text:
It's easy to earn Skywards Miles on everyday spending and leisure activities, as well as when you travel. If you are a member of a selected partner loyalty programme, you can also convert Points into Miles to boost your balance.
Click a partner name in the categories below to find out how you can take advantage of your Emirates Skywards membership, and to see any current special offers that will help you earn bonus Skywards Miles or give you extra value for your Miles when you exchange them for rewards.
NEW: Your World Rewards from Emirates Skywards and Starwood Preferred Guest. Sign up today
Already a member?
If you are ready to spend your Miles with one of our partners, please fill in the relevant online request form. You will need to be logged in to send a request.
How do I buy a reward with an Emirates Skywards partner using Skywards Miles?
To spend your Miles on a reward with participating partners, including partner airlines, please fill in the relevant online reward request form.Read More
How do I find all the special offers that are currently available with an Emirates Skywards partner?
Please go to the partner page where all the current special offers are listed.Read More

subset: commoncrawl


text:
A confident woman who knows how to get things done. Can do any assortment of these things: sew her own clothing, cook nourishing food, clean quickly and efficiently, raise smart, outgoing children who know how to question the world around them, fix any number of household and/or automotive problems, work from home with kids and pets running under-foot all day long, provide stimulation for said kids and pets all day long, work away from home while still having to run a household in her 'spare' time, knows how to cure any health malady or offer comfort to sniffly partners and children, supports partners in any desires of their heart and expects the same in return. A hausfrau doesn't act as a doormat and speaks her mind, and rarely has a spare minute to bother with wondering if the job she is doing is enough because, of course, it is - all the while striving to be a better mother and partner, often putting others before herself.
That woman can do it all, she's a real hausfrau.
by pinheart January 17, 2012
The Urban Dictionary Mug
One side has the word, one side has the definition. Microwave and dishwasher safe. Lotsa space for your liquids.Buy the mug


text:
Cycling in Dangchang Chengguanzhen
Discover all cycling routes and bike maps in and around Dangchang Chengguanzhen.
- Offline Maps
in more than 250 regions worldwide
- Offline Navigation
save battery and roaming costs
- Premium Support
get help from the Bikemap experts
O aplikaci Bikemap
Bikemap is the world's biggest collection of cycle routes. Create your perfect bike route with the online cycle route planner and get our mobile apps for simple navigation, route tracking and for finding popular cycle routes near you.


text:
bayahta on Etsy
Hand-knit Baby Blanket with matching hand-crocheted Doll. Blanket is pink with white lacey crocheted borders. Dolly wears a frilly white and pink skirt and jacket made of the same yarn as the blanket; she also has a big pompon and wears a cap with a visor and two little pompons. Hand washable. Measures: 36" wide x 40" long "Dolly spends the day sitting in the sun cheering for her favorite team from the comfort of her favorite blanket."


text:
Extra 10% Off when the item is back in stock!
I love you. Please forgive me.My humblest apologies that this item is not in stock. I swear on the grave of my favorite recently departed chew toy, I will make it up to you! If you'd like to be notified when this item becomes available, enter your information below and click "Notify Me."
There are currently no items in your cart.
Dear Human,
I have worked with the finest furry tailors in the world, and am here to share my bounty of knowledge. Here's how to measure your pet...
Measure from the base of the tail (where it connects to the hindquarters) up to where the collar typically sits at the base of the neck, then follow up with a generous back scratch.
This is measured by giving your pet a
hug, during which you measure the entire circumference (all the way around) at the widest point of your pet's chest. This is typically right behind the front legs.
First, plenty of kisses. Then, measure the neck's circumference
(the distance around it) at the point where the collar sits.
Related Items
some items not same measurements as specified
Product Information
A Big Paw Designs original. Charms for collars! "Blessed" heart shaped pewter pet collar charm with a bone. Ring attachment included. Charm is Approx. 3/4" (Heart). Made in the USA.


text:
A person who enjoys the music of Justin Bieber, but is too afraid to admit this to the world or any one person besides themself for that matter. Being that this artist gets hated on just as much as he is adored, making the statement of liking this sixteen year olds music and style is something that not everyone is proud of or comfortable with; hence, they are still "in the closet" with their JB love.
Yes world, I enjoy My World 2.0. I've been a closet Bieberian for 4 months now and I just can't keep this a secret any longer. I get down to Baby every time I hear it on the radio. Please don't disown me mom.
by mlvd742 May 03, 2010
The Urban Dictionary Mug
One side has the word, one side has the definition. Microwave and dishwasher safe. Lotsa space for your liquids.Buy the mug


text:
Affordable Dual Core from AMD: Athlon 64 X2 3800+by Anand Lal Shimpi on 8/1/2005 9:36 AM EST
- Posted in
- CPUs
109 Comments
Back to Article
broberts - Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - linkISTM that the choice of Intel mobo is mistated. Further, IMO using an ASUS high-end mobo as one test platform and any Intel mobo as the other gives the former at least a 3% - 5% performance advantage. I wonder too, were all of the ASUS mobo's oc features turned off?
"The Test
Our hardware configurations are similar to what we've used in previous comparisons. For this test, we focused on CPUs at or around the Athlon 64 X2 3800+'s $354 price point.
AMD Athlon 64 Configuration
Socket-939 Athlon 64 CPUs
2 x 512MB OCZ PC3200 EL Dual Channel DIMMs 2-2-2-7
ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe
ATI Radeon X850 XT PCI Express
Intel Pentium 4 Configuration
LGA-775 Intel Pentium 4 and Pentium D CPUs
2 x 512MB Crucial DDR-II 533 Dual Channel DIMMs 3-3-3-12
Intel 925XE Motherboard [<======= Really???]
ATI Radeon X850 XT PCI Express"
robh3 - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkRendering in 3dstudio max benefits from dualcore cpus. It however, also benefits from hyperthreading if this is a mental ray render. I'd like to see results for the pentium-d and amd-x2 when rendering in 3dstudio 7 with mental ray. I think the advantage is significant, especially in video renders as it's mathematically more effective to have more nodes rendering.
For your future reference. Reply
MetroRider - Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - linkvery nice article indeed! know i just received three computers from Dell today with Pentium D processors, so i see the new X2 is a bit faster, but excited to try it out in general multi-tasking environments regardless.
One question i haven't seen answered is: How does a dual-core cpu compare against a true SMP dual-cpu system? Example would be a Pentium D 840 (or AMD X2 4200+) vs. 2x Pentium 4 - 2.8 GHz Xeon system? For the price, dual-core seems great. How does it handle running Windows 2000 Server or 2003 Server or running as an Exchange server?
If anyone has any input or has tried this, I'd be interested in knowing.
thanks again (sorry if the request is too off-topic) Reply
fitten - Thursday, August 04, 2005 - linkOh... also, since AMDs cache coherency implementation and the way the dual cores work is more efficient than Intel's, so applications that have to pass ownership of cached data (L1/L2) back and forth a lot will be faster on AMD X2 machines. Of course, this type of application behavior is usually considered to be the result of poor design, so use well written apps :) Reply
masher - Thursday, August 04, 2005 - linkActually, I'd give a slight (very slight) edge to Intel's approach on SMP systems....though AMD's Hypertransport is certainly far cleaner on paper, it hasn't paid off quite so well in practice. However, HT is considerably more suited for a NUMA-based multi-cpu architecture than for SMP. Unfortunately, there aren't many NUMA OS's out there at the moment... Reply
fitten - Thursday, August 04, 2005 - linkOne question i haven't seen answered is: How does a dual-core cpu compare against a true SMP dual-cpu system?
Depends. Dual CPU systems and dual core systems both have two cores running in them. The main difference is that two single core AMD machines (two Opterons) can have independent memory banks if you buy an appropriate motherboard. The dual core systems 9(both Intel's and AMD's) share the same pipe to memory. This isn't as big of an issue for AMD parts because the Athlon64 (single core) really doesn't make good use of dual channel memory anyway (dual channel over single channel is at best 20% faster in memory intensive apps while most see around 5%) so neither of the cores in the dual core setup get memory starved unless both cores are running full tilt (by benchmarks, I guess this would mean that if single channel were 1, dual channel were 2, the two cores running full tilt would need 2.4 channel memory to never be starved). The Intel parts, however, will suffer more. Dual channel memory on a P4 can be saturated by a single core so dual cores going all out can become starved a bit worse (one core would be 2, two cores would need 4/quad channel memory to never be starved).
So, your performance will depend on what types of applications you will be running. Reply
Tujan - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkWell Im missing the reasons for comparing the 640 Intel,and 630 D Intel when both are less than the AMD 3800+,and 3800+x2.
True if you where to take the 'best of'in performance to price between both Intel,and Amd the 640 Pentium 3.2 would be the comparitor .
Performance alone though,true AMD 3800+ surpasses the P4 640 .The 3500+ AMD 64 would have been a closer comparitive if solely on a price basis.
With both the AMD 3500+,or the Intel 640 to be either choice in that price point to have. They compare in performance as well.Especially since the next Pentium pricepoint the 3.4 Ghz 650 is the closer comparitor.
The 3800+ AMD 939 single is still more expensive than the Dual-Core 830 D . With the newest AMD 3800+ still at the 400$ spot.
Comparing the Intel 640 to the 3800+AMD is lopsided.
The Intel 650 is the closer comparator,in terms of cost.Still though the Intel 640 remains the gulf between them when cost is the comparator.
Im missing reason author chose to compare these specific CPUs. Since the Intel is clearly not in same performance class.Although for even reach of benchmarks,would be the best'of''in price points to beat.Should have compared the Intel 650,to the AMD 3800+.
AMD 64 3500,AMD 64 3700 would have been closer comparitors to cost between the two,to match up performance.Seen the benchmarks before between them.AMD winning some,Intel winning some.Howebeit,the Intel has HT.etc.
AMD 64 3800+ CPU is a tough machine.AMD 64 3800 X2 twice as tough.
Anybody know what the transistor count is for the Pentium D 830 ? Reply
coldpower27 - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkThe Smithfiled is 230 million transistors, it's interesting though, AMD more then doubles transistors count going from Single core to Dual core, while Intel is the opposite. Reply
Tujan - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkThanks for reply. Can you give me the link/URL for a chart on the newer CPUs with transistor counts included. Or can you tell me for example,the website,to go to to look at the chart ?
These new processors are simply nummy. Reply
redhatlinux - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkOnce again, I believe Anand has shown un-biased data. I run a Dell hyperthreading rig, just because its convenient. BUT, as others have pointed, the X2's were designed from the ground up to be dual, on chip. To have to leave the core, and use the FSB, just shows that Intel is playing catch up. Benchmarks can, and often do show whatever the person running the benchmark wishes to show. Anand has ALWAYS, IMHO, tried to show, unbiased, accurate DATA. The basic design of the long piped Pentium will almost always favor Intel in benchmarks which, in essence are SIMD, in nature. That is, processing streams of data, with a single instuction. Price points, for ANY given CPU, GPU, HDD etc will always be Market Driven. The complexities, which go into the pricing decisions are well beyond the scope of this forum IMHO. AMD will continue to offer innovative design, over Intels 'brute force', more megahertz must be better, approach. Reply
archcommus - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkCall me old fashioned, but since when was $350 affordable for a CPU? I prefer not over $200. :D Reply
ceefka - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkThe argument "with Intel you'd need a new motherboard" is invalid if you haven't built anything yet and start from scratch. That would easily leave options open for anyone to chose either. I agree that if your budget can handle it, you should at least consider the X2.
People still complaining about the price of the X2 should realize that this is no ordinairy gaming CPU and the newest tech never came cheap. Since the Pentium D is like two cores slapped together, it shouldn't cost anymore than it does.
I wonder if Intel's Pentium D had a slick architecture like the X2, it would be as cheap as the current Pentiums D. It's not the core itself perhaps that increases the cost as it is the tech that connects the two like the X2 does. Yes, that's included in the price of an X2 ;-) Reply
SDA - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkActually, you are wrong. It is the core itself that increases the cost. Larger core equals less cores per wafer and (generally) more defective cores per batch (if the possibility of a defect happening in one square millimeter is one in X..).
The technology connecting the two, R&D costs, are paid back in the A64's cost. I suppose in a sense they're paid back in every A64's cost, but the DIFFERENCE between the A64 and A64X2 has nothing to do with slick technology. Reply
coldpower27 - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkThere is also something to keep in mind, why shouldn't a processor with with a die size of 199mm2 Toledo core cost 75% more then the 114mm2 San Diego core? I mean you still want to get as much profit as possible per silicon wafer. It doesn't really help your bottom line if you sell more silicon area for a lower price to me.
Neither Intel's or AMD's procesor are double for Dual core die size,
Prescott = 112mm2, Smithfield = 206mm2. 84% Increase
San Diego = 114mm2, Toledo = 199mm2. 75% Increase
Venice = 84mm2, Manchester = 147mm2. 75% Increase
Though since Intel is just basically slapping two cores together with arbiter logic, if one core is defective on the silicon wafer, they can salvage a Prescott core from it, AMD can't do this, due to their Dual core implementation, though if the defect is in the cache, they can sell it as a Athlon 64x2, 3800+, 4200+, 4600+.
AMD's pricing structure though currently allows, for more margins on Dual Core processors while for Intel it is the opposite, margins are higher for their Prescott, Prescott-2M. Though they don't have to put up with this situation that much longer as Intel, has economical NetBurst Dual Cores for 65nm process. Though on that process there ar more interesting Dual cores as well. Reply
masher - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - link> "...why shouldn't a processor with with a die size of 199mm2 Toledo core cost 75% more then the 114mm2 San Diego...It doesn't really help your bottom line if you sell more silicon area for a lower price to me."
Because there are fixed unit costs in addition to the raw cost of processing a square mm of silicon. Costs that add to a lot more than the raw cost itself. You have to package the silicon, test it, pack it, ship it..not to mention R&D it, market it, and sell it. Those costs predominate in most cases. Which is why when AMD or Intel don't cut their prices in half the moment they move to the next lithography node.
Given a zero defect rate, a 75% larger die should be should be maybe a third more costly to sell. But that larger die also increases your defects/wafer by 75% (roughly) as well.
Example. Assuming a 70% yield (30% defect rate) on a single core chip, you'd expect around a 48% yield on the dual-core version. So each wafer gives you (0.75)(.48)/(.70) = 51% of the chips per wafer.
It gets much worse with low yields. For instance, a 50% single-core yield translates to a dual-core yield of a pitiful 12.5%! So when defects are high, you have to stick with small die sizes.
masher - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - link> "Neither Intel's or AMD's procesor are double for Dual core die size..."
True enough; I spoke loosely. Intel is considerably closer to double, though, which was my point. All else being equal, it should be AMD who can provide a cheaper second core rather than Intel.
> "Though since Intel is just basically slapping two cores together with arbiter logic, if one core is defective on the silicon wafer, they can salvage a Prescott core from it..."
An excellent point, and that may indeed be a larger factor in the price differential than the defect rate. Reply
coldpower27 - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkI don't really call a difference of increases of 9% that much, but I guess it's all a matter of perspective. Though in the end of the day, the difference between Intel Smithfield and AMD's Toledo is no more then 4% approx on die size.
There are also other cost advantages Intel enjoys, remember all 90nm production is on 300mm wafer processing, which allows for less waste and simply more die per wafer, and reduced resource use, while AMD won't be there till Q1 2006 when commerical production begins on Fab 36 and the activation of their Charter partner fab.
AMD's also uses SOI technology, which we see has benefits in curbing leakage, but we don't have a good idea on how much this technology adds to the cost of the wafer, from what I have seen, since AMD's han't made proclamations on how inexepnsive it was to implmement, cost is not a strong point of this technology.
masher - Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - link> "I don't really call a difference of increases of 9% that much"
Well, a 12% differential (1-.84/.75) to be technical...but its not huge. The point was just that it exists...and that it favors AMD, not Intel. Sans all the other factors of course.
> "remember all 90nm production is on 300mm wafer processing, which allows for less waste..."
Very true..and the wastage fraction gets worse with increased die size also.
> "AMD's also uses SOI technology...we don't have a good idea on how much this technology adds to the cost of the wafer"
A year ago, SOI wafers were triple the cost of bulk wafers. Probably a good bit less now...and the raw wafer cost doesn't include the processing and consumables cost. Finally, Intel's wafers are hardly bulk-grade either.
coldpower27 - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkAddendum: Coming on the 65nm process :D Reply
ceefka - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkSounds logcial. What I wanted to stretch is: there is still the difference in development costs for the Pentium D and the X2. The D being cheaper to develop than the X2 and then of course the volumes in which Intel can sell its double whopper. Reply
masher - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - link> "It is the core itself that increases the cost."
True enough-- but a die twice as large shouldn't be over twice the cost...unless your defect rate is pretty high. With a high defect rate, a double-sized die doesn't mean half the yield..it means 1/3 or less.
Intel's dual-core dies are twice as large as their single cores...AMDs are a bit smaller due to the already-embedded HT glue. If the defect rates were anywhere close, then AMD should be able to sell dual-core chips for a smaller premium than Intel. Since they aren't (which likely means can't), we must assume they're still having a fairly high defect rate.
SDA - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkThey could also just be charging a premium for the hot new thing. I suspect some of it has to do with AMD wanting to be known as high-end.. when people see Athlons in budget PCs all the time, Athlon becomes associated with budget.
Defect rate works too, though. I'm just throwing out other possibilities. Either way, I think we can agree that the CPUs don't cost more because of slick interconnect technology. Reply
krisia - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkHmmm, hasn't AMD said they've planned for dual core all along and already had tech in their single core chips to support it? So, now they decide to charge for the tech? The thing anand fails to mention is that 40% more money for 10-20% performance gain is not a "clear choice". The choice is much less clear in fact, if you consider you can't buy a X2 3800 yet... Reply
SDA - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - link40%? The X2 3800+ is supposed to cost $354, but the D 830 is $318 at NewEgg. That looks like a 10% price increase for a 10-20% performance increase AND a cooler processor. Seems like a fairly easy decision to me.
If you are suggesting that the inability to perform basic arithmetic is a reason to get the Pentium D, I concur. ;) Reply
krisia - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkIf you did the math, then you'd know I was referring to the entry price for the D820. Which is the value entry into dual core? No? Reply
SDA - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkThe AT review deals with the D 830, not the D 820. You used the numbers from the review and made your remark in the comments section of said review, and yet you feel it's obvious that you're referring to an unreviewed product even if you don't explicitly state such?
Let's leave that behind us, though. There is a very simple flaw in your comparison: you're comparing SYSTEM performance differences to PROCESSOR price differences. How about comparing the build prices of an X2 3800+ to a comparably equipped (same amount of memory, same non-core components, all of that) D 820 system, then looking at the performance difference?
If you're too lazy to do the math (and in fairness, it's a PITA to add up components just for the sake of an argument) I'll just explain it simply: it's an 8-15% price boost for 10-20% better performance and a considerably cooler-running processor (and thus, if you plan the system properly, a quieter system).
Before you get defensive, I'm not trying to say that your 820 was a poor choice. I'm certain that you made the perfect choice for your situation. However, it is clear that the 3800+ is a good value in its intended niche. Reply
krisia - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkOk, the OP didn't reference the anandtech article, only the Pentium D lineup.
It's just fun sometimes to do the unconventional or unpopular. :) Reply
SDA - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkI bet it is. Just try to think everything out ahead of time so you don't end up unable to counter the last argument against your "unconventional or unpopular" view. Reply
Amplifier - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkFirst! Reply
Hacp - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkI just read toms article and it had alot of synthetic benchmarks and very few real world benchmarks............... Except the ones that favor Intel........ Reply
masher - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkOMG OMG! CONSPIRACY! INTEL IS PAYING OFF TOMS! Reply
Staples - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkSeems video games are only benifiting from raw clock speed. The 2.4 single core A64 outperforms the X2 3800 every step of the way. I will be getting one when there is an X2 2.4GHz that isn't $1000. Reply
DigitalDivine - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkman, i wish amd would make a 2Ghz 256K (512k total) dual core proc.
i mean, think about it.... l2 cache sizes for the athlon doesn't really dent performance (as seen in sempron's performance); it's cheaper for amd to produce and more economical to run/ power. Reply
NullSubroutine - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkI dont know if it was includedin the AMD single vs Dual core comparsion, but I would have liked to have seen comparison of 3000+ (newcastle 2.0ghz, 512k cache...hmm i guess thats 754, what they got thats similar on 939, is that the 3200 they talked about?) vs the new 3800 x2, I could go look at old benchmarks, however sometimes they arent similar enough systesm (sometimes diffrent video, hd, benchmark settings). Reply
Hacp - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkIntel's next move should be to discount the 820 to 200 and the 830 to 275. That way, it can still stay competative with AMD in terms of Price/performance. Reply
Zebo - Monday, August 01, 2005 - link"The victory is clear and without debate, at the $300 - $400 price point, the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is the dual core processor to get. "
No offense Anand, but the 3800+ would have bent an $1100 840XE too but I guess you did'nt want to embaress Intel like that.;) Making 3800+ at any price point the 3800+ is the dual core processor to get. Just look in your forums -- people arn't buying the PentiumD's even at thier rock bottom discount prices. I've counted 44 X2's and one 820D and this is at the >$500 price points of 4200 and above!!! I expect 3800+ to literally explode in sales. Reply
masher - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - link> "Just look in your forums -- people arn't buying the PentiumD's even at thier rock bottom discount prices"
Lol, what world are you living in? Intel is forecasting 2 million Pentium Ds shipped by the end of the year...the lowest independent forecasts are 500,000+ by year-end. Thats a lot more than the A64 X2 is going to sell this year.
> "but the 3800+ would have bent an $1100 840XE too but I guess you did'nt want to embaress Intel like that.;) "
Put down the crack pipe and step away from the keyboard.
Zebo - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkuh huh..
Ouch! The $350 3800+ beats the $1100 840XE in 12/20 apps..How embarressing is that?
Don't even doubt me you just look stupid. Reply
masher - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - link> "Don't even doubt me you just look stupid. "
God, the idiots really come out at night. The report you linked to is from May...the "3800" those benchmarks were run on isn't even the dual core X2...its the 2.4 GHZ single-core chip.
Thanks for a good laugh....feel free to keep posting. Reply
DXM - Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - linkI believe he meant to post this review showing the X2 3800 matching or besting the XE840 in all but a handful of tests:
Aside from the snide comments, the gist of his assertion still stands. Reply
masher - Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - link> " believe he meant to post this review showing the X2 3800 matching or besting the XE840 in all but a handful of tests:"
Let's see...the 840 wins 3DMark, half the Cinebench, Lame Encoding, DivX encoding, MPA encoding, SiSoft FP, Sisoft Multimedia, and Sphinx.
The 3800 wins the 3D shooters, PoVRay, ScienceMark, picColor, and half the Cinebench.
The Intel results are "all but a handful"?
PrinceGaz - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkI was surprised that no attempt was made (or posted in the review) to overclock the X2 3800+, given that most people reading it here would want to know what headroom it had.
Fortunately most other good sites did overclock it and post their results, and the general consensus is 2.4-2.5GHz was as much as they could do with air-cooling at reasonable voltages. Looks like the X2 3800+ really is all the speed-binned rejects, at least from the samples AMD sent out to review sites. Reply
Houdani - Monday, August 01, 2005 - link
As for overclocking, we had no problems reaching 2.46GHz with our Athlon 64 3800+ sample using standard air cooling. The overclocking wasn't as impressive as what we saw with the Toledo based Athlon 64 4200+, but we will save a final conclusion on overclocking until we get more Manchester based processors in house.
Well, Anand did to a tiny bit of overclocking, he just didn't do any benches with the overclock. The above snip was taken from the final page of the article.
[L]http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...[/L] Reply
PrinceGaz - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkApologies to Anand, I was skimming through the article rather than reading it in full, and missed that. Seems like 2.4-2.5GHz is all the current batch of X2 3800+ can do, which is less than impressive. Ordered a X2 4400+ today as a result. Reply
Hacp - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkThey had a DDR2 533 1gb kit for 80 bucks at monarch I think. But I think the DDR2 667FSB chips are more expensive... Reply
Joepublic2 - Monday, August 01, 2005 - link"Except that by the time you get a new motherboard that supports that cheaper Intel chip and the pricier DDR2 memory, any price advantage Intel had is already gone. And the AMD system still outperforms the Intel one 15% in for the 830D and 20% in the 820D. So choose wisely..."
"From what I can see, Intel 955 chipset motherboards are around $180 - $220, which is a lot more expensive than a decent Socket 939 motherboard. SO overall thge system cost is much cheaper than the Intel 830, and very close to the 820."
You guys obviously haven't checked prices lately. At newegg, you can get a nice ASUS 945 board for $130, which while being more expensive than an EPOX 939 at $85, is much lower than "$180-220". Also, 2GB of DDR is $177.98, and 2GB of DDR2 is $186.00. But I agree, it's worth the extra $50 over the Pentium D 820 platform. Reply
krisia - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkHmmm, zipzoomfly has a 945 mobo for $110 and 1GB DDR2 ram for $92.
Looks reasonable to me...
Hacp - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkIMO Anand's article was the fairest. He compared the Intel 830 to the AMD 3800. Some sites compared the 820 to the 3800+ and it obviously was not fair to Intel to do that.
Also, if you want an entry level processor and want multitasking, you should go with an HT enabled Intel. At 240 dollars, you should be able to buy a 3.2 GHZ Intel processor with HT enabled, which will perform WAY better at single threaded tasks and perform well in some multithreaded applications. Thats what ENTRY is. You sacrafice future performance for performance right now.
Finally, Anand, I would have liked to see the 3800+ compared to the 3.2 GHZ Intel Dual core processors. Why? Because AMD's PR numbers for single threaded applications indicate that the 3800+(2.0 GHZ with 512 Cache AKA the 3200+) should be comparable with the 3.2 GHZ processor. You shouldn't soely compare the processors on price, but also the PR system :). A 3.0 and 3.2 Intel Dual core comparision with the 3800+ X2 would have been a nice...... Reply
cryptonomicon - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkthat chip looks awesome! how come they don't have that benchmark called um,
Comparison over number of Threads
or something, where they run some sort of bench over 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, threads. I always thought that was an interesting one to see how effective each processor handled multiple threads. Reply
Samus - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkThere is no reason at this point to go with an Intel based system for general productivity (business, graphics, compression, a/v editing, 3D modeling, CAD) AND gaming (where AMD had always excelled)
I couldn't agree with Anand more. Where you loose single threaded/task performance (from clockspeed) you more than make up for it in multi threaded/task performance. The overclocking potential is also fairly good, 2.46GHz is nothing to sneeze at when your talking about a 2.0GHz budget chip for 350 bucks.
Also, comparing 512KB dual cores to 1MB dual core's at the same clock speed, there is little performance difference because since the cores communicate directly via L2, not via HT (or bus like Intel) your theoretical performance-based L2 is 1MB and 2MB respectively. AMD's memory controller is so efficient to begin with that the difference between 1MB and 2MB L2 cache is very little.
The cache's are also independent (like they always have been, ie L1 and L2 being non-consecutive) so they don't hold the same information.
Boy, they've come a long way. Reply
gibhunter - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkWhatever, point of entry into dual core is $250. Like it or not, if someone wants it for what I said, than the cheapest way to get there is with an Intel chipset with built-in graphics and the P4 D820. For my personal computer I'd go with the AMD, but for a cheap PC that will be good for everything but gaming, the Intel solution is the way to go.
Ps. The D820 is not as hot as you make it out to be. Reply
krisia - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkUh, funny, My Intel D820 runs the same games I was running on my AMD 3500 and I can't tell any difference.
And, no the 945 mobos and DDR2 memory aren't any higher in price if you look...
I voted with my $$$. :) Reply
SDA - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkJust because you can't tell the difference doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. This is stock advice. And anyway, this isn't about whether or not you're happy with your purchase decision, it's about whether that purchase decision is a genuinely good choice. Bose speaker buyers are generally happy with their purchases, but that doesn't mean Bose speakers are any good. Reply
krisia - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkWell, I have my systems OC'd, the D820 by 10% and my ADM 64 3500 by 20% and ran x2demo. Both systems running Geforce 6600GT. Came out virtually the same frame rates. As I paid less $$$ for my D820, yes I'm happy with it for what I do... Any other analogies that might help? Reply
SDA - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkI never said it was a bad choice, krisia, only that you can't extrapolate from your own very limited experience and tests and say that it must be a better choice in general. I'm sure that you made the perfect choice for your situation, but that doesn't mean it's the right choice for everyone/anyone/someone else.
Again, the Bose analogy. A Bose buyer might put their favorite CD in their Bose system and decide that it sounds just fine compared to their neighbor's stereo. They made a fine choice for them, but that doesn't mean it's a choice they should recommend to others. Ever.
Any other analogies that might help? ;) Reply
SDA - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkUse the reply button to reply to comments. ;)
Actually, I would say that I have a fairly accurate idea of how hot the 820 and 830 run. The 820 is quite possible-- easy, even, to cool (how could it not be), but the fact of the matter is that it is nearly impossible to get a silent air-cooled system with one, and it is quite difficult to get one that's merely quiet instead of "noise-reduced." If you beg to differ, you'd be arguing with an SPL meter, meaning that you have probably been deafened already.
Also, "whatever" is not an adequate response to "Intel dual core motherboards make up most of the cost difference." Try again. Reply
gibhunter - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkRepeat after me: NOT CHEAP ENOUGH!!!
I do not care that it's faster than Intel's dual core cpu. Intel's CPU is $100 cheaper. If I'm building a new PC for web, office and occasional DVD encode, I'm buying the Intel chip. Plain and simple, the $100 sure as hell makes a difference. No enthusiasts will go for the 3800+ unless he is willing to OC the hell out of it. Your regular guy that just wants a good, stable PC with adequate power to do anything and dual core to be able to encode video and happily keep on making his powerpoint presentation, the Intel chip will aloow him to do so and save a hundred bucks in the process.
Whatever, AMD is obviously not listening. Reply
Zebo - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkAMD's cost much more to make because they must have perfection over two cores on a single die vs. intel who slaps two prescotts together. You pay a performance price for Intels way of doing things which is reflected in the lower price.
Too bad you're only looking at CPU price.. when you consider power, mobo, and ram the pentium dually setup costs more money. Reply
fitten - Thursday, August 04, 2005 - linkAMD's cost much more to make because they must have perfection over two cores on a single die vs. intel who slaps two prescotts together.
What are you smoking? The AMD X2s are a single chip. The Intel parts are also a single chip. Intel does not "slap" two Prescotts together to make the dual core parts. They are two cores on a contiguous piece of silicon just like the AMD parts are. Now, you can talk about Intel's implementation of dual core logic not being as good as AMD's and the like, but please quit with the myth that Intel's dual core chips are actually MCMs because they aren't. Reply
kmmatney - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkFrom what I can see, Intel 955 chipset motherboards are around $180 - $220, which is a lot more expensive than a decent Socket 939 motherboard. SO overall thge system cost is much cheaper than the Intel 830, and very close to the 820. Reply
Houdani - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkBy that same logic, should Intel cut prices on the Pentium D 830, 840, and EE down to the same price as the Pentium D 820? Of course not, because with higher performance comes higher prices.
Sure, AMD could release a 1.8GHz X2 3400+ at a $250 price point to cross with the Pentium D 820, but before that happens they'll continue to make a profit with what they've got before introducing a new chip which has been artificially gimped in order to meet the needs of the low end/entry market. Reply
still - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkExcept that by the time you get a new motherboard that supports that cheaper Intel chip and the pricier DDR2 memory, any price advantage Intel had is already gone. And the AMD system still outperforms the Intel one 15% in for the 830D and 20% in the 820D. So choose wisely... Reply
SDA - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkYou know what's funny? Most of the customers I've had were more than happy to pay extra to have a PC that ran very quiet and cool. All of them said they'd like that, actually, but most of them added that they wouldn't mind a hefty premium. So do you think these customers would bite if I told them that $100 would buy them a faster, more capable, and cooler-running processor?
Oh, it's expensive, to be sure. But saying that no one will ever want it just because you don't is, well, stupid. Reply
fishbits - Monday, August 01, 2005 - link"one major flaw in AMD's execution: price"
"AMD's Athlon 64 X2 was the better overall performer, just at the very wrong price point."
Anand, I wish you and the rest would seriously sit down and think about all the sniping and whining you've done lately about the prices of high(er)-end products. How, exactly, was AMD's price execution flawed? They can only make so many of the X2 chips, and they have been flying off the shelves at and above their suggested price. It's not like AMD's "flaw" was pricing them so high no one was buying them and they were gathering cobwebs in warehouses. What's "wrong" about this price point?
Let's look at it this way, is AnandTech "flawed" and "wrong" in its advertising pricing? I mean you could sell front-page add space for $5 per month. Or do you charge a reasonable price that keeps ads to a reasonable (non-overwhelming) number of ads on a page, without pricing so high that there's huge droughts of no ad revenue?
I couldn't care less if you were to deem products "too high to recommend to most users for their budgets and needs" and the such. But it's pretty petty that you and the crew constantly take slaps at products and their manufacturers because they're priced higher than we'd WISH they'd be, but still selling quite well and making those who can afford them quite happy. A new Corvette costs more than a Neon. This isn't "flawed" or "wrong." It's just another factor to take into consideration when purchasing and recommending. Now if something is seriously overpriced for its ability, by all means point it out. But stop coming across like you have no clue that the prices for higher-end parts ramp up quite steeply, and deservedly and understandably so. Been this way for decades and will continue to be this way for decades to come. Reply
masher - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkFrom AMD's perspective, there may be nothing "wrong" with pricing X2 chips far higher than two equivalent single CPUS...but from the consumer's persective, such a price point is most certainly flawed.
So are you a consumer or an AMD stockholder? It should be obvious that-- for the average consumer-- a second core priced far above the first is a poor purchasing decision, and that such pricing will never lead to significant market penetration. Reply
fishbits - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkBut that's just it, AnandTech is taking the stance that it is wrong from AMD's perspective, not from the consumer's. That is where I think they've gone off track. As far as a second core being priced far above the first, color me unfazed. If somehow AMD or Intel were able to bump single-core clock speed by 50%, would any of us be suprised that the new chip would cost (gasp!) AT LEAST double the price? On a dollars-per-Mhz scale, of course it's a loser. On a "getting my hands on a high-end performer" scale, it's easily a winner at double the price. Look at how much more we pay for just a 20% bump in single-core clock speed, and yet it doesn't generate the kind of whining that adding a whole second core and cache does.
"...Such pricing will never lead to significant market penetration".
Funny, last I heard X2s were selling very well, especially when measured against AMD's ability to produce them. As always, when production ramps up the cost will go down.
The other thing I'd add is that it's my understanding that the 820, a very good performer for its price, is that it's a subsidized chip. I gather (though could be wrong) that Intel sells them for zero profit, or even loses money on them to bump up market share. If that's the case, then its pricing is somewhat an exception and that should be provided as appropriate context in any comparison as Intel has the size and cash to do this, where AMD doesn't. Reply
masher - Monday, August 01, 2005 - link> "But that's just it, AnandTech is taking the stance that it is wrong from AMD's perspective..."
I think you're reading your own bias into his statements.
> "Funny, last I heard X2s were selling very well, especially when measured against AMD's ability to produce them..."
Actually, they are selling well ONLY when measured against AMD's ability to produce them. An ability which is nearly-nonexistent. A few thousand cpus a month may sound like a lot to you, but it doesn't even pay for lunches at the corporate HQ, much less fund a few new multibillion dollar fabs.
AMD's trickle of high-priced X@ sales was useful for bootstrapping future sales...but for gaining any significant market share-- or even paying off a portion of the X2 R&D costs-- it was a nonentity. As I said before. Reply
dougSF30 - Monday, August 01, 2005 - link<i>but from the consumer's persective, such a price point is most certainly flawed. </i>
Not so, because the infrastructure cost for a dual-socket equivalent is significantly higher.
masher - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkBut the comparison isn't between an Athlon and a dual-socket Opteron setup...but between AMD and Intel dual-cores. The "flaw" is charging $300-400 for a second core, when Intel will give you one for $100.
Let's face it...while AMD trounces Intel in gaming and other single-threaded apps, performance is neck-to-neck for highly scalable apps...just the ones you'd want a dual-core processor in the first place. AMD can't afford to charge far more than Intel for these cores...not if they want to sell more than a few thousand cpus to the fanboi brigade. They have to bring their prices more in line. A step they've taken with the launch of the X2 3800.
mlittl3 - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkYour power comparison graphs list both the manchester and toledo cores as having 512K cache. Is this a typo? Reply
dougSF30 - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkNo, in that Toledo die can have 1/2-cache disabled, and run as 512K L2 x 2
However this page is silly for other reasons-- they probably had a Manchester 4200+, not Toledo, and more importantly, it just shouldn't make any difference, as the 89W TDP is given to both Toledo and Manchester 4200+s. They are both Rev E parts, and with equal frequency and enabled cache size, should on average be almost identical, as not much changed from E4 to E6.
dougSF30 - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkThis whole page should go.
(1) Your 4200+ was probably a Manchester part, not a Toledo
(2) Toledo vs. Manchester doesn't really matter in terms of power. Rev E4 and E6 are basically the same. AMD is simply able to choose a lower official TDP for the lower-rated parts (4200+ and 3800+), whether they are made from the Manchester die OR the Toledo die. (Both 4200+ "BV" and 4200+ "CD" receive an 89W TDP from AMD, along with the new 3800+ "BV")
Doormat - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkIf I had the money. Surely though, this is a great value and I can see people getting this chip (and subsequently OCing it to 2+GHz). Mainstream performance is about to get a kick in the pants. Reply
dougSF30 - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkAll the updates fixing the '4200+/4600+ were already manchester' issue just vanished... Reply
Houdani - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkPage 5. Third table.
This table shows AMD with higher numbers in 3 out of 4 benches, yet AMD is given the win in all 4. Did Intel get shafted by the math here? Perhaps the D830 managed to eke out 2 wins overall?
Yes, yes. Nitpick. Just keeping you honest.
Also (page 1) was AMD really late to the desktop dual core scene? While Intel did announce earlier, availability-wise weren't both companies on par? Reply
SDA - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkHigher numbers do not equal higher performance in all of these tests. To quote the review (what, didn't you see the caption?): "The iTunes scores are Encoding Times in Minutes, lower numbers are better."
And no, Intel's dual-cores were definitely available before AMD's. I distinctly remember hearing a lot of complaints about this. The gap doesn't seem that big in retrospect, but trust me, it was there. Reply
Houdani - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkcaptions = good
Agreed -- sometimes higher is better (frames) and sometimes lower is better (time). So in that regard, wouldn't all the encode tests (and 3dsmax) be measured in time? If so, then AMD would have lost 3 of the 4, rather than the other way around. Gah!
What am I missing here .. are the Windows Media Encoder HD and the Divx 6 Encode measured in some other way besides time? Reply
SDA - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkNo, not all are measured in time. If that were the case, it would have been stated, I'd think.
Video encoding can also be measured in frames encoded per second. It usually IS measured that way, because that way higher == better (as our minds tend to think). Reply
dougSF30 - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkOr at least, I noticed it back on July 12 on AMD's quick reference guide. Both BV and CD.
coomar - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkthe intel memory was rated at 3-3-3@533, thats pretty good, i think the lowest you can go on ddr2 is 3-2-2@533, but that would be a lot more than 2-2-2@200 ddr ram, isn't the intel board still 50 bucks more than the amd 939 boards, then the x2 3800 would be a compeititor with the 2.8 p-d but only for a month or two until they get the prices down on the new intel chipsets
though ddr2 seems to have an easier time with larger ram modules, 1gb modules in particular
i'll be interested in the overclocking of this chip Reply
dougSF30 - Monday, August 01, 2005 - link2.0 and 2.2 GHz parts with 512K L2 x 2 = 89W, whether "BV" (Manchester) OR "CD" (Toledo).
2.2 GHz 1MB L2 x 2 and 2.4GHz 512K or 1MB L2 x 2 = 110W, whether "BV" (Manchester) OR "CD" (Toledo).
Once again, http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/Default.as...">http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/Default.as...
is useful. Select the X2 line.
yacoub - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkp5:
The Roxio VideoWave test in PCWorld's WorldBench 5 suite completes 6 seconds quicker on the Pentium D 830 than it does on the Athlon 64 X2 3800+. Reply
yacoub - Monday, August 01, 2005 - link"In one of their strongest CPU paper-launches ever"
HAHAHAHAH :) Reply
dougSF30 - Monday, August 01, 2005 - link"Strongest paper launches ever" ??? Face it, you guys blew it in your original X2 article, claiming there would be no retail availability until late this year. Turned out that in June anyone who wanted one could buy one from Newegg or Monarch.
BTW, the 4200+ and 4600+ were Manchester (OPN core code: "BV", Rev E4) cores (147mm^2) when launched. Now there are also Toledo (OPN core code: "CD", Rev E6) versions, but they did not show up until recently.
Check the Desktop Processor Quick Reference Guide (and OPNs of parts sold since June from various vendors-- the 4200 and 4600 were "BV" Manchester parts):
(Select the X2 line)
masher - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkWhy no details on the testbed for each platform, specifically memory speeds used? It makes me wonder if the comparison used pricey low-latency ram for the X2 and bargain-barrel chips for the Pentium D..
Also the article states "While AMD scales slightly worse than Intelin the MMCC Winstone and Multitasking 1 tests, AMD scales a lot better in the last two tests...". In one of those tests, AMD's "slightly worse" is 5.7%...whereas AMDS "a lot better" result on one of the other two was a measly 2.9%.
A 5.7% drop is "slightly worse", but a 2.9% increase is "a lot better"? What's funny is this obvious distortion was likely done subconsciously by the author, in his desire to boost his favorite.
When are you fanboys going to learn that processors are TOOLS. Use the best one for the job at the time...don't fall in love with them. If you were plumbers, you'd probably be masterbating each night with your pipe wrenches. Reply
Houdani - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkEh? Where did you find the 5.7 and 2.9 numbers? Did the tables change since this comment was posted?
For the numbers in question (table 1 on page 4) I'd rate the processors...
MMCC Winstone -- no advantage
Multitask 1 ---- Intel advantage (modest win) (+9.1%)
Multitask 2 ---- no advantage
Multitask 3 ---- AMD advantage (big win) (+29.3%)
Remove the MMCC and Multi_2 benches, and the comments are quite appropriate. Intel scales slightly better in Multi_1, while AMD scales a lot better in Multi_3. Reply
justly - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkI found (at least) some of the conclusions about "AMD's Efficiency Advantage?" bogus.
The biggest error (and most obvious) is in the Winstone multitasking test 1, where the author commented that AMD is "significantly worse in the Multitasking 1 test".
In that test duel core had no benefit because a single core AMD processor can handle that test without the need for a duel core. Looking at the actual numbers for that test on the "Multitasking Performance" page not only shows that the faster clocked single core AMD scale almost perfectly (based on clock speed) against its slower clocked duel core counterpart but it has the top performance in that test. Without looking at both the actual score and the percent of increase what is being proven has nothing to do with the "efficiency" of a duel core, but more to the point it shows how "inefficient" a single core is in that test. The 0% increase by moving from single core AMD to duel core AMD only goes to show how "efficient" the single core AMD is in that test scenario.
masher - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkAside from being near-intellible, this reply is far off the mark. No matter how efficient a single processor is, one expects two processors to be somewhat faster tha one. If this wasn't true, what would be the point of "duel-core" [sic] processors in the first place?
There is no magic "100% efficiency" level for single a processor that cannot be exceeded. Even if there were, that efficiency would translate to the second core, making it faster as well. Two should be faster than one.
The efficiency being measured is not of the core itself, but of the scalability of multiple cores vs. a single one. In this particular case, there is a "100% efficient" standard-- linear scaling. If two cores run a benchmark twice as fast as one, then the dual-core implementation is 100% efficient...regardless of how efficient or ineffecient the actual cores themselves are.
Read the above carefully and consider it. It's not difficult to understand. Reply
justly - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkYou can expect two processors to be faster than one, but that isn't always true.
What you failed to understand is the single core AMD processor is not limited by processing power in the Winstone multitasking test 1, so by adding the second core there is basically nothing for the second core to do, hence no performance increase.
Because of this it is inappropriate for the auther to gauge scalability for this test in a negative context as he did when he said "significantly worse". In fact the worse a single core processor performs the more likely it will see a higher scaling when a second core is added because there is more work for the second core to process.
masher - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - link> "You can expect two processors to be faster than one, but that isn't always true..."
Of course it isn't. That's the purpose of this test...to determine the performance increase, if any.
> "...The single core AMD processor is not limited by processing power in the Winstone multitasking test 1, so by adding
> the second core there is basically nothing for the second core to do, hence no performance increase."
Oops, wrong again. You should have realized this simply from the fact that a higher clocked single-core A64 runs the benchmark faster. Claiming this test isn't even slightly CPU-bound and thus the poor result "isn't AMD's fault" is nonsense.
> "...the worse a single core processor performs the more likely it will see a higher scaling when a second core is added..."
Only for tests that are disk or memory-bound. And given the current differences in memory subsystems between AMD and Intel and the highly-integrated nature of AMD's memory controller, the "efficiency" of AMD's dual-core implementation is pretty much indistinguishable from the efficiency of their memory system.
So that just leaves highly disk-bound tests...which these tests were not. Even if they were, the results would still be valid. After all, if a single-core A64 runs as fast as possible due to disk constraints, then why should anyone spend more money on a dual-core chip?
Of course, one core of an X2 3800 is not nearly so fast as to run any of these benchmarks "as fast as theoretically possible". If multiple cores don't score higher, then its indicative of an underlying scaling issue, either with the chip or the test itself. Any other conclusion is nothing more than apologism and wishful thinking. Reply
justly - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkIt would seem I have to put this in even simpler terms for you.
Processing POWER is not necessarily the same as processing SPEED.
Using an analogy may be the only way to explain this to you.
If you are given a task that is simple for you to accomplish, maybe something like moving two bricks 50 feet, having a second person help you will not result in you getting that task done any faster. The only thing that will make this task faster is if you run instead of walk. That difference is speed not power.
On the other hand if the task is more demanding, this time you need to move a 100 bricks 50 feet, then the second person should be able to cut that time in half if both of you move the same amount of bricks at the same speed.
I hope that wasn't too hard for you to understand.
To go one step further, If in the first scenario (when you had to move just two bricks) if you only move one brick at a time then adding a second person (also capable of moving one brick) will show 100% scaling.
This demonstrates what I said about a poor performing processor will see a higher scaling when adding a second core, proving my point that higher scaling "shows how "inefficient" a single core is in that test", not how efficient a duel core is.
To even attempt to show scaling efficiency in the manor that was done in the article is questionable, and to use a test that was not only less than processor limited on duel core, but less than processor limited on a single core was ignorant (again I am talking processor limited in terms or computational power not speed).
Since adding a second core does not change memory bandwidth or disk access time I don't know why you even brought this up, as its irrelevant.
masher - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - link> "This demonstrates what I said about a poor performing processor will see a higher scaling when adding a second core..."
Are you stupid? Your analogy-- muddled and poorly phrased as it is-- proves my point. Not yours. We're discussing a multitasking benchmark. Got any idea what the "multi" in multitasking means? More than one. A single core executes ONE thread at a time. This benchmark has multiple threads running at once.
To translate this back to your analogy, a single core cannot carry two "bricks" (threads) at the same time. It carries one-- partway or all the way-- then has to "run back" to carry the other one. And so on until the job is done. Sorry for the kindergarten-level analysis, but your posting history demands it.
Two cores carry two bricks at once...and get the job done faster. If you only had a single brick (a single nonthreaded app) then a second core wouldn't help you. If your second brick only had to move 1 foot rather than 50 (poor app scaling), then a second core would help very little. If your brick-carrying kept being interrupted by a traffic cop (disk or memory bottlenecks) then one core might run as fast as two. But in general-- two cores run multiple threads faster than one.
Get it now? I rather doubt it...but hope springs eternal to the human breast.
> "if you only move one brick at a time then adding a second person (also capable of moving one brick) will show 100% scaling."
Read my explanation above...then take your foot out of your mouth. This statement is the very reason for multicore processors. One core moves one brick at a time. Period.
> "Since adding a second core does not change memory bandwidth or disk access time I don't know why you even brought this up, as its irrelevant. "
Again, you fail to understand the most basic concepts. An "app" that does nothing but copy a large file from A to B is disk-bound. Add two cores or a hundred, and it won't speed up. That's why this is relevant.
Of course, no app or benchmark is ever 100% disk-bound. But the faster the processor, the more impact a bottleneck will have. An infinitely fast single-core cpu will not run apps in zero time...it'll just spin, waiting for memory or disk. And adding a second core to such a cpu won't yield any gain...BECAUSE of the bottleneck.
Get it now?
Of course, our scenario of "Multitask Benchmark 1" and the A64 3800 isn't even close to this scenario. I only mentioned it to discount it, as it was the only quasi-reasonable explanation you could have believed the drivel in your first post. I see otherwise now...you were simply wholly and utterly clueless from the start.
justly - Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - linkSince you seem to believe that we should see an improvement in any multitasking test no matter how simple those tasks are explain this.
If we know that adding a second core will increase performance (as indicated by 9.1% increase of the duel core PD over a single non-HT P4 for the test in question) then why does the AMD duel core show no increase in performance?
It can't be that the AMD duel core is not functioning, because we can tell that it is functioning based on all the other tests.
Since this IS a multitasking benchmark (as you made sure to point out) maybe you would like a stab at this question also.
How is it that a duel core PD at 3.0GHz it is still not able to beat (or even match) a single core AMD at 2.0GHz?
It's not like this test was designed to cripple an Intel processor (this test runs "files copy in the background while the script runs Microsoft Outlook and Internet Explorer in the foreground").
fitten - Thursday, August 04, 2005 - linkPlease stop using "duel" and use the proper term "dual". Continued use of "duel" when talking about "dual cores" pretty much erodes anything else you will possibly say. Reply
masher - Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - link> "If we know that adding a second core will increase performance...why does the AMD duel core show no increase in performance? ...It can't be that the AMD duel core is not functioning..."
Easy question. Why? Because some resource in contention between the two cores is negating whatever slight gain the second core can offer.
Your notion that a second core that works in ANY case has to work in ALL cases is terribly misinformed. Consider Intel's HT for instance. Two virtual cores...but given they share so many resources between them, there are many cases where HT not only shows no performance gain, but an actual performance drop.
It's less common with two physical cores, or even two physical processors...but it can and DOES happen. Intentionally writing code that runs slower on a duallie (even 100X slower) is easy. Writing it accidentally is very possible as well.
Now here's the part you actually have to use your brain to understand. Take a deep breath and think before reading on. There are implementation differences between AMD and Intel's dual core designs. That means they share different resources, and to differing degrees. Meaning a program that causes some slight contention on Intel may cause more on AMD...or may cause none at all. Whereas different code may contend in totally different areas, and show a totally reverse pattern.
Starting to make sense to you?
masher - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkThe statement says "comparing AMD to the Intel Dual Cores". Multitask 1 has Intel averaging (9.1+2.3)/2=5.7% better than AMD. Multitask 2 has AMD averaging 14.4 - (13.9+9.1)/2 = 2.3% better than Intel.
So Anand is calling a 5.7% Intel advantange "slight" but a 2.3% AMD advantage "significant".
Toss out the Intel Dual Core + HT row -- a fairer comparison in my opinion) and Intel does even better. Add in the non-dualcore Intel row and Intel does better on MT1 and worse on MT2...but not even the most strident AMD fanboy could call that a fair comparision. Reply
NullSubroutine - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkNot to take sides, but this was just comparision of AMD singc vs AMD dualc % vs Intel singc vs Intel dualc. The performance advantage wasnt direct comparison of AMD's dual core vs Intel's dual core. Disreguard if you understood this, but to simplify the explantion. Say AMD single core has benchmark of 100, Intel single core (/w ht lets say) is 90; then AMD dual core (same cache/mhz) has benchmark of 120 (20% increase) while Intel Dual core was 115 (27.7*% increase). Showing Intel's second core gave 7.7*% more power vs AMD's second core over its first. The purpose of this comparison was to try to find a benchmark (since none seem to be known to the author at this time) to see whose dual core implimentation is more "effiecent". Also possible the author, when describing "significant" or "slight" he did not seem to be averaging their numbers between ht and no ht, but simply sticking with one, at least I would assume this to be the case. Reply
Houdani - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkOK, you averaged the dual scores (HT and no-HT) to get your numbers. I'm good with that.
Regardless, it's moot now since Anand subsequently revised his statement to remove the inkling of bias. (He left a typo too -- tried to get rid of "a lot" but forgot to remove the "a") Reply
BornStar18 - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkThe interesting part of his statement is the fact that the AMD Dual Core actually beats the Intel Dual Core in MMCC Winstone. I agree though that a 9.1% improvement is more than slightly better than 0%. Reply
GhandiInstinct - Monday, August 01, 2005 - link"Ah, ah, ah, you didn't say the magic word."
AMD and ATi, FTW.
neogodless - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linknew comments system seems to hate Firefox
anyway, all the price links on the article point to the Athlon 64 3800+ rather than the X2... Reply
bersl2 - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkIt WorksForMe(TM). Reply
neogodless - Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - linkGood for you... I simply cannot login/post comments while using firefox. It seems to accept the login, as it doesn't spit back an "invalid" message but shows me the login form again, and no links to "post" or "reply". Probably just a cookie issue but I tried turning my security down a little and it still didn't work... is Anandtech requiring a 3rd party cookie to be set just to post comments... ? Reply
neogodless - Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - linkDang it...
For a short while a month or so back, I was "approving" each cookie individually, and anandtech insisted on planting a cookie until I said "block site completely" - forgot about that until today. Finally able to post in Firefox now! Reply
Staples - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkIt is an eyesore regardless. I am using FF and I have not tried it in IE. Reply
SpaceRanger - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkExcellent Article. I'm glad that AMD is coming out with more affordable Dual-Core solutions. Reply
Marlin1975 - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkTo bad the 2 people listed for having "availability" in this peice are already marking them OVER retail price. Let the price gouging start... :( Reply
blkrde - Monday, August 01, 2005 - linkLets hope the prices come down soon. I need one of these in my new build. Reply
neogodless - Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - linkYeah I haven't upgraded my motherboard/CPU combo in 20 whole months!!
Still stuck with a 754 Athlon 64 3000+
I figure the 3800+ is like two of those :)
And like two of those... it'll only increase performance for multi-tasking... but it's already plenty for all the single tasks I have.
Now I paid $215 then... so I guess $430 would be fair for one of these... Reply


text:
Ex-UF standouts highlight NBA teams
Published: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 at 2:51 p.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 at 2:51 p.m.
Two former University of Florida basketball players help headline All-NBA teams.
On Monday, Chicago Bulls center Joakim Noah was selected to the All-Defensive First Team. On Tuesday, the Washington Wizards' Bradley Beal was named to the All-Rookie Team.
"Joakim, obviously (I'm) very pleased with that," said Bulls coach Tom Thibodeau. "I think down the road, Joakim has a very good chance of being defensive player of the year. His ability to defend all five positions, every aspect of the game — individual defense, team defense, rebounding, multiple effort ... a very unique player."
LeBron James and Memphis guard Tony Allen were also named to the first team.
The league announced Allen received 53 points in the voting, while the Miami Heat star had 52. Each player had 25 first-team votes from the NBA's 30 head coaches.
"We pride ourselves on defense here," said James. "I'm one of the catalysts, as far as taking that side of the ball very seriously. We all do. I'm happy to be rewarded with such an honor to be part of First Team All-Defense.
"Any time you're awarded anything individually, it's an honor."
The pair were joined on the first team by Clippers guard Chris Paul (37 points), Thunder forward Serge Ibaka (46), Knicks center Tyson Chandler (24) and Noah (24).
Marc Gasol, who was the NBA's defensive player of the year, made the second team. He was joined on that squad by Celtics guard Avery Bradley, Grizzlies guard Mike Conley, Spurs forward Tim Duncan and Pacers forward Paul George.
The Portland Trail Blazers' Damian Lillard, the unanimous selection for the Rookie of the Year, headlined theRookie First Team. Lillard was the lone unanimous First Team selection (58 points, 29 First Team votes), while Beal and the New Orleans Hornets' Anthony Davis totaled 57 points each, including 28 First Team votes. Rounding out the 2012-13 NBA All-Rookie First Team are Dion Waiters of the Cleveland Cavaliers (50 points, 21 First Team) and Harrison Barnes of the Golden State Warriors (47 points, 18 First Team).
For the season, Beal averaged 13.9 points to go along with 3.8 rebounds and 2.4 assists. On the season, he recorded 13 games of 20-plus points and six games with a least four three-pointers made.
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.


text:
Chevrolet is reviving the Stingray name for its all-new 2014 Corvette sports car.
General Motors revealed the new supercar Sunday night, ahead of the opening of the 2013 North American International Auto Show.
As with any sports car, the big story of the Corvette is what lies under the long, low hood. There, Chevrolet has crammed in a 6.2 liter V-8 engine that pumps out 450 horsepower and 450 pound feet of torque, and more of that torque is available at lower speeds.
Chevrolet says we can expect the new engine to be more fuel efficient than previous Corvette engines, thanks in part to a cylinder deactivation system that lets the engine run on four cylinders when not under heavy load.
Also helping efficiency is the fact that some of the key components are lighter than previous models. The 2014 Corvette is built on an aluminum frame that Chevrolet says is 57 percent stiffer and 99 pounds lighter than the current steel frame.
The Corvette also makes extensive use of composite materials in the fenders, doors and rear quarter panels, helping shave another 37 pounds off the weight of the car.
Transmission choices include a 7-speed manual transmission or a six-speed paddle-shift automatic.
And if the Stingray doesn't provide quite the performance you want, Chevrolet will also sell the Corvette Z51, which has larger tires, a modified suspension and an electronic limited-slip differential that carefully controls the torque split between the rear wheels.
Technology is a key part of the 2014 Corvette. In the cockpit, there's something Chevrolet calls the Driver Mode Selector, which gives the driver the choice of five settings to match road conditions and desired performance.
By default, the car is in Tour mode. In rain or snow, the driver can switch to Weather mode. If fuel economy is most important, there's an Eco mode. Sport mode is for more aggressive driving, and Track mode is for use on race tracks.
"The all-new Corvette Stingray is really three cars in one: It provides the comfort and functionality of a long-distance GT car, the connectedness and infotainment of a daily driver and the acceleration, grip and braking of a capable track car," said Harlan Charles, product manager.
While switching between modes, the driver is surrounded in premium materials, including available leather, aluminum, carbon fiber and micro-suede.
Those leather seats are built on frames made of magnesium that's stronger and weighs less than comparable steel frames.
"Every feature and detail in the interior is designed to enhance the driver's connection to the Corvette," said Helen Emsley, interior design director. "It starts with the fighter jet inspired wraparound cockpit; continues to build with the smaller steering wheel, more supportive seats, and high-definition, configurable screens, and is finished in gorgeous materials."
The new Corvette will be built at GM's Bowling Green, Ky., assembly plant, which recently received a $131-million upgrade. The car goes on sale in the third quarter of 2013.
Distributed by LAKANA. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


text:
If you're Pakistani you have inevitably heard the auntie bemoan her search for a "lumbi gori pathli larki" (tall white skinny girl) for her son. It's a give and take commodoity exchange with the mothers of the daughters sighing "buss humko aik doctor mil jayai" (we just want a doctor- we're really not so subtly saying we want someone with bling). Perhaps in a facet where the first thing you learn of the other is their credentials it isnt so wrong to ask for such things but my issue for this post is the skin thing.
Most desi girls are familiar with the bleaching and the lighteners. PTV even has commercials of "fair and lovely" creams that will indeed attempt to make you fair and lovely. Because without being fair how could one dare call themselves lovely? What's interesting is that even girls who themselves are dark will say "I want my brother to find a nice light skinned girl" Why the self loathing? Is this a left over from British colonialism? Is white better? Indeed sit around a group of aunties discussing beauty and the word "gora rang" (light skin color) will pepper the conversation along with sighs regarding another potential bahoo (Daughter in law) saying "shakal mai pyari hain laikin thori si samvli hain" (her face is nice but she is a little dark). No sense of recognition of the spit they cast upon the majority of their nation who have skin akin to their very own.
Recently I saw a desi grandmother holding her grandchild. She looked adoringly at her baby and then smiled at me "dekho gori hain na? bahoth gori hain mash'allah" (look- she's fair isnt she? So fair praise God), and so the grandparents continue the tradition. My husband and I are not fair, will our child not get the praises to God? Will our child not be beautiful because of the color of his or her skin?
Though my parents told me I was beautiful I knew in my heart that being light mattered. I mourn the time I spent caring. I'm not a gori chitti larki. I'm your traditional desi complexioned girl. For most of my life I thought less of myself simply because my skin wasn't three to five shades lighter. I mourn the trees I didn't climb and the walks I did not take and the beaches I did not walk upon for fear the sun was too high.
I wrote this poem when I was 14 for Black History Month, but I feel it applies to our modern desi world. I pray that the next generation will learn to love themselves and instead of trying to change their skin will embrace it as beautiful gift from God, because it is.
The color of my hair black
The color of my skin black
The color of my will steel
The color of my mind bronze
The color of my heart gold
Then why do you sit and stare at me so
your eyes so icy distant cold
for I am a person
with a heart of gold


text:
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Filling a Vacancy (Crooked Planter)
53 comments:
- The Shabby Chick said...
Don't fall over it's me...LOL this is so cute. great job.
- July 5, 2012 at 8:25:00 AM EDT
- White Weathered Hutch, said...
Great! Love it.
- July 5, 2012 at 8:34:00 AM EDT
- Debbie said...
That's just plain cute, and it not only fills the spot, it HITS the spot.
I love it when we get to be right and they have to admit it. I'm kind of adolescent like that.
- July 5, 2012 at 8:36:00 AM EDT
- cathywahtisoldisnew said...
I laughed when I read your post about the husby and all the questions. We could play the same recording at our house. He too gives in and eventually likes the idea( or is smart enough to keep quiet) LOL! The crooked pots really hit the right spot! Good job!
- July 5, 2012 at 8:44:00 AM EDT
- DREAMS ON 34th STREET ~ French Bread & Family said...
Mr Skepticism has defied gravity!
Now he's Mr Brilliant! The clay pot sculpture looks great in that spot!
My husband also has a skeptical attitude towards some of my blog and pinterest inspired projects!
- July 5, 2012 at 8:56:00 AM EDT
- ✿ⒹⒺⒺ✿@ A Lapin Life said...
Adorable!!! Husbands can be like that. Mine says stuff like that all the time :)
- July 5, 2012 at 8:58:00 AM EDT
- Debbiedoo's said...
Oh how stinkin cute Gina. I love it and it is perfect for that spot.
- July 5, 2012 at 9:10:00 AM EDT
- Pat @ Pat's Pink Apron said...
How clever are you. This looks really cute and attractive and stands out filling that spot.
- July 5, 2012 at 10:06:00 AM EDT
- Barbara F. said...
Men have trouble visualizing things like that. It turned out great. Just the right spot. xo
- July 5, 2012 at 10:24:00 AM EDT
- ℳartina @ Northern Nesting said...
I LOVE IT Gina!! The perfect solution!
- July 5, 2012 at 10:29:00 AM EDT
- miss flibbertigibbet said...
Great job! Adds nice height and when those plants get really big....woohoo!!
- July 5, 2012 at 10:34:00 AM EDT
- Michele @ The Nest at Finch Rest said...
Hahaha I just did a mental and emptional Happy Cartwheel Of Joy for you, Gina!
And I just love you did something fun and spunky in your lonely bare corner there.
Well done, in all ways, my friend!
- July 5, 2012 at 11:38:00 AM EDT
- Shelia said...
This is so cute!!
Be a sweetie,
Shelia ;)
- July 5, 2012 at 11:47:00 AM EDT
- Blondie's Journal said...
I've seen this done but could never quite figure out how it works! It looks wonderful, Gina, the perfect flowers, too. Usually it is my hubby who has the wild ideas and then I'm eating my words! lol! great job!
- July 5, 2012 at 12:10:00 PM EDT
- Brayton Homestead Interiors said...
great job- love it!
- July 5, 2012 at 12:18:00 PM EDT
- Coastal Cottage Dreams said...
Adorable! Great job!
- July 5, 2012 at 12:54:00 PM EDT
- Carlene @ Organized Clutter said...
Love it Gina! Terra cotta goes with everything!
- July 5, 2012 at 1:27:00 PM EDT
- Bliss said...
Oh yes......I do so love it when than happens. It's the nice way to not have to say I was right!
- July 5, 2012 at 6:47:00 PM EDT
- Janet said...
It turned out so adorable and is just perfect in that space! Isn't it so nice that our husbands help make all our ideas work! I'm always telling mine that I'm the brains and he's the brawn ;)
- July 5, 2012 at 7:12:00 PM EDT
- Gail said...
I LOVE your crooked planter Gina! It looks beautiful!! Enjoy your evening, Gail
- July 5, 2012 at 7:56:00 PM EDT
- NanaDiana said...
LOL- Gina. I think we might be married to brothers. I call him Negative Ned when he gets like that-which further ticks him off. lol
I LOVE your planter. It is perfect for that spot. I have an odd ball spot like that, too. I might have to copy YOUR idea! xo Diana
- July 5, 2012 at 10:33:00 PM EDT
- Betsy@ coastal-colors said...
Perfect for this area! I just love these! Have a great weekend!
- July 5, 2012 at 11:32:00 PM EDT
- Sherry said...
I love it! Its perfect.
- July 6, 2012 at 8:39:00 AM EDT
- Kerin said...
It's great when those husband finally come around and realize that we wives were right all along~~LOL!
Love how the pots turned out!!!
Have a great weekend!!
Smiles :)
- July 6, 2012 at 9:28:00 AM EDT
- Crafty Surfer Girl said...
A perfect cheerful planter for that corner! Love it!
- July 6, 2012 at 10:14:00 AM EDT
- Betty@SouthernGrace said...
oops, I was signed in with my daughter's account.
- July 6, 2012 at 10:20:00 AM EDT
- Ricki Jill Treleaven said...
:O Gina!!!!!!!! That is the cutest little tower-o-plants I have ever seen!!!! I want one!!!!! :D
You realize that your hubbie just earned MAJOR *cuteness* points....
- July 6, 2012 at 10:21:00 AM EDT
- SheilaG @ Plum Doodles said...
Such a great idea! And so good to know my hubby isn't the only one... :)
- July 6, 2012 at 11:08:00 AM EDT
- Shannon at Fox Hollow Cottage said...
Wow. I don't think that could BE more perfect. It sure fills that up JUST RIGHT =) Super darling. My deer would love it. lol
Happy Summer G!!!!
- July 6, 2012 at 11:50:00 AM EDT
- Carmella said...
Obviously very excited to see that this project was right next to mine at the Pinterest Party...gives me another reason to pin something from your site!! :)
I am in love with the way this turned out...I might get brave enough to give it a try too!
Off to pinning I go!
- July 6, 2012 at 3:39:00 PM EDT
- Ivy and Elephants said...
Gina, this is so cute! I'm glad it worked. What do men know anyway?!
It's just so unique and the perfect thing to fill the spot.
We'd love to have you share it at the linky party, too.
- July 6, 2012 at 10:24:00 PM EDT
- Grandma Yellow Hair said...
Wow honey this really did turn out cute. I have seen these in yards here in town but never thought I could keep the plants pretty enough to pull it off but yours are lovely.
Hope you have a wonderful weekend
- July 6, 2012 at 11:16:00 PM EDT
- CAS said...
That is so clever! I love how it looks!
- July 7, 2012 at 1:32:00 AM EDT
- thistlewoodfarm said...
I have a spot just like that! Now I just need some crooked pots :)
Happy weekend to you!
- July 7, 2012 at 10:16:00 AM EDT
- Maple Lane said...
Saw your comments on two of the blogs I follow and came by to visit. I love the crooked pots and how perfect that someone paid you a compliment in front of your hubby! The pots are perfect for that space. Hope you have a nice weekend.
- July 7, 2012 at 10:56:00 AM EDT
- Annmarie Pipa said...
oh my gosh! I have never seen anything like that! so cool and original!! and fun!
- July 7, 2012 at 12:12:00 PM EDT
- Melinda said...
The pots look really great! So easy and simple.
- July 7, 2012 at 4:48:00 PM EDT
- Ann from On Sutton Place said...
You rock! This is so great...and I love that it worked even though the hubs had doubts. Wish they would get a clue that we are always right. :o)
- July 7, 2012 at 6:40:00 PM EDT
- Cindy F. Adkins said...
Oh my gosh, Gina, I just saw that on Pinterest last night! It looks great!! Now that I know someone who actually did it, I might try it! Great job!
- July 7, 2012 at 7:34:00 PM EDT
- Sharon said...
It is really cute ! You did a wonderful job of supervising !Don't you just love it when an idea works when someone said it wouldn't ?
- July 7, 2012 at 10:00:00 PM EDT
- kitty said...
I love your crooked pots, Gina! That is the perfect spot for them. They're just going to look prettier and prettier as the plants fill in and spill. Great job!!
- July 8, 2012 at 12:06:00 AM EDT
- Michelle said...
I love your crooked planters! They look great in that spot filled up with flowers. Your hubby story is hilarious.
- July 8, 2012 at 11:46:00 AM EDT
- Maria Elena said...
What a beautiful idea!!! I just love it! Looks beautiful on that spot!
- July 8, 2012 at 3:20:00 PM EDT
- Gypsy Heart said...
I love it! Looks like the flowers do too.
- July 8, 2012 at 6:39:00 PM EDT
- Gypsy Heart said...
I love it! Looks like the flowers do too.
- July 8, 2012 at 6:39:00 PM EDT
- Diane said...
Your plant tower turned out great Gina!
- July 8, 2012 at 8:50:00 PM EDT
- Donna Huisinga said...
Visiting from Debbie's Pin Party. What a clever idea. Pinning to my Garden pinboard. This surely is unique. I hope the dirt doesn't fall out. It really fits in your spot just perfectly.
- July 8, 2012 at 10:04:00 PM EDT
- Lynn @ UpCountry Olio said...
That was the perfect solution for that little spot. It looks so happy there!
- July 9, 2012 at 1:16:00 AM EDT
- Grammy Goodwill said...
How cute is that! For some reason, it reminds me of something I'd see in a Dr. Seuss book ~ or maybe I have. It's the perfect thing for that spot, isn't it?
- July 9, 2012 at 7:41:00 AM EDT
- Ana said...
I just love, love, love how your crocked planter turned out. I've been wanting to give it a try too...Maybe this summer. Yours looks perfect in that spot. Awesome work.
Hugs and Kisses,
- July 10, 2012 at 10:56:00 AM EDT
- Ivy and Elephants said...
Thanks so much for linking Gina. You will be a feature this week! Please stop by and grab a featured button.
- July 10, 2012 at 8:07:00 PM EDT
- Brandi said...
Love your planter, Gina!
- July 11, 2012 at 9:30:00 PM EDT
- reFresh reStyle said...
That's one nice spot filler!!! I have always wanted to make one of these! Love it!!
- July 11, 2012 at 10:08:00 PM EDT