.
Sam
If I get a BIOS upgrade that will allow me to use the 45nm quad core I'll be happy and surprised (this would be a change from the Intel I know (to whom new chip = same socket but new chipset))
1) Any idea what sort of timeframe intel expects this to come out in?
*Edit* Found this quote on Engadget:
2) Does anybody have a link to a good timeline indicating the flop-abilities of, say, the pentium I-IV line and core2duo from intel, along with perhaps the Athlon line of chips from AMD? I was hoping to figure out how much of a jump this would be in the historic progression of processor power. My quick google and wikipedia searches didn't give me the information I was looking for....although I did learn that high-end gpu's already claim 1Tflop or better (though that is based on specific tasks and not general purpose).
Call bs all you want mate! Was the architecture a bad move? Yes could it have been better? yes was the scalability there to reach 10GHz? Yes! And thats what this is about. However due to how crappy and inefficient netburst was we'd be running chips that gave off massive amounts of heat. You would need something like a prometeia mach ii to cool it, but the bottom line is that it could be done!
What the hell do you expect, its a new technology you cant expect the best software to be released and for people to take to it right away, these things take time. If people took to every new techology without holding out for a while to see how it performs we'd all be running physx cards!
LOL I remember when I moved to US and said Autumn the people were like what...? Many here don't even know that it is synonymous to the word fall. =)
Sam
<A88>
Unfortunatly the competition isnt open to individuals :(
Moriquendi
<A88>
Moriquendi
I understand that flash ram has a limit to how many times it can be flashed. I know that this limit it quite high. What I want to know is, how long this will last for the average user when used this way. (I'd hate to use it heavily only to have it die in two or three years)
On the other hand, even today I think a gigabyte of Flash RAM costs around $15-20 (I believe they've said that Vista is optimized for 1GB of this technology). As long as they were smart about how the Flash integrated with the motherboard (ie: some sort of standard card, and not some sort of chip that is both proprietary and varies from motherboard to motherboard), then replacing the flash every 2-3 years wouldn't be too much of a burden. In 2 or 3 years, a gigabyte will probably run you $2-3...and by then, with OS Service packs and what not, you might be wanting to upgrade to 2GB anyway.