So the good news is, my PC works again now.

The bad news is I have no 3D acceleration and I'm limited to VGA video 
modes.

Time to buy a new graphics card... :-(

Post a reply to this message

On 22/12/2013 16:35, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> So the good news is, my PC works again now.
>

I wondered where you'd got to.

> The bad news is I have no 3D acceleration and I'm limited to VGA video
> modes.
>
> Time to buy a new graphics card... :-(

I've just run one of my machines in VGA mode; OMG, what a difference. 
Hope it's all fixed before Xmas.

John

Post a reply to this message

> I've just run one of my machines in VGA mode; OMG, what a difference.

I especially enjoy how my monitor correctly displays the image, but 
utterly fails to compensate for the radically different aspect ratio...

> Hope it's all fixed before Xmas.

Are you kidding me? Chances of stuff getting delivered before Christmas 
are almost zero now, I would think...

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 20:13:44 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>> I've just run one of my machines in VGA mode; OMG, what a difference.
> 
> I especially enjoy how my monitor correctly displays the image, but
> utterly fails to compensate for the radically different aspect ratio...
> 
>> Hope it's all fixed before Xmas.
> 
> Are you kidding me? Chances of stuff getting delivered before Christmas
> are almost zero now, I would think...

Depends on when you ordered it, and how much you paid for shipping.  If 
you buy something with next day guaranteed delivery, it should get there 
- and if it doesn't, then someone owes you money. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> So the good news is, my PC works again now.
>
> The bad news is I have no 3D acceleration and I'm limited to VGA video
> modes.

You should be able to at least run the new Windows 8 UI then :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 23/12/2013 11:33 AM, scott wrote:
>> So the good news is, my PC works again now.
>>
>> The bad news is I have no 3D acceleration and I'm limited to VGA video
>> modes.
>
> You should be able to at least run the new Windows 8 UI then :-)

GAAAH! IT BURNS!!

Post a reply to this message

On 22/12/2013 04:35 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Time to buy a new graphics card... :-(

...of course, the thing about buying a graphics card is, how much do you 
want to spend?

For £80 I can get a GeForce GTX 650, which roughly the same 800 GFLOPS 
that my defective GeForce GTX 260 produces. So, about £80 to get roughly 
the same thing as I had before. But with slightly more RAM.

What exactly is the significance of the amount of on-board RAM? I 
realise it's used for holding texture data, but what happens if the data 
doesn't all fit? Does the program just point-blank refuse to work, or 
does it merely cause a reduction in performance?

For slightly less than 2x the price, I can get somewhat more than 2x the 
performance. The GeForce GTX 660 develops 1,800 GFLOPS, but costs £150. 
So, 87% more expensive, 125% faster.

Then again, the GeForce GTX 760 is only a bit more expensive - £190. And 
yet, it produces 2,200 GFLOPS (and has twice the RAM).

Decisions, decisions...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Then again, the GeForce GTX 760 is only a bit more expensive - £190. And 
> yet, it produces 2,200 GFLOPS (and has twice the RAM).

It's not the size that matters. It's how you use it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> What exactly is the significance of the amount of on-board RAM? I
> realise it's used for holding texture data, but what happens if the data
> doesn't all fit? Does the program just point-blank refuse to work, or
> does it merely cause a reduction in performance?


> For slightly less than 2x the price, I can get somewhat more than 2x the
> performance. The GeForce GTX 660 develops 1,800 GFLOPS, but costs £150.
> So, 87% more expensive, 125% faster.

Do you want GFLOPS or FPS? You can use those performance charts like 
GPUmark and also look at framerates in common games if that's what 
you're going to be using the GPU for.

FWIW when I built my machine earlier this year I chose the GTX 650 (I 
think about £90 at the time) and an AMD FX8350. Seems to run everything 
ok, but I'm not one for playing lots of cutting-edge games, FarCry3 is 
probably the latest one I have that is heavy on graphics - that runs 
fine at max detail. I'm waiting for GTA5 to come out for the PC in 
March, hopefully that will handle it ok.

Post a reply to this message

> What exactly is the significance of the amount of on-board RAM? I
> realise it's used for holding texture data, but what happens if the data
> doesn't all fit? Does the program just point-blank refuse to work, or
> does it merely cause a reduction in performance?

If the data doesn't all fit, the GPU will simply overwrite the RAM that 
hasn't been used for the longest and carry on (a bit like a circular 
buffer). This is not an ideal situation if you are trying to use 600MB 
of textures per frame on a card with 512MB RAM, because obviously every 
single frame you'll be transferring texture data between system RAM and 
video RAM (which is relatively slow).

Needless to say games are written to avoid this situation, they will 
select which size textures or compression to use based on the amount of 
video RAM you have. There is probably a minimum amount that below which 
the game will refuse to run, but the GPU won't actually error out if you 
try and load too many textures.

Or there are more complex algorithms, like keeping some "core" low res 
textures for everything in VRAM all the time, then only swapping in the 
high res versions for things near you in the world. If you can only move 
around the world at a certain speed then you can plan to pre-load the 
high res textures seamlessly.

Post a reply to this message

On 24/12/2013 08:18 AM, scott wrote:

> Do you want GFLOPS or FPS? You can use those performance charts like
> GPUmark and also look at framerates in common games if that's what
> you're going to be using the GPU for.

I would presume that render frame-rate and compute power are strongly 
correlated. Then again, I guess I don't know that much about the render 
pipeline, so...

> FWIW when I built my machine earlier this year I chose the GTX 650 (I
> think about £90 at the time) and an AMD FX8350. Seems to run everything
> ok, but I'm not one for playing lots of cutting-edge games, FarCry3 is
> probably the latest one I have that is heavy on graphics - that runs
> fine at max detail. I'm waiting for GTA5 to come out for the PC in
> March, hopefully that will handle it ok.

My GTX 260 was able to handle Crysis, Crysis 2, FarCry 3 and just about 
every other game I tried on very high detail settings. (Although I think 
FarCry 3 became noticeably laggy when I turned everything up to maximum 
- it was only slight though.)

If a GTX 260 can handle it, presumably a newer generation card with 
multiple times the compute power will eat it up.

Ultimately, I'm probably going to wait for my next bank statement before 
I decide. It's only a few days away, after all...

Post a reply to this message

> Ultimately, I'm probably going to wait for my next bank statement before
> I decide. It's only a few days away, after all...

Oooh, is that 1995 I hear calling again :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 24/12/2013 08:18 AM, scott wrote:

> Do you want GFLOPS or FPS?

As well as that, I'm going to try to get CUDA to work again. I've got a 
few bits of software which *claim* to use your GPU to do compute-heavy 
work much faster. If only any of them actually *worked*...

Post a reply to this message

On 24/12/2013 09:41 AM, scott wrote:
>> Ultimately, I'm probably going to wait for my next bank statement before
>> I decide. It's only a few days away, after all...
>
> Oooh, is that 1995 I hear calling again :-)

What, you think I should be using Internet banking? I prefer it if bad 
people *can't* steal all my money merely by guessing a password...

Post a reply to this message

>> Oooh, is that 1995 I hear calling again :-)
>
> What, you think I should be using Internet banking? I prefer it if bad
> people *can't* steal all my money merely by guessing a password...

Oh it's 2005 calling now...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> What, you think I should be using Internet banking? I prefer it if bad 
> people *can't* steal all my money merely by guessing a password...

What bank uses fixed passwords (rather than a sheet of single-use codes)
and thinks that it's safe?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 23/12/13 20:41, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Then again, the GeForce GTX 760 is only a bit more expensive - £190. And 
>> yet, it produces 2,200 GFLOPS (and has twice the RAM).
> 
> It's not the size that matters. It's how you use it.
> 

:-)

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.12.2013 16:26, schrieb Warp:
> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> What, you think I should be using Internet banking? I prefer it if bad
>> people *can't* steal all my money merely by guessing a password...
>
> What bank uses fixed passwords (rather than a sheet of single-use codes)
> and thinks that it's safe?

What bank uses a sheet of single-use codes and thinks that it's safe?

Over here in Germany we're past that age. Codes dynamically generated 
from transaction details it is for us.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> What bank uses a sheet of single-use codes and thinks that it's safe?

Well, much safer than a fixed password.

You can't do anything with the sheet alone if you don't have the user's ID.
Granted, it's not impossible to acquire both, but if you don't store your
ID anywhere and instead have it memorized, it becomes difficult. (Basically
they would need to install some spyware in the computer you are using in
order to get the ID, and then physically steal the passcode sheet. Not
impossible, but not likely to happen.)

> Over here in Germany we're past that age. Codes dynamically generated
> from transaction details it is for us.

How does that even work?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.12.2013 13:39, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> What bank uses a sheet of single-use codes and thinks that it's safe?
>
> Well, much safer than a fixed password.
>
> You can't do anything with the sheet alone if you don't have the user's ID.
> Granted, it's not impossible to acquire both, but if you don't store your
> ID anywhere and instead have it memorized, it becomes difficult. (Basically
> they would need to install some spyware in the computer you are using in
> order to get the ID, and then physically steal the passcode sheet. Not
> impossible, but not likely to happen.)

Just two words:

(1) Phising.

(2) Man-in-the-middle attack.

>> Over here in Germany we're past that age. Codes dynamically generated
>> from transaction details it is for us.
>
> How does that even work?

There are two variants in use:

(A) Each time you submit a transaction via browser, you get a 
transaction-specific authorization code via SMS to your mobile phone, 
including some essentials of the transaction (like the amount of money 
transferred, and the target bank account) to make sure that you and the 
bank are talking about the same deal.

(B) You get a code generator from your bank. Typically this would be a 
combination of a bank card with a built-in chip, plus a card reader with 
a built-in display to make sure that the code is generated from the 
transaction details you desire.

(As certified card readers are expensive, have never really taken off, 
and would probably be difficult to integrate into web-based online 
banking, the common solution is an inexpensive battery-powered 
stand-alone device using optical transmission from web interface to card 
reader.)

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 25.12.2013 13:39, schrieb Warp:
> > clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> >> What bank uses a sheet of single-use codes and thinks that it's safe?
> >
> > Well, much safer than a fixed password.
> >
> > You can't do anything with the sheet alone if you don't have the user's ID.
> > Granted, it's not impossible to acquire both, but if you don't store your
> > ID anywhere and instead have it memorized, it becomes difficult. (Basically
> > they would need to install some spyware in the computer you are using in
> > order to get the ID, and then physically steal the passcode sheet. Not
> > impossible, but not likely to happen.)

> Just two words:

> (1) Phising.

> (2) Man-in-the-middle attack.

Does not help to get the physical code sheet.

> (A) Each time you submit a transaction via browser, you get a 
> transaction-specific authorization code via SMS to your mobile phone, 
> including some essentials of the transaction (like the amount of money 
> transferred, and the target bank account) to make sure that you and the 
> bank are talking about the same deal.

I suppose SMS verification would add an additional layer of security.

> (B) You get a code generator from your bank. Typically this would be a 
> combination of a bank card with a built-in chip, plus a card reader with 
> a built-in display to make sure that the code is generated from the 
> transaction details you desire.

How exactly is this different from a sheet of one-use codes?
(Except, you know, the obvious: That method requires you to connect
a special device and software to your computer and configure it
appropriately.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.12.2013 01:23, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 25.12.2013 13:39, schrieb Warp:
>>> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>>> What bank uses a sheet of single-use codes and thinks that it's safe?
>>>
>>> Well, much safer than a fixed password.
>>>
>>> You can't do anything with the sheet alone if you don't have the user's ID.
>>> Granted, it's not impossible to acquire both, but if you don't store your
>>> ID anywhere and instead have it memorized, it becomes difficult. (Basically
>>> they would need to install some spyware in the computer you are using in
>>> order to get the ID, and then physically steal the passcode sheet. Not
>>> impossible, but not likely to happen.)
>
>> Just two words:
>
>> (1) Phising.
>
>> (2) Man-in-the-middle attack.
>
> Does not help to get the physical code sheet.

Does not /need/ to get the physical code sheet. If someone can get in 
between your screen and the online banking portal, they can tamper with 
the transaction details to transfer an entirely different amount of 
money to an entirely different target bank account.

Note that HTTPS only protects the network transmissions, not your 
browser output.

>> (B) You get a code generator from your bank. Typically this would be a
>> combination of a bank card with a built-in chip, plus a card reader with
>> a built-in display to make sure that the code is generated from the
>> transaction details you desire.
>
> How exactly is this different from a sheet of one-use codes?
> (Except, you know, the obvious: That method requires you to connect
> a special device and software to your computer and configure it
> appropriately.)

As the code is now generated from the transaction details, tampering 
with them is much less attractive for an attacker: If they hide any 
changes from the code generator, the code won't be valid for the 
modified transaction. If they pass the changes to the code generator, a 
cautious user will notice that the details have been tampered with 
(provided of course that the code generator has an inbuilt display on 
which it shows the transaction details before spitting out the code, and 
it provides no attack vector between that display and the actual 
cryptographic engine).

As for "the obvious", that's actually a no-issue: The stand-alone device 
I mentioned does not need any software on your PC, and the only 
"configuration" required is a one-time calibration for your display 
size; from then on, use is as simple as holding the device's light 
sensor array against a flickering animation displayed in your browser.

Post a reply to this message

Le 24/12/2013 11:03, Orchid Win7 v1 nous fit lire :
> On 24/12/2013 08:18 AM, scott wrote:
> 
>> Do you want GFLOPS or FPS?
> 
> As well as that, I'm going to try to get CUDA to work again. I've got a
> few bits of software which *claim* to use your GPU to do compute-heavy
> work much faster. If only any of them actually *worked*...

The only cuda I ever saw in use is in boinc projects.

Post a reply to this message

lol

Post a reply to this message

On 12/23/2013 03:41 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Then again, the GeForce GTX 760 is only a bit more expensive - £190. And
>> yet, it produces 2,200 GFLOPS (and has twice the RAM).
>
> It's not the size that matters. It's how you use it.
>

said by someone with a small graphics card? lol could /not/ resist that!!!

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-12-22 15:13, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>> I've just run one of my machines in VGA mode; OMG, what a difference.
>
> I especially enjoy how my monitor correctly displays the image, but
> utterly fails to compensate for the radically different aspect ratio...
>
>> Hope it's all fixed before Xmas.
>
> Are you kidding me? Chances of stuff getting delivered before Christmas
> are almost zero now, I would think...

Are there no computer parts stores in the UK?

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-12-23 13:16, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 22/12/2013 04:35 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Time to buy a new graphics card... :-(
>
> ...of course, the thing about buying a graphics card is, how much do you
> want to spend?
>
> For £80 I can get a GeForce GTX 650, which roughly the same 800 GFLOPS
> that my defective GeForce GTX 260 produces. So, about £80 to get roughly
> the same thing as I had before. But with slightly more RAM.
>
> What exactly is the significance of the amount of on-board RAM? I
> realise it's used for holding texture data, but what happens if the data
> doesn't all fit? Does the program just point-blank refuse to work, or
> does it merely cause a reduction in performance?

I guess it depends on the game.  some games will refuse to work at max 
resolution, or with full textures and effects if they feel the HW won't 
support it), others will plod along until something goes horribly (or 
hilariously) wrong.  I remember playing a shoot-em up game where 
sometimes, tanks or jeeps would show up as bright pink because the 
texture wouldn't fit in ram.  (ex: in a field, tank is properly 
rendered, because grass texture takes almost no room.  In a city, the 
building and rubble textures already fill up the card's ram, so when the 
panzers roll in, OOPS, they're pink!)

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-12-25 14:02, clipka a écrit :
> Am 25.12.2013 13:39, schrieb Warp:
>> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>> What bank uses a sheet of single-use codes and thinks that it's safe?
>>
>> Well, much safer than a fixed password.
>>
>> You can't do anything with the sheet alone if you don't have the
>> user's ID.
>> Granted, it's not impossible to acquire both, but if you don't store your
>> ID anywhere and instead have it memorized, it becomes difficult.
>> (Basically
>> they would need to install some spyware in the computer you are using in
>> order to get the ID, and then physically steal the passcode sheet. Not
>> impossible, but not likely to happen.)
>
> Just two words:
>
> (1) Phising.
>
> (2) Man-in-the-middle attack.
>
>>> Over here in Germany we're past that age. Codes dynamically generated
>>> from transaction details it is for us.
>>
>> How does that even work?
>
> There are two variants in use:
>
> (A) Each time you submit a transaction via browser, you get a
> transaction-specific authorization code via SMS to your mobile phone,
> including some essentials of the transaction (like the amount of money
> transferred, and the target bank account) to make sure that you and the
> bank are talking about the same deal.

So I now need to have a separate cell-phone contract just to be allowed 
to pay my bills online?

I have a company-issued cell phone, and my employer allows me to make a 
limited number of personal phone call per month, e.g. to let my family 
know I'll be late for dinner, etc..., but I don't think they'd like it 
If I started letting my bank send me confirmation requests to it.

Also, we lead a very boring life, so there not enough people outside of 
work who need to reach us to justify having a personal cell phone on top 
of our land line.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

lol

Post a reply to this message

Why so obsessed with Nvidia? B uy the latest ATI graphics cards, great 
performance, maybe a little better than Nvidia and less expensive.

Post a reply to this message

Le 27/12/2013 18:16, Saul Luizaga nous fit lire :
> Why so obsessed with Nvidia? B uy the latest ATI graphics cards, great
> performance, maybe a little better than Nvidia and less expensive.

with Linux, the ATI cards suck. At least that was my experience with
them, so I went Nvidia. (with multiscreen on linux, Ati was a PITA)
The nvidia driver taints the kernel, but at least they works.

The problem with nvidia is the numbering of cards: the even/odd hundred
might have the same chip (one for EOM, one for retails), and the two
last digits might be related to the frequency or/and the number of
units. The best card is not always the highest number.

Of course, if you only want 2D, any card with enough memory and the
right connector is fine.

The main issue with any top card is the power supply and the noise level
at full power. Best reading many reviews before choosing.

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.12.2013 16:47, schrieb Francois Labreque:

>> There are two variants in use:
>>
>> (A) Each time you submit a transaction via browser, you get a
>> transaction-specific authorization code via SMS to your mobile phone,
>> including some essentials of the transaction (like the amount of money
>> transferred, and the target bank account) to make sure that you and the
>> bank are talking about the same deal.
>
> So I now need to have a separate cell-phone contract just to be allowed
> to pay my bills online?

No, you can choose the other variant instead. Banks usually offer both.

Post a reply to this message

Oh I didn't know that, too bad, on Windows some modded drivers are 
further optimized for speed, besides the optimization ATI does, you can 
find really nice performance, even on old cards. Well you have to use 
what works best, yes looking reviews is always good as a reference.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 18:30:21 +0100, Le_Forgeron wrote:

> Le 27/12/2013 18:16, Saul Luizaga nous fit lire :
>> Why so obsessed with Nvidia? B uy the latest ATI graphics cards, great
>> performance, maybe a little better than Nvidia and less expensive.

At least on Linux, nVidia cards can be used for things like GPU rendering 
in Blender.  The ATI cards don't work for that AFAIK.

> with Linux, the ATI cards suck. At least that was my experience with
> them, so I went Nvidia. (with multiscreen on linux, Ati was a PITA)
> The nvidia driver taints the kernel, but at least they works.

The radeon drivers are better now, though Catalyst still seems to have 
problems here and there.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Then again, the GeForce GTX 760 is only a bit more expensive - £190. And 
> yet, it produces 2,200 GFLOPS (and has twice the RAM).

From what I have gathered, right now the GTX 770 is the card that ought
to give you most bang for your buck. It seems to be right in the sweet
spot from a performance/price point of view. It seems to be the most
efficient of the medium-priced cards (at about 300 euros), the next
more efficient GTX card making a very significant jump in price (over
500 euros).

Given that performance charts put it at about exactly twice as efficient
as my own current card (GTX 560), and this one still performs extremely
well even with newest games, the GTX 770 should last for a relatively
long time before it becomes too slow.

If 300 euros is way too much, I haven't investigated what would be the
best performance/price card on the cheaper side (100 euros and under),
so I really can't tell. Personally, I wouldn't consider the 300 euros
a bad investment for the GTX 770. (Actually I would even buy it myself
if the GTX 560 didn't seem to fare so well even with newest games.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 27/12/2013 05:16 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Why so obsessed with Nvidia? B uy the latest ATI graphics cards, great
> performance, maybe a little better than Nvidia and less expensive.

Does ATI support CUDA yet?

Post a reply to this message

On 27/12/2013 08:45 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> Then again, the GeForce GTX 760 is only a bit more expensive - £190. And
>> yet, it produces 2,200 GFLOPS (and has twice the RAM).
>
> From what I have gathered, right now the GTX 770 is the card that ought
> to give you most bang for your buck. It seems to be right in the sweet
> spot from a performance/price point of view.

Mmm. My preferred supplier lists it at £250 - pricey, but not 
outrageous. (In fact, roughly what I paid for the card I'm trying to 
replace.)

Again, I guess I'm going to wait for my next bank statement before I 
make a decision. Also, my sister said something about maybe giving me 
some money for Christmas, so...

Post a reply to this message

Le 27/12/2013 21:46, Orchid Win7 v1 nous fit lire :
> On 27/12/2013 05:16 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Why so obsessed with Nvidia? B uy the latest ATI graphics cards, great
>> performance, maybe a little better than Nvidia and less expensive.
> 
> Does ATI support CUDA yet?
> 

does not seem so.
Cuda is made by nvidia, Ati had a response with Stream.
Both could provide an interface for openCL. But that would be like
running a JVM on a non-java-native hardware: a bit of loss of
performance is to be expected.

The last move from Ati was Mantle: an alternative to OpenGL & Direct3D.
Not sure Ati is interested in GPGPU.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 20:46:23 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 27/12/2013 05:16 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Why so obsessed with Nvidia? B uy the latest ATI graphics cards, great
>> performance, maybe a little better than Nvidia and less expensive.
> 
> Does ATI support CUDA yet?

I don't believe so - one of the reasons my next card will probably be an 
nVidia card.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.12.2013 18:33, schrieb clipka:
> Am 27.12.2013 16:47, schrieb Francois Labreque:
>
>>> There are two variants in use:
>>>
>>> (A) Each time you submit a transaction via browser, you get a
>>> transaction-specific authorization code via SMS to your mobile phone,
>>> including some essentials of the transaction (like the amount of money
>>> transferred, and the target bank account) to make sure that you and the
>>> bank are talking about the same deal.
>>
>> So I now need to have a separate cell-phone contract just to be allowed
>> to pay my bills online?
>
> No, you can choose the other variant instead. Banks usually offer both.

As an added note, I just learned that variant (A) can't be considered 
safe anymore anyway.

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron wrote:
> The last move from Ati was Mantle: an alternative to OpenGL & Direct3D.
> Not sure Ati is interested in GPGPU.

It is; the original driver for my HD7600 came with software and 
encouragement to participate on Folding@Home GPPU client or something 
like that, to aid research diseases.

Post a reply to this message

> What bank uses fixed passwords (rather than a sheet of single-use codes)
> and thinks that it's safe?

Several banks in the UK use a small battery powered card reader. When 
you make a transaction you need to insert your bank card, type in your 
pin, then enter the numbers from the website (usually the destination 
account number and the amount). The card reader then displays an 8-digit 
code to enter back into the web browser.

Post a reply to this message