Unimpressed with all this new hardware

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: PeteRoy
The hard drive bottleneck is getting more and more obvious, the GPU, CPU, and memory all increase in speed, but hard drives remain as slow as they were 10 years ago.

Hard drives are more than 5x as fast today as they were 10 years ago. A $100 drive from today will outperform a top of the line SCSI setup from 10 years ago. Sure, they're still too slow, but even if you owned RAID 0 Intel SSD's, they would still be the bottleneck of the system.

Ha, didnt even see your response in my skim down the page. Agreed.

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: tallman45
>Originally posted by: BoboKatt<
""honestly whether I have a 640 WD or a 1TB Samsung, I can?t tell the difference in how they load my games""

not sure what you mean here, performance is not going to be any different, storage capacity is the only main diff

All else equal, you will see a differance in speed between a 640 and a 1TB drive. Usually on the like of 5-10MBps

Originally posted by: Martimus
The next major step will probably be going to a Solid State Drive, to knock down the biggest bottle-neck in the majority of situations. If accessing storage becomes fast enough, I wonder what the next major bottle-neck will be? (For a wide range of functions) I would guess network connections would be the most wide range general bottle-neck after storage access speed is resolved.

The main storage device will always be the natural bottleneck.

 

[taltamir]

I don't see how the main storage device will ALWAYS be the bottleneck... the new intel SSDs already blow away every hdd ever made... and are printed chips at 50nm... they are slated to be upgraded to 32nm soon for further awesomeness. The age of HDD bottlenecks is officially over.. now if only it was AFFORDABLE that would be super.

 

[Jeff7181]

The biggest problem is your view is based on a view of what computing is, not where it's going.

Hardware has to come first. You can't develop software to run on a platform that doesn't exist. Vista is a perfect example of why. Your typical mainstream $500 Best Buy PC was not ready to run Vista when it was released.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
The biggest problem is your view is based on a view of what computing is, not where it's going.

Hardware has to come first. You can't develop software to run on a platform that doesn't exist. Vista is a perfect example of why. Your typical mainstream $500 Best Buy PC was not ready to run Vista when it was released.

the only reason a PC is not ready to run vista is because it has 1 or less GB of ram.

Since 2GB of ram costs under 40$, there should not have been ANY computers at ANY price point unable to run it. other then the stupidity of whomever decided to "save" 20$ on ram on a vista machine. MS is to blame by giving out "vista ready" certification to such machines (on the grounds that it was capable of running vista home BASIC, but not "more advanced" versions of vista). And they got a lot of flak for it.

You can, and should, install vista on a P4 if you have enough ram for it.

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: taltamir
I don't see how the main storage device will ALWAYS be the bottleneck... the new intel SSDs already blow away every hdd ever made... and are printed chips at 50nm... they are slated to be upgraded to 32nm soon for further awesomeness. The age of HDD bottlenecks is officially over.. now if only it was AFFORDABLE that would be super.

You dont see how? lol@ you not even understanding what youre typing. Officially over? Youre officialy an idiot. Unless you set up a RAID thats as fast as your RAM, the main storage will be the bottleneck. End of story.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: taltamir


You can, and should, install vista on a P4 if you have enough ram for it.

Ummm....no.

If you already have XP, there are about ZERO compelling reasons to "upgrade" to Vista for the average user, especially with a P4.

I dual-boot, and rarely do I ever boot into Vista, except to play CoH (DX10).

Most people will not see a difference from the 3.25GB of RAM that XP can address, and the 4+ that Vista can address.

Now if you are doing a new build, there is also no reason NOT to get Vista 64 as opposed to XP.

 

[aigomorla]

i dont know about anyone.

But the reason why i buy hardware is not so things feel faster, but more so on that future things WONT feel slower as i get them.

I like to not worry about, oh will my system be fast enough for this.

And yes my system is finally Crysis acceptable.

 

[kmmatney]

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: taltamir
I don't see how the main storage device will ALWAYS be the bottleneck... the new intel SSDs already blow away every hdd ever made... and are printed chips at 50nm... they are slated to be upgraded to 32nm soon for further awesomeness. The age of HDD bottlenecks is officially over.. now if only it was AFFORDABLE that would be super.

You dont see how? lol@ you not even understanding what youre typing. Officially over? Youre officialy an idiot. Unless you set up a RAID thats as fast as your RAM, the main storage will be the bottleneck. End of story.

I generally agree with you, but you still need to process the data after its received, so there will always be some bottlenecking by the cpu/RAM/motherboard. Tom's hardware tested the I-RAM drive, and windows boot-up time was still 31 seconds using 2 X 3.6 Ghz XEONs.

http://www.tomshardware.com/re.../gigabyte,1111-10.html

Personally, I can't wait for SSD drives to get to mainstream prices - it will definately be a nice boost in performance.

 

[taltamir]

That type of immature name calling does not dignify a serious answer aeternitas.

kmmatney... you generally agree with him yet post proof that he is completely wrong?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
i dont know about anyone.

But the reason why i buy hardware is not so things feel faster, but more so on that future things WONT feel slower as i get them.

I like to not worry about, oh will my system be fast enough for this.

And yes my system is finally Crysis acceptable.

Exactly... hardware must advance ahead of software.

 

[taltamir]

hard innovation must come first, hardware purchasing shouldn't. When they invent better hardware, people can start making software for it, when software is available to take advantage of it, then you buy the software and the hardware at the same time, for a lot less money.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: Martimus
If accessing storage becomes fast enough, I wonder what the next major bottle-neck will be? (For a wide range of functions) I would guess network connections would be the most wide range general bottle-neck after storage access speed is resolved.

The main storage device will always be the natural bottleneck.

It pleases me to see this manner of constructive discussion.

I will point out though in Martimus' defense he prefaced his pontification with the caveat "If accessing storage becomes fast enough...".

One could argue the timeline over which this will occur (decades, centuries, etc) and the technological barriers that must be overcome to make it occur, but saying it never will occur ("will always be" is strongly a worded post, zero tolerance for what the next 1000yrs of innovation will bring) is a tad unreasonable.

Originally posted by: taltamir
I don't see how the main storage device will ALWAYS be the bottleneck... the new intel SSDs already blow away every hdd ever made... and are printed chips at 50nm... they are slated to be upgraded to 32nm soon for further awesomeness.

Yep, depends on what you are doing, naturally, for example when I pull home video off my digital camcorder thru the firewire port it takes ages to pull that data. Having an SSD on my computer won't make the firewire bottleneck go away.

Originally posted by: taltamir
The age of HDD bottlenecks is officially over.. now if only it was AFFORDABLE that would be super.

Well if you require the solution to the problem to be affordable then the age of bottlenecks are far from over, mark my words Seagate will still be shipping 5400rpm drives 5yrs from now.

If you remove the requirement of affordability (as in sub-$1/GB consumer market prices) for the solution then this problem was solved before magnetic hard-drives were invented, ram-drives have existed since the dawn of the computing industry and even now they are faster (bandwidth and latency) than SSD's...but at 4x the price of a high-performance SSD.

My 8GB Iram array cost me $1k to build...$125/GB is hardly affordable but it did solve my system responsiveness problems over 2yrs ago.

Originally posted by: taltamir
hard innovation must come first, hardware purchasing shouldn't. When they invent better hardware, people can start making software for it, when software is available to take advantage of it, then you buy the software and the hardware at the same time, for a lot less money.

This is true, and it takes true technology leadership (not marketing leadership) by the company's decision makers to make this a priority for a company from the top-down. This is what I hope will differentiate Meyer's legacy at the top of AMD from Ruiz's legacy.

If anyone is going to drive AMD towards innovation its got to be Dirk (from what I know of him publicly, could be he's a real bastard at work and he'll destroy the company even further, only AMD'ers could tell us).

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: kmmatney

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: taltamir
I don't see how the main storage device will ALWAYS be the bottleneck... the new intel SSDs already blow away every hdd ever made... and are printed chips at 50nm... they are slated to be upgraded to 32nm soon for further awesomeness. The age of HDD bottlenecks is officially over.. now if only it was AFFORDABLE that would be super.

You dont see how? lol@ you not even understanding what youre typing. Officially over? Youre officialy an idiot. Unless you set up a RAID thats as fast as your RAM, the main storage will be the bottleneck. End of story.

I generally agree with you, but you still need to process the data after its received, so there will always be some bottlenecking by the cpu/RAM/motherboard. Tom's hardware tested the I-RAM drive, and windows boot-up time was still 31 seconds using 2 X 3.6 Ghz XEONs.

http://www.tomshardware.com/re.../gigabyte,1111-10.html

Personally, I can't wait for SSD drives to get to mainstream prices - it will definately be a nice boost in performance.

Indeed, for some processes where the RAM is feeding the CPU well, the CPU will be the natural limiter on performance (how it should naturally be). But thats far far off, and people talking about 50nm thinking that has anything to do with hard drive speeds getting close to feeding the CPU 100% of the time are daft!

Also, RAIDing SSDs is slightly different, as the more you have in a raid, the higher latency gets. So even if you wanted to get 20% of the bandwidth of normal DDR2 these days would up the latency 10 times or more. Now, for SSDs thats still nearly instant. I like to understand these things, because i like to appreciate the technology instead of being a fanboi like whom i was replying. If we start to believe hard drives are no longer the bottleneck, then the technology becomes stagnant and people do not invest into furthering technology, so I think of those people as hurting the bright future of new tech by being tards.

I for one welcome our (well preforming) SSD overlords.

Originally posted by: taltamir
That type of immature name calling does not dignify a serious answer aeternitas.

kmmatney... you generally agree with him yet post proof that he is completely wrong?

Possibly, but nor did I require one after responding to such an assinine post as his. If the shoe fits ect.

Also, he didnt prove me wrong, he brought up a good point that the hard drive isnt always the bottleneck. I agree. Generly though, the main storage will always be.

Originally posted by: Idontcare

It pleases me to see this manner of constructive discussion.

I will point out though in Martimus' defense he prefaced his pontification with the caveat "If accessing storage becomes fast enough...".

One could argue the timeline over which this will occur (decades, centuries, etc) and the technological barriers that must be overcome to make it occur, but saying it never will occur ("will always be" is strongly a worded post, zero tolerance for what the next 1000yrs of innovation will bring) is a tad unreasonable.

It?s just as reasonable (more so seeing the proof of the last 50 years of computing) as saying (if) x happens (no reasonable proof that it ever would) Y will happen.

Well if I had a million dollars I could hire someone to go smack him upside the head too. Saying it will never happen is unreasonable right? Be realistic. Also, assuming anything about 1000 years from now is ludicrous. I?m talking 100 years. We may not even be here in a millennia, and say silly things like that can lead to any sort of dreamt up theories without any real need to back it up with logic. Sure, SSDs are grrreat. But it?s pretty odd to think suddenly that bottleneck is a thing of the past. It will be the major factor forever if business has anything to say about it.

Unless my next copy of Vista comes imprinted on the L1 cache of my next CPU along with a reasonable amount of storage, then hard drives will be the bottleneck for the majority of what we do when accessing new information.

Having said that, then L1cache would turn into "main storage".

 

[taltamir]

ding! add one to my "accused of being a fanboi" talley... err... typically i am accused of being an nvidia or AMD fanboi... what is it this time, SSD or Intel?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
The latest big jump I had was adding 4GB more so I'm up to 6GB now. This is on Vista 64-bit.

Everything is in RAM - EVERYTHING. Everything loads instantly. I built this computer 2 years ago, too; along with a new video card, it feels brand new again.

Originally posted by: TuxDave
2GB of RAM on Vista --> 4GB of RAM on Vista

HUUUUUGE improvement omg....

Or you could have reverted to XP and had that speed boost for free. :Q

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
The latest big jump I had was adding 4GB more so I'm up to 6GB now. This is on Vista 64-bit.

Everything is in RAM - EVERYTHING. Everything loads instantly. I built this computer 2 years ago, too; along with a new video card, it feels brand new again.

Originally posted by: TuxDave
2GB of RAM on Vista --> 4GB of RAM on Vista

HUUUUUGE improvement omg....

Or you could have reverted to XP and had that speed boost for free. :Q

Superfetch isn't available with XP, it was introduced with Vista.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Superfetch isn't available with XP, it was introduced with Vista.

I don't care; XP is still faster.

P.S. Your nickname is paradoxical.

 

[taltamir]

not anymore sick.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Superfetch isn't available with XP, it was introduced with Vista.

I don't care; XP is still faster.

P.S. Your nickname is paradoxical.

I suspect you are right, on all accounts.

I'm still an XP user myself, not looking forward to purchasing 7 copies of Vista to replace my 7 legit XP licenses.

 

[savvy]

I'd like to see a difference from my E6600 to i7... =D

 

[taltamir]

if you insist on using obsolete software to increase performance (at the cost of security and capability), then you should at the very least go the extra mile end use XP 64bit (2003 server). The speed benefit of 64bit over XP is greater then XPs over vista (32bit that is, 64bit rips it a new one)

 

[KingstonU]

Originally posted by: BoboKattwas when I went from like 1 MEG of RAM to 8 way way way back

That is a 8x increase in memory. You might get a similar feeling if you went from 1Gb to 8Gb of ram.

 

[taltamir]

or more appropriately, from 512MB to 4GB today...

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: kmmatney

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: taltamir
I don't see how the main storage device will ALWAYS be the bottleneck... the new intel SSDs already blow away every hdd ever made... and are printed chips at 50nm... they are slated to be upgraded to 32nm soon for further awesomeness. The age of HDD bottlenecks is officially over.. now if only it was AFFORDABLE that would be super.

You dont see how? lol@ you not even understanding what youre typing. Officially over? Youre officialy an idiot. Unless you set up a RAID thats as fast as your RAM, the main storage will be the bottleneck. End of story.

I generally agree with you, but you still need to process the data after its received, so there will always be some bottlenecking by the cpu/RAM/motherboard. Tom's hardware tested the I-RAM drive, and windows boot-up time was still 31 seconds using 2 X 3.6 Ghz XEONs.

http://www.tomshardware.com/re.../gigabyte,1111-10.html

Personally, I can't wait for SSD drives to get to mainstream prices - it will definately be a nice boost in performance.

Indeed, for some processes where the RAM is feeding the CPU well, the CPU will be the natural limiter on performance (how it should naturally be). But thats far far off, and people talking about 50nm thinking that has anything to do with hard drive speeds getting close to feeding the CPU 100% of the time are daft!

Also, RAIDing SSDs is slightly different, as the more you have in a raid, the higher latency gets. So even if you wanted to get 20% of the bandwidth of normal DDR2 these days would up the latency 10 times or more. Now, for SSDs thats still nearly instant. I like to understand these things, because i like to appreciate the technology instead of being a fanboi like whom i was replying. If we start to believe hard drives are no longer the bottleneck, then the technology becomes stagnant and people do not invest into furthering technology, so I think of those people as hurting the bright future of new tech by being tards.

I for one welcome our (well preforming) SSD overlords.

Originally posted by: taltamir
That type of immature name calling does not dignify a serious answer aeternitas.

kmmatney... you generally agree with him yet post proof that he is completely wrong?

Possibly, but nor did I require one after responding to such an assinine post as his. If the shoe fits ect.

Also, he didnt prove me wrong, he brought up a good point that the hard drive isnt always the bottleneck. I agree. Generly though, the main storage will always be.

Originally posted by: Idontcare

It pleases me to see this manner of constructive discussion.

I will point out though in Martimus' defense he prefaced his pontification with the caveat "If accessing storage becomes fast enough...".

One could argue the timeline over which this will occur (decades, centuries, etc) and the technological barriers that must be overcome to make it occur, but saying it never will occur ("will always be" is strongly a worded post, zero tolerance for what the next 1000yrs of innovation will bring) is a tad unreasonable.

It?s just as reasonable (more so seeing the proof of the last 50 years of computing) as saying (if) x happens (no reasonable proof that it ever would) Y will happen.

Well if I had a million dollars I could hire someone to go smack him upside the head too. Saying it will never happen is unreasonable right? Be realistic. Also, assuming anything about 1000 years from now is ludicrous. I?m talking 100 years. We may not even be here in a millennia, and say silly things like that can lead to any sort of dreamt up theories without any real need to back it up with logic. Sure, SSDs are grrreat. But it?s pretty odd to think suddenly that bottleneck is a thing of the past. It will be the major factor forever if business has anything to say about it.

Unless my next copy of Vista comes imprinted on the L1 cache of my next CPU along with a reasonable amount of storage, then hard drives will be the bottleneck for the majority of what we do when accessing new information.

Having said that, then L1cache would turn into "main storage".

I know I shouldn't feed a troll, and I didn't after your first post, but WHAT THE HELL? I don't believe anyone here thinks that accessing SSD's is faster than accessing system RAM, or any of the various levels of processor cache. I am sorry that my wondering outloud if we could come up with a feasible way to basically obsolete system RAM, how it would change the computing landscape, would upset you so much. It would be nice if mass storage became so fast that we wouldn't need a seperate "fast" system memory for quick access by the processor. It is obviously possible now for small memory sizes, slow processors, or huge budgets; but I was thinking about mainstream use.

Anyway, I was never trying to anger you with my statements; and looking back at them I still wonder how I managed to do that. I hope that you go home and have a few drinks, and just chill out. Life is too difficult to get stressed over how other people view the world. I hope that you feel better soon.