text:
Anand's Thoughts on Intel Canceling Larrabee Primeby Anand Lal Shimpi on 12/6/2009 8:00 PM EST
- Posted in
- GPUs
75 Comments
Back to Article
filotti - Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - linkGuess now we know why Intel cancelled Larrabee... Reply
Coolmike890 - Thursday, December 10, 2009 - linkI find this whole thing laughable. I remember Intel's previous attempts at graphics. I remember people saying the same things back then: "Intel is going to dominate the next gen graphics" etc. It is for this reason I have pretty much ignored everything to do with Larrabee. I figured it would be as successful as their previous attempts were.
The nVidia guy is right. GPU's are hard to make. Look at all of the work they and AMD have put into graphics. Intel doesn't have the patience to develop a real GPU. After awhile they are forced to give up. Reply
Scali - Friday, December 11, 2009 - linkA lot has changed though. Back in the early days, everything was hardwired, and a GPU had very little to do with a CPU. GPUs would only do very basic integer/fixedpoint math, and a lot of the work was still done on the CPU.
These days, GPUs are true processors themselves, and issues like IEEE floating point processing, branch prediction, caching and such are starting to dominate the GPU design.
These are exactly the sort of thing that Intel is good at.
nVidia is now trying to close the gap with Fermi... delivering double-precision performance that is more in line with CPUs (where previous nVidia GPUs and current AMD GPUs have a ratio of about 1:5 for single-precision vs double-precision, rather than 1:2 that nVidia is aiming for), adding true function calling, unified address space, and that sort of thing.
With the introduction of the GeForce 8800 and Cuda, nVidia clearly started to step on Intel's turf with GPGPU. Fermi is another step closer to that.
If nVidia can move towards Intel's turf, why can't Intel meet nVidia halfway? Because some 15 years ago, Intel licensed video technology from Real3D which didn't turn out to be as successful as 3dfx' Voodoo? As if that has ANYTHING at all to do with the current situation... Reply
Coolmike890 - Saturday, December 12, 2009 - linkYou make excellent points. I will happily acknowledge that things have changed a lot. However, Intel has not. Like I say, I doubt they have the patience to develop a fully-functional competitive GPU. It takes too long. A couple of business cycles, after all of the grand press releases, someone up in the business towers decides that it's taking too long, and it's not worth the investment.
I think when they decide to do these things, the boardroom people think they'll be #1 inside of a year, and when it doesn't turn out that way, they pull the plug. THAT's why they won't pull it off. Reply
Scali - Monday, December 14, 2009 - linkWell, it's hard to say at this point.
Maybe it was a good decision to not put Larrabee into mass production in its current form. That saves them a big investment on a product that they don't consider to have much of a chance of being profitable.
They haven't cancelled the product, they just want another iteration before they are going to put it on the market.
Who knows, they may get it right on the second take. I most certainly hope so, since it will keep nVidia and AMD on their toes. Reply
erikejw - Thursday, December 10, 2009 - link"Larrabee hasn't been let out of Intel hands, chances are that it's more than 6 months away at this point. "
Some developers have working silicon(slow) since 6 months.
That is all I will say. Reply
erikejw - Thursday, December 10, 2009 - link3 months.
I love the editing feature.
WaltC - Tuesday, December 08, 2009 - link___________________________________________________________
"Do I believe the 48-core research announcement had anything to do with Larrabee's cancelation? Not really. The project came out of a different team within Intel. Intel Labs have worked on bits and pieces of technologies that will ultimately be used inside Larrabee, but the GPU team is quite different."
It wasn't the Larrabee team or any other product development team that canceled Larrabee, from what I gather. It was management, and management sits above the development teams and is the entity responsible for making product cancellations as well as deciding which products go to market. I don't think the 48-core research announcement had anything directly to do with Larrabee's cancellation, either, because that 48-core chip doesn't itself exist yet. But I surely think the announcement was made just prior to the Larrabee cancellation in order to lessen the PR impact of Larrabee getting the axe, and I also don't think Larrabee being canceled just before the week-end was an accident, either.
"With the Radeon HD 5870 already at 2.7 TFLOPS peak, chances are that Larrabee wasn't going to be remotely competitive, even if it came out today. We all knew this, no one was expecting Intel to compete at the high end. Its agents have been quietly talking about the uselessness of > $200 GPUs for much of the past two years, indicating exactly where Intel views the market for Larrabee's first incarnation.
Thanks to AMD's aggressive rollout of the Radeon HD 5000 series, even at lower price points Larrabee wouldn't have been competitive - delayed or not."
Well, if Larrabee wasn't intended by Intel to occupy the high end, and wasn't meant to cost >$200 anyway, why would the 5870's 2.7 TFLOPS benchmark peak matter at all? It shouldn't have mattered at all, should it, as Larrabee was never intended as a competitor? Why bring up the 5870, then?
And, uh, what were the "real-time ray tracing" demos Intel put on with Larrabee software simulators supposed to mean? Aside from the fact that the demos were not impressive in themselves, the demos plainly said, "This is the sort of thing we expect to be able to competently do once Larrabee ships," and I don't really think this fits the "low-middle" segment of the 3d-gpu market. Any gpu that *could* do RTRT @ 25-30 fps consistently would be, by definition, anything but "low-middle end," wouldn't it?
That's why I think Larrabee was canceled simply because the product would have fallen far short of the expectations Intel had created for it. To be fair, the Larrabee team manager never said that RTRT was a central goal for Larrabee--but this didn't stop the tech press from assuming that anyway. Really, you can't blame them--since it was the Intel team who made it a part of the Larrabee demos, such as they were.
"It's not until you get in the 2013 - 2015 range that Larrabee even comes into play. The Larrabee that makes it into those designs will look nothing like the retail chip that just got canceled."
Come on, heh...;) If the "Larrabee" that ships in 2013-2015 (eons of time in this business) looks "nothing like the retail chip that just got canceled"--well, then, it won't be Larrabee at all, will it? I daresay it will be called something else entirely.
Point is, if the Larrabee that just got canceled was so uncompetitive that Intel canceled it, why should the situation improve in the next three to five years? I mean, AMD and nVidia won't be sitting still in all that time, will they?
What I think is this: "Larrabee" was a poor, hazy concept to begin with, and Intel canceled it because Intel couldn't make it. If it is uncompetitive now, I can't see how a Larrabee by any other name will be any more competitive 3-5 years from now. I think Intel is aware of this and that's why Intel canceled the product.
ash9 - Wednesday, December 09, 2009 - linkLarrabee Demo:
Did anyone note the judder effects of the flying objects in the distance? Reply
Penti - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkI really think It's a shame. I was hoping for a discreet Intel larrabee-card. It would be perfect for me that aren't a die hard gamer but still wants decent performance. I don't think the "software" route is a bad one, people don't seem to realize that that's exactly what AMD/ATi and nVidia is doing. Vidcards don't understand DX and OGL. Plus Video-cards is for so much more then DX and OGL now days. It's shaders that help in other apps, it's OpenCL, it's code written for specific gpus and so on. Also Intels Linux support is rock solid. An discreet GPU from Intel with Open source drivers would really be all it can be. Something the others wouldn't spend the same amount of resources trying to accomplish. Even the AMD server boards uses Intel network chips because they can actually write software. But at least we can look forward to the Arrandale/Clarkdale / H55. But I was also looking forward to something more resembling workstation graphics. But at least I hope Arrandale/Clarkdale helps to bring multimedia to alternative systems. Even though that will never fully happen in patent-ridden world. But at least it's easier to fill the gap with good drivers that can handle video. I also see no reason why Apple wouldn't go back to Intel chipsets including IGPs. Reply
Christobevii3 - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkI was hoping they'd release this as an add in card for servers. Since it uses general processors, having an add in card with 32 or what not mediocre cpu's and being able to allocate them to virtual servers would be amazing. Reply
pugster - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkI figured that Intel would cancel Larabee because of cost. An Intel core2duo wolfdale processor with 6mb of l2 cache has 410 million transistors and would easily sell for $200. My cheap geforce 9600gso would probably sell for $70 and the gpu itself has 505 transistors. I figure that even if Intel makes competitive gpus, they would barely eek out a profit selling these larabee gpus. Reply
Robear - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkAt this point I wouldn't be all that surprised to hear an announcement for a new discrete graphics microarchitecture. Intel has an advantage with nVidia and AMD both being fabless, and both using TSMC. A whole article could be written about that alone.
Larabee was heckled around the nVidia/AMD circles at the notion of a software-driven, general purpose GPU. I wanted to believe that Intel had an ace up its sleeve, but nVidia and AMD have been doing this for a while. You couldn't just dismiss what they were saying.
The whole "fusion" architecture seems to be the future of the CPU / GPU, so it would surprise me if Intel dropped out of the discrete business completely. It makes sense to invest in graphics, and it makes sense to offset your R&D costs by selling your product in another market (i.e. mobile graphics -> discrete).
If I was to guess, I would assume that after performance profiling their engineers came about to "If we had purpose-specific hardware we could ..." You can use your imagination there.
Anyway, I would expect a new microarchitecture to be announced in the next 6 months or so. That might explain why they didn't kill larrabee completely. We'll probably see a GP, many-core architecture with purpose-specific instructions (Like SSE). x86 would be good, and I can see where Intel would benefit from that, but I wouldn't put it past Intel to go with a new instruction set specific to GPUs. I could see that instruction set quickly becoming a standard, too.
x86 instructions are good, but this instruction set fares well with multi-tasking branch-heavy threads, integer computing, and general I/O. GPUs have a very heavy FP workload that's usually streaming, and this has been handled with x86 extensions. I can see x86 support being a burden on the overall architecture, so it seems only natural to take lessons learned and start over.
Intel knows instruction sets. Intel knows compilers. Intel knows how to fab. My disappointment in not seeing an Intel GPU this year is mitigated by my excitement to see what Intel will be coming out with in its place. Reply
Scali - Tuesday, December 08, 2009 - linkLarrabee already HAS purpose-specific instructions (LRBni).
It's not that different from what nVidia does with Fermi, really. It's just that nVidia doesn't use the x86 ISA as their basis. Doesn't matter all that much when you use C++ anyway. Reply
Shadowmaster625 - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkDid anybody catch the innuendo in their choice of game? ... Enemy Territory!~ har har har Reply
UltraWide - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkWhat about the angle that intel is still being investigated for anti-competitive business practices? No one has talked about this tidbit. Reply
The0ne - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkI don't know about you but I am not surprise nor will be if they get investigated. But then neither am I about other companies trying to win market share. Dell does it, AMD does it, MS does it, Apple is the king of it all, etc.
It's a topic that's not related to this topic as it's huge by itself. Reply
Targon - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkIntel has a problem, and that is that while they can do a VERY good job when focused on making ONE very good product, they don't do a very good job in multiple areas.
Look at processors....Intel has been focused on making the best processors out there, but really, they don't make ANYTHING else that is really amazing. Chipset quality is good, because that SUPPORTS their CPU business. GPU designs are pathetic and so far behind AMD and NVIDIA that I won't recommend ANY system with an Intel graphics product. Their networking products are also less than amazing.
So, does Intel do ANYTHING really well other than processors and chipsets? Even when they try to branch out into other areas and invest a LOT of money, the results have yet to impress anyone.
Even when they have tried to come up with an all new design it has flopped EVERY time. The last successful all new design was the Pentium Pro(even though the original flopped, the design ended up in the Pentium 2 and eventually into the Core and Core 2 line of processors)....so, Intel has come up with THREE really original designs. The old 8086/8088, the Pentium, and the Pentium Pro. Itanium flopped, and what else will Intel do.
Scali - Tuesday, December 08, 2009 - linkUhhh... the 286, 386 and 486 were all completely unique architectures aswell, and all were very successful.
As for Intel's IGP... Sure, Intel goes for a design that is as cheap and simple as possible, but in that light they do well. Intel's IGPs are VERY cheap, and they support everything you might need... They have DX10 support, video acceleration, DVI/HDMI/HDCP and all that.
Given the amount of transistors that Intel spends on their IGPs and the number of processing units inside their IGPs, they are in line with what nVidia and AMD offer. They just apply the technology on a smaller scale (which is good for cost and for power consumption/heat, which matter more to a lot of people than overall performance). Reply
somedude1234 - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkOK, so Intel GPU's can't touch ATI/AMD or nVidia's best, we know this, we've always known this. Who has more GPU market share?
You want a list of other things that Intel does well?
- Network controllers: some of the best money can buy.
- Consumer-level SSDs: Theirs are the best on the market in the benchmarks that matter the most for performance (random R/W). AFAIK, even the X25-E doesn't have a super-cap or other cache protection, so I don't consider that to be a truly "enterprise" drive.
- NAND Flash memory
Just to name a few examples. Reply
AnandThenMan - Monday, December 07, 2009 - link
Who has more GPU market share?
Yes, that's why Intel spent a a billion+ on Larrabee, for no reason at all, because they already ship the highest #s of GPUs. Intel loves to just toss money to the wind, it doesn't matter at all.
kkwst2 - Wednesday, December 09, 2009 - linkWhat? Talk about a straw man argument. The GP said nothing to imply that Larrabee didn't matter, but was just responding to the ludicrous assertion by the GGP that Intel didn't do anything else well/successfully. Reply
EnzoFX - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkWhy so much shit towards Intel. Their IGP's are not for you, that's fine, but there's no reason to call it a bad product out of rage. The IGP itself just works for MOST computer users. If this wasn't the case EVERYONE would have a discrete solution, and Intel wouldn't have such a huge marketshare in the Graphics market, no one would allow it, not the OEM's, or MS.
They do work, just not for you, not for gaming. Sometimes people forget that they are not the majority. I'd say anyone reading Anandtech does not fall in this category, who have always been fine with Intel's IGP, or at least getting along fine with it. Reply
- Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkIntel's announcement wasn't too surprising or devastating, it just makes things a bit less interesting.
I am a long time reader of AnandTech (from its inception) and am not surprised by the above statement coming from this site. But I beg to differ; Intel has proven in recent news that they are indeed top nomine for the 'evil empire" award-perhaps for as long as 10 years. If all worldly claims ring true, Intel is at best an inhibitor of technology (except their own). What will the world be like without Intel's presence is always interesting- it will spark competition and innovation, once again, out of 2 car garages (figurative) where PC's began.
asH Reply
stmok - Monday, December 07, 2009 - link...Call it Larrabee 1.0 ;)
Gen 1 = Prototype.
Gen 2 = Learn from Gen 1.
Gen 3 = Start again based on what you've learned from Gen 1 and 2.
Gen 4 = Refinement of Gen 3.
I think I'll stick to ATI or Nvidia solutions for a good while yet. Reply
Mike1111 - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkI also asked about Haswell in the comments of the last Larrabee cancelation article. Because it was my understanding that some future version of Larrabee was planed to be integrated into the Haswell architecture as a GPU/AVX2 hybrid.
Anand himself mentioned something like this in his IDF 2009 Larrabee Demo article: "Nehalem was architected to be very modular, Jasper Forest is just another example of that. Long term you can expect Nehalem cores (or a similar derivative) to work alongside Larrabee cores, which is what many believe Haswell will end up looking like."
At least, I was one of many ;-) Reply
haukionkannel - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkIntel don't need anything faster than their today IGP's...
Most consumer are happy with even that. But yeah to PC-players this is not so good news. Reply
MamiyaOtaru - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkbecause that's by far the most important benchmark for SSDs amirite? Reply
MrDiSante - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkAnd random reads/writes that blow anything else out of the water. I recommend you actually read an article or two on this fine site about SSDs. Reply
Devo2007 - Monday, December 07, 2009 - link..never mind the fact they've had to pull firmware releases TWICE in a row to fix major data loss issues. Yeah, Intel's got a great track record with SSD technology right now. :p Reply
MrPoletski - Wednesday, December 09, 2009 - linkThose major flaws that Intel pulled its SSDS for were ni reality fairly minor and unlikely to affect Joe Public.
If it had been another company, the existance of a fault would probably have been denied completely. Reply
Devo2007 - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkJust to clarify: Intel SSDs are generally pretty good, but they have to run further tests on the firmware before releasing it. Reply
bradley - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkOr how about substantiated claims about Intel's X25-E SSD having hardware/firmware problems which cause performance slowdowns and operational time-outs -- and at least one documented account of an enterprise storage provider who has kicked Intel to the curb, Pillar Data Systems Inc?
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9138130/Pil...">http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/...SSD_to_t... Reply
AnandThenMan - Monday, December 07, 2009 - link
Instead, the first version of Larrabee will exclusively be for developers interested in playing around with the chip. And honestly, though disappointing, it doesn't really matter.
This can't be taken seriously, really. Larrabee is a very very important product for Intel. Without it, they will have nothing to fight AMD and Nvidia in the inevitable HPC sector using some form of GPU acceleration. It's going to happen, which is why Larrabee was born in the first place. To say that "it doesn't matter" is asinine at best, of course it matters! It matters a whole hell of a lot, and the failure of Intel to make Larrabee a sellable and viable product is a huge setback, financially and otherwise. Intel didn't sink a vast amounts of money into Larrabee just to have it barely survive as some sort of developer platform. This was Intel's full on fray into making a real graphics chip.
How does Intel expect to fight Fusion now? They will have nothing that will come even remotely close. This whole article is a big fat attempt at trying to soften the blow, it's beyond silly and honestly fairly insulting to the readers. Sites like this are supposed to tell it like it is, and the truth is Larrabee is a giant, multi-billon dollar flop. Yes Intel can absorb it, but that doesn't make the failure any less significant in its own right.
AnandThenMan - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkI would also like to add that AMD gets flogged and beaten with the point that they don't have a processor that can hang with Intel's best. But at least they have a processor that is fairly close. Turn things around, Intel has zero in graphics that can compete with AMD, yet Intel gets a pass.
Intel should stop fooling around trying to make an x86 based graphics chip and design one properly, or buy up the IP to do it. Larrabee is essentially Intel trying to use x86 to monopolize the graphics space, but found out the hard way that x86 is terrible at doing graphics, the reason real GPUs exist it he first place. Reply
beginner99 - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkIMHO the are building this in x86 because sometime in the future you will just have the 100+ core array seen the Intel slides on which each core can be used for graphics or as CPU. So you actually don't have any distinction anymore between CPU and GPU.
This would be pretty nice since the system can be balanced very nicely theoretically that your neither GPU nor CPU limited. Reply
smartalco - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkYou seem to miss the part where Intel isn't canceling Larrabee as a consumer part permanently, they are just delaying consumer release. Pretty much everything you just said is irrelevant if you look past the one line you quoted. Reply
AnandThenMan - Monday, December 07, 2009 - link
You seem to miss the part where Intel isn't canceling Larrabee as a consumer part permanently, they are just delaying consumer release.
Who cares? Something that exists in a lab or in obscurity for years on end doesn't do Intel any good, never mind the consumer. You can't buy Larrabee, and won't be able to for who knows how long, maybe never. Which makes it a failure, period. No amount of spin and excuses can change that. Apply the same logic to any other product, and say, well it's not available, won't be for years, but it doesn't matter it isn't actually canceled! All is well, nothing to worry about.
Pure nonsense. Suppose Fermi is never released, and Nvidia announces in 3 months that it won't be a real product, but will live on as an internal project. Will anyone really being saying, it doesn't matter? Of course not. The only reason Intel can get away with this is because it's not there core business. But that is going to hurt them going forward, because the GPU and CPU are on a collision course, it's only a matter time. Which again, is exactly the reason Larrabee was conceived in the first place. Reply
Minion4Hire - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkIt does Intel a TON of good if they can get functional, realistic hardware into the hands of developers to play with and help them refine their product. I doubt Intel wants to release a part that no one is willing to buy because of the inevitable problems it will have upon launch, regardless of how well or poorly it performs. By holding back and letting the developers pick it apart they have more time to improve Larrabee and are more likely to be able to limit/counter the difficulties they will encounter when it's finally launched. Reply
AnandThenMan - Monday, December 07, 2009 - link
It does Intel a TON of good if they can get functional, realistic hardware into the hands of developers to play with and help them refine their product.
So you're saying up until this point, Intel had no Larrabee cards in the hand of developers?
You know what does even more good? Having and actual product on the market AND in the hands of developers. That's how hardware becomes successful.
By holding back and letting the developers pick it apart they have more time to improve Larrabee and are more likely to be able to limit/counter the difficulties they will encounter when it's finally launched.
How is holding back going to somehow magically make Intel able to improve Larrabee at a faster rate than they were working at before? It's not. Reply
Minion4Hire - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkMORE developers.... Sony tried to get game studios to develop for the Cell, but a lack of development meant that there were few reasons to buy a PS3 in the first year or two after its release (unless you wanted a Blu-Ray player). Intel could have a more successful launch if they can familiarize Larrabee with and receive feedback from as many developers as possible.
And I never said that holding back will "improve Larrabee at a faster rate", I said that they'll have fewer problems with the product when they do launch it.
Seriously, you seem to be trying too hard. Intel has working hardware but they don't feel it's ready. I'm willing to bet their major hurdle right now is software more than hardware, but either way if it isn't ready then it isn't ready. Trying to break into a new market with a half-done product would be a stupider move than delaying it until it IS ready. Reply
LaughingTarget - Monday, December 07, 2009 - link"Intel could have a more successful launch if they can familiarize Larrabee with and receive feedback from as many developers as possible."
Here's the rub with this hypothesized plan. Familiarizing ones self with a product isn't some simple matter. This requires taking people away from productive products to simply learn another option. What business in its right mind would do this? This would amount to Intel getting free testers. Moving personnel over to new chipsets is an expensive endeavor and companies won't simply test Larrabee, espeically since the when, or even if, of its release on a mass scale. As it stands, "getting familiar" is either dumping cash into a huge hole or completely upside down when present values of the investment are considered.
This is why it took developers a long time to get ramped up on the PS3 and Cell. Sony had to foot the bill to get companies like Naugty Dog, Insomniac, and Konami to put out major games that actually took advantage of Cell. Cell is showing to be totally dead in the water everywhere else. Consumer computing, the big dollars, hasn't picked up on it and likely never will. As such, Sony had to show developers personally that money could be made by investing in the skills to properly use Cell, even though after the PS3 it's likely a dead technology.
This is the only way Intel can get Larrabee off the ground. This notion that software development companies are going to waste valuable resources beta testing an unknown quality needs to be dropped. Intel has to fund and market a product that uses Larrabee and prove that it can make it because, otherwise, all we have to work on is Intel's history, which is far from something Intel wants to advertise when it comes to graphics processing. Reply
Zool - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkThe thing us that with a full x86 core + graphic they will never EVER catch a pure GPU like radeon 5800. They will be ALWAYS behind for size and cost, only if people wouldnt care about price it could work (and that wont happen). Its like running a graphic trough some emulator, they will always need more ressources than a pure GPU. Not to mention that the performance in new games will be higly driver dependant. All games would need a specific driver aproach to run at full speed. Reply
The0ne - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkYou know, there are companies out there that uses IGP to run their machines. And some of these companies are quite big. There isn't a huge need to for graphics power, just a means to display something on the screen.
Case in point, in a previous company I worked for years ago, we had a contract with Arrow/Intel to purchase their PCs for our mfg needs. We had hundreds monthly. Why don't we want a better graphics card? Well for one we're running OS/2 Warp :) But most importantly, there wasn't a need at all...not in the banking/financial industry. Even now the servers I built to process all the financial transactions use plain old IGP.
To make matter even worse, we were paying for hardware that exceeded the requirements of the system itself hahaha. What we really needed was a bigger bandwidth, of which fiber optic was designed in as the bus. But the CPU speed, the RAM, the graphics and especially the storage were all ridiculously un-needed. But you can't get "older" generations so you pay for what's current. Sucks when you're in the position.
All I'm saying is it's good that Intel wants to better the chipset but it's even better that they are taking their time to work things out. The market will be there when it does come out, they're not going anywhere. Reply
Zool - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkLarrabee selling as a 100% discret graphic is FAIL from the 1 day.
Larrabee as a discret graphic + HPC CPU could actualy work.
So they just canceled the pure discret graphic thing to save themself from another itanic. Reply
rolodomo - Sunday, December 06, 2009 - linkto compete with AMD Fusion, especially several years out. Intel tried to do it themselves, and they couldn't pull it off. They probably have much more respect for Nvidia now.
AMD/ATI v. Intel/Nvidia Reply
dagamer34 - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkHave you been living under a rock? nVidia doesn't want to be purchased, and certainly not by Intel. And there are so many regulator hurdles that would have to be jumped that it would never get pass regulations. Realize that they'd own 80% of the GPU market plus a huge part of the chipset market. And once AMD bought ATI, they stopped making Intel chipsets. Reply
JHBoricua - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkNvidia has 80% of the GPU market? Only in their PR department. Otherwise, citations needed. Reply
martinw - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkI think the previous poster meant that Intel+Nvidia together have around 80% of the GPU market. Reply
Khato - Sunday, December 06, 2009 - link[QUOTE]Intel hasn't said much about why it was canceled other than it was behind schedule. Intel recently announced that an overclocked Larrabee was able to deliver peak performance of 1 teraflop. Something AMD was able to do in 2008 with the Radeon HD 4870.[/QUOTE]
The overclocked Larrabee demonstration was an actual performance of 1 TFLOP on a SGEMM 4K x 4K calculation compared to the theoretical peak of 2 TFLOP, no? One article regarding the demonstration stated that the same calculation run on a NVIDIA Tesla C1060 (GT200) comes in at 370 GFLOP, while AMD FireStream 9270 (RV770) is only 300 GFLOP. So it's not something AMD was able to do in 2008, unless crossfire is taken into consideration at which point it might be possible. Anyway, point is that the hardware isn't comparable to the GT200/RV770 generation. Reply
br0wn - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkActually Anand is correct. Here is a link to an actual performance of 1 Teraflop SGEMM using Radeon HD 4870: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=54842">http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=54842
The quoted 300 GFlops for RV770 from BSN is based on unoptimized code. Reply
Khato - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkNice find, really goes to show how finicky all of these GPGPU applications tend to be at current. Going from 300 GFLOP on the unoptimized code to a bit over 1 TFLOP with properly optimized code a bit over a year later is indeed quite nice. Though it also raises the question of whether or not the LRB1 hardware can be coaxed to get as much utilization of its hardware. If not, then hopefully the results gathered will at least be used to remove those bottlenecks from LRB2. Reply
HighTech4US - Sunday, December 06, 2009 - link"Instead, the first version of Larrabee will exclusively be for developers interested in playing around with the chip. And honestly, though disappointing, it doesn't really matter."
Well I think it does matter as all Intel will have for the foreseeable future is the same crappy graphics they have had for years.
And it looks like Apple seems to think Intel's graphics are so bad they want nothing to do with them:
Apple ditches 32nm Arrandale, won't use Intel graphics
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/12/5/app...">http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/20...randale2... Reply
IntelUser2000 - Sunday, December 06, 2009 - link[quote]
Apple ditches 32nm Arrandale, won't use Intel graphics
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/20...randale2...">http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/20...randale2... [/quote]
I don't believe this. The reason is because when you plug in an external GPU, the IGP will be disabled anyway.
Plus, BSN has been wrong on so many things, its surprising people take most of its articles as more than just humor. Reply
HighTech4US - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkBSN was very right about Larrabbe:
10/12/2009 An Inconvenient Truth: Intel Larrabee story revealed
Whats really funny is seeing Anand and Charlie doing their revisionist writing that the Larrabbe consumer part cancellation was always expected or doesn't really matter.
I haven't stopped laughing yet.
Jaybus - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkI don't think it will matter. Larrabee is not a waste. Forget graphics for a minute. There are many other uses for a Larrabee-like chip in the embedded space. Think of it as a MLC flash controller, a TCP/IP acceleration chip, an I/O processor, etc. The same silicon could be used for all of these with just a firmware change. Larrabee technology could make all of these application-specific controllers much cheaper and easier to produce. Reply
IntelUser2000 - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkI'm not saying they are wrong with everything but...
write enough crap and you are bound to get few right. Reply
HighTech4US - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkI somehow missed the topic change to Charlie and his Semi-Accurate site because "crap and bound to get a few right" is more like his drivel. Reply
JarredWalton - Sunday, December 06, 2009 - linkIf Arrandale is really power hungry (i.e. more than the 25W TDP in current Pxxxx CPUs), the move makes a lot of sense. Apple is probably looking towards lower power parts. Even the lowest power i7-720QM uses a lot more power than most Core 2 parts; how much would half the core count and 32nm help? Enough to make Arrandale competitive with Core 2, probably, but I am skeptical that the initial parts will actually be significantly better for battery life. Again, waiting for something else on Apple's part would make sense.
There's also a question of whether Apple might not use Arrandale + discrete with the ability to switch between the two. They do that already on the MacBook Pro, only with 9400M and 9600M. If OS X will run on Intel's IGP, which it should, I'd guess it's more likely we'll see hybrid GPUs rather than an outright shunning of Arrandale.
/Speculation. :) Reply
StormyParis - Sunday, December 06, 2009 - linkIt's funny how Intel bungled pretty much everything else they ever tried to dabble in:
- networking
- graphics (they've been trying for a long time either IGP or discrete, and never made anything that didn't suck... I seem to remember Dell's DGX in 1995 ?)
- non x86 CPUs
It's almost like they subsconsciously don't WANT anything but x86 to succeed. Or they just' can't succeed when they don't have a mile-long headstart. So, let's once and for all except the fact that they got lucky x86 got chosen by IBM for PCs, managed to more or less (with gentle prodding from AMD at times) not mess up too bad their stewardship of the x86 architecture, but can't get anything else right.
Let's stop wasting time following Intel. Will get faster procs, that consume less, every few months, with different power vs consumption levels. Thanks guys. Reply
Gasaraki88 - Friday, December 11, 2009 - linkIntel network cards are one of the best one there. I choose them for my ESX servers. Reply
taltamir - Tuesday, December 08, 2009 - link"It's almost like they subsconsciously don't WANT anything but x86 to succeed."
funny you mention that, because they insisted larabbe would be x86. Yet there was no reason to, larabbe gained nothing and lost a lot from being forced to be an x86 chip. Intel is shooting itself in the foot here by trying to fit a round object into a square hole. Reply
sanzong - Wednesday, December 09, 2009 - linkshouldn't it be "trying to fit a round object into an oval hole", :-) Reply
FJD - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkRather than bash or praise Intel, might it make more sense to look at the larger context? Could products and opportunities linked to Light Peak in (multi)-multi-core 86s have (temporarily?) eclipsed or sidetracked Intel's efforts in discrete GPUs? Similarly, could Intel have decided to place more effort into getting iphone-capable CPUs into mass production rather than divert energy and capital into GPUs? In short, is Intel now aiming less at high-end graphics and focusing more on shorter-term solutions to provide a lot more graphic power for the average user .... while delaying its re-invention of GPU wheel?
cdillon - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkIntel bungled networking? Intel makes some of the best NICs you can buy, wired and wireless. Or did you mean something else?
CharonPDX - Monday, December 07, 2009 - link"Networking", "Dabbled in"?
Intel is generally considered to be the gold-standard of PC/serer network hardware for everything but the ultra-high-end "mission critical" segment.
(Yes, their attempt to get into network switches has been pretty much halted at the mid-range level; but even at that level, they're rock solid.) Reply
knirfie - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkWhat do you mean bungled?
Intel network cards and network chips are really good. They were more or less you could get onboard or for a reasonable price as a stand alone card.
And they may not produce the best graphics IGP's around, when talking about 3D performance. But they have done really wel in that segment, with about 50% marketshare in graphics. They were also first with interesting techs as 7.1 LPCM over HDMI. Reply
Kougar - Monday, December 07, 2009 - link""But they have done really wel in that segment, with about 50% marketshare in graphics.""
That is like saying Microsoft has done really with in the browser market with IE because they have a >50% market share. Anything couldn't be further from the truth. Reply
Jaybus - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkIt's nothing like IE. They don't give away IGP hardware for free. 50% of that market is a substantial profit for Intel. Reply
Kougar - Thursday, December 10, 2009 - linkThey have given it away for nearly free or below cost in order to sell their CPU's to major OEM's on more then one occasion in order to push their CPUs.
Just looking at their IGP chipset prices they don't cost anymore than the non-IGP versions, around $3-5 more from what I know. Reply
Jedi2155 - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkI'm with you on the network department as I absolutely love intel wireless chipsets over most of the other vendors as well as their wired Ethernet implementations. Reply
The0ne - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkAlso love Intel Networks but don't like their Server side at all. Didn't pan out so well and it was a rough time working with them (ServerWorks) at the time (10 years ago I believe). Reply
n7 - Sunday, December 06, 2009 - linkYeah those SSDs they've made are just terrible... Reply
jeffrey - Sunday, December 06, 2009 - linkYou bring-up some interesting points. I would like to add Itanium. Tukwila is running a little late just like all of the other members of the family.
Anand, any chance of an in-depth status update of the Intel Itanium Architecture? Reply
Taft12 - Monday, December 07, 2009 - linkUhh, he DID include Itanium when he mentioned non-x86 CPUs.
I don't know of Intel screwing up any networking business. Their ethernet cards are regarded as some of the best available. Reply


text:
A blend of 75% wool and 25% hemp, resulting in a modern tweed effect, soft to the touch yarn which is a joy to knit. Wool and hemp create 'breathable' knitted fabrics which are cool to wear in warm weather and warm in colder temperatures.
A wonderful cotton drape yarn which shows texture and cable detail. Softknit Cotton is also interchangeable with Handknit Cotton.
Felted* Tweed Aran is a wonderful, tweedy yarn with a felted look, is a beautiful blend of merino wool, alpaca and viscose.
*Please note, this is a lightly pre-felted yarn that knits to a lightweight fabric with a felted effect. Please follow care instructions, as the yarn may felt further if washed incorrectly

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Originally written on IMAGE CPR SPORTS | Last updated 11/19/14
This is without a doubt Kate Upton's most successful year as a model — so we've compiled her sexiest Instagram shots that celebrate her curves. Upton, 21, was recently crowned Model of the Year at the 10th Style Awards in New York. Models.com ranks her the 3rd sexiest model in the world and Maxim places her No. 8 on its Hot 100 list. This year, Upton landed the covers of Vanity Fair, Elle, Vogue Brazil, American Vogue, British Vogue, Harpers Bazaar (Korea, Vietnam, Greece and Brazil) and the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition— for the second consecutive year.
Comments are closed.
What do you think?To leave a comment, you can:
Entertainment News
Delivered to your inbox
You'll also receive Yardbarker's daily Top 10, featuring the best sports stories from around the web. Customize your newsletter to get articles on your favorite sports and teams. And the best part? It's free!
Follow us on Twitter
|Best of Yardbarker
|NFL News
|MLB News
Today's Best Stuff
For Bloggers
Join the Yardbarker Network for more promotion, traffic, and money.
Company Info
What is Yardbarker?
Yardbarker is the largest network of sports blogs and pro athlete blogs on the web. This site is the hub of the Yardbarker Network, where our editors and algorithms curate the best sports content from our network and beyond.
|© 2015 Yardbarker, Inc. All rights reserved. Use of this website (including any and all parts and components) constitutes your acceptance of these Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. (What's New?)


text:
If you read nothing else today, read Anthea Butler's piece on women of color and feminism [1]. Read it if you are White. Read it if you are a man. Read it if you eat green eggs and ham. If you choose to continue reading this post instead of going directly to Butler's, I will offer a few highlights, a nugget's worth of closing remarks, and a reminder to go read it again. She offers a succinct history lesson, a recommended path forward, and a stark reminder that the interplay of unacknowledged privilege and systematic oppression deplete any kind of feminist praxis. She writes,
"Not recognizing that privilege of whiteness or class hampers the ability of feminists across ethnic lines to join together for common causes."
I react: we need every one of us to realize the revolution. Let's get it together! We can do this, but it's going to take a lot of work. She writes,
"Ignoring our common struggles and presence because of white privilege and historical ignorance is no longer an excuse. Solidarity cannot come from only one group reaching out to the other. White feminists must come to grips with their own internalized structures of racism, classism, and even sexism that prevent them from seeing other feminists of color."
I react: this coming to grips with internalized privilege and oppression seems to be the key here. We need to examine what's going on inside ourselves and our organizations if we are ever going to get past the everyday barriers that hold us back.
As a White feminist and aspiring White anti-racist, I am finding that it's invaluable to make sure that I am finding the time and space to unpack my own experiences of privilege and internalized oppression. An anti-racism training with Cultural Bridges to Justice [2] allowed us the space to do just that. The result seems to be a collective of individuals who were recharged in their efforts to dismantle oppression.
The trainers reminded us that feeling guilty about having privilege does nothing to help anyone. In place of guilt, take action. jona olson of Cultural Bridges [2] offered an equation that makes good sense, and I think could be adapted for any kind of privilege:
White privilege + passion for racial justice + ACTION = White anti-racist
That was the nugget. This is the reminder: go read Women of Color and Feminism: A History Lesson and Way Forward [1].
Links:[1] http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/07/28/women-of-color-and-feminism-a-history-lesson-and-way-forward/
[2] http://www.culturalbridgestojustice.org/
[3] http://www.nsvrc.org/blogs/feminism


text:
Greater Toronto Area, ON 2017 SaveAround® Coupon Book
Price: $30.00
Price: $30.00
The 2017 SaveAround® Program is better than ever! With our expanded National Section, SaveAround® Mobile App and online coupons, you can easily Save-on-the-Go! Download the App on the App Store or Google Play™ and activate your SaveAround® Membership by using the Savings Pass Number on the front of the book. This will give you the most up to date savings our program has to offer.


text:
By clicking submit you agree to our T & CBook Now
You will receive your OTP on 9986293101Want to change your mobile no?
We will contact you shortly.
"Is your tap leaking? Or is water dripping from the jet gun? Then all you need to do is give Gapoon a call and it will get fixed in no time. Whenever you have any leaks in your house, it's time to book plumber online in Pillanna Garden, Bangalore via Gapoon."
The leakage of water from your tap and faucet not only create an irritating noise but can also be harmful for your life. The leakage can arouse a lot of environmental concerns and also face the problems of slip away, fungal growth as well as can impose a serious health hazard. Another dangerous thing is that if the leakage comes in contact with open electricity it might cause an electric shock.
Very happy with your service Had made a plumbing request to get my dishwasher installed. Workmanship of the plumber Ajit was very impressive. Work was apt and neat and he was very timely and courteous too. Would definitely recommend your service.
Just what I was looking for! Finally found an app which provides efficient quality plumbing services. Way to go.
Nice app, good service The easy UI and fast service makes it best.
Explore our wide range of trending services and get acquainted with the array of plumber services that we provide through the help of our vendors. Our trending services are a right option for all your household problems. Check and choose the below-mentioned plumber services as per your requirement.


text:
FotoDiSpalle | Italy | Reggio Emilia | Reggio Emilia | Vele di Calatrava (North Bridge) - Reggio Emilia, Italy - October 14, 2012
This work by Giorgio Galeotti is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright © Giorgio Galeotti
For Attribution please use: Photo by Giorgio Galeotti
e m a i l : f o t o d i s p a l l e @ g m a i l . c o m
Note: I will not answer any questions regarding copyright, either mine or third parties'.
The CC BY 4.0 License should be clear enough!


text:
A clever pairing of God Rest Ye Merry Gentleman and Carol of the Bells. Beginning with an ethereal echo of Carol of the Bells, the trumpets present eerie fragmentations of
This item is temporarily unavailable from the supplier though we still may have stock. Add to cart to check availability and for more information.
This is a straightforward yet beautiful arrangement of the famous tune. It will require sensitive musicianship and good technique, but is such a fine piece, it practically plays itself.
The musical material for Sound Reflections was inspired after a trip to the Grand Canyon. The open voicings of quartal harmonies reflect the canyon's vast expanse. The work is fun to perform and
Orchestrate Your Inbox
What are your interests? Fine-tune your email so you receive only what's important to you.
Thank you! Please check your inbox. We've sent an email with a link to update your preferences.
Pepper Music eClubs
Everything you need for the upcoming season and special recommendations from our editors! Each club is sent monthly (unless otherwise noted).
General Music
Music Library
Cued In - The Pepper Blog
A weekly digest of insightful articles, helpful resources, and interviews with leading composers and arrangers
Subscribe to Cued In
Thanks, you're almost done! Please check your inbox and click the link to complete your subscription.


text:
Boot Barn Item #: 1012484
Easy Returns In Stores and Online
All Boots Ship Free (more...)
All Boots Ship Free (more...)
Color: Click a button belowcolor
size: Click a button below Size Chartsize
width: Click a button belowwidth
PrintBoot Features:
Hit the town in style in these Women's Lucchese 1883 Mad Dog Western Boots. The premium leather shaft and foot, leather sole and outsole will have your feet in comfort and style.
- Made in the USA
- Premium goat skin leather
- 12" Shaft height
- Detailed stitching on shaft
- Fashionable snip toe
- Cushion insole for added comfort
- Pull straps for easy wear
- Leather outsole
Hit the town in style in these Women's Lucchese 1883 Mad Dog Western Boots. The premium leather shaft and foot, leather sole and outsole will have your feet in comfort and style.
The 12" shaft will look great with jeans, dresses, or skirts. Made in the USA you will find quality craftsmanship in every pair with the finest grades of leather made with the hands of true bootmakers.
Style(s): N4525
Toe Type: Snip
Outsole: Leather
Lifestyle: Western
Country Of Origin: USA
Heel Type: Western/Cowboy
Lining: Leather
Upper Material: Goat
Shaft: 12"
Material: Goat
Heel Height: Medium
Closure: Pull-On
Print Hand Crafted Premium Quality Boots Sam Lucchese, Sr. and his brothers made the trip to America in 1880. Throughout his childhood, Sam dreamt of a career in bootmaking. Only three years after landing in America, the Lucchese Boot Company was born in San Antonia, Texas. The Lucchese family has kept the tradition alive. Not until the early 1960's was the company vision improved which entirely changed the art of bootmaking. It was Sam Lucchese, Jr., his grandfather's namesake, that took the Lucchese Boots to the next level. With focus on a superior fit there are not other western boots that fit men and women like a Lucchese. Sam Lucchese, Jr. was committed to continuing the rare art and spending the time to make Lucchese Boots. He continued to make boots with the finest grade of leathers, hand-driven lemon wood pegs and meticulous finishing of each boot. To improve the fit and what makes Lucchese Boots stand apart from the rest is the one-of-a-kind boot last design that requires more skill and time to achieve superior comfort, quality and fit. Sam, Jr. knew this would take time and master craftsman to achieve and that's why everyone knows Lucchese provides the finest quality boots in the world. There are no substitutes for a master bootmaker. Lucchese men's and women's boots demand more money, time and skill, but you will know exactly when your foot slides into a Lucchese Boot. Each and every pair is hand-inspected twice for quality and as close as you can get to perfection. Almost every procedure is done by hand so you know you are getting the best of the best. If you are looking for comfortable western boots for today's urban cowboy, look no further than the best... The Lucchese Boot Company.


text:
ARM Partners Ship 50 Billion Chips Since 1991 - Where Did They Go?by Anand Lal Shimpi on 3/31/2014 9:00 AM EST
- Posted in
- IT Computing
- Smartphones
- Mobile
- Enterprise
- Tablets
- SoC
35 Comments
Back to Article
jeffkibuule - Monday, March 31, 2014 - linkI'm guessing this doesn't include custom core SoCs like A6+ and Scorpion/Snapdragon. Reply
r3loaded - Monday, March 31, 2014 - linkIt doesn't as it only counts shipments of ARM's processor IP rather than any architecture licenses. Reply
errorr - Monday, March 31, 2014 - linkI think your wrong. The Cortex-A are the custom chips that use the instruction set but aren't a specific design. Just like the Cortex-M are just IP blocks in things like modems and other chips throughout any device. Reply
extide - Monday, March 31, 2014 - linkNo, Cortex A is a specific line, and things like Krait, and Apples Swift and Cyclone are NOT Cortex A, even though they are ~compareable. Stuff like the MTK, Allwinner, Exynos, and some of Quallcomm's designs that use the stock ARM IP (Like Snapdragon 610 and 400) are Cortex A. Also, some of the earlier Apple SOC's like the A4 and A5 (which were Cortex A8 and A9, respectively) Reply
blanarahul - Monday, March 31, 2014 - link"ARM Partners" Ship 50 Billion Chips Since 1991 - Where Did They Go?
ARM Partners. This includes Apple, Qualcomm everyone. Reply
coder543 - Tuesday, April 01, 2014 - linkNo... ARM doesn't make any chips. ARM just sells designs, so while it does include Qualcomm and Samsung, I would strongly lean towards the interpretation that these numbers only reflect ARM silicon shipments. Custom from-scratch designs like Apple's A7 or Qualcomm's Krait probably are not reflected in the data. Both Samsung and Qualcomm have shipped chips that use ARM designs, and both have shipped chips that do not use ARM designs but are ARM compatible. (Remember: Apple does not manufacture chips. Apple gets Samsung to manufacture their chips, traditionally.) Reply
FunBunny2 - Tuesday, April 01, 2014 - link-- Custom from-scratch designs like Apple's A7
Not really. As the other posting shows, Apple *assembles* the various blocks of ARM architecture into an A7. That's hardly "from scratch". An English major likely couldn't do it, but a competent EE sure could. Reply
hypopraxia - Friday, April 04, 2014 - linkUmmm...you are dead wrong. The cyclone core you mention is ARMv8 instruction set compatible, but is by absolutely no means assembled from off the shelf IP blocks. Did Apple license a GPU for inclusion in the A7, yes. Did they license a CPU for inclusion in the A7, no. Reply
SeleniumGlow - Monday, March 31, 2014 - linkWith this article I am now interested in seeing if Intel too follows the lisencing of IP route. Going by the way ARM is going, this is what appears to be the logical route, so so I think Reply
Dribble - Monday, March 31, 2014 - linkLook at the turnover of ARM, look at the turn over of Intel. It's completely impossible for them to do what ARM does. Ironically they exist that way because they could not compete with Intel - instead of turning into AMD mk2 then stayed very lean and mean, living off $0.5 profit/chip. They went for the market Intel didn't want (embedded) and didn't attempt to control the market (like Intel and x86) but licensed designs to everyone.
This is much more appealing to everyone using their chips as it's cheaper and gives them more freedom. Hence Intel's great problems getting into the ARM markets - even if they can produce competitive chips Intel can't survive on the tiny profits ARM makes, and no one wants to go back to being controlled by Intel anyway so will often license ARM in preference to buying x86. Reply
grahaman27 - Monday, March 31, 2014 - linkCHARTS! FRAGMENTATION!
I kid. Reply
jjj - Monday, March 31, 2014 - linkARM entering the server market with small cores has always been just the starting point, the intention to go bigger was always there.Ofc the industry is slow ,first they'll need to gain some market to develop the software ecosystem and might take some time before we see big cores. On the desktop side i keep saying that i wish the ARM guys would define some new standards and have a go at it.Wouldn't it be nice to start with a clean slate and modernize the desktop? Oh well, maybe AMD will sell us the server chips ,maybe Denver is good ,maybe Steam OS gets some ARM machines, or maybe not. Reply
StormyParis - Monday, March 31, 2014 - link60% of 50 billion is 30 billion for mobile, that doesn't make sense any way you slice it, unless we're talking cores, not processors. Reply
grahaman27 - Monday, March 31, 2014 - linksince 1995? seems reasonable. How many times have you purchased an ARM-based device in the past 20 years? personally I've purchased at least a dozen, and I am just one person. Reply
Penti - Monday, March 31, 2014 - linkIt makes perfect sense, a common smart phone uses around 10-15 ARM-cores today, and has always used at least 2-3 ARM-cores back to the feature phone days. ARM licenses cores. The processor IP is per unit (so that can be say 10 per chip) not per chip. IP is the keyword here. Reply
HammerStrike - Monday, March 31, 2014 - linkFrom the first paragraph of the article:
"The bigger story was that the 10 billion in 2013 brought the cumulative total for ARM based processors to over 50 billion (note that these are discrete ICs, multiple cores within a single design are not counted multiple times)."
They are not counting individual cores, but discrete IC's. Granted, there may be a couple discrete IC's in each smartphone that ARM is licensing, but it is not an inflated count based on cores.
Latest data I found was 1 billion Android activations as of Sept 2013, with 1.5 million activations/day as of April 2013. So say in the last year they did an extra 750 million device activations (assumes activations/day continues to increase), and maybe another 500 million IOS devices that licensed the specific cores, and you have 2.25 billion "smart" phones. Say they have 3 IC's each on average licensed from ARM (no idea if that is a reasonable number or not, but that's what I'm going with), and you have a total of 6.75 billion chips from smart phones. If that math is within an order of magnitude that means ll the Nokia, Motorola, etc feature phones from the mid-90's on still make up the vast majority of their mobile total. But that would seem to be at odds from Anands statement that "37.5 of the 50 billion chips shipped in the past five years (2009 - 2013)". Either my estimates of smart phones/tablets totals is way off, the amount of licenses ARM gets per unit is significantly underestimated, or there is still a ton of feature phones shipped in the last 5 years.
No longer sure of the overall point of this post, but it's already typed, so I'll submit it. Reply
Death666Angel - Monday, March 31, 2014 - linkData I found (smartphone shippments):
2010: ~300 m
2011: ~500 m
2012: ~650 m
2013: ~ 1 b
= 2.45b
Add to that some few hundred million tablet shipments, laptops, who knows how many dumb and feature phones.... Reply
Penti - Monday, March 31, 2014 - linkRead the damn graphs, it clearly says IP shipments! Each ARM core is an IP shipment. If you count IC's then a modern phone basically has a two, three or four ARM-powered chips. In reality these represents over 10 IP licenses from ARM. Just a modern application processor with built modem has at least something like 5-10 ARM cores. Nowadays there is usually a couple of ARM microcontrollers doing other tasks too, stuff like WiFi also includes an embedded cpu-core. Remember the X8 moniker for Moto X? That phone has a dual-core application processor, plus two other ARM cores, plus a couple they didn't count such as the baseband which can contain ARM cores (Intel's and several others does any way) now you have big.LITTLE with 8 cores too, plus the rest of the cores in the system. All from ARM basically. Older phones had like 2-3 cores, newer like 4-10 when it concerns ARM. Most of the sales are from the last five years most def. A few billions units quickly becomes those 37.5 billion, but you can pretty much conclude that those numbers includes wireless broadband cards and so on too.
If you just look at the Cortex-A graph, you see that they basically has come up to two billion a year by 2013, less than a billion a year for 12, a couple of hundred for 2011, an just tens of millions in 2010. Yet they didn't sell close to two billion devices with Cortex-A in 2013. Many system there was dual-core, quad-core and so on. Some were single-core, like chips for wifi routers or stuff for older devices. Reply
AndyKH - Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - linkPenti, you should stop being rude and read the first paragraph. Anand specifically emphasizes that the numbers represent discrete ICs containing ARM IP. Reply
name99 - Monday, March 31, 2014 - linkcumulative...
I've owned an iPhone, iPhone 4, and iPhone 5. And an iPad and iPad3.
Additionally it's possible that every one of these phones (even if you count a dual CPU SOC as just one) had a separate low-power ARM running the RF part of the system. Once you get to iPhone 5S you explicitly have a low-power separate core handling sensors on a separate SOC, and other phones may have had something similar for a while, just didn't talk about it.
I think it's feasible. Reply
Kevin G - Monday, March 31, 2014 - link"A smart man once told me that no one wins by betting against performance."
For the desktop/server markets this is indeed very wise. In mobile, the metric to avoid betting against is power consumption and that's one of the key reasons why ARM is in 50 billions chips. Throughout their history, there has always been some one faster than ARM but not necessarily better performance per watt. Reply
PEJUman - Monday, March 31, 2014 - linkI am guessing the "A smart man once told me that no one wins by betting against performance." statement came from x86 world, AMD maybe?
Although I admit I now own more AMD cores than intel ones, albeit for the wrong reason.
Ebay-ing old nehalems, yorkfields, ivy bridges recovers a lot more capital than selling old brazos... :( Reply
dylan522p - Monday, March 31, 2014 - linkSilvermont atom wins in performance to watt vs anything ARM puts out. (only apple beats them but that's only slightly) Reply
Kevin G - Monday, March 31, 2014 - linkThe catch is performance per watt. If the amount of power being consumed is higher than what can comfortably run in a smart phone, it really doesn't matter how much faster a chip is at that point as it simply will not work in that form factor. Reply
Wilco1 - Thursday, April 03, 2014 - linkIf that were true, then everybody would be making phones with Silvermont in them. Where are they??? Reply
landerf - Monday, March 31, 2014 - linkI was expecting something along the lines of how many are now in a landfill. Reply
Jeffrey Bosboom - Monday, March 31, 2014 - linkIsn't recycling to recover metals (gold contacts etc.) economically viable (in countries with cheap labor and weak occupational safety authorities)? Of course consumers probably mix broken phones with normal household waste but I'd imagine enterprise and embedded to pay a bit more attention to disposal, especially if they can sell the waste to recyclers. Reply
ruthan - Monday, March 31, 2014 - linkPls add to those graph intel, i would be realy interesing. Reply
name99 - Monday, March 31, 2014 - linkIt would be interesting to place this number in context compared to MIPS and PowerPC.
As far as I can tell, MIPS and PPC do substantially better than ARM in highish end networking equipment, from cell tower equipment to network appliances. I THINK (with little to back it up) that they're also stronger in printers.
I don't know where or if Freescale give their shipment numbers, but It's interesting to see that their revenue is split pretty much evenly across micro controllers, networking, automotive and "analog & sensors", about $800M annually in each segment. I'm guessing that micro controllers equals printers and hard drives, and I'm surprised that auto is as large as it is --- maybe those are specialized CPUs hardened for heat and used to control the fuel injection? Reply
Kevin G - Monday, March 31, 2014 - linkWhile not a large market, I knew an engineer who was working with PowerPC equipment in avionics. I've been told that PowerPC is still popular in the automotive industry. Reply
name99 - Monday, March 31, 2014 - linkARM IS doing this. That's the point of Linaro and SBSA.
You could wish that this had all happened sooner, but everything's running eighteen months later than it should because of ARM's bizarre delay in getting into the 64-bit game. However it is happening, and better late than never. Reply
FunBunny2 - Monday, March 31, 2014 - link-- A smart man once told me that no one wins by betting against performance.
Well, that was true before Good Enough Computing became the law of the land. There's a reason so many PC/devices still sit on XP. Further, since there are vewy few embarrassingly parallel problems (still) and clocks are about as fast as one can get without melting the chip, it's going to be interesting to see whether there's much sequential performance left to be harvested and/or the compiler writers can turn purely sequential code into optimal parallel instructions.
I'm betting that we're near, or in, a vewy long pewiod of stasis. Reply
npz - Monday, March 31, 2014 - link"The enterprise slice may be a bit misleading depending on what you define as enterprise. We often refer to enterprise in terms of primary CPU shipments into servers. In this case we're talking about chips that go into things like routers and wireless access points."
It's a good thing you clarified that because I was a bit surprised at the graph. I would also consider the embedded processors in various server controllers (LOMs) also as "embedded" and not enterprise.
Nonetheless, I'm curious to see their evolution in actual server/desktop computing. Reply
MrRez - Wednesday, April 16, 2014 - linkWere did they go? Most of them would be in a landfill somewhere am guessing. wonder where the next 50 billion will end up? Reply
Krysto - Saturday, May 17, 2014 - linkIntel must not be very smart then, because they've been focusing mainly on power consumption to "catch up" with ARM. The irony is that by the time they do that, ARM will catch up with them in performance, if they launching Broadwell and Skylake with barely any *overall* performance improvements over Sandy Bridge, as they try to push power consumption lower and lower.
They lost in the same way with Atom, which used to be several times more powerful than the highest-end ARM chip, and now it barely competes on the CPU side, and that's with half a node advantage + Trigate, and it's a full generation behind in graphics performance (maybe more, compared to mobile Kepler). Reply


text:
ADSRWhat is it? Attack, Decay, Sustain, Release
Added By: Destiny
The ADSR definition has been viewed 82 Time(s)!
Send To Friends!If you'd like to send the ADSR definition to yourself or to your friends/colleagues, just enter the e-mail addresses in the boxes below -
We hope you now understand the meaning of ADSR. If you need any more information on this term, please don't hesitate to contact us.


text:
Nikon 1 V2 review: Evolution, stasis or regression?By David Newton - Thursday December 20 2012 Sensor Review
Launched in October 2012, the Nikon 1 V2 is a not unexpected update to the Nikon 1 V1, which debuted in September 2011. The Nikon 1 Series cameras are hybrid cameras with interchangeable lenses. In the case of the V1 and V2, they fall at the upper end of the segment, offering more features and a higher performance level than their more consumer oriented brethren, the Nikon 1 J1 and J2.
Featuring a 14.2megapixel 'CX' sized CMOS sensor and an EXPEED 3A processing engine, the camera claims to offer high resolution images. An ISO range from 160 to 6400 suggests Nikon feel it will perform well in low light too.
The AF system is another area of interest as the V2 is able to switch automatically between a 73-point system using phase detection and a 135-point system based on contrast that uses the camera sensor for AF. If you're interested in capturing motion, the V2 has that covered too, with up to 15fps shooting speed when using AF or 60fps when using single shot shooting.
All of this suggests the Nikon 1 V2 should be a formidable tool for capturing high quality images. Let's see how it stacks up in the sensor tests.
Nikon 1 V2 sensor performance
Nikon 1 V2 versus competition
Further readings for the Nikon 1 V2 review: Evolution, stasis or regression?
To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.
In the Nikon 1 line of digital compacts with interchangeable lenses, the V2 brings some nice new features: shooting at 60 i/s, Full HD video recording in 60p, different modes for slow motion, and … a new 1-inch, 14.2-megapixel, 6400 ISO CMOS sensor that we can hardly wait to test! But while we wait for its appearance on the market, here's all the skinny on the Nikon 1 V2.
Added by noirist | August 21 , 2013
Does the 1 have a market?
The V2 with FT1 mount adapter and high burst rate seems like an attractive proposition for Nikon owners until you look into the details. The FT1 is limited to center point single servo AF, which makes it nearly useless for moving subjects. So you'll have to use native Nikon 1 glass for any kind of action photography, and those lenses are large, heavy, and low in optical quality versus their M43rd competitors. And the DxO tests show that anyone shooting a D800 or even a D5200 will be painfully disappointed by the image quality coming out of their V2. The only photographers that would benefit from Nikon 1 are those upgrading from a camera phone. And then they would be better served by other cameras, including the M43rds system or even the Sony RX100.
Added by mike162 | January 30 , 2013
Nikon 1 V2: Evolution, stasis or regression?
The review misses the whole point of this camera. The V2 has a huge attraction, by using the FT-1 Mount Adapter it is possible to mount pretty much any Nikon DSLR lens. Taking into account the dslr like autofocus and the X2.7 crop factor the excellent Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED (around £330) becomes a 190-810mm lens, just great for birds and wildlife.
The lens, FT-1 and camera would weigh around 1100gr and cost $1300ish (but will come down). An APS-C camera with similar spec would weigh close to 5000gr & cost $9000ish. Sure, its a fact that the resolution of the APC-S camera would be superior, but would it be 3900gr & $7700 superior?
Added by AaronMC | October 25 , 2012
Gotta' give them credit
You gotta' give Nikon credit; it's a dead-end product, but they are doubling down, which is commendable service to those who bought into the system.
Reply | Read all replies for this comment
First replies for this comment
Added by birdlives | November 01 , 2012
Re: Gotta' give them credit
I usually don't feed the trolls, but how a camera with solid IQ, and blazing fast AF, and a huge buffer (capable of 12 fps with the J1 and 16 fps with the V1) a dead-end?
So Nikon with it's first try made a camera with a smaller sensor that is competitive with many larger sensor cameras like the EP3, and absolutely demolishes the competition when it comes to processing data, fps, PDAF on the sensor, etc.
The Nikon 1 sounds alive and well to me. Few will lose sleep over it over your dislike of the Nikon 1 and tons of people will continue to buy it. Nice try though.
Added by AaronMC | November 04 , 2012
Re: Gotta' give them credit
I replied to your previous post.
Thank you again for condescending to me. It really helps your case.
Added by pwgrmi | November 16 , 2013
Re: Gotta' give them credit
Aaron, your post is clearly a troll. Have you ever used a 1? I shot the Pikes Peak Hill Climb this year with a V1 and a D700. In some ways the V1 is faster, and the results fabulous.
Really, a dead-end product. Not for those willing to look past the idiots trashing a camera they have not used.


text:
A Messy Transition (Part 3): Vista Buys Some Timeby Ryan Smith on 8/13/2007 3:00 PM EST
- Posted in
- Systems
37 Comments
Back to Article
initialised - Thursday, February 14, 2008 - linkAfter installing Vista SP1 on a Maximus/QX9650/4GB system it showed a full complement of 4GB under Vista Ultimate 32mb Reply
Ichinisan - Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - linkCan we take a look at how SLI is affected by this? With two 1GB video cards, could you hit the addressing limit in XP (or two 768MB GTXs or 640MB GTSs for that matter)? I remember that you had trouble doing that. Reply
leexgx - Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - linkSLI systems have the same work space as one card an 7900 GTX 512 in SLI does not turn it into an 1GB video SLI system the frame buffer is still 512mb (last time i checked as Both cards Need the same Textures as both cards render half of the video thats why its was Daft calling an 7950 GX2 with 1gb of video ram (basicy 2x7900 GT cards running off 1 PCI-E) when it can only Use 512MB of it)
Blacklash - Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - linkMS was gutless and decided not to push it. Instead of trying to create demand by instilling desire, which can easily be done through effective marketing, they took the lazy "there's no demand" approach. What makes me angry is they have the money to create a hell of a marketing blitz if they so desire, and could even eaten the possible initial loss of attempting to force a move to x64 if they had to. Get a spine MS. Go for it. Reply
MadAd - Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - linkof course they didnt push it. The natural time to swap to x64 was the recent vista launch, but A. Intel were still playing catchup with x64 on c2d and B. After all that time in development they had to get some return, so they fobbed us off with the x32 as the mainstream product, which is really at the end of its life now.
So what next? Well M$ know damn well that half the rest of the world are waiting for SP1 before touching vista with a bargepole so that'll be hurried out the door and dressed up in more BS marketing..and then what?
Filling the marketing void between SP1 and whatever next will be the 'transition to 64' era. Yes yes lots of chubbly money to be made giving people what they want, not when they need it like now, but when its best to make the most money from it. Reply
BikeDude - Thursday, August 16, 2007 - linkThey recently announced that Windows Server 2008 is the last server product to support 32-bit CPUs. It is not known at this time if the next client version of Windows will also drop 32-bit CPUs.
But the writing is on the wall. Sort of.
However... A lot of users will not benefit from a 64-bit OS, but can still use 32-bit Vista just fine. Many will see the increased memory usage of 64-bit Vista as a problem (despite the cheap memory prices) performance-wise. For the vast majority of users, it makes little sense. Some of them may even be using some 16-bit Windows software for all we know... Why force them into problems they don't need? 32-bit Vista is a great stepping stone to 64-bit Vista. There is a choice, and I think most of us needs it.
If you look at the forums (and the article we are commenting), many punters advocate sticking with 32-bit Vista for the foreseeable future. It is a cowardly stance in my opinion, but they present some valid concerns. Reply
poohbear - Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - linkvery informative article! dont mean to be nit picky, but u guys use words in some wierd contexts: a program taking "sovereign control" of memory? "assumingly"? lol interesting usage. cheers for a great article nonetheless! Reply
Tristesse27 - Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - linkRyan, with all respect, you seriously need to learn how to use commas. Reply
Larso - Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - linkAs long as you are running 32 bit, with 32 bit addressing, the ultimate barrier will always be 4 GB. So isn't this 2 GB barrier problem a bit acedemic, as we are only one bit short of spending all 32 bits of addressing anyways? We are already hitting the roof and a factor of two is not significant in the long run.
But hitting roofs seems to make people paranoid, which is understandable with the otherwise unlimited resources of a modern PC. But everybody seems to have forgotten how it was in the old days. How hardware limitations forced developers to be creative and ingenious with great results. You don't see that today, it seems more like developers are acting like spoiled kids.
Perhaps its healthy to face a hard resource limitation again, so developers will be forced to make efficient use of the resources. Its not that 2 GB is a tiny amount of memory, it's actually a huge amount. And when there is a justified case for using more, there is always 64-bit. Reply
MadBoris - Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - link
Perhaps its healthy to face a hard resource limitation again, so developers will be forced to make efficient use of the resources. Its not that 2 GB is a tiny amount of memory, it's actually a huge amount. And when there is a justified case for using more, there is always 64-bit.
It's by no means huge for games, which have always pushed hardware to it's fullest.
The problem is that those that set the limits, are the most guilty of waste (MS). Try using managed .NET and see RAM usage climb exorbitantly in applications. Vista itself claims extensive amounts of RAM as applications open up on the PC (w/ superfetch off). Also Vista uses more CPU cycles compared to XP for a game (maybe only certain games, maybe not). I also didn't ask MS to commit 20+- percent of a CPU core to sound as they think I should do now in Vista w/ software.
As we get more hardware resources MS is right there to "waste" it, not really using it efficiently or gaining performance from more HW resources, which should be the obvious result. Cutting out hardware sound best suited their needs (I really think it had more to do with pushing xact and moving devs to 360 consoles). Furthermore, tighter control on GPU makers with restricted WDDM helped their needs with a prettier desktop to compete with MAC (maybe wddm2 will bring more to the table). DX10+ API's also now further limit the individual 3D features that GPU companies can expose in their hardware, they have to have the API support first to expose features and WDDM support to expose how resources are managed.
I'm not into MS bashing or conspiracy theories, but their comes a point that "Sovereign" control becomes better for the king and worse for the people, it inhibits creativity. Maybe it will take an "upheavel" but that sure won't come from any outspoken hardware MFR's or IHV's because they have to maintain best relations, regardless how poorly and yet dominantly, MS steers the ship.
Devs will have to become smarter with resources, but as this article clearly shows, that needs to begin with Microsoft first, they are most guilty in the OS and dev languages and runtimes. So I am not exactly filled with confidence when they remove hardware sound and take tighter control of the future of 3D features with their API support and hardware functionality with their driver models.
It's not an MS rant, but if MS is going to take tighter control of all the reins, and everyone else has to adapt to them, then they should be the ones to answer for things. Since they made it their responsibility, they should be held accountable not the companies like Creative and Nvidia that have to struggle with the difficulty of adapting to the stringent choices MS makes (for their competitive reasons). Reply
Ryan Smith - Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - linkYou're right in that the 2GB barrier seems academic when we have the 4GB limit right above that, but in practice it's not. All 3 of the major games we listed run just fine with 2GB of RAM, yet all of them were prone to crashing due to running out of virtual address space(especially under Vista) which means that the real problem is the 2GB barrier and not the 4GB limit. In other words developers don't have another 2 years to put off worrying about some "way off in the future" problem, they must start doing so today.
You're probably right in that we're going to see some developers tighten up their code in the face of the 2GB barrier. I fear we may also see them simply stop raising the bar altogether, and turn the PC in to some twisted static console. Reply
leexgx - Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - linki beleve windows only alowes 2gb (+2gb virtual) in 32bit mode (even if the OS is 64 bit if the program is 32bit windows 64 uses the same rules as 32bit os for compatiblity so its stuck with 2gb realy untill programs become native 64bit but thats an long time before that ever happens 5-8 years maybe) Reply
bsteff - Monday, August 13, 2007 - linkI will NEVER use any form of Vista because I am unalterably opposed to the DRM and the insulting philosophy behind it. As a Physician who uses a Windows XP machine to view critical patient images, I cannot tolerate the "tilt bits" and degradation that Vista will cause. Maybe one day Microsoft will get this DRM right but it usually takes them at least 3 tries and neither I nor my patients can take that chance! (automatic image degradation, processing slowdown, etc.if DRM violation is suspected by Vista) The memory problem is the last straw as it is obvious that MS wants to use the flaws in XP 64 bit to drive users into Vista (and give MS control of their own machines) For me the only way to go is Linux/Unix. What MS does is irrelevant. I am pressing our imaging software suppliers to develop for Linux and get rid of the entire MS problem in one fell swoop. Reply
yyrkoon - Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - linkUh . . . O-K . . . What does that have to do with the article at hand ? No one is forcing you to use any form of Windows, and I wish you *NIX Zealots would resist 'sharing' your oposition to anything MS related, or at least stay where people may listen or believe you (slash dot ring a bell ?).
Anyone who uses Windows has most likely already passed by the hurdles those of you who are opposed to using Windows have not. We really, REALLY, do not wish to 'share' in your misery . . . Next thing you know, you'll be telling us that MS is forcing you to use Windows, because application developers do not write their code for anything else . . .
You named only one reason why you would switch from Windows to Linux. I can name you 10's if not 100's of reasons why I would never switch over to Linux 100%. Driver suppport, Intuitive user interface, the OSS development model just to name three.
Now, ask me what I have just posted has to do with this article . . . Reply
smegz68 - Monday, August 13, 2007 - linkNot only are games hamstringed by Vista. I have issues when working with large meshes and complex characters in apps like Carrara, Poser 7 and Bryce 6. Poser won't even let me load new models without locking up. When I look at the task manager, physical memory is usually maxed out at 2G or very close. The pagefile size is also right there at the 2G mark. Even running them in compatibility mode doesn't help. Thank god I still have a fast XP system I can do that work on. Reply
Ryan Smith - Monday, August 13, 2007 - linkI don't know those applications inside & outside, but I believe the answer is no. This is a fix relating to address space consumption due to video RAM usage, those applications aren't GPU accelerated in any way as far as I know. Reply
CZroe - Monday, August 13, 2007 - linkI'd still would like to see address space assignments in a system running SLi vs. one without. If address space usage can be effectively doubled in this configuration, it could make it significantly easier to hit this limit even with the patch. Reply
leexgx - Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - linkSLI systems have the same work space as one card an 7900 GTX 512 in SLI does not turn it into an 1GB video SLI system the frame buffer is still 512mb (last time i checked as Both cards Need the same Textures as both cards render half of the video thats why its was Daft calling an 7950 GX2 with 1gb of video ram when it can only Use 512MB of it) Reply
BikeDude - Thursday, August 16, 2007 - linkI think you are slightly wrong.
I suspect the cards won't automatically be addressed as one (and have identical memory contents). The driver will be responsible to transfer textures to both of them, thus they will both need to be mapped into the system memory space. I.e. if you have a 4GB system memory, 32-bit Windows will forget about 2x512MB memory (given two 512MB cards) instead of just 512MB. I read one magazine that claimed they lost more system memory in a SLI system than just a regular one card system (with two 768MB cards, they were left with 2.2GB system memory).
The processes themselves will likely be unaffected, and as you say the video memory mapped into them will remain 512MB in size. (given a single card or two SLI cards w/512MB memory)
I hope more people will move to 64-bit Windows and return any hardware that doesn't offer full 64-bit support. Anything else is ridiculous at this point. Reply
leexgx - Thursday, August 16, 2007 - linkok the part about adress space on windows 32 with an 8800 768mb SLI, only seeing 2.2gb system ram is the driver with kernel space
what your saying is lost to kernel not used system ram just in this case the other half of the ram is not been used for any thing but kernel drivers (this does not happen in 64bit mode)
SLI cards max frame buffer is the size of one card Both cards need the texture data on both cards as both of them do half load rendering
if the cards are Not in SLI mode then yes both cards have inderpendent frame buffers
if any one has any hard info on this it be nice to know but i am quite sure i am right (i am not braging just from when i got my 7950GX2 as alot of reviews Pointed that out that its not 1gb card its 2x512mb in SLI so max textures before ram use is 512mb) Reply
johnsonx - Monday, August 13, 2007 - linkWhile Vista may be worse than XP in regards to how much of the user address space it uses for the same app, isn't it better in that it's safer to increase user address space to 2.6Gb on Vista than it is to use the /3Gb switch in XP? As long as the developers of big game apps make them large memory aware, then won't Vista provide a net benefit? (ie the same app under Vista will allocate a 10-20% larger chunk of the 30% larger address space vs. XP).
Of course this requires fiddling in the Registry to enable the 2.6Gb allocation; perhaps MS could add something to SP1 to smooth this process, or maybe even make it default if it can be determined to be safe enough for mass use?
Chadder007 - Monday, August 13, 2007 - linkDoes anyone know why its hard to get X64 still on PCs from the likes of Dell/HP/Lenovo still? I know that HP offers Ultimate x64 at least on some of their consumer PCs but not basic or premium. Reply
johnsonx - Monday, August 13, 2007 - linksimple: support headaches. Too much stuff still isn't 64-bit compatible. They just don't want the hassle of all the extra calls to support, and the angry customers who are told they have no recourse but to purchase a retail copy of 32-bit windows.
johnsonx - Monday, August 13, 2007 - linkand I can't blame them either.
ikjadoon - Monday, August 13, 2007 - linkBF2 literally CTD's with this issue.
I've heard claims that with this you cannot use unsigned drivers with these hotfixes, can Anandtech confirm that for us? Many of us using Vista are using Beta (aka unsigned) drivers because WHQL versions are few and far between. Thank you!
~Ibrahim~ Reply
Ryan Smith - Monday, August 13, 2007 - linkAll of the games we used also can crash due to the issue(and much more frequently than BF2).
As for this hotfix, it does not stop using unsigned drivers. I have heard however that one of the other subpacks for SP1 does break this under x64. Reply
MadBoris - Monday, August 13, 2007 - linkThanks Ryan for showing the before and after effects of the patch. It is clear Vista still has it's overhead unfortunately. Even if a game avoids hitting the 2GB wall by thorough testing and optimization (in a fixed footprint game unlike SupCom), the problem is all developers are being handicapped by RAM for PC now. We have the GPU and CPU power to render more and handle more, but memory size is a restraint to overall game design now for certain genres. Even though console games won't be very effected by PC ports, but standalone PC games that could really address more memory in a couple years won't be able to. As for now 2GB RAM is the current sweet spot for a gaming rig, but it's a slippery slope as we get close to the ceiling.
I'm all for the 64 bit solution, as it is the only viable one. It really needs to become more mandatory that applications and games start doing proper x64 versions, some good apps still lack support. I fear the "strong encouragement" from MS isn't enough, maybe new tools they can come down with Visual Studio could make it easier for devs to verify code and do a proper 64 bit build.
Also, I think Microsoft should do a special promotion where users can buy a 64 bit Vista upgrade if you own 32 bit. 1/4 the price or better will make the transition easier and more inviting to Vista 32 users. I think MS would make plenty of money because more people would take the leap, and at the same time help the market adoption to 64 bit. Without MS making it an easy transition price wise for platform saturation, it also won't happen. As it is, 64 bit support is growing very quickly over the last 6 months by developers, it's promising but we need a 32 bit cutoff by MS I fear, maybe with the next OS would be a good time. Reply
BikeDude - Thursday, August 16, 2007 - linkNo, 2GB is no longer the sweet spot for a gaming rig. One year ago -- sure.
Even though your game will at most utilize 2GB memory, there is still a need for the OS to cache stuff, and you might have other applications running in the background. Nothing is sweeter than having BF2 not touch your hard drive after a while... (I've had 4GB memory for two+ years now)
Given how cheap memory is now, 3GB or 4GB is closer to the sweet spot. Reply
leexgx - Thursday, August 16, 2007 - linkvista norm running you should have 2gb at least or pc mite be an little slow with 1gb with just running norm programs like norton and 1 copy of internet explore + msn printer and so on can realy lag the pc out (gameing on 1gb ram can be an drag but if the game settings are low any way mite not matter)
gamers on vista should aim for 3gb min
for later on maybe just buying 4x1gb or 2x2gb ram be better so all the ram is the same and you can get 64bit windows later on or Now (seems to be working fine for me but some games perform not so well game is jumping when FPS is high)
Shawn - Thursday, August 16, 2007 - linkYou can switch from Vista 32bit to Vista 64bit by just using the 64bit installation dvd. You can use your same key. You don't need to re-buy Vista. Reply
MadBoris - Monday, August 13, 2007 - linkbah no edit function...correction...
"the problem is all developers are being handicapped by RAM for PC now."
...handicapped by the 2GB memory ceiling for PC now. (handicapped in development) Reply
stash - Monday, August 13, 2007 - linkCalling PSS for hotfixes is no longer required. You can request hotfixes through the web.
https://support.microsoft.com/contactus2/emailcont...">https://support.microsoft.com/contactus...act.aspx... Reply
Rebel44 - Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - linkDirect link to hotfix download http://hotfixv4.microsoft.com/Windows%20Vista/sp1/...">http://hotfixv4.microsoft.com/Windows%2...2739/600... - its password protected (password: {8ly8YX2 is valid untill 8.17.07) Reply
leexgx - Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - linkpassword must change offen link
has both files to x86 and x64 (useing the 64 one now)
uses with cards that are less then 512mb (e.g. 256mb) are likey to be less affected or not affected at all as most games would be unplayable on Very high detail settings on them type of games so running out of ram probly not happen on lower end cards Reply
n0nsense - Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - linkstay with "quality" buggy products of MS and you will experience much more :)
Linux (and all xNIX OSes including Mac OS X) moved to native 64 bit few years ago. I'm personally use Gentoo x64 since my upgrade to C2D (more then year) and i didn't felt the transfer. Almost every software available as native 64 (including commercial soft like Nero). and what is not, working seamless (even 32bit drivers on 64bit system).
for people that does not have 64 bit hardware, there is a kernel (OS) support for 64GB of RAM. and first 4GB can be shared between system and user spaces as 1/3 GB (respectively) 2/2GB and 3/1GB. this can solve the issue for microsoft, but it seems they are too greedy to solve the problems for what you already have paid, they will force you to pay for something else with different problems ;)
this is not anti MS or pro xNIX post, the suggestion for solution is inside. Reply


text:
Kids Pro Soccer TOTS 2-3 program is specially designed for that age group, and introduces structure, rules, and discipline of soccer through fun games and interaction with constantly changing activities that keep them focused.
Older tots gain a sense of teamwork and cooperation.Kids Pro Soccer understands that an effective soccer practice includes a variety of soccer drills and activities.
Youth Kids Pro Soccer players focus on perfecting their individual skills so they perform them correctly in game situations such as improving balance, coordination and decision making.
With every new skill learned at Kids Pro Soccer, kids gain the confidence to embrace a lifetime of possibilities. What you get it's… priceless bonding time…
Trying soccer for the first time, or mastering your skills? Kids Pro Soccer Summer Camps are a great opportunity with a focus on footwork, balance, and explosive drills.
Designed for anyone, regardless of age, and skills level. Kids Pro Soccer will first evaluate and then develop player's soccer abilities necessary in the game of soccer.
KPS classes are held at daycares, preschools, public and private schools, parks, churches and mother's day out facilities. As a parent or director you can add KPS to your program!
What can be better than playing with Kids Pro Soccer? Playing with your friends at your own time/day and location! It is more than a play date every time soccer practice is on!
Indoor soccer training typically lto focus on the fundamental skills of the game. First touch, passing soccer players move the ball quickly and accurately to avoid losing possession.
Fun for everyone at a Kids Pro Soccer Birthday Party! Unforgettable experience for your child where fun, games keep kids of all ages active and engaged. So easy and inexpensive!
"Investing in Kids" by Kids Pro Soccer became the best soccer curriculum since 1998. Kids Pro Soccer has been investing in young children only, and has established a growing trend offering the best of athleticism to a full and healthy childhood.
For many reasons such as low risk of injury or effectiveness in fitness, soccer is becoming the better and safer option for kids in the US.
Soccer with Kids Pro Soccer is a wonderful, fundamental Tots, Youth, and Parent/Child program introducing kids in DC, MD and VA to take part in and learn to work with their friends and peers to achieve goals together giving them a lifetime experience within and beyond soccer field.
Soccer is a simple game that kids of any age and either gender can play. Physical stature is unimportant, making the game suitable for children of all shapes and sizes. As a result, soccer is a very inclusive sport, and it provides numerous physical and social benefits.


text:
Lisette Wide Dresser
- No Longer Available -
Designed to mix and match with other furnishings for an eclectic look, our dresser highlights the artistry of vintage furniture, and is an exacting reproduction of an antique.
More Details & Dimensions +
Product Not Available
We're sorry. This product is no longer available
Please continue browsing.


text:
Freshman Taylor stands out in scrimmage
Published: Saturday, April 6, 2013 at 6:39 p.m.
Last Modified: Saturday, April 6, 2013 at 6:39 p.m.
Freshman running back Kelvin Taylor was the biggest bright spot in Florida's offense Saturday.
With starting tailback Matt Jones sitting out all but one of the scrimmage sessions and upperclassman Mack Brown seeing little action, Taylor rushed for 59 yards and a touchdown on 11 carries and also caught a 3-yard pass in the Orange & Blue Debut.
UF coach Will Muschamp called Taylor a talented runner who has the ability to make an impact this year.
"Some positions are easier than others to contribute as a freshman and (running back) is a natural instinct position," Muschamp said. "You give the guy the ball and let his natural instincts take over and run for daylight. He can do that, it's the other things we have to brush up on."
"Kelvin's got a really strong lower body. He runs through contact extremely well. He has natural instincts in the run game, but we just have to continue to get the turns, the reps, the protections and all the things you have to be able to do for us at running back. But I'm extremely pleased with his progress."
Jones was impressed with Taylor's performance, particularly his pass protection, which is something he struggled with in the spring.
"I thought he did great today," Jones said. "Awesome job. He hit the hole well, caught the ball well, his protection was excellent. He usually messes up on stuff like protection. But now he has it down pat."
Brown finished with just three touches for 14 yards, while walk-on Mark Herndon had seven carries for 44 yards and a touchdown.
Jones knows he has to stay on top of his game despite already securing the starting job.
"It was a tough job at first competing with those guys," Jones said. "All the running backs are great running backs, all of them have talent. It was a great competition. I still can't fall off right now. I still got to keep on going and keep on being humble."
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.