NVIDIA Announces the GeForce GTX 1000 Series - <AUTHOR> http://anandtech.com/show/10304/nvidia-announces-the-geforce-gtx-1080-1070 <comment><USER3> This article buys in in the hype. It reads like they just copied statements of the press release. The article on anandtech[0] is a lot better.

Also, do not forget that benchmarks made by Nvidia mean nothing. How fast the cards really are will only be clear if independent people do real benchmarks. That's true for games, but it will also be true for all the speculation found here over the ML performance.

[0] [http://anandtech.com/show/10304/nvidia-announces-the- geforce...](http://anandtech.com/show/10304/nvidia-announces-the-geforce- gtx-1080-1070)

<comment><USER4> Fair enough, but when neither Intel nor AMD is bothering to put out competitive software/hardware solutions for deep learning, which is apparently going to be a ~$40B market by 2020, I predict continued dominance here. That said, since AMD is getting beaten by a factor of 2-3 in performance while Intel's Accelerator/FPGA solutions are getting beaten by a factor of 5-10, AMD has a real opportunity to be the competitor to NVIDIA here.

And despite questions about it, GTX 1080 will be a fine deep learning board, especially if the framework engineers get off their lazy butts and implement Alex Krizhevsky's one weird trick algorithm, an approach which allows an 8-GPU Big Sur with 12.5GB/s P2P bandwidth to go toe to toe with an 8-GPU DGX-1 on training AlexNet.

[http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5997](http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5997)

<comment><USER5> That's just a combination of GPU model and data parallelism, which have been supported for about 2 years in Torch among others. You can add in the outer product trick for fc layers as well.

[https://github.com/soumith/imagenet- multiGPU.torch/blob/mast...](https://github.com/soumith/imagenet- multiGPU.torch/blob/master/models/alexnetowt.lua)

nccl is in Torch as well, but it doesn't always win, and has some weird interactions regarding streams and other such things with its use of persistent kernels.

[https://github.com/torch/cunn/blob/master/DataParallelTable....](https://github.com/torch/cunn/blob/master/DataParallelTable.lua)

However, this feels more of a benchmarking thing now. Networks tend to be over-parameterized and redundant in many ways; sending less data with much deeper / smaller parameter networks has been where the action is (e.g., residual networks, GoogLeNet, etc.), or to non-synchronous forms of communication among workers. Trying to squeeze out every last drop of GPU/GPU bandwidth is not as important as iterating on the architecture and learning algorithms themselves.

<comment><USER4> I don't use NCCL, I wrote my own ring collectives after reinventing them in 2014 (I felt really clever for a whole 20 minutes before a Google search popped my balloon) to avoid working with a vendor that was trying to gouge us on servers: they beat NCCL by ~50%.

That said, most people couldn't write them so I advise NCCL. You're the third person to tell me NCCL has ish(tm), fascinating.

And sure, you could do the outer product trick. You could use non- deterministic ASGD. And you can do a lot of weird(tm) tricks. But why do these (IMO ad-hoc and potentially sketchy task-specific) things when there's an efficient way to parallelize the original network in a deterministic manner for training that allows performance on par with a DGX-1 server?

Because for me, the action is in automagically discovering the optimal deterministic distribution of the computation so researchers don't need to worry about it. And IMO that's where the frameworks fail currently.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What really blew me away is that they went straight for Displayport 1.4 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#1.4](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#1.4)) that was only announced on 1st of March 2016. DP 1.3 was approved on 15th of September 2014 and as of today there are no cards supporting it except this one (with backwards compatibility).

The bad news is that there's no news about new gen displays that could take advantage of this graphic card. I'm talking about 4K 120Hz HDR ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic- range_rendering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_rendering)) displays. This is a total WTF - we have a graphic card with DP 1.4 and we don't even have a single display with so much as DP 1.3...

<comment><USER7> What cable transfers 4k 120-144hz? What are the benefits of DisplayPort 1.4 over something like Dual Link DVI or the newest HDMI?

<comment><USER6> Displayport 1.4 is a standard for socket and cable, so it will transfer 4K 120Hz.

Advantages over other standards: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#Advantages_over_DV...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#Advantages_over_DVI.2C_VGA_and_FPD- Link)

Also, another major advantage - USB Type-C compatibility ([http://www.displayport.org/what-is-displayport-over- usb-c/](http://www.displayport.org/what-is-displayport-over-usb-c/))

<comment><USER8> Why didn't video cables go optical? Like toslink did w audio?

<comment><USER9> Thunderbolt was supposed to go optical. You can read about it here, under "Copper vs. optical":

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_\(interface\))

<comment><USER10> USB3 was also supposed to have fiber components. Really hard to find references for this online since at CES 2008 they showed the connectors without any optical stuff, but I found this: [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/19/idf_usb_3_announced/](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/19/idf_usb_3_announced/)

Anyone know why they didn't end up going optical + copper for USB3?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Note that in terms of pure compute performance the new 16nm Nvidia GTX 1080 (2560 shaders at up to 1733 MHz = 8873 SP GFLOPS) barely equals the performance of the previous-generation 28nm AMD Fury X (4096 shaders at up to 1050 MHz = 8602 SP GFLOPS). Of course the 16nm chip does so at a significantly lower TDP (180 Watt) than the 28nm chip (275 Watt), so it will be interesting to see what Nvidia can achieve at a higher thermal/power envelope with a more high-end card... I am waiting impatiently to see how AMD's upcoming 14nm/16nm Polaris chips will fare, but from the looks of it it seems like Polaris will beat Nvidia in terms of GFLOPS per Watt.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, it will be interesting to see how good AMD's Polaris chips will be, especially when it comes to energy efficiency. Fury was a step in the right direction (I'm wondering how much of this can be attributed to HBM's lower voltage etc.). But I'm even more interested in AMD Vega - the high end competitor to Nvidias GP 100 that is equipped with HBM2. Especially if AMD has an advantage over Nvidia when it comes to implementing HBM, since they developed it together with SK Hynx and have previous experience with Fury, or if this doesn't make a difference.

Vega is also exiting because it should be released when AMD's Zen CPU's will be released, and there were rumors about a HPC Zen APU with Vega and HBM.

<comment><USER13> If we're discussing future GPUs, does anyone know what exactly AMD means by "next-gen memory" when it talks about Navi?

At first I thought it means that HBM2 would be available across their whole lineup, but I think if that was the case they would've just said so.

I've also read a bit about how Nvidia wanted to go with HMC (Hyper Memory Cube) instead of HBM, but it seems it's still at least twice as expensive/GB, and they needed to go with high-end GPUs that have at least 16GB. HMC is not even at 8GB yet. Intel also seems to have adopted HMC for some servers.

So is the "next-gen" memory HMC, or something else? AMD is supposed to come out with it in 2018, hopefully at 10nm.

<comment><USER12> Was the difference between HMC and HBM not basically HMC had good latency comparable to normal main RAM like DDR3 plus good bandwith (up to 400 GB/s), while HBM had worse latency than DDR3 (like GDDR5) with a large bus and really good bandwith (1 TB/s)? Will indeed be interesting to see what AMD means with next gen memory.

<comment> Tuna-Fish No. HMC is fully buffered and provides a packet-based interface to the CPU it's connected into. This means that the CPU doesn't need to know anything about the memory it uses, and saves die space on the CPU side, but it adds latency. HBM has lower latency than HMC.

Also, GDDR5 does not have higher latency than DDR3. The memory arrays themselves are the same and exactly as fast, and the bus doesn't add any extra latency. GDDR5 doesn't trade latency for bandwidth, it trades density for bandwidth.

Things built to use GDDDR5 often have much higher latencies than things built to use DDR3, but this has nothing to do with the memory and instead about how the memory controllers in GPUs delay accesses to merge ones close to each other to optimize for bandwidth.

<comment><USER12> Thank you for the detailed explanation. Always thought the added latency came from GDDR5. Good to know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Worth noting - IIRC the stream mentioned that it could do up to 16 simultaneous projections at little additional performance cost. This is important for VR...a big part of the cost, when you are dumping many vertices to the GPU, is performing a transform on each vertex (a four component vector multiplied by a 4x4 matrix) +. Even bigger cost comes from filling the resulting polygons, which if done in two passes (as is fairly common) results in something that violates cache across the tiles that get filled. So, in other words, its expensive to render something twice, as is needed for each eye in VR - from what they have shown, their new architecture largely reduces this problem.

\+ This is a "small" part of the cost, but doing 5m polygons at 60 fps can result in about 30 GFLOPS of compute for that single matrix operation (in reality, there are many vertex operations and often many more fragment operations).

<comment><AUTHOR> I was thinking about this earlier - the transition from a warp of 32 to a warp of 64 that Pascal supposedly made sounds _exactly_ like how you would accelerate multiple projections (by at least a factor of 4).

edit: apparently Pascal still has a warp-size of 32.

<comment><USER15> I am not sure I follow, how does processing 64 vertices instead of 32 at once accelerates anything, provided the total number of ALUs is the same?

<comment><AUTHOR> A major concept in GPGPU programming is "warp coalescing".

Threads are executed an entire warp at a time (32 or 64 threads). All threads execute all paths though the code block - eg if ANY thread executes an if- statement, ALL threads execute an if-statement. The threads where the if- statement is false will execute NOP instructions until the combined control flow resumes. This formula is followed recursively if applicable (this is why "warp divergence/branch divergence" absolutely _murders_ performance on GPUs).

When threads execute a memory load/store, they do so as a bank. The warp controller is designed to combine these requests if at all possible. If 32 threads all issue a request for 32 _sequential_ blocks, it will combine them into 1 request for 32 blocks. However, it cannot do anything if the request isn't either _contiguous_ (a sequential block of the warp-size) or _strided_ (a block where thread N wants index X+0, N+1 wants thread X+0, X+2N, etc). In other words - it doesn't have to be contiguous, but it does have to be uniform. The resulting memory access will be broadcast to all units within the warp, and this is a huge factor in accelerating compute loads.

Having a warp-size of 64 hugely accelerates certain patterns of math, particularly wide linear algebra.

edit: apparently Pascal still has a warp-size of 32.

<comment><USER15> Wow, memory access on NVidia is pretty bad. AMD has a separate unit that coalesces memory requests and goes through cache so if you do strided loads, for example, the next load will likely be reading data cached by the previous one and it does not matter how many lanes are active. AMD has 64-wide "wraps" btw and it does not seem superior to NV in computation on the same number of ALUs.

<comment><AUTHOR> I did my grad research on disease transmission simulations on GPUs, so this is super interesting to me. Could you please hit me with some papers or presentations?

The NVIDIA memory model also goes through L1 cache - but that's obviously not very big on a GPU processor (also true on AMD IIRC). Like <128 bytes per thread. It's great if your threads hit it coalesced, otherwise it's pretty meaningless.

<comment><USER15> I program AMD chips in game consoles so I use a different set of manuals but AMD has a lot of docs available to public at [http://developer.amd.com/resources/documentation- articles/de...](http://developer.amd.com/resources/documentation- articles/developer-guides-manuals/)

At glance there is a lot of legacy stuff so I'd look at anything related to GCN, Sea Islands and Southern Islands. Evergreen, R600-800 etc are legacy VLIW ISA as far as I know.

<comment><USER16> There also fairly recent GCN3 ISA from 2015 available that shed light on their modern hardware architecture.

<comment><USER17> Well, sheds light on their Compute Unit architecture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Can someone provide a quick overview of the current GPU landscape?

There seems to be Nvidia's pascal, gtx, titan, etc. Something called geforce. And I believe these are just from Nvidia.

If I'm interested in building out a desktop with a gpu for: 1\. Learning computation on GPU (matrix math such as speeing up linear regression, deep learning, cuda) using c++11 2\. Trying out oculus rift

Is this the right card? Note that I'm not building production models. I'm learning to use gpus. I'm also not a gamer, but am intrigued by oculus. Which GPU should I look at?

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you need FP64? If so, right now the OG GTX Titan is the default choice - <USER2> offers full double-precision performance with 6 GB of VRAM. There's nothing better south of $3000.

If not, the 980 Ti or Titan X offer _excellent_ deep learning performance, albeit _only_ at FP32. And their scheduling/preemption is not entirely there, they may not be as capable of Dynamic Parallelism as Kepler was. The 780 Ti is actually a more capable card in some respects.

The new consumer Pascal cards will almost certainly _not_ support FP64, NVIDIA has considered that a Quadro/Tesla feature since the OG Titan. If DP performance is a critical feature for you and you _need_ more performance than an OG Titan will deliver, you want the new Tesla P100 compute cards, and you'll have to convince NVIDIA you're worthwhile and pay a 10x premium for it if you want it within the next 6 months. But they _probably_ will support compute better, although you should wait for confirmation before spending a bunch of money...

For VR stuff or deep learning, the consumer Pascal cards sound ideal. Get a 1070 or 1080, definitely. The (purportedly) improved preemption performance alone justifies the premium over Maxwell, and the FP16 capability will significantly accelerate deep learning (FP16 vs FP32 is not a significant difference in overall net output in deep learning).

<comment><USER19> nothing better south of 3k$? does that include the new amd duo pro? or is that just useful for VR?

<comment><AUTHOR> The AMD Pro Duo seems aimed at the workstation/rendering market rather than the compute market.

NVIDIA is totally dominant in the compute market. They have an enormous amount of software running on CUDA that you would be locking yourself out of with AMD, and since NVIDIA has such a dominant share of the compute hardware you would also be tuning for what amounts to niche hardware.

AMD has recently been working on getting a CUDA compatibility layer working, hopefully this will improve in the future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I am waiting for the Nvidia GTX 1070, and sincerely hope NVidia doesn't fuck it up again like the GTX 970.

GTX 970: It was revealed that the card was designed to access its memory as a 3.5 GB section, plus a 0.5 GB one, access to the latter being 7 times slower than the first one. -- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_900_series#False_adver...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_900_series#False_advertisement)

<comment><USER21> I have a GTX 970 and have not yet noticed any issues as a result of that memory issue. Maybe I'm not pushing the card hard enough...

<comment><USER20> Weird comment. Like a grandma driving a Ferrari with a broken gearbox: "I am perfectly fine driving at moderate speed, maybe I am not pushing the car hard enough. I am perfectly fine that the mechanic deactivated the malfunctioning higher gears".

You may not notice it nowadays because several games received patches and newer nVidia drivers limit the memory consumption to just below 3.5 GB. Otherwise you would experience a major slowdown. Also a major problem for CUDA.

<comment><USER22> I see you point, but I use a 970 and just finished Dark Souls 3 on max settings without a single hiccup.

No doubt that with future games the 970 will not perform as well as it should, but I will have a different card by then. What they did is a shame and shouldn't happen again, but I haven't noticed any real-world ramifications yet.

<comment><USER23> How was DS3? I liked DS but haven't tried DS2 yet.

<comment><USER22> It's amazing(ly frustrating).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I was helping a friend put together a Titan X "rig" and we realized that case space, power supply and motherboard slots were some mundane but frustrating challenges. For someone building out a new rig for personal/hobbyist work in deep learning, any recommendations? Is the best setup to get two 1080s, 16-32 GB of RAM and a 6th generation i7?

<comment><USER25> I built a rig a couple days ago; it works nicely both for deep learning and for RAM and CPU-heavy tasks: [http://pcpartpicker.com/p/GvTGsY](http://pcpartpicker.com/p/GvTGsY) \- two 8 core xeons, 128GB RAM, slots for 2 GPUs for ~2000$. Currently it has gtx970; likely I'll add 1080 at some point in future.

I've heard 6th gen i7 is not good for deep learning because its PCIe performance is crippled (16 PCIe lanes instead of 40 in previous generations, it should matter for dual GPU use case). Don't quote me on that ;) Used xeons 2670v1 are dirt cheap on ebay now, and they are modern enough. Single-core performance is worse than in modern desktop CPUs, but not too much, multi-core performance is great, and these xeons allow to install lots of RAM.

If you don't want that much RAM then for the same price a single desktop CPU (i7 5th gen?) could work better because of a higher clock rate.

<comment><USER26> Neat, I hadn't heard of PCpartPicker before. The Xeon 2670 you listed for $90 goes for >$1500 on NewEgg; that is quite a retail / eBay price split! Any idea why there's such a gap?

<comment> T-A "late last year, the supply became huge when thousands of these processors hit the market as previous-gen servers from Facebook and other big Internet companies were decommissioned by used equipment recyclers" [1]

[1] [http://www.techspot.com/review/1155-affordable-dual-xeon- pc/](http://www.techspot.com/review/1155-affordable-dual-xeon-pc/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The lower TDP is just as significant as speed. I've got a pair of GTX 480 that I can use to heat my office with a light workload. How many 1080s could run in a single workstation?

<comment><USER28> Haswell-E chips have 40 PCIe Lanes. If you give 8 to each then 4 is a go although cooling that will be fun. Now that already exceeds the ATX 7 slots but many cases (especially those that offer SSI EEB compatibility) offers 8 slots. Four such GPUs, a Haswell-E, the motherboard -- it'd be challenging to assemble this below $3K but I think $4k is a reasonable target.

Going beyond that is not impossible but requires server grade hardware. For example, the Dell R920/R930 has 10 PCIe slots so does the Supermicro SuperServer 5086B. The barebone for the latter is above $8K. You need to buy Xeon E7 chips for these and those will cost you more than a pretty penny. I do not think $20K is unreasonable to target.

Not enough? A single SGI UV 300 chassis (5U) provides 4 Xeon E7 processors, up to 96 DIMMs, and 12 PCIe slots. You can stuff 8 Xeon E7 CPUs into the new HP Integrity MC990 X and have 20 (!) PCIe slots. How much these cost? An arm and _two_ legs. I can't possibly imagine how such a single workstation would be worth it instead of a multitude of cheaper workstations with with just 4 GPUs (you'd likely end up with a magnitude more GPUs in this case -- E7 CPUs and their base systems are hideously expensive) but to each their own.

<comment><USER28> I left out something: the Supermicro 6037R-TXRF Server is dual socket and has ten slots and since it's an older dual socket even with CPUs and RAM it can be had for <$3K so together with five GPUs you can have it for less than $6K. It's a whole another question whether almost double the price worths adding another GPU (no).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I am just curious (and a total machine learning novice). If you were to experiment with ML, what are the benefits to getting a fast consumer card like this or use something like AWS GPU instances (or some other cloud provider) ? Or phrased differently: When does it make sense to move from a local GPU to the Cloud and vice versa ?

<comment><USER30> I'm a relative novice also, but we have run an EC2 8 way GPU instance. Basically the GPUs are a bit slower and they only have 4 GB of ram. Also getting everything set up and uploading a data set is tedious. Costs weren't too bad. I could see AWS being used for training smaller problems and learning. If you have a serious project it probably won't fit the bill.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Isn't the Titan X also about RAM? It has 12GB to the GTX 1080's 8GB. At the low end you could just buy more than one GTX 1080, so it looks like a good deal there, but at the top end you are running out of slots for cards.

<comment><USER32> Larger learning sets, essentially. I'm a neural net novice, but I think the general perspective seems to be that 8 vs 12 is not a big deal; either you are training something that's going to have to get split up into multiple GPUs anyway, or there's probably a fair amount of efficiency you can get in your internal representations shrinking RAM usage.

One thing not mentioned in this gaming-oriented press release is that the Pascal GPUs have additional support for really fast 32 bit (and do I recall 16 bit?) processing; this is almost certainly more appealing for machine learning folks.

On the VR side, the 1080 won't be a minimum required target for some time is my guess; the enthusiast market is still quite small. That said, it can't come too quickly; better rendering combined with butter-smooth rates has a visceral impact in VR which is not like on-screen improvements.

<comment><USER33> 8 vs 12 is a really big difference - especially with state of the art deep learning architectures. The problem isn't the size of the dataset but of the model. Large Convolutional Neural Networks often need the whole 12 GB VRAM of a Titan card for themselves and distributing over multiple cards/machines adds a lot of complexity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I wonder what the idle power usage of one of these would be? I wish my motherboard allowed me to turn off the dedicated card and fall back to the Intel chipset when I didn't need the performance.

<comment><USER35> From the slides in Nvidia's presentation, it looks like the max power consumption is about 180 W. That puts it squarely between the GTX 980 (165 W) and the GTX 980 Ti (250 W).

Idle power consumption is an order of magnitude less. For the 980 Ti, you're looking at about 10 W of power consumption while running outside of a gaming application. Maybe 40 W if you're doing something intensive. [1]

[1]: [http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce- gtx-980-t...](http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce- gtx-980-ti,4164-7.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> All the benchmarks I can find are comparing this against the GTX 980. I'm curious how it compares to a 980 Ti.

<comment><USER36> I've always been amazed by this chart [http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html](http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html)

I'm sure some of those expensive cards have extra features, but the pricing differences are still crazy.

<comment><USER37> A big part of what you're paying for with the workstation-grade cards (EG Quadro/FirePro) is certification. If you're using many "serious" applications like 3D CAD, you must be using a certified (e.g. not consumer grade) card to be fully supported. They run fine on the consumer cards - but don't expect support.

<comment><USER38> And as it happens, the companies that specialize in cad support will use every opportunity to shove these overpriced cards down your throat. As far as I've understood their business model, they earn almost nothing from selling licenses, so they live on their maintenance contracts and selling Quadro/Fire cards.

Meanwhile we have no problems with an office running on 950Ms and 780/980 GTXes, except for some weird driver bugs that only occur on the single Quadro machine that we keep for reference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Does anybody know what kind of performance a modern Nvidia card like this can provide for offloading SSL ciphers (aes gcm 128 or aes gcm 256)?

<comment><USER40> There are data-dependencies in most AES modes (except ecb) which prevent parallelization. If you however run 2k separate AES encryption streams you could expect a nice performance increase. But for a single stream there is little performance to be had.

<comment><USER39> We run tens of thousands of streams in parallel.. So that's not a problem. :)

I'm just realizing that GPUs could be a viable alternative to specialized (eg, expensive) encryption offload engines or very high end (eg, expensive) v4 Xeons with many, many cores. However, it is rather hard to find data on the bandwidth at which GPUs can process a given cipher. I'm just now starting to look into this, so I could very well be mis-understanding something,

<comment><AUTHOR> Throughput 100% depends on how hard they need to hit memory. GPUs _love_ stuff that they can do entirely within registers. Having to hit (the limited quantity of) shared memory slows things down much more. Inefficient/non- coaslesced use of shared memory or global memory too often can trash performance. Hitting host/CPU memory in any non-trivial amount usually dooms a program.

With each step you not just cut down your _bandwidth_ but also you increase your _latency_ and that has a huge impact.

<comment><USER41> Guys have a look at SSLShader[1]

[1]: [http://shader.kaist.edu/sslshader/](http://shader.kaist.edu/sslshader/)

<comment><USER42> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I'm somewhat dismayed that the GTX 1080 has only 8GB of VRAM considering that previous generation AMD products already had 8GB, and the previous generation Titan model had 12GB—the latter of course being outperformed by the GTX 1080.

Then again, rendering a demanding title at 8192x4320 on a single card and downsampling to 4k is probably wishful thinking anyways. However, it's definitely a legitimate concern for those with dual/triple/quad GPU setups rendering with non-pooled VRAM.

On the bright side, 8GB should hopefully be sufficient to pull off 8k/4k supersampling[0] with less demanding titles (e.g. Cities: Skylines). Lackluster driver or title support for such stratospheric resolutions may prove to be an issue, though.

It's possible Nvidia is saving the 12GB configuration for a 1080 Ti model down the road. If they release a new Titan model, I'm guessing it'll probably weigh in at 16GB. Perhaps less if those cards end up using HBM2 instead of GDDR5X.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersampling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersampling)

<comment><USER43> Correction: 7680×4320.

Accidentally multiplied DCI 4K, not UHD 4K.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Towards the end of the article in the table overview, they list a `NVIDIA GP100` model with a memory bus width of 4096 bit. It is still shared memory, but considering bcrypt only requires a 4k memory working set, that now fits into 8 cycles instead of the 128 of 256 bit bus architectures...

Am I wrong to think this card could really shake bcrypt GPU cracking up?

<comment><USER45> The AMD Radeon R9 Fury series has a 4096bit bus (HBM1) - it's been out for months - so it would already be shaking it up if so.

<comment><USER44> Ah, did not know that. Nevermind.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I'll buy when there's Vulkan/DX12 benchmarks and real retail prices for both AMD and NVIDIA next-gen cards. Buying now seems slightly premature.

But oh man am I excited!

</comment><comment><USER47> This has a similar leap to the one I felt when the 3Dfx Voodoo 2 SLI came out. The possibilities seem pretty amazing.

I'm interested to know how quickly I can plug in a machine learning toolkit, it was bit finicky to get up and running on a box with a couple of 580GTs in it but that might just be because it was an older board.

</comment><comment><USER48> I watched the livestream, looked good and love the performance/watt. 180watt card. Way more GPU power than I need professionally or for fun though. I'm actually all-in on the new Intel gaming NUCs. Skull Canyon looks fantastic and has enough GPU performance for the gaming I do anymore. Mostly older games, some CS:Go (my friends and I play at 1280x1024 anyway since it's competitive gaming) and League of Legends.

It's also nice to have an all Intel machine for Linux. I'd use a lowend NV Pascal to breathe new life into an older desktop machine since NV seems to always have a bit better general desktop acceleration that really helps out old CPUs. If building a high end gaming rig I'd probably wait for AMD's next chip. I've liked them more on the high end for a few generations now. Async compute and fine-grained preemption, generally better hardware for Vulkan/DX12. AMD is also worth keeping an eye on for their newfound console dominance, subsequent impact if they push dual 'Crossfire' GPUs into XboxOne v2, the PS4K and Nintendo NX. That would be a master stroke to get games programmed at a low-level for their specific dual GPUs by default. Also, the removal of driver middleware mess with the return of low-level APIs to replace OGL/DX11 will remove the software monkey off AMD's back. That always plagued them and the former ATI a bit.

I'll probably buy the KabyLake 'Skull Canyon' NUC revision next year and if I end up missing the GPU power, hook up the highest end AMD Polaris over Thunderbolt. Combining the 256MB L4 cache that Kabylake-H will have with Polaris will truly be next-level. Kaby also has Intel Optane support in the SODIMM slots, it's possible we'll finally see the merge of RAM+SSDs into a single chip.

But more than anything, I want Kabylake because it's Intel's last 14nm product so here's to hoping they finally sort out their electromigration problems. Best to take a wait and see on these 16nm GPUs for the same reason. I'm moving to a 'last revision' purchase policy on these <=16nm processes.

<comment><USER49> >my friends and I play at 1280x1024 anyway since it's competitive gaming

Can you elaborate on this? Never heard of this.

<comment><USER48> It's common for pros and old timer Counterstrike players. My friends and I have been PC gaming since the mid-80s so we've been in on CS since the earliest days. Here's a spreadsheet of some pro player's setups.

[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UaM765-S515ibLyPaBtM...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UaM765-S515ibLyPaBtMnBz7xiao0HL5f-F1zk_CSF4/htmlview?sle=true#gid=1762004852)

A little bit of everything but note how common 1024x768 is. It looks a little sharper, enough that it doesn't need AA (which I always felt introduced some strange input lag).

Guarantees good performance, makes the models slightly bigger. Gives you a slight edge. You can also run a much slower GPU, that's how I'm getting away with using stuff like Intel Iris Pro. I'd run 1280x1024 with all options on lowest even if I had a Fury X. Other people I know have GF780s and do the same. I only turn up graphics options in single player games, at which point I don't care about FPS dips. When playing competitively I want every edge I can get.

<comment><USER50> > When playing competitively I want every edge I can get.

Jesus christ, I can't even imagine the leaps in skill I'd have to make before the difference between 50fps and 150fps had any impact on my performance. Watching gaming at that level feels like being a civilian in Dragonball Z, just seeing a bunch of blurs zipping in the sky while wondering if I'm about to become obsolete.

<comment><USER51> > I can't even imagine the leaps in skill I'd have to make before the > difference between 50fps and 150fps had any impact on my performance

Keep in mind fps are normally given in averages. You can go up to a wall and have nothing on screen and get an insane FPS or you can back out and take in all of the area with max view distance and see a lower FPS. Add in players/objects/explosions etc and your FPS dips and dives.

Having an average of 50FPS means you likely ARE going to notice it at certain dips while at 150 average would be much less likely to get a perceivable fps dip

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> > The GP104 Pascal GPU Features 2x the performance per watt of Maxwell.

And

> The GTX 1080 is 3x more power efficient than the Maxwell Architecture.

I think that someone get carried away by imagination.

I found that 980 has 4.6 TFLOPs (Single precision) And assuming that 1080 performance (9 TFLOPs) is also for single precision and new card has the same TDP, this is 1.95x increase, so it is ~2x

EDIT: I found that 1080 will have 180W TDP, where 980 has 165W, so correction it will be 1.79x increase

</comment><comment><USER53> Not long ago I found this 2009 project [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastra_II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastra_II)

built to give a 'desktop' cluster class performance based on GPUs. I wonder how it would fare against a 1080.

<comment><USER54> On paper, the Fastra II would still be a fair bit faster, and would have more RAM. However. in a standoff, I'd put my money on the 1080 simply because of the overhead of wrangling all those GPUs to work together.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> I'm more interested on the impact it will have on the 10 series as a whole. I literally just bought a 950, now I'm wondering if the 1050 will be priced just as reasonably and offer big performance gains. Also, what is the time table for the rest of the 10 series?

<comment><USER56> Based on the previous gens (since 400 series) you can expect about 20-25 % gain from one generation to the next. Traditionally the release have been: April to June: paper release (reads very limited supply of the top of the range). July to October: x70/x60 range (which are the main gaming GPU). November-December: rest of the range released with ample supply for the end of the year festive season. January to March: annoncement of the next generation. Rinse and repeat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> How good does it look for a hobbyist manipulating large matrices for use in machine-learning?

<comment><USER58> Pretty good; 8gb memory and impressive transfer speeds. The 980 Ti is pretty common in the Deep Learning community. Only the Titan X is more popular, and that thing is far outside any average person's budget. I'm definitely looking to pick up one of these soon.

<comment><USER59> Titan budgets are definitely a problem, which is why you see so many acknowledgements of Nvidia in deep learning, thanking them for giving a Titan.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Does anyone know why video cards have stayed on a 28nm process for so long? It's appears that a significant factor in this incredible leap of performance is the process change, but I'm puzzled as to why 22nm was skipped.

<comment><USER61> TSMC doesn't have a 22nm process -- they offer a 20nm process instead, but it was heavily delayed, had huge yield issues, and most of its production capability was double-booked with Apple, all of which meant it wasn't feasible to use in time for Nvidia's previous generation (Maxwell) launch.

Maxwell had been planned as 20nm, but when TSMC couldn't solve their process issues the first Maxwell was taped out at 28nm (GM107 aka the GeForce 750), while they waited on the rest of lineup. 6 months later, with TSMC still having issues at 20nm, the GM204(GeForce 980/970) was launched at 28nm.

16nm FinFET wasn't subject to massive delays (it launched early, in fact), and seems to have better yields than 20nm early on, so Pascal skipped right down to it.

<comment><USER60> Thanks for the explanation! I haven't been following fab process news for some time so I've been very much out of the loop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> I'm hopeful this will provide a significant speed up for my 3D modeling / rendering. The number of cuda cores is only slightly higher than the 780. I'll definitely wait for more benchmarks.

</comment><comment><USER63> Could someone clarify if they meant that one 1080 is faster than two 980s in SLI? Or did they mean two 1080s were faster than two 980s?

<comment><USER45> He meant one 1080 is faster than two 980s in SLI, but that seems pretty hard to believe; we're going to need to wait for some 3rd party reviews.

<comment><USER64> I might believe 980s but not 980tis. That would be a feat

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> No word on double-precision performance? Could replace the Titan Z and Titan (black) as a good CUDA-application card..

<comment><USER66> DP will be better than maxwell cards but you need to wait and see if it can beat kepler (IMO it will).

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "GTX 1080"

"10 Gaming Perfected"

Seems like a missed marketing opportunity to make it a 10 GFLOPs card.

<comment><USER67> There is likely to be a GTX 1080Ti with a significantly larger GPU (GP200) that will exceed 10 GFLOPs.

<comment><USER68> Any idea when it'll be released?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> What is the "founders edition"?

<comment><USER70> [http://www.anandtech.com/show/10304/nvidia-announces-the- gef...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/10304/nvidia-announces-the-geforce- gtx-1080-1070/2)

> _There will be two versions of the card, the base /MSRP card at $599, and > then a more expensive Founders Edition card at $699. At the base level this > is a slight price increase over the GTX 980, which launched at $549. > Information on the differences between these versions is limited, but based > on NVIDIA's press release it would appear that only the Founders Edition > card will ship with NVIDIA's full reference design, cooler and all. > Meanwhile the base cards will feature custom designs from NVIDIA's partners. > NVIDIA's press release was also very careful to only attach the May 27th > launch date to the Founders Edition cards._

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> and still not fully DX 12, oh nvidia

<comment><USER72> Maxwell currently leads when it comes to DX12 feature support (along with Skylake), see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_levels_in_Direct3D#Dir...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_levels_in_Direct3D#Direct3D_12) . I don't know what Pascal has but I doubt it'd be a regression.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> This will be pretty nice for VR cause it will push older generation cards back in price

</comment><comment><USER74> Why are these coprocessors still positioned as graphics cards?

<comment><USER75> Because consumers buy them for video games.

<comment><USER74> But you can perceive this as: if from a business (money) perspective it becomes interesting to lock down these graphics cards to specific games, then the computational folks lose their processing power. They were not a market in the first place (relatively speaking).</comment></comment></comment>


Square launches a mobile app for its Caviar food delivery service - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2014/12/04/square-launches-mobile-app-caviar-food-delivery-service/

<comment><USER2> don't you think 5 posts in a row about the same topic is a little excessive. i started upvoting you until i realized what was going on and then i went back and flagged your posts.

for future reference, if you want to persist and include all 5 articles, put them in the comments and those of us who are interested in the topic will follow the links.

otherwise, if a topic is really that interesting and i want to learn more about it, i'll use a search engine.

and don't get me wrong, i appreciate your efforts to make life really convenient by listing the information for me, but in this case, it was overkill.</comment>


New Microsoft Commercials Are Live  - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/09/18/new-microsoft-ads-are-live/ <comment><USER2> This is a bit of a change in direction.

Normally, it's only the little guy that can recognise competitors in advertising. Apple can point at Microsoft because they are the challenger.

For an established dominant player like Microsoft to directly reference Apple, then it can backfire - it's giving Apple credibility and legitimacy to Microsoft's own customers. e.g. "If Microsoft want to respond to Apple, then Apple must be threatening them - maybe Apple is doing something right?".

So whilst these ads seem ok, there might be more subtle implications.

<comment><USER3> If your competitor bashes you in their ads and they have a valid point, there is nothing you can really do to fight back. But, if your competitor's ads are based on unfounded or misleading claims, you can get big points if you respond in a clever manner. That is exactly what is going on here. Apple's underlying message is that cool people use macs and boring people use PCs. Well, it isn't hard to find a bunch of cool people that use PCs to refute that claim. The hard part is packaging them up, and I think Microsoft did a good job with that here.

The other thing is that Microsoft can kill the PC vs. Mac commercials simply by drowning them out. The Bill+Jerry ads were a few minutes after the PC vs. Mac ads during the same show on ABC (or NBC, I forget). If they do the same thing, where stations run 1 PC vs. Mac commercial followed by two "I'm a PC" commercials, they will deflate the PC vs. Mac message, and actually kind of turn it around to Microsoft's favor.

Plus, as people get tired of "I'm a PC" they will get tired of PC vs. Mac too because there is such an obvious association there. Even if people have the "I'm a PC" ads, they still serve a valuable purpose.

As for the specific claims that the PC vs. Mac commercials make, I'm not sure it makes sense for Microsoft to counter all of them. But, some of them definitely _could_ be countered. For example, the "it just works" ad is easy to counter. Just fine some hardware that has drivers for Windows and doesn't have drivers for a Mac. Then, have a commercial where you have 10 people with 10 different brands of computers. Have the first 9 plug the device into PCs and say "It works!" Then, have the 10th plug the device into a mac and (insert clever imagery here). This is not hard to do, because in reality more stuff "just works" with PCs than it does with Macs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is it possible there is no hope for MicroSoft? It just seems that competing with Apple the way that they are is the wrong move somehow. Apple has a massively powerful emotional branding philosophy in play, shouldn't MicroSoft use it's rapidly dwindling might to chase and conquer a different market? They even seem a bit late to the cloud computing party as well, sure they are involved but they let so many other firms get a foothold. It's as if Apple and cloud computing platforms are doing to Microsoft what MicroSoft did to IBM.. Am I nuts here?

<comment><USER5> Apple's annual revenue is ~$20B. Microsoft's is ~$51B with significantly higher profit margins.

Don't you think that "no hope" is kind of a stretch?

<comment><USER6> There's a long tech history of companies making record profits just before they go out of business.

It happens when they hone their product during the adolescence of a disruptive innovation. Microsoft is staring down the twin barrels of linux and SaaS. Its products have pretty much maxed out their potential (read: they've run out of runway), but are neither free nor services. It's a different game. [ _edit_ also, wine works amazingly well]

Meanwhile, Apple heads the disruptive innovation of iPods. They'll need another disruption soon though. Tech demands it.

<comment><USER3> Microsoft's SaaS approach is compelling even if it is late in getting to market.

Want hosted email? They'll host it and it is guaranteed to be 100% compatible with Outlook/Exchange because it _is_ Exchange. Want hosted groupware, etc.? They'll host it. Change your mind and want to host it yourself? Okay, they'll sell you the _same software_ that the hosted solution is running on, to run on your own hardware. I bet they will eventually even help you migrate it onto hardware that you can purchase from them, so that you have nothing to set up.

In contrast, none of their competitors have 100% Exchange compatibility because they are not running Exchange. Very few of their competitors let you change your mind and painlessly switch from cloud-hosted to self-hosted and back as you see fit. And, most of their competitors don't have any solution for hybrid systems where self-hosted applications and data are automatically replicated onto the cloud, or where the cloud can be used to incrementally add capacity for applications you are currently hosting yourself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm a PC and I sell fish.

<comment><USER8> Sounds like "I'm selfish". Blunder?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Oh, good, more stories about Microsoft commercials!

I know when I get together with hackers, there's nothing we like more than watching TV commercials, hearing what tech bloggers think about TV commercials, and talking about TV commercials. Sometimes it keeps us up all night!

Having stories about advertisements on the front page also makes up for the lack of other ads, which has always made this site look kind of geeky and 'small potatoes' to me. Corporate marketing on the front page means we've arrived into the mainstream, finally!

And did you catch Eva Longoria Parker in the ad? Wouldn't kick her out of bed to check email on a MacBook Air, that's for sure! Isn't the wait for the season premiere of Desperate Housewives killing you? Me too!

I, for one, welcome News.YC's new video viral marketing overloads.

<comment><USER10> Have you seen this one yet:

<http://frinko.com/you-might-have-to-watch-this-twice.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm confused. "I'm a pissy" was it? What are these ads for?

Come on Microsoft, make some cool software and advertise it. Remember? writing cool software? innovating?

<comment><USER12> Do you heard about Haskell or F#? They a related to Microsoft research without any marketing crap, I really appreciate that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I hated the Seinfeld commercials, but I like these replacement commercials. They make sense in trying to break the PC's stereotype, as opposed to the garbage they put out before which can be summed up as: <http://www.penny- arcade.com/comic/2008/9/15/> (language may be nsfw depending on how stuck up your company is)

</comment><comment><USER14> ...but i'm not a PC.

oh well, still pretty decent commercials and any response to the mac guy ads is better than nothing.

<comment><USER15> I don't know if thats true. For Microsoft, a company that's so big and should have so much to say about their new product, a reactionary approach to a smaller competitor seems somehow wrong.

<comment><USER16> That, and:

[http://www.theangrydrunk.com/2008/09/19/im-microsoft-and- i-d...](http://www.theangrydrunk.com/2008/09/19/im-microsoft-and-i-dont-have- a-clue/)

Microsoft is digging itself into a hole, 'twould seem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Hmm, these remind me a lot of political commercials. Rather than discuss the features and merits (issues and policies) over competitors, they concentrate on identifying with the customer ("Here's a candidate you could have a beer with!"). Apple commercials are annoying, but at least they have substance.

</comment><comment><USER18> Unbearable - cool people in general don't go around telling everybody how cool they are. I would have thought elitist marketing companies would know such things.

<comment><USER19> So... "Apple: Einstein and Gandhi would have loved us" doesn't count?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This just in...

Apple has changed their advertising strategy: Justin Long is now going to call himself Safari and John Hodgman will be referring to himself as Internet Explorer.

</comment><comment><USER21> I like them! (and I'm a Mac/Linux head)

</comment><comment><USER22> The slogan is odd, in a life without walls windows wouldn't exist .</comment>


How to Screw Up an On-Site Interview - <AUTHOR> http://www.artima.com/articles/ten_ways_to_screw_up_an_on_site_interview.html

<comment><USER2> _If I'd known about the anti-suit culture, I would have worn Dockers and a polo shirt. I just wanted to convey that I took the interview seriously. Apparently the feeling wasn't reciprocal._

This isn't the first time I've heard of candidates being looked down upon for wearing suits to interviews, and I'm really curious what the thought process is behind this.

I've done interviews where the candidate wore a suit, and where they wore jeans and a button-down, and nobody felt offended. The only time someone's clothing made a truly negative impression was when it was clear their suit had most likely been crumpled up in a ball 30 minutes before the interview -- some of his answers to technical questions suggested he was generally sloppy, and his appearance was just one more data point to support that conclusion.

Is there some inherent distrust in someone who shows up in a suit?

<comment><USER3> My first interview for a technical job, I showed up in a suit and tie. The rest of the interview had each person start by asking some variant of "wait, are you sure you're interviewing for engineering and not marketing?" The feeling this conveyed was that if you wore a suit, you couldn't possibly be a real engineer.

I landed the job - a summer internship - but the suit was a distraction. It certainly did not help me relax and perform my best. The job rocked, so I'm glad the people there were able to look past the suit. Since then, I've taken to asking people what kind of dress code they expect on an interview.

<comment><USER4> I always get the feeling, when this happens, is that they're really trying to convey "hey look, we're really a pretty casual bunch..." not "man you're a tool for wearing a suit."

I would honestly interpret it as a positive. That casual atmosphere is pretty ingrained into the culture at that point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _I wrongly assumed that someone would ask me between sessions if I needed to use the rest room._

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the local culture but in the countries I've lived this strikes me as a complaint valid only for a child. When adults need to use the restroom, they make their apologies, ask where the restroom is and go.

That aside, why would someone ask someone else if they need to use the restroom anyway? It's rude and isn't their business. If you think someone's being timid and really _does_ need a break, it's more common to ask if they want to "take a break" rather than asking flat out if they need to go potty.

<comment><USER6> In a lot of places having a visitor wandering the halls looking for a bathroom wouldn't be appreciated

<comment><USER5> Hence the "ask where the restroom is" part. Though the most relevant part of the point is that whether you're escorted or not, the person who needs the restroom is the one who asks to go.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> One of the last sentences: "This is not a true story but similar things have all happened to me or to my colleagues. "

<comment><USER8> I found this to be a let down. The story was structured as a first person narrative, I didn't expect it to be fiction.

<comment><USER9> Particularly followed up with a pitch for the book to teach you how not to do these things that didn't happen. I agree that interviewers forget that an interview is a two-way street; you're pitching yourself as a fit for the interviewee as much as they're pitching themselves as a fit for your company. But it's such a good point, I was sad to have the fun anecdote turn out to be a marketing pitch for a book instead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> You know, I always hear employers talking about how important it is for employees to be passionate and to show they _want_ to work for them. But they forget that it goes both ways too. The end result is an interview where employers expect me to show them how absolutely _thrilled_ I am at the prospect of working for them, but they make little effort to convince me that I'm anything more than an inconvenience to them.

When you have an interview where an employer does want you and shows it, it makes all the difference in the world.

<comment><USER11> True, but most employeers have the idea that they are doing their employee a favor by giving them a job and therefore expect them to be thankful that they would do this, totally forgetting that it is an exchange of values (your expertise versus their money) and that both parties are equal in the exchange.

It doesn't help that there is a subconscious social belief about this in society too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> There are places that interview people with no intent of hiring them, but rather to prove a point: "We can't find anyone with the right skill set, therefore we must do X." Values of X may include:

\- Outsource

\- Find a cheap, indentured H1B employee

\- Choose another technology path that was ignored due to politics

\- Stick it to a manager who insisted that "anyone" could do this

\- Use the inability to hire a new person as an excuse to steal someone from another team in the company

In the end, the interviewee is merely a pawn in the scheme of things.

</comment><comment><USER13> Other turn-offs:

1\. Pull out an inconsequential suboptimally worded sentence in my CV and ask questions about it while wearing a half-smirk.

2\. React negatively to _anything_ about my CV or manner that is considered general practice among other interviewers. Is it silly and unnecessary of me attach a cover letter as PDF? Of course it is, but some companies' HR screenings _require_ it, and I don't know your company's screening process.

</comment><comment><USER14> I would love to read stories of interviewees who've decided to call it quits on the interviewers. It must happen right?

<comment><USER10> You know, based on reading thedailywtf[1] for a while, I've concluded that it happens very infrequently even under the most absurd circumstances. Most of the time, the interviewee says something like "This was bizarre, but I figured I should just stick the interview out". I'm curious why that is.

[1] <http://thedailywtf.com/Series/Tales_from_the_Interview.aspx>

<comment><USER15> Often you can still learn some things from the interviews. A glimpse into differing company cultures, for examples.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> my goal is to reach a point where i never have to subject myself to an interview or application process ever again. they are fundamentally broken and often irrelevant or carried out amateurishly. once you've shipped enough code and had enough successful projects under your belt it gets rather old dealing with it.

<comment><USER17> You'll get to the point where you want the interview because you want to see what kind of weird situation you're getting yourself into. At this point in my career, I do most of the interviewing so I can size up if it's even possible to be successful in a new place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> An alternate title - "10 things that signal you should leave the interview and not even consider working for the company"

If any 2 of these had happened I wouldn't even consider working there. You can only image what the culture must be like there. There's something to be said for treating candidates like humans, even if you don't really want to be interviewing.

</comment><comment><USER19> I have been known to bail from an interview as soon as it became evident we were wasting one another's time. I'm not sure why the author put himself through all that. As it stands, it really reads like someone who's bummed they didn't get hired.

<comment><USER20> He didn't

 _This is not a true story..._

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> sounds like they weren't that in to him more than anything else...

</comment><comment><USER22> I've never worn a suit to an interview. I've always thought people in suits have something to hide, aka, if they really knew what they were doing they wouldn't be overdressing.

<comment><USER23> I'm a research scientist who wears a suit and doesn't understand your attitude. I don't wear a suit to cover up any lack of ability, I wear a suit because it's very comfortable, extremely convenient (lots of pockets!) and means that I don't need to worry about my outfit. I also enjoy being treated better generally because I look neat - doesn't matter about your body shape, a decent single-breasted suit makes you look good.

Isn't part of the attraction to no-dress-code places (like start-ups, universities and research institutes!) that you can wear whatever you like without being judged on it? Why do you prejudge those of us who wear a suit? Especially when they're uncertain of the dress-code of the place that they visit for the first time! I don't think that I'd want to work somewhere that the staff make such a judgment on such a shallow first impression, if I am honest.

<comment><USER22> Here in Colorado it's very informal; it's just not the norm to wear a suit to an interview. It raises eyebrows. This is especially true for tech jobs. I would never not hire someone because of this, but the reality is I've never met anyone that over-dressed like that for an interview that aced it. If they did, I'd probably joke with them about the suit, but that would be that.

I also personally find suits unoriginal. It's actually more work to find a nice outfit that is stylish, professional and looks good; a suit is like choosing Pad Thai at a Thai restaurant - it's just the easy choice, not necessarily the best choice (though sometimes it is the best choice too). I also think ones appearance gives you a glimpse into what makes them unique; if I'm meeting you to consider hiring you then your appearance matters. It won't be the reason I hire you, or not hire you, but it matters. Sorry if that bothers you.

<comment><USER23> I guess I'm just confused now. What would you wear that is stylish and professional that is not a suit or a derivative thereof (collared shirt, wool/linen trousers)? You ruled out about 90% of a professional's wardrobe, as I see it.

When attending an interview, I want to look smart and make it clear that I made some effort to dress well without trying to stamp my personality all over people, so the default choice is a well-fit suit with a nice shirt. I'm genuinely curious: what would you wear, or expect someone else to wear?

<comment><USER22> I can only speak for myself, I don't expect anyone to dress a certain way (beyond what has been covered - aka a suit is over doing it, trying too hard). But me, I typically wear a pair of nice dress paints, let's say charcoal gray. I'd pair that with a button down dress shirt, long-sleave - something that is s solid color, usually a bold choice there to stand out such as burnt orange or a burgundy for example. That's pretty much it other than of course matching a proper belt and shoes (in this case black shoes and belt, I'd go to Aldo's for that). Just swing into Banana Republic or Limited for Men; poke around those shops and you'll get the hang of it. Maybe pick up an issue or two of GQ and Men's Health while you are at it. You can also switch out the long-sleave shirt in the summer for a shirt-sleave polo style shirt; I'd again get something more modern from a shop like Limited/BR, but you get the idea.

Anyway, that's literally what I wear to work most days. I have 3-4 pairs of dress slacks from a good store like those, different colors - black, charcoal gray, dark brown and a light gray (almost a tweed). Then you can buy a variety of different colored shirts. Then you just need a pair (or 2) of black and brown shoes, and matching belts (though you can probably get away with black shoes, and a black belt with the brown slacks, but I personally like to really look 'compete').

It's funny but I was starting to think about creating a post or blog entry on this because it's not that hard to dress really sharp without going too far. Also, if you aren't good at picking clothing bring a girl with you, or just ask one of the store clerks, they are usually really into this stuff and can point you in the right direction (but always pick things that appeal to you in some way, allowing them to influence your choice, not make it for you).

<comment><USER23> Strikes me that the only difference between the way that you and I dress is that I wear a jacket ;-) (I can't stand ties). I wear the jacket because the silhouette is flattering, and there are all those handy pockets. Why should such a simple, very practical item make you think at such a person is over- dressing?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Uber Is About To Launch An API - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/12/uber-api/

<comment><USER2> Will the API include the ability to cancel requests?

</comment><comment><USER3> i got a sneak peek at the new API. Here's the key endpoint:

/api/v1/createAndCancelLyftRide

<comment><USER4> Isn't it in a Loop? :P

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> If lyft creates (or has) an API, then you could easily schedule the cheapest ride.

I'd really like to see a blockchain-based distributed ride service though. Drivers get 100%, but the issues of insurance, reputation, etc. would be hard.

</comment><comment><USER6> I wonder if they will integrate with other software vendors, like glympse who is taking a similar strategy.

</comment><comment><USER7> Will the API support delivery requests?

</comment><comment><USER8> can't wait for uber for uber</comment>


How Big Is Google? Here's Another Measure - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/how-big-is-google-heres-another-measure/index.html?ref=technology <comment><AUTHOR> Interesting quote, I think:

Google sells more advertising than any company in the world. This year Morgan Stanley estimates Google's total advertising revenue will be $21.9 billion. Excluding the payments it makes to companies that display its ads, Google's total ad revenue will be $15.7 billion.

Time Warner, the largest media company in the world, earned $8.8 billion in advertising revenue last year. Viacom had $4.7 billion in ad revenue last year. I'm still working through the numbers at the other big conglomerates, but it seems clear that none of them sold more than $16 billion in advertising.</comment>


Who invented the internet? - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/who-invented-the-internet-f06a7ffb7f3c <comment><USER2> Somewhere around 1994-95, I had a Usenet signature that included "This post brought to you by Bill Gates, Inventor of the Internet". I included it in an attempt to get the unselfconsciously self-righteous to correct me, but I ended up being surprised by how many people seemed to actually believe it.

</comment><comment><USER3> I thought it was Al Gore?

<comment><USER4> It was Al Gore</comment></comment>