121–130 of 197 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not much of a shortage. I just checked and they are all available for pickup right now at my local small city store. Compared to other products they are still extremely available.
Interesting, I see nothing available from store.apple.com until 6 April earliest, and 29 April for m1 max and even later depending on options.
heh, does Intel have any chance to catch up? They fell so far behind.
This will probably cost them some market share, but they have plenty of cash to weather there current manufacturing issues, they still have world-class CPU design talent which they've proven over and over and over again, and they have some very interesting products & technologies on the roadmap.
ARM offering a fight for the first time ever is not going to be a 1-hit KO against the goliath that is Intel.
heh, does Intel have any chance to catch up? They fell so far behind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not much of a shortage. I just checked and they are all available for pickup right now at my local small city store. Compared to other products they are still extremely available.
Interesting, I see nothing available from store.apple.com until 6 April earliest, and 29 April for m1 max and even later depending on options.
I think we're all missing the forest because all the cores are in the way: The contention on that memory means that only segregated non-cooporative as in not "joint parallel on the same memory atomic" will scale on this hardware better than on a 4-core vanilla Xeon from 2018 per watt. So you might aswell buy 20 Jetson Nanos and connect them over the network. Let that sink in... NOTHING is improving at all... there is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are trying to establish the new architecture. Also you still need to shell out $2-3k to get something decent and practically start at $1.5k. I wouldn't call that cheap or even cheaper. What is the past difference you see?
I bought the 16GB air for 1000 and it's easily the best laptop I've ever owned. Fantastic value
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was the most affordable DVD player. I think Sony owned patents on some DVD player tech? Same with PS4/5 and Blu Ray if I'm remembering correctly
This was also kind of the case with the PS3. Its sales weren't fantastic at release, partially because of its... $600 (?) price tag. But even at that price, at its release, it was one of the cheapest ways to get a Blu-ray player, and many people bought it for that.
But for both the PS2 and PS3, Getting folks to adopt the new formats was definitely a factor.
In the case of the PS2, I think less so; It wasn't the cheapest way to get a DVD player, but IIRC it wasn't that much more than a DVD Player with Component out at the time (note; All PS2s can do Component out, but only later models can play DVDs at 480p) and that made it a lot easier for families to buy-in.
I think we're all missing the forest because all the cores are in the way: The contention on that memory means that only segregated non-cooporative as in not "joint parallel on the same memory atomic" will scale on this hardware better than on a 4-core vanilla Xeon from 2018 per watt. So you might aswell buy 20 Jetson Nanos and connect them over the network. Let that sink in... NOTHING is improving at all... there is…
1030 has been dethroned a while ago. Apple G13 delivers 260GFLOPS/W in a general-purpose GPU. I mean, their phone has more GPU FLOPS than a 1030.
Game Over!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't you are ignoring use cases where all cores read shared data, but rarely contentiously write to it. You should get much more read bandwidth and latency than over a network.
Sure, but my point is: why cram more and more cores into the same SoC if they can't talk to each other more efficiently than separate computers over ethernet?
I recognize what you are calling out/that performance will be the same on some workloads if you distribute or not. I would just point out less manufacturing causes less e-waste/I would rather live in a world where Nvidia sells 50 million 10*0 cards, than 500 million 1030 cards to create the same amount of compute in the world. It's not just the power costs to consider (but it could be there is a reality where running 500 million 1030s for their lifetime wastes so much less power, that the manufacturing costs to the planet are worth it).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't you are ignoring use cases where all cores read shared data, but rarely contentiously write to it. You should get much more read bandwidth and latency than over a network.
Sure, but my point is: why cram more and more cores into the same SoC if they can't talk to each other more efficiently than separate computers over ethernet?
Not only that. On-chip gives you high precision synchronous time (all cores observe the same time) so you can use synchronous distributed algorithms that are unsuitable for ethernet networks.
This type of hardware allows for much better solutions to some problems.