Register - Login
Views: 95201114
Main - Memberlist - Active users - Calendar - Wiki - IRC Chat - Online users
Ranks - Rules/FAQ - Stats - Latest Posts - Color Chart - Smilies
09-23-18 09:36:24 PM

Jul - Computers and Technology - Intel Launches 32nm CPUs New poll - New thread - New reply
Next newer thread | Next older thread
teh2009Kitteh
Member
Level: 28


Posts: 77/172
EXP: 127453
For next: 3885

Since: 12-27-09


Since last post: 8.0 years
Last activity: 8.0 years

Posted on 01-04-10 11:28:57 AM Link | Quote
Wow, usually when we're promised a Q1 '10 launch, it means closer to Q2 '10, not January 4th. If you're interested in a new CPU any time this year, check it out. (I seriously don't need to upgrade my 3.9GHz Core i7 any time soon.)

@Dailytech.
Taryn
Rest In Peace
1987-2014



Level: 194


Posts: 4997/14742
EXP: 102964810
For next: 578284

Since: 09-01-09

From: Seattle

Since last post: 6.0 years
Last activity: 6.0 years

Posted on 01-04-10 11:31:17 AM Link | Quote
Computer components getting smaller and more powerful so fast just boggles my mind.

Back in the days when I used my parents' old Commodore 64, with 64 KB of RAM, an external floppy drive with 166 KB capacity, no hard drive, no mouse, and a maximum 320*200 resolution, I thought computers would stay around the same level of power for my whole life.
teh2009Kitteh
Member
Level: 28


Posts: 78/172
EXP: 127453
For next: 3885

Since: 12-27-09


Since last post: 8.0 years
Last activity: 8.0 years

Posted on 01-04-10 11:42:12 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Terra
Computer components getting smaller and more powerful so fast just boggles my mind.

Back in the days when I used my parents' old Commodore 64, with 64 KB of RAM, an external floppy drive with 166 KB capacity, no hard drive, no mouse, and a maximum 320*200 resolution, I thought computers would stay around the same level of power for my whole life.

I started with a PC Junior, and I couldn't even tell you the specs, except for the unforgettable 5.25in floppy drive. After that it was an IBM PS/2, maxed out to 640kB of RAM, because that's all we would ever need.
Miss Dani
6210
Level: 134


Posts: 1613/6219
EXP: 27989529
For next: 597445

Since: 10-23-09


Since last post: 6.0 years
Last activity: 42 days

Posted on 01-04-10 03:23:41 PM Link | Quote
My first computer wasn't until 1993, actually... a Macintosh Performa 575, and by then, computers were already capable of reaching true color... I think Apple and Amiga pretty much got video and RAM right

Too bad the Amigas pretty much died once Commodore went bankrupt
FieryIce

Luigi
不知道该写什么
Level: 113


Posts: 669/4117
EXP: 15776747
For next: 41814

Since: 12-17-08


Since last post: 62 days
Last activity: 2 days

Posted on 01-04-10 04:08:08 PM Link | Quote
I never got to see those old days, my first PC was a Windows 98 that my parents bought back in 1999 or so, the difference between then and now is huge but not that huge.
Taryn
Rest In Peace
1987-2014



Level: 194


Posts: 5048/14742
EXP: 102964810
For next: 578284

Since: 09-01-09

From: Seattle

Since last post: 6.0 years
Last activity: 6.0 years

Posted on 01-04-10 04:32:13 PM Link | Quote
Yeah, the C64 didn't have an x86 processor (it was a 6510, similar to an NES's processor), couldn't run MS-DOS, didn't use ASCII, had a funky keyboard layout, etc. It predated standardization, pretty much.
paulguy

Green Birdo
Level: 90


Posts: 453/2294
EXP: 6972575
For next: 216034

Since: 09-14-07

From: Buffalo, NY

Since last post: 6.0 years
Last activity: 6.0 years

Posted on 01-05-10 12:45:19 AM Link | Quote
Jesus Christ 3.9ghz core i7? Must be fast, and likely extravagantly expensive. Anyway, good news that CPUs are getting smaller. I'd like to see more improvements on the heat/power consumption front for x86. The core 2 range was good but from what I hear, the i7 line is a bit power hungry and a bit hot in conparison. I have a 920 myself and I've mostly been too lazy to set up sensors... Need to recompile my kernel though anyway, so I don't get USB interrupts on the system log.
Lyskar
12210
-The Chaos within trumps the Chaos without-
Level: 185


Posts: 3990/12211
EXP: 86407467
For next: 1352268

Since: 07-03-07

From: 52-2-88-7

Since last post: 3.0 years
Last activity: 3.0 years

Posted on 01-05-10 02:33:05 AM Link | Quote
I prefer AMD, but now I'm unsure what would be the best option...

I hope AMD soon launches 32nm CPUs.
teh2009Kitteh
Member
Level: 28


Posts: 84/172
EXP: 127453
For next: 3885

Since: 12-27-09


Since last post: 8.0 years
Last activity: 8.0 years

Posted on 01-05-10 09:26:24 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by paulguy
Jesus Christ 3.9ghz core i7? Must be fast, and likely extravagantly expensive. Anyway, good news that CPUs are getting smaller. I'd like to see more improvements on the heat/power consumption front for x86. The core 2 range was good but from what I hear, the i7 line is a bit power hungry and a bit hot in conparison. I have a 920 myself and I've mostly been too lazy to set up sensors... Need to recompile my kernel though anyway, so I don't get USB interrupts on the system log.


Not that expensive. It's just a mini-ATX machine that I run with the case open because it's think it's unfair to pay like $10 for case fans. Anyway, it has a Gigabyte P55 UD4 motherboard, some G.Skill Ripjaws RAM, and most importantly the Prolimatech Megahalems cooler. I got it to 205Mhz x 19 with 1.27V uncore and 1.26V core.

I recommend never using a cooler that doesn't require a backplate. The difference in pressure is huge, and if your cooler isn't mounted firmly, it doesn't matter how gigantic it is. This particular cooler has to be mounted somewhat diagonally using 2 holes for the 775 sockets and 2 for the 1366, but it fits like it was made for this 1156 socket. The included thermal grease works great, btw.

Rena

Star Mario
Fennel
Level: 128


Posts: 2807/5257
EXP: 24350818
For next: 30882

Since: 07-22-07

Pronouns: he/him/whatever
From: RSP Segment 6

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 days

Posted on 01-11-10 10:48:14 PM (last edited by HyperHacker at 01-11-10 10:52 PM) Link | Quote
Originally posted by teh2009Kitteh
Originally posted by Terra
Computer components getting smaller and more powerful so fast just boggles my mind.

Back in the days when I used my parents' old Commodore 64, with 64 KB of RAM, an external floppy drive with 166 KB capacity, no hard drive, no mouse, and a maximum 320*200 resolution, I thought computers would stay around the same level of power for my whole life.

I started with a PC Junior, and I couldn't even tell you the specs, except for the unforgettable 5.25in floppy drive. After that it was an IBM PS/2, maxed out to 640kB of RAM, because that's all we would ever need.
Originally posted by Bill Gates
640k ought to be enough for anybody.
Hell, the NES had 2K of RAM and a 1.79mhz CPU. Perspective!
Next newer thread | Next older thread
Jul - Computers and Technology - Intel Launches 32nm CPUs New poll - New thread - New reply




Rusted Logic

Acmlmboard - commit 5d36857 [2018-03-03]
©2000-2018 Acmlm, Xkeeper, Inuyasha, et al.

29 database queries, 2 query cache hits.
Query execution time: 0.156693 seconds
Script execution time: 0.015797 seconds
Total render time: 0.172490 seconds
Memory used: 1048576