New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by TranquilTempest

That's a rather high transistor count. I wonder what they spent it on. As for Intel, I suspect they'll drop prices on their next set of products, and maybe increase core count on the mainstream platform. Can we please stop making 2 core CPUs?
If they're drawing 13w of power, they're also dissipating 13w of heat. With a 7w cooling solution your chip is going to throttle after a few seconds at best. In a tablet that might be a valid design tradeoff, in a desktop PC it isn't.
Liquid fuel boosters can't survive falling over, even into water. With a solid booster, the entire thing is the combustion chamber, so it has to be built very strong in order to not rupture from the pressure of burning propellant. With a liquid fueled rocket, the walls are a small fraction of that strength, as they don't have to be nearly so heavy if they're just holding fuel. .Keep in mind these rockets have already touched down on the ocean at zero velocity before they...
Falcon Heavy hasn't launched yet, it has to do that before it can relaunch. Did you mean a relaunch of one of the previously flown boosters?
I think you might be underestimating that somewhat. Intel spends 12 billion a year on research and development, I would hope more than 1~2% of that goes into the new architectures. AMD doesn't spend nearly as much as Intel, but still about a billion a year. Obviously not all of it goes into CPU architecture, but I think 80M is still a low estimate for bringing Zen to market.
It's not an edge case at all, that decision making process applies to everyone. Add up all the seconds you spend waiting on your computer over it's life, multiply by how much value you put on your own free time, and divide by the relative performance of the parts you're considering. If the value of the time saved is greater than the difference in price, select the faster part. If it's not, then get the cheaper one.
Price vs performance is rarely if ever a perfectly linear relationship. Sometimes a 10% performance improvement costs 1000% more, and sometimes it's worth that price, especially for high end stuff, and not just in computers. The point is, you can only compare price at difference performance levels if you account for the use case. It works the other way too. Sometimes a 100% improvement in performance isn't worth a 1% increase in price.Say your work relies on computation...
That's household income, not individual income. Say you're spending 20k~30k a year on utilities and housing, 5k on food, 10~20k for insurance/payments/maintenance on 2 cars, Then medical expenses, clothing, maybe a kid or two, taxes, etc., it adds up. Some people make room for a PC, some people might use that for some other luxury, some might invest it, some are already living beyond their means before they even consider buying a PC.
So pretty much exactly what everyone expected. Please Intel, can we move the mainstream segment to 4 cores minimum, 6 or 8 cores maximum? Give software developers a reason to optimize for 4+ core configurations, and you'll give like half the people that own computers a reason to upgrade.
That's what it is? Then they shouldn't have called it 7.1
New Posts  All Forums: