AMD or Intel as well as the memory brand - page 53
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
And it is probably a good idea to tabulate the results of the second version of the script. To complete the picture in comparing the first methodology (first script and first exp) with the second methodology.
Yes, a set of teams without which there is no future...
(and no present ;)))
The time will come to find out all and sundry.
Looks like the marketing department eats its bread for a reason. "I can't explain it, but I have a feeling it's needed".
By the way (my bad!) I didn't indicate the testing period as for the first EA from 15.09.08 to 15.09.09. The results may be different.
If it's not difficult - run the test for that period.
If it's not too much trouble - run a test for this period.
Not a problem... ;)
Docent, you guessed it) a car is not just an engine and wheels but also air conditioning and a machine.)
We don't live by trade alone. Kora would be enough for me now and I would not think about building a new computer. That's not what I was talking about. Either we build a cheap PC every 2 years or a little bit more expensive but for 4.
I disagree. There are cheap Celerons, and then there are expensive Core 2 Quad (I'm not comparing with the Core ix family yet, but there too will be a full in price sense lineup a little later). The set of "technologies" (except for unnecessary virtualization for the vast majority of the house) is the same - i.e. all those "arch-necessary" SSE 1-2-3-4 are in both processors. But for some reason C2Q is times faster on heavy tasks.
So in cases of "cheap computer vs expensive computer" we usually choose not the technology, but the frequency, number of cores and cache size.
updated...
17:28
to Docent
Test http://www.ixbt.com/cpu/intel-ci5i7-lga1156.shtml See "Scientific and Engineering Calculations". The top-of-the-range quad for 365 c.u. (I look at prices in nix) falls just a little short of the i5 750, which costs 242 c.u. Plus the ability to upgrade the comp in a couple of years when the former top models will be giving away 200oz. Now you show the tests on your "heavy duty" tasks.
Imp120. Here's a quote from your post, which is what sparked our discussion:
A computer is not just about processor speed and RAM, it's also about technology. What technology are we talking about here?
Once again I argue that all sorts of new-fangled (at the time of the announcement of course) "technologies" (and in fact, usually processor instruction sets) have little to do with performance. Yes, they can show staggering efficiency in individually selected tests, but on average the result is measured in units or (much more rarely) tens of percent.
As for the link above - I read the tests on ixbt.com regularly, as well as other sites.
But you read my post above diagonally - and there I stressed that Core 2 and Core ich cannot be compared. They are different platforms. You can of course pull something like "Core i7 technology" here, but that's at least illiterate. As well as it is illiterate to compare one of the top-end processors of the previous generation with the youngest one of the new generation. The cost of the top is a consequence of the manufacturer's high margins on any of the most "cool" products - be they processors, cars, watches or anything else.
To plan that a computer will be 4 years "quite up to par" is to overpay very heavily for it at the time of purchase. Things change too fast. An elementary example - the most expensive Core 2 Qaud QX9775 bought 2 years ago will now be twice as cheap as a Core i7 870. Why overpay?
It is possible, waiting for prices to drop or for more efficient solutions to come out, to sit on the sidelines for the rest of your life.
By the way, from a practical point of view, how often should you upgrade - pardon me, I'll say it in Russian - your hardware? Every 2 years according to Moore's law?)) Funny, but Macs are longer-lived (up to 5 years) at least until recently. Now with the move to Intel they too have accelerated their metabolism. They are under Moore, one of the founders of Intel.
Of course, it depends on the problems to be solved. But we are very clear about that.
By the way, from a practical point of view, how often should you upgrade - pardon me for speaking Russian - your hardware? Every 2 years according to Moore's law?)) Funny, but Macs are longer-lived (up to 5 years) at least until recently. Now with the move to Intel they too have accelerated their metabolism.
Of course, it depends on the tasks to be solved. But with that we have full clarity.
Just from the point of view of "is it necessary to upgrade at all". If I have enough performance, I choose when to upgrade so that my current hardware can be sold at a profit. For Core 2 there comes a dangerous moment - soon, with even cheaper Core i3/i5 the current generation will lose its price.
And if performance isn't enough - then upgrade as soon as the financial opportunity presents itself.
Well, Macs were long-lived for the same reason as Zhiguli, need I explain? :)
Erm...
I (personally) have a slightly different stance than Mr Moore and the manufacturers marketing department.
It's a matter of a very ordinary PC for everyday tasks...
Which can be replaced only because the support or release of software for it is terminated.
;)
I don't get it! (с)
I'm looking at gigabytes of vista and tens of v7, and I don't understand, but what's going on?
Deliberately overloading the system?
Or the button's code is ten times bigger now...
:)))
For gamers I know, it's hard to keep up with all the information there, so the upgrade process has no end.
In theory, I need a completely bare OS and pre-installed notepad.
Shobmi.txt to read, the rest I'll install myself what I need...