The weirdest thing

[Greyd]

So I was looking through snopes for some random things and came upon this. Never seen or heard about this before. Thought it was really really weird.


fixed

Dangit I thought I linked it. Thanks

 

[rudeguy]

what he said

 

[ElFenix]

whoa that is creepy

 

[Crimzon]

That is creepy. However, there were a lot of cases after 9.11 where any "brown" people not speaking english, and keeping to themselves on flights were accused of this type of behavior. The same kind of paranoia that got Wood to remeber this in the first place, had people stopping flights for supposed terrorists.

 

[human2k]

With the AGP bus being so slow, increasing memory size has a profound effect on running games with all the glorious detail. This was recognized long ago by Intel who then pushed the original AGP specification to increase the pipe because videocards back then had so little memory it was difficult even running 2D applications above 1280x960 or so.
Video card manufacturers recognized the bandwidth constraints of even the AGP bus, so they increased the memory size of their video cards to fully hold everything your game will need. They also increased the bandwidth because a graphics processors is highly analogous to a DSP, and the faster you can shove the data stream, the more operations you can perform on each pixel.
However, increasing memory had limits to performance, which is why Voodoo 2's weighed in at 12 MB per board, TnT maxed at 16, Tnt2 and Geforce at 32, Geforce2 64, Geforce3 predominantly 64, but with a few 128 (and only at the very end of the product cycle) and current cards are still at 64/128 with only a single board even considering 256MB. There simply aren't enough data to store in memory, so why waste money?
Also, increasing the bandwidth doesn't necessarily increase the performance. Look at the original TnT2 and compare it to the TnT2 M64. The original had more bandwidth, but the newer version performed just as well in most cases simply because the processor wasn't fast enough to require a fatter pipe.
The same goes for CPU cache and system main memory. Increasing your memory will bring huge benefits; less disk access, which is on the order of 1,000 to 10, 000 times slower than RAM. However, at a certain point, the costs bring in less return because the data required is already stored in RAM.

Why won't alternating memory types help? Probably because it'll introduce extra latency that'll kill any returns. You're also trying to fatten a bottleneck that's already wider than other bottlenecks (CPU, disk, etc..). The problem with today's processors isn't memory capacity. Systems can easily exceed the optimal price vs performance point. Memory bandwidth isn't the problem since Dual DDR does jack squat to the Athlon architecture and increasing memory bandwidth beyond Pentium IV's limit does the same thing. It's not memory type either, since Pentium IV does just about equal given Dual DDR and Dual RDR with the same bandwidth.
So, having two types of memory in the same system isn't going to help. Supporting two helps transitioning, since if one gets faster than the other, you can just ditch the old memory and get new sticks. In fact, during the old days of EDO vs SDRAM, I do believe no board could have both types installed at the same time. It was one or the other, likely due to engineering considerations and costs vs the performance benefit.

 

[Crimzon]

Originally posted by: human2k
With the AGP bus being so slow, increasing memory size has a profound effect on running games with all the glorious detail. This was recognized long ago by Intel who then pushed the original AGP specification to increase the pipe because videocards back then had so little memory it was difficult even running 2D applications above 1280x960 or so.
Video card manufacturers recognized the bandwidth constraints of even the AGP bus, so they increased the memory size of their video cards to fully hold everything your game will need. They also increased the bandwidth because a graphics processors is highly analogous to a DSP, and the faster you can shove the data stream, the more operations you can perform on each pixel.
However, increasing memory had limits to performance, which is why Voodoo 2's weighed in at 12 MB per board, TnT maxed at 16, Tnt2 and Geforce at 32, Geforce2 64, Geforce3 predominantly 64, but with a few 128 (and only at the very end of the product cycle) and current cards are still at 64/128 with only a single board even considering 256MB. There simply aren't enough data to store in memory, so why waste money?
Also, increasing the bandwidth doesn't necessarily increase the performance. Look at the original TnT2 and compare it to the TnT2 M64. The original had more bandwidth, but the newer version performed just as well in most cases simply because the processor wasn't fast enough to require a fatter pipe.
The same goes for CPU cache and system main memory. Increasing your memory will bring huge benefits; less disk access, which is on the order of 1,000 to 10, 000 times slower than RAM. However, at a certain point, the costs bring in less return because the data required is already stored in RAM.

Why won't alternating memory types help? Probably because it'll introduce extra latency that'll kill any returns. You're also trying to fatten a bottleneck that's already wider than other bottlenecks (CPU, disk, etc..). The problem with today's processors isn't memory capacity. Systems can easily exceed the optimal price vs performance point. Memory bandwidth isn't the problem since Dual DDR does jack squat to the Athlon architecture and increasing memory bandwidth beyond Pentium IV's limit does the same thing. It's not memory type either, since Pentium IV does just about equal given Dual DDR and Dual RDR with the same bandwidth.
So, having two types of memory in the same system isn't going to help. Supporting two helps transitioning, since if one gets faster than the other, you can just ditch the old memory and get new sticks. In fact, during the old days of EDO vs SDRAM, I do believe no board could have both types installed at the same time. It was one or the other, likely due to engineering considerations and costs vs the performance benefit.

???

 

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by: human2k
With the AGP bus being so slow, increasing memory size has a profound effect on running games with all the glorious detail. This was recognized long ago by Intel who then pushed the original AGP specification to increase the pipe because videocards back then had so little memory it was difficult even running 2D applications above 1280x960 or so.
Video card manufacturers recognized the bandwidth constraints of even the AGP bus, so they increased the memory size of their video cards to fully hold everything your game will need. They also increased the bandwidth because a graphics processors is highly analogous to a DSP, and the faster you can shove the data stream, the more operations you can perform on each pixel.
However, increasing memory had limits to performance, which is why Voodoo 2's weighed in at 12 MB per board, TnT maxed at 16, Tnt2 and Geforce at 32, Geforce2 64, Geforce3 predominantly 64, but with a few 128 (and only at the very end of the product cycle) and current cards are still at 64/128 with only a single board even considering 256MB. There simply aren't enough data to store in memory, so why waste money?
Also, increasing the bandwidth doesn't necessarily increase the performance. Look at the original TnT2 and compare it to the TnT2 M64. The original had more bandwidth, but the newer version performed just as well in most cases simply because the processor wasn't fast enough to require a fatter pipe.
The same goes for CPU cache and system main memory. Increasing your memory will bring huge benefits; less disk access, which is on the order of 1,000 to 10, 000 times slower than RAM. However, at a certain point, the costs bring in less return because the data required is already stored in RAM.

Why won't alternating memory types help? Probably because it'll introduce extra latency that'll kill any returns. You're also trying to fatten a bottleneck that's already wider than other bottlenecks (CPU, disk, etc..). The problem with today's processors isn't memory capacity. Systems can easily exceed the optimal price vs performance point. Memory bandwidth isn't the problem since Dual DDR does jack squat to the Athlon architecture and increasing memory bandwidth beyond Pentium IV's limit does the same thing. It's not memory type either, since Pentium IV does just about equal given Dual DDR and Dual RDR with the same bandwidth.
So, having two types of memory in the same system isn't going to help. Supporting two helps transitioning, since if one gets faster than the other, you can just ditch the old memory and get new sticks. In fact, during the old days of EDO vs SDRAM, I do believe no board could have both types installed at the same time. It was one or the other, likely due to engineering considerations and costs vs the performance benefit.

I'll be happy when you get a vacation for posting this crap all over the place.

 

[bsobel]

I'll be happy when you get a vacation for posting this crap all over the place.

Search seems to be broken, where else was he posting this?
Bill