| Author |
Message |
Benjamin Gawert
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:52 pm Post subject:
Re: 4 Hardware bandwidth questions. (Related to ram,pci-e,cp |
|
|
Skybuck Flying wrote:
[due to the amount of nonsense I answered only the most anoying parts]
| Quote: | Ok, then think about on what computers were highend 10 years ago:
Ok, windows 95 era.
Pentium 200MMX with 16MB RAM and one of the first 3D cards like a Matrox
Millenium PCI.
Great computer. Internet, word processing, even some shooters which haven't
changed that much... aka doom3 aka quake 4 ;)
|
Maybe these shooters didn't change much regarding game content. But they
changed a lot when it comes to system ressources...
| Quote: | And now think about who cares about these computers
today.
People who want to internet and word process ?
|
Yeah, right. You definitely want to do internet with an outdated OS that
doesn't get updated any more like Windows95, because only there you can
be sure to catch _every_ bit of malware that's around...
| Quote: | Exactly. no-one.
Lol, are you the all knowing god ?
I think a poor person in some under developed country would be happy with
such a computer.
|
Sure. Tell the people that are dying because of hunger or diseases
because they are so poor that they can't afford food and medicine that
everything is good as long as they have that old Pentium200 running
Windows95. It's not that they don't have any bigger problems...
Besides that, even in development countries, such a system will be quite
useless because even there it catches all worms that are floating
around. But yeah, we definitely need more unsecure computers that are
used as SPAM sources...
| Quote: | Almost everything has changed during the last 10
years: busses, processors, memory, gfx cards, and much more...
Gje, when will those bastards get it right huh ? :)
In 10 years from now certainly no-one gives a fuck on PCIe 16x any more...
Most people don't give a fuck today since their clueless ?
|
Or perhaps they just know it better than you?
| Quote: | Number one are disk drives which are slow like hell compared to all other
data transfer
processes in a PC.
True, access time hasn't changed at all the last 10 years.
Throughput however has become quite fast...
|
Yeah, right. ~60MB/s is sooo fast. And you're whining about PCIe being a
bottleneck...
| Quote: | Second is RAM which is still plain slow compared to
what CPUs are able to transfer...
Hmm.. I like to think of RAM being fast.
|
Wrong thought.
| Quote: | How fast do you think CPU can generate data ?
|
The old Pentium4 1.5GHz that sits here besides my desk does around
12GB/s between CPU and L1 cache and ~10GB/s between CPU and L2 cache...
BTW. that's the reason why processors do have cache: simply because RAM
is so slow...
| Quote: | I think it's quite smart to start at the theoretical limitations and proceed
downwards from there.
|
Nope, it's useless, especially as a end user like you that only has the
choice of a certain amount of components that are available on the
market. As long as you don't do electronics engineering such discussions
are worthless...
| Quote: | To understand the limitations of a system you need much deeper knowledge
than just a few figures you read from a website.
I read a lot more than just some numbers ;)
|
Yes, you read a lot, but you obviously are lacking the technical
background to fully understand what's really going on inside the
computer. Sadly, most websites won't help you there...
| Quote: | Then stop using those applications to measure your system's performance.
Use a synthetic benchmark to test the true performance of your hardware.
|
Synthetic benchmarks are called "synthetic" because they have no
relation to real-world applications. But the latter are the things that
are important, because most people buy a computer to work with real
applications and not for running synthetic benchmarks...
| Quote: | You should seperate hardware performance from software performance since
those two things are two completely seperate things.
|
Nope, they are not. Software performance depends on the hardware and
vice versa...
| Quote: | And it's also important to understand that benchmarks like the ones
you're looking for are just that: benchmarks.
No there are different benchmarks.
I in particular like the benchmarks which drive every component to it's
maximum.
|
Fine. But that's really only useful if you see your PC as a penis
protesis...
| Quote: | Component selection/understanding is what it's all about. Do your job well
today and you'll be laughing at people 5 years down the road because they
bought a PC off the shelf with a 5000+ CPU but have some serious bottleneck
elsewhere without them even knowing about it ;)
|
So, then tell us what PC one should have choosen 5 years ago to be able
to lough about people that have a current system?
| Quote: | Apples and oranges. SLI is not there to improve bus performance.
Maybe you are wrong.
|
No. Maybe you should start reading Nvidias SLI documentation...
| Quote: | It seems that future motherboards can simply add PCI-E lanes and increase
bus performance.
|
Not ad infinitum.
| Quote: | SLI simply uses multiple PCI slots and could therefore increase the ammount
of bandwidth flowing to the graphics cards.
|
No, since bandwith isn't the problem...
| Quote: | SLI is there to improve rendering speed.
Lol, you funny, what do you think is needed for rendering ? Exactly data !
That data has to be transferred !
Thus the bandwidth bottleneck is born ;)
|
BS. You really should learn some basics first. Of course generating 3D
visuals needs huge amounts of data. But these data are not generated by
the CPU but by the GPU. The amount of data that is floating from the CPU
is much smaller than what leaves the GPU. That's why the GPUs have such
fast connections to their on board memory, and why even AGP4x is more
than fast enough...
| Quote: | Again, the busses are more than fast enough.
Oops, now you are just dead wrong.
Just install poorly written game x out of a million and watch your pc crawl
to a halt ;)
In other words, 25 textures of 1024x1024x32 bits colors being pushed through
the system at 70 frames per second. That's 25 * 70 * 4 MB = 100 * 70 = 7
GB/sec.
|
Again you prove your lack of knowledge. Textures are only loaded once in
the gfx card RAM, not again and again. And of course you're totally
ignoring the fact that the _GPU_ does all the calculations, not the CPU.
The CPU doesn't have to send the content pixel for pixel to the gfx
processor. The CPU send raw position and processing data, and the GPU
does the processing....
| Quote: | If I choose a pentium chip over an athlon chip then the pentium chip might
have lower frames rates in present games... but the pentium chip might
achieve the same frame rate in future games simply because it can sustain a
higher bandwidth.
The athlon chip simply can't provide enough bandwidth and therefore an
athlon based system will simply hit the bottleneck much sooner and cause
games to crawl.
So as you can see it's very interesting to get some facts/measurements about
all this and not just somebody on a newsgroup claiming that bussess are fast
enough ;)
|
Well, I _know_ that the busses are fast enough. Which btw every somewhat
reliable source confirms...
| Quote: | How do you know the GPU is the limitation ?
Because SLI is made to increase the rendering performance, not because
the bus limits throughput...
Why use SLI in the first place ?
|
SLI is technology from 1997, made by 3DFx and bought by Nvidia. The
reason SLI is quite rare is that most games simply don't scale linear
with the number of gfx cores. So having two GPUs doesn't mean you get 2x
the performance of a single card...
| Quote: | Why not simply put two GPU's on one card ;)
|
Asus does that...
| Quote: | Maybe Scalable Link Interface is like two network cards: it increases the
bandwidth.
|
Again, read the documentation first...
| Quote: | I don't have to. Anyone who is at least at medium knowledge in computer
hardware should know that. You asked a question and got an response.
What you make from it is your part. But there should be enough sources
around the web which will explain you where the bottlenecks in todays
computers are and where not...
Cheap.
You should really try to figure stuff out yourself and if you have the
chance test it... otherwise you run the risk of marketing people screwing
you over lol =D
|
Well, I'm already very deep into that stuff in my job so I don't need
any marketing droids or geeks to get my informations from...
EOD
Benjamin |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ed Forsythe
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:57 pm Post subject:
Re: 4 Hardware bandwidth questions. (Related to ram,pci-e,cp |
|
|
I agree Phil but it's obvious that this cretin is a troll so why feed him?
--
Tally Ho!
Ed
"Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed@example.com> wrote in message
news:zOx9f.3916$AS6.2319@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Quote: | 'Skybuck Flying' wrote, in part:
|I have already googled extensively for the words bandwidth, cpu, gpu,
ram,
| diagrams, netburst, hyper transport, maximum, graphics etc.
|
| Not once have I encountered a website which states the ammount of
bandwidth
| that a cpu, gpu, ram chip or transport technology can practically
process
or
| generate.
_____
Google + websites do not necessarily = learning.
Websites are not the only place one can read.
While googling and surfing you might also read up on
how to post to a newsgroup
why it is a good idea to read at least some of the posts in newsgroups
before posting
why it is a good idea to trim quotes when posting
why it is a good idea to limit crossposting.
And you might also consider not asking a question if you don't want an
answer. A different attitude might invite more answers to your questions.
Phil Weldon
"Skybuck Flying" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dk68pu$dls$1@news5.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
|I have already googled extensively for the words bandwidth, cpu, gpu,
ram,
| diagrams, netburst, hyper transport, maximum, graphics etc.
|
| Not once have I encountered a website which states the ammount of
bandwidth
| that a cpu, gpu, ram chip or transport technology can practically
process
or
| generate.
|
| The only things I have encountered are:
|
| 1. Occording to you apperently theoretical maximum bandwidths.
|
| 2. PC/System benchmarks, which ofcourse depend on many factors and
| combinations and are therefore bogus.
|
| You claim to have knowledge of practical limitations of these devices.
|
| I claim that you are full of bullshit since this information is not
| available on the internet, so there is after all nothing to read.
|
| Ofcourse you are free to prove me wrong =D
|
| Bye,
| Skybuck.
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skybuck Flying
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:26 am Post subject:
Re: 4 Hardware bandwidth questions. (Related to ram,pci-e,cp |
|
|
"Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:3ss5m8Fpqn8tU1@individual.net...
| Quote: | Skybuck Flying wrote:
[due to the amount of nonsense I answered only the most anoying parts]
|
Good, that means you getting tired of your own non-sense :)
| Quote: |
Ok, then think about on what computers were highend 10 years ago:
Ok, windows 95 era.
Pentium 200MMX with 16MB RAM and one of the first 3D cards like a Matrox
Millenium PCI.
Great computer. Internet, word processing, even some shooters which
haven't
changed that much... aka doom3 aka quake 4 ;)
Maybe these shooters didn't change much regarding game content. But they
changed a lot when it comes to system ressources...
|
So what the classics are better anyway LOL.
| Quote: |
And now think about who cares about these computers
today.
People who want to internet and word process ?
Yeah, right. You definitely want to do internet with an outdated OS that
doesn't get updated any more like Windows95, because only there you can
be sure to catch _every_ bit of malware that's around...
|
Simply patch it, update it and it won't be that bad.
| Quote: |
Exactly. no-one.
Lol, are you the all knowing god ?
I think a poor person in some under developed country would be happy
with
such a computer.
Sure. Tell the people that are dying because of hunger or diseases
because they are so poor that they can't afford food and medicine that
everything is good as long as they have that old Pentium200 running
Windows95. It's not that they don't have any bigger problems...
Besides that, even in development countries, such a system will be quite
useless because even there it catches all worms that are floating
around. But yeah, we definitely need more unsecure computers that are
used as SPAM sources...
|
Bull, see above.
There are even companies specially in re-using old computer equipment for th
ird world countries.
| Quote: |
Almost everything has changed during the last 10
years: busses, processors, memory, gfx cards, and much more...
Gje, when will those bastards get it right huh ? :)
In 10 years from now certainly no-one gives a fuck on PCIe 16x any
more...
Most people don't give a fuck today since their clueless ?
Or perhaps they just know it better than you?
|
Nope, I doubt it ;)
| Quote: |
Number one are disk drives which are slow like hell compared to all
other
data transfer
processes in a PC.
True, access time hasn't changed at all the last 10 years.
Throughput however has become quite fast...
Yeah, right. ~60MB/s is sooo fast. And you're whining about PCIe being a
bottleneck...
|
Dude, where do you get these silly numbers ?
1. First of all my own old PIII 450 mhz is able to read with 180 MB/sec from
the harddisk and that is only the harddisk, go figure !
2. Second of all the sandra benchmark shows a bandwidth of 7 GB/sec. So that
means either sandra is full of bullshit or you are full of bullshit LOL.
Gjee I wonder which case it might be ? ;) Euhhmmm yeah me goes for second
option: you full of bullshit LOL.
| Quote: |
Second is RAM which is still plain slow compared to
what CPUs are able to transfer...
Hmm.. I like to think of RAM being fast.
Wrong thought.
|
Right thought, get your facts straight.
| Quote: |
How fast do you think CPU can generate data ?
The old Pentium4 1.5GHz that sits here besides my desk does around
12GB/s between CPU and L1 cache and ~10GB/s between CPU and L2 cache...
|
I wouldn't know about that... but you have inspired me to go test everything
to understand my current system's limitations... I am especially interested
in finding out if the system buys is the most limitating factor.
Seeing you being off on all other figures no doubt are you off on these
figures as well ;) :)
| Quote: | BTW. that's the reason why processors do have cache: simply because RAM
is so slow...
|
Sure if you say so, NOT :)
| Quote: |
I think it's quite smart to start at the theoretical limitations and
proceed
downwards from there.
Nope, it's useless, especially as a end user like you that only has the
choice of a certain amount of components that are available on the
market. As long as you don't do electronics engineering such discussions
are worthless...
|
At least I am not an idiot like you, and yes I can get any component I want
thanks to the internet.
Welcome to the real world, from crawling forth from under your stinking ROCK
lol.
| Quote: |
To understand the limitations of a system you need much deeper knowledge
than just a few figures you read from a website.
I read a lot more than just some numbers ;)
Yes, you read a lot, but you obviously are lacking the technical
background to fully understand what's really going on inside the
computer. Sadly, most websites won't help you there...
|
It's obvious that you are a clueless troll and I wish you lot's of lack with
it.
| Quote: |
Then stop using those applications to measure your system's performance.
Use a synthetic benchmark to test the true performance of your hardware.
Synthetic benchmarks are called "synthetic" because they have no
relation to real-world applications. But the latter are the things that
are important, because most people buy a computer to work with real
applications and not for running synthetic benchmarks...
|
Sure, synthetic benchmarks are useless.. (NOT :)) the only push the system
to it's maximum performance.... gjeee ;)
| Quote: |
You should seperate hardware performance from software performance since
those two things are two completely seperate things.
Nope, they are not. Software performance depends on the hardware and
vice versa...
|
Sure thing trollyboy, if you say so, NOT ;)
| Quote: |
And it's also important to understand that benchmarks like the ones
you're looking for are just that: benchmarks.
No there are different benchmarks.
I in particular like the benchmarks which drive every component to it's
maximum.
Fine. But that's really only useful if you see your PC as a penis
protesis...
|
Lol, all trolls think like that.
| Quote: |
Component selection/understanding is what it's all about. Do your job
well
today and you'll be laughing at people 5 years down the road because
they
bought a PC off the shelf with a 5000+ CPU but have some serious
bottleneck
elsewhere without them even knowing about it ;)
So, then tell us what PC one should have choosen 5 years ago to be able
to lough about people that have a current system?
|
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Idiots like you ofcourse with systems which only achieve 66 MB/sec
hahahahahahahahaahahahahaha.
| Quote: |
Apples and oranges. SLI is not there to improve bus performance.
Maybe you are wrong.
No. Maybe you should start reading Nvidias SLI documentation...
|
Maybe you should give it up troll ;)
| Quote: |
It seems that future motherboards can simply add PCI-E lanes and
increase
bus performance.
Not ad infinitum.
|
Gje, you think ? ;)
| Quote: |
SLI simply uses multiple PCI slots and could therefore increase the
ammount
of bandwidth flowing to the graphics cards.
No, since bandwith isn't the problem...
|
Sure if you say so troll, NOT.
| Quote: |
SLI is there to improve rendering speed.
Lol, you funny, what do you think is needed for rendering ? Exactly data
!
That data has to be transferred !
Thus the bandwidth bottleneck is born ;)
BS. You really should learn some basics first. Of course generating 3D
visuals needs huge amounts of data. But these data are not generated by
the CPU but by the GPU. The amount of data that is floating from the CPU
is much smaller than what leaves the GPU. That's why the GPUs have such
fast connections to their on board memory, and why even AGP4x is more
than fast enough...
|
Sure, if you say so TROLL, get some facts man, at least be a plausible
troll, LOL.
| Quote: |
Again, the busses are more than fast enough.
Oops, now you are just dead wrong.
Just install poorly written game x out of a million and watch your pc
crawl
to a halt ;)
In other words, 25 textures of 1024x1024x32 bits colors being pushed
through
the system at 70 frames per second. That's 25 * 70 * 4 MB = 100 * 70 = 7
GB/sec.
Again you prove your lack of knowledge. Textures are only loaded once in
the gfx card RAM, not again and again. And of course you're totally
ignoring the fact that the _GPU_ does all the calculations, not the CPU.
The CPU doesn't have to send the content pixel for pixel to the gfx
processor. The CPU send raw position and processing data, and the GPU
does the processing....
|
Dude, get real, try a fast moving shooters, enough said.
| Quote: |
If I choose a pentium chip over an athlon chip then the pentium chip
might
have lower frames rates in present games... but the pentium chip might
achieve the same frame rate in future games simply because it can
sustain a
higher bandwidth.
The athlon chip simply can't provide enough bandwidth and therefore an
athlon based system will simply hit the bottleneck much sooner and cause
games to crawl.
So as you can see it's very interesting to get some facts/measurements
about
all this and not just somebody on a newsgroup claiming that bussess are
fast
enough ;)
Well, I _know_ that the busses are fast enough. Which btw every somewhat
reliable source confirms...
|
You know jack squate, good luck with your next bandwidth limited PC
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What will be next, 100 MB/sec ? LOL !
| Quote: |
How do you know the GPU is the limitation ?
Because SLI is made to increase the rendering performance, not because
the bus limits throughput...
Why use SLI in the first place ?
SLI is technology from 1997, made by 3DFx and bought by Nvidia. The
reason SLI is quite rare is that most games simply don't scale linear
with the number of gfx cores. So having two GPUs doesn't mean you get 2x
the performance of a single card...
|
Oh boy, did you bother read an actually benchmark this time ? Good for you
LOL.
You still have no clue to how fast it really is.
| Quote: |
Why not simply put two GPU's on one card ;)
Asus does that...
|
Yeah so ?
| Quote: |
Maybe Scalable Link Interface is like two network cards: it increases
the
bandwidth.
Again, read the documentation first...
|
Try getting a clue yourself for a change ;)
| Quote: |
I don't have to. Anyone who is at least at medium knowledge in computer
hardware should know that. You asked a question and got an response.
What you make from it is your part. But there should be enough sources
around the web which will explain you where the bottlenecks in todays
computers are and where not...
Cheap.
You should really try to figure stuff out yourself and if you have the
chance test it... otherwise you run the risk of marketing people
screwing
you over lol =D
Well, I'm already very deep into that stuff in my job so I don't need
any marketing droids or geeks to get my informations from...
|
LOL,
You just another incompetent clueless idiot claiming to have a job :)
hahahahahahaha.
I am pretty mcuh done with you, have a nice day ;)
Bye,
Skybuck =D Wieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mushr00mhead
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:37 pm Post subject:
Re: 4 Hardware bandwidth questions. (Related to ram,pci-e,cp |
|
|
So what is the point of a newsgroup if all you are going to do is bash
on one another. What would be nice is if you guys could support your
arguments with some credible facts. Don't just regurgitate what you
think is correct, give some supporting facts to go with it. As for the
name calling, is it necessary? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mushr00mhead
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:38 pm Post subject:
Re: 4 Hardware bandwidth questions. (Related to ram,pci-e,cp |
|
|
Oh yeah, one more thing. Isn't this newsgroup about game programming
and algorithms? If not, then I guess I need to go find that newsgroup. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Weldon
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:35 pm Post subject:
Re: 4 Hardware bandwidth questions. (Related to ram,pci-e,cp |
|
|
'Mushr00mhead' wrote:
| Oh yeah, one more thing. Isn't this newsgroup about game programming
| and algorithms? If not, then I guess I need to go find that newsgroup.
_____
Notice that this thread is crossposted to
atl.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
alt.comp.periphs.videocardsnvidia
comp.games.development.program.algorithms
so you will see replies from participants in all three newsgroups.
The original poster is 'Starbuck Flying' who has been the only source of bad
behavior. If you look at other 'Starbuck Flying' in other threads you will
see consistent behavior.
Phil Weldon
"Mushr00mhead" <mushroomhead@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Nl4bf.4967$UF4.2752@fed1read02...
| Oh yeah, one more thing. Isn't this newsgroup about game programming
| and algorithms? If not, then I guess I need to go find that newsgroup. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in