 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
>
> No, Vista Home is exactly the same time. :)
>
> Win7 may be better though.
>
These are gaming benchmarks, but not much appreciable difference between
Win7 and Vista:
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/2869/windows_7_final_oem_vs_windows_vista_vga_performance/index.html
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Chambers schrieb:
>> Still, it's my first quad core machine, and I'm excited about it :)
>
> You have reason enough to be. Two months ago, I was still working with a
> P4, and was still so excited about the AMD Phenom 2 I had bought half a
> year ago (as a dedicated Linux/POV-Ray rendering machine :-P) that I was
> about to opt for another Phenom for Windows work, too (for a less
> frustrating modelling experience :-)). Fortunately the guy at the local
> store talked me into buying an i7 instead, but I'm convinced the Phenom
> would have done about as well for quite a few years, too, and I would
> have left me just as excited ;-)
No doubt. My major consideration against the i7 was price, but when the
prices drop, it'll be a less painful upgrade, though I'll have to get
DDR3 memory.
One of these days I'll switch the OS to the 64 bit version. Retail Win7
is going to lighten my wallet, though.
> If it wasn't for the modelling and raytracing, I could have lived
> happily with that P4 for another year or two: It's just about the
> computing power I needed for everything else, including software
> development. If it wasn't for games, I'd say a fast P4 (I had already
> upgraded it to the fastest I could get) is as much computing power as
> any sane person could possibly need.
>
> ... and we have way over 4 times that power on or under our desks - Gee!
Yup.
It still surprised me that with the same video chipset, same video
memory from the same vendor (but PCIe instead of AGP) that gaming
performance increased as much as it did, since most games don't really
take advantage of multiple cores, yet!
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Mike Raiford
Subject: Re: Could you try to run the benchmark with 32-bit binaries?
Date: 14 Aug 2009 11:46:48
Message: <4a8586e8$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Clarence1898 wrote:
> 2.4Ghz Intel Quad 6600, 5GB, Vista Home premium (64-bit) - 1m 58s (7m 46s on 1
> cpu)
>
> I also have Mandriva 2008(32-bit) installed on the Q6600 - 1m 55s (7M 40s on 1
> cpu).
>
>
> So on the same hardware 32-bit Linux is very slightly faster than 64-bit Vista.
Interesting, I wonder how much overhead there is in running 32 bit
applications on 64 bit windows, then?
Makes me want to stick with good ol' 32 bit for a while longer.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Even a device able to compute a b/w image of a RSOCP would be enough
>> of a challenge I guess...
>
> Definitely. It would be quite fun to build a simple processor like that,
> though
When I was about 14, I learned all about logic gates, and became
convinced that one day I would buy a bazillion 7400s and build an actual
working computer. Hell, when I was at uni I even got as far as buying
about 16 of them, and some breadboard, wires, etc.
And then I got stumped by the fact that the gates don't appear to do
what the diagrams suggest they should...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Saul Luizaga
Subject: Re: Could you try to run the benchmark with 32-bit binaries?
Date: 14 Aug 2009 16:33:10
Message: <4a85ca06@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Interesting, I wonder how much overhead there is in running 32 bit
> applications on 64 bit windows, then?
clipka posted several POV-Ray benchamrk tests about this and 64-64
(OS-App) was way better than 32-32. I've seen this also in the disease
research client I run (www.worldcommunitygrid.org), so as soon as I get
my new PC I'm switching to 64-bits (WinXP x64, no Vista nor Win7). My
main interest is the disease research client, I want to do more, alot
more and 64-bit integers does one of the tricks to make this client go
way faster.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 schrieb:
> And then I got stumped by the fact that the gates don't appear to do
> what the diagrams suggest they should...
In what way?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> And then I got stumped by the fact that the gates don't appear to do
> what the diagrams suggest they should...
Which brings us to the debate about whether information is intrinsic or
an added characteristic.
That is, does the diagram actually say anything, or do you invent the
meaning yourself? :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> And then I got stumped by the fact that the gates don't appear to do
>> what the diagrams suggest they should...
>
> In what way?
The 7400 is a quad 2-input NAND gate. In other words, it's a box with
four NAND gates in it.
What's supposed to happen is that you connect pins 1 and 14 to a power
source, and the remaining pins are grouped into 3s. Each group is the
connections for a single NAND gate. When the inputs aren't connected,
the output pin is at logic high. When you connect both of the input pins
to the (+) rail, the output should go low.
...except this doesn't seem to happen. I swear to God I built circuits
like this when I was a kid, and it worked. But when I tried it as a
teenager, it wouldn't work for toffee. No idea why.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:21:00 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>>> And then I got stumped by the fact that the gates don't appear to do
>>> what the diagrams suggest they should...
>>
>> In what way?
>
>The 7400 is a quad 2-input NAND gate. In other words, it's a box with
>four NAND gates in it.
>
>What's supposed to happen is that you connect pins 1 and 14 to a power
>source, and the remaining pins are grouped into 3s. Each group is the
>connections for a single NAND gate. When the inputs aren't connected,
>the output pin is at logic high. When you connect both of the input pins
>to the (+) rail, the output should go low.
>
>...except this doesn't seem to happen. I swear to God I built circuits
>like this when I was a kid, and it worked. But when I tried it as a
>teenager, it wouldn't work for toffee. No idea why.
Good grief Andrew, 7400s, did you rob a museum? Do you know the power
consumption of TTL compared to CMOS?
Besides pin 14 being Vcc and pin 7 ground. You cannot assume that inputs will
float high you really should drive them high or low.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The 7400 is a quad 2-input NAND gate. In other words, it's a box with
>> four NAND gates in it.
>>
>> What's supposed to happen is that you connect pins 1 and 14 to a power
>> source, and the remaining pins are grouped into 3s. Each group is the
>> connections for a single NAND gate. When the inputs aren't connected,
>> the output pin is at logic high. When you connect both of the input pins
>> to the (+) rail, the output should go low.
>>
>> ...except this doesn't seem to happen. I swear to God I built circuits
>> like this when I was a kid, and it worked. But when I tried it as a
>> teenager, it wouldn't work for toffee. No idea why.
>
>
> Good grief Andrew, 7400s, did you rob a museum?
Maplin.
IIRC, they charge 21.22p per chip. (Presumably the 0.22p only makes a
difference if you buy hundreds of them...)
> Do you know the power consumption of TTL compared to CMOS?
TTL has the advantage that it doesn't break if you touch it. ;-)
> Besides pin 14 being Vcc and pin 7 ground.
OK. I was going from memory there.
> You cannot assume that inputs will
> float high you really should drive them high or low.
...?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
