|
|
|
| Thread locks too soon |
|
Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
 |
Just to clarify: my questions regarding RAM were asked in the context of their usefulness in gaming. Sorry if that wasn't made clear. So it looks like, at least currently, the benefits of DDR4 in regards to gaming is not significant enough to warrant the increase in price compared to DDR3. Thanks for all the replies. Edit
|
|
Arvidsson
Member #4,603
May 2004
|
Chris Katko said: If you're talking to me, you're either joking, or not reading my comments. Yeah, I was joking. It was pretty obvious that Eric was talking from a gaming perspective.
|
|
Edgar Reynaldo
Major Reynaldo
May 2007
 |
Chris Katko said: And here's a page on JUST DDR3 vs DDR4. EVERY BENCHMARK IS THE SAME. Games. Video encoding. Zips. And the whole beginning of the article explains why... latency. They're all testing processing, not memory access! What a total waste of time to read! And the article doesn't explain how latency is so bad either. Your evidence doesn't support your claims. Every thing you've posted has pointed out that the true latency of DDR4 is pretty much the same as DDR3, but with higher clock speeds. Your video encoding post showed faster encoding with DDR4. Most of the tests on https://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/7 this page were inconclusive. But most of them were not valid tests!!! They're testing software that wouldn't benefit from higher memory speeds. Their software was CPU processor limited. They weren't testing memory saturation or lookup at all!!! I pointed out database and server software would benefit from DDR4, and you haven't addressed that at all. You haven't proved anything in regards to the points I made. File servers need FAST caches. If the latency of DDR4 and DDR3 is the same, and DDR4 runs at a higher clock speed, you will have better performance from DDR4, period. Like I said, it's not worth it for you, but for some people it could be, so stop dismissing everything I say just because I don't agree with you. My Website! | EAGLE GUI Library Demos | My Deviant Art Gallery | Spiraloid Preview | A4 FontMaker | Skyline! (Missile Defense) Eagle and Allegro 5 binaries | Older Allegro 4 and 5 binaries | Allegro 5 compile guide |
|
Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
 |
{"name":"611226","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/2\/524251de84c788b211c445f4dd265a82.jpg","w":400,"h":400,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/2\/524251de84c788b211c445f4dd265a82"} --- |
|
Edgar Reynaldo
Major Reynaldo
May 2007
|
wtf is that supposed to mean? I'm not angry, I just don't appreciate having what I say completely ignored and glossed over. Katko says X doesn't matter because it doesn't help games. I say Y matters because it's not all about games. I gave clear examples of software that might benefit from DDR4 and then he gives evidence of software that would never have benefited from faster memory in the first place. I clearly responded to his points and he clearly ignored mine. But I'm just angry, right? Jeez, whatever. My Website! | EAGLE GUI Library Demos | My Deviant Art Gallery | Spiraloid Preview | A4 FontMaker | Skyline! (Missile Defense) Eagle and Allegro 5 binaries | Older Allegro 4 and 5 binaries | Allegro 5 compile guide |
|
Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
|
{"name":"611231","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/b\/db49a2864182c2afed40468870600df0.jpg","w":476,"h":313,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/b\/db49a2864182c2afed40468870600df0"} --- |
|
Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
|
Remember Toys R Us filing for bankruptcy back in September? Well, now it's following up on that by closing 182 stores.
|
|
Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
 |
Edgar Reynaldo said: might benefit I keep posting benchmarks, and you keep posting feelings and "what if" scenarios that keep shrinking. {"name":"19%20-%20DDR%20Comparison%2C%20nonGaming.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/b\/0bd456d1d9d7fbc68d42090470ef9255.png","w":539,"h":1000,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/b\/0bd456d1d9d7fbc68d42090470ef9255"} {"name":"04-audio.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/e\/debeb11a782829111e934ba333eb6b67.png","w":650,"h":200,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/e\/debeb11a782829111e934ba333eb6b67"} Now compare that with "last gen" CPU or "last gen" videocard to the current gen, and you'll see drastic results. {"name":"gtav-fps.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/6\/6649a0ad51dc9eff70461c684173091f.png","w":515,"h":230,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/6\/6649a0ad51dc9eff70461c684173091f"} It sounds like at this point, you spent $$$ on DDR4 and you're trying to prove your purchase was worth it. -----sig: |
|
Elias
Member #358
May 2000
|
I was going to reply to Mark Oates's recent thread about dice rolls [1] - but the thread got locked. So this seems to be the most appropriate place to reply. This is my version with SiegeLord's algorithm: 1#include <math.h>
2#include <stdio.h>
3
4int main(void) {
5 const int SIDES_OF_DIE = 6;
6 const int NUMBER_OF_DIE = 2;
7
8 int N = SIDES_OF_DIE * NUMBER_OF_DIE + 1;
9
10 double events[2][N];
11 int swap = 0;
12
13 int max = SIDES_OF_DIE;
14 for (int i = 1; i <= max; i++) events[0][i] = 1 / 6.0;
15
16 for (int j = 1; j < NUMBER_OF_DIE; j++) {
17 int swap2 = (swap + 1) & 1;
18 int max2 = max + SIDES_OF_DIE;
19 for (int i = 1; i <= max2; i++) events[swap2][i] = 0;
20 for (int i = 1; i <= SIDES_OF_DIE; i++) {
21 for (int k = 1; k <= max; k++) {
22 events[swap2][k + i] += events[swap][k] * 1 / 6.0;
23 }
24 }
25 max = max2;
26 swap = swap2;
27 }
28
29 for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
30 printf("%5d: %.9f\n", i, events[swap][i]);
31 }
32}
Same results as the initial brute force version but clearer code and much faster! Brute force doesn't work for more than about 10 rolls - the above can easily do 1000ds -- |
|
Edgar Reynaldo
Major Reynaldo
May 2007
|
Chris Katko said: I keep posting benchmarks, and you keep posting feelings and "what if" scenarios that keep shrinking. You keep posting benchmarks that have very little to do with what I said are the advantages of DDR4. The majority of the comparisons are not comparing what I was talking about. If you look at WinRAR and AgiSoft, their software performs quite a bit differently when using DDR4. There's got to be a reason for that. And it must be something they're doing that makes it more effective. So that automatically disqualifies what you say when you say there's no benefit. Like I said not for you, but maybe for others. Just to help settle this, I did some duck duck googling of my own. Here's some performance reports by Crucial, on their DDR4 memory. Looks like it blows DDR3 out of the water in memory bandwith and the AIDA64 Memory tests. And that was just the first link I clicked on. Give me a break. EDIT The second link I clicked on : PCWorld said: Less power draw means less heat and longer battery life, so laptops and servers are expected to be the biggest beneficiaries of the jump to DDR4. Servers can be deployed with as much as a terabyte of memory and they routinely operate 24/7, so the power bills to keep them running—along with the onboard fans and outboard ventilation systems to keep them cool—can be enormous. Mid-range and high-end laptops routinely ship with 8GB of memory, so the 20-percent reduction in power consumption is more important for extending battery life than reducing utility bills. The LCD panel remains the biggest power draw, and the CPU eats its share of juice, but every little bit helps. Smartphones and tablets will benefit from DDR4 memory, too. Because they typically come with only 1GB or 2GB of memory—and their displays consume much more power than their memory—they'll benefit much like laptops will, from extended battery life rather than lower power bills. Need I go on? My Website! | EAGLE GUI Library Demos | My Deviant Art Gallery | Spiraloid Preview | A4 FontMaker | Skyline! (Missile Defense) Eagle and Allegro 5 binaries | Older Allegro 4 and 5 binaries | Allegro 5 compile guide |
|
Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
|
And zero mention of performance. Memory bandwidth != performance. You know that. Synthetic memory tests != performance. You know that. Lower power usage != performance. You know that. Eventual lower price ---> I mentioned in my first posts. How many times must I cite this: {"name":"Conclusion+Problem:+DRAM+latency+is+a+critical+performance+bottleneck.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/2\/82dbd503f509ccfb7122102542df111e.jpg","w":960,"h":720,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/2\/82dbd503f509ccfb7122102542df111e"} {"name":"b965a137fe41fc88d57eb8ce8729ab8b.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/2\/628ae6289665d0f8bdf77afa7add4273.png","w":1500,"h":1125,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/2\/628ae6289665d0f8bdf77afa7add4273"} {"name":"slide_2.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/4\/7477a339dc185bb99197a23c4c6f5434.jpg","w":960,"h":720,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/4\/7477a339dc185bb99197a23c4c6f5434"} [1] I'm not saying memory bandwidth is meaningless--it used to be a dominate factor. I'm saying given our current CPU, bus, et al ecosystem, the latency is the critical factor and DDR4 offers modest, incremental improvements. If all you can offer is "laptops will use less power" that's not exactly a glowing endorsement of radical technology. All it is, is a die shrink and a voltage drop (and DDR3L is already a voltage drop.) and incremental increase in clock speed (at the almost same incremental increase in latency). Eventually latency will decrease and there will be a net gain. It hasn'tyet. Therefor, current DDR4 offers nothing. Edgar Reynaldo said: If you look at WinRAR and AgiSoft, their software performs quite a bit differently when using DDR4. There's got to be a reason for that.
Said the guy who said 7zip/zipping has nothing to do with his argument a couple of posts ago. Edgar Reynaldo said: I don't give a about 7-zip extraction, it's more than fast enough as it is. The only places where DDR4 is faster, are the slim cases where the DRAM controller can prefetch the very predictable accesses to allow the higher bulk bandwidth to cover up the latency. That won't be SQL. That won't be web servers. That won't be games. That won't be video encoding (unless you're talking about RAW files). And over and over the benchmarks show the same. If you're only faster in 1 out of every 60 benchmarks, you're not "faster". DDR4 is to DDR3 what DDR3 was to DDR2. An incremental development. A die shrink. A voltage drop. A clock boost. And the same effective latency. We've hit a point where simply ignoring latency isn't yielding results when a CPU has to wait 200/400/800 cycles just to see the data its asking for. So once again, let's play your game. Now you're citing WinRar. https://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/7 DDR3 vs DDR4. Again. WinRAR. Again. {"name":"76366.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/4\/640cc3a3817ee2b59740670a2f05c674.png","w":650,"h":250,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/4\/640cc3a3817ee2b59740670a2f05c674"} A new technology generation for a grand total off... ::drum roll:: 2.8654% percent difference. Wow! Lightning fast! How did I ever manage to use a computer before the advent of such ground breaking technology. -----sig: |
|
Edgar Reynaldo
Major Reynaldo
May 2007
|
Congratulations on citing the exact same old benchmarks that don't prove anything. Chrisk Katko said: And zero mention of performance. Okay, let's do it. Third link from the top : Corsair said: The real question and concern most users have when it comes to DDR4 is the higher latency, but as it turns out, this isn’t a very significant issue. DDR3-1600 has higher latency than any DDR4 on the market, while DDR3-2133’s latency is only marginally lower than DDR4-2400. ... Right away I’ll say that in practical game testing – including testing with the integrated graphics – Skylake just doesn’t seem to benefit substantially from faster memory. This may change with DirectX 12, but modern games seem to be more capacity intensive than speed intensive. However, for any kind of multimedia work, memory speed becomes much more relevant. ... Now that DDR4 has hit essentially mainstream pricing, DDR3L’s price advantage has become negligible. At the time of this writing, 16GB of DDR4-2666 can be had for the same price as 16GB of DDR3L-1866, and the same amount of DDR4-3000 can actually be had for less than the same amount of DDR3L-2133. While higher speed memory tends to be less of a value than lower speed – that’s just been historically true – it’s worth noting that DDR4 gives you more performance-per-dollar over any DDR3 speed grade except for 1600MHz. And the flipside of DDR3-1600 is, as you saw earlier, a notable performance hit. Conclusion We’ll be continuing to test DDR4 against modern games as they come out, but regardless of performance scaling in games, DDR4 ends up being faster in virtually any other task than DDR3 and is a better price performer than the DDR3L needed to run Skylake. Users building new rigs with Skylake CPUs should really only be considering DDR4 and the associated boards.
My Website! | EAGLE GUI Library Demos | My Deviant Art Gallery | Spiraloid Preview | A4 FontMaker | Skyline! (Missile Defense) Eagle and Allegro 5 binaries | Older Allegro 4 and 5 binaries | Allegro 5 compile guide |
|
Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
|
I'm just gonna have to agree to disagree. Quote: it’s worth noting that DDR4 gives you more performance-per-dollar over any DDR3 speed grade except for 1600MHz. That was before DDR prices got sent skyrocketing. http://www.pcgamer.com/dram-prices-could-skyrocket-after-already-doubling-in-the-last-year/ Again, when it comes down, it will be more cost-effective than 3. But since 99% of computers can ONLY use one or the other, it doesn't matter. Buy whatever RAM you can actually use. -----sig: |
|
Edgar Reynaldo
Major Reynaldo
May 2007
|
I still have to clone my XP drive onto the SSD I bought and pray it still works. By the time I get around to upgrading or buying another motherboard, DDR4 will probably have fallen in price again. My Website! | EAGLE GUI Library Demos | My Deviant Art Gallery | Spiraloid Preview | A4 FontMaker | Skyline! (Missile Defense) Eagle and Allegro 5 binaries | Older Allegro 4 and 5 binaries | Allegro 5 compile guide |
|
Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
|
I found the whole process of cloning my hard drive fairly painless when I upgraded it. --- |
|
Edgar Reynaldo
Major Reynaldo
May 2007
|
Won't XP freak out and call home to check it's hardware id? How do I trick it? Or will it Just WorkTM? People have told me to use fdisk and gparted and such and such and I really have no clue what I'm doing. The SSD is still fresh out of the box. Can I plug it into the SATA slave and boot with gparted and then use ?Insert Command Here? to clone the drive completely, including boot sectors? Also, I desperately need to enlarge several logical drives on the old HDD, including C. C is stuffed to the brim, and I can't install SP3. Can I do that safely once the drive is cloned? Halp me hardware gurus! My Website! | EAGLE GUI Library Demos | My Deviant Art Gallery | Spiraloid Preview | A4 FontMaker | Skyline! (Missile Defense) Eagle and Allegro 5 binaries | Older Allegro 4 and 5 binaries | Allegro 5 compile guide |
|
Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
|
Honestly, I'd start a fresh installation whenever possible. There's so much crud that builds up over time in the registry/etc that can never really be cleaned out. Edgar Reynaldo said: Won't XP freak out and call home to check it's hardware id? How do I trick it? Or will it Just WorkTM? Windows... XP? You're serious? Quote: People have told me to use fdisk and gparted and such and such and I really have no clue what I'm doing. For Windows or Linux? Either way, if you play around with them or read some guides it'll start to make sense. Modern Linux lets you hit "auto" and it'll just format it for you unless you want custom partitions. Quote: The SSD is still fresh out of the box. Can I plug it into the SATA slave and boot with gparted and then use ?Insert Command Here? to clone the drive completely, including boot sectors? Also, I desperately need to enlarge several logical drives on the old HDD, including C. C is stuffed to the brim, and I can't install SP3. Can I do that safely once the drive is cloned? I'd really just recommend going with an OS that isn't officially unsupported anymore. Windows 7 is way more stable (and you can still install an XP theme if you like the ugly fisher-price toy look). -----sig: |
|
Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
|
Edgar Reynaldo said: I still have to clone my XP drive onto the SSD I bought and pray it still works. Why XP of all things?
|
|
Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
|
I'm not sure about XP... when I changed my HD on Windows 7, I bought an external hard drive for the backup, it has to be at least the size of the HD you are backing up. Fairly cheap. I then used Windows Backup feature which backed up to the external, and then installed the new drive and used Windows Restore to put it all on the new drive. It will partition the drive so there is a partition the same size as your drive you backed up. You can actually just go to your system Hard drive information and tell it to expand the partition to use the whole drive. It was all much simpler than I expected, just needed an extra drive for backing up to, which has been handy and I now use it to back up my programs and such. I don't recall being prompted with problems due to changed hardware, but even if I was, you can usually just phone support, explain the upgrade and they will fix it for you. But I only recall doing that, I think once many years ago and I have expanded my RAM, changed video cards and hard drives since then many times. I'm still using Windows 7, I set up some stuff on my system to block Windows 10 from being installed. There was actually a hack you could set up in Windows XP to continue to get updates for it. You simply fooled Microsoft into thinking it was a... I forget the name for it... embedded system? Anyhow, the government paid for 5 more years support and after that, my wife's XP system continued to get support until I grabbed Windows 7 for her. You can grab a downloadable, digital Windows 7 from Amazon for like $41CDN. You pay for it and t hen you can download it right away, came with a thumbdrive installer so you can just plug in the thumbdrive and install. And it was Windows 7 Professional, which pissed me off as her Windows 7 is better than my home edition! Edgar: I put the source code to my City3D program in the LearnOpenGL thread, if you're curious about how I did skybox's. --- |
|
Niunio
Member #1,975
March 2002
 |
Didn't this overflowed yet? ----------------- |
|
Bruce Perry
Member #270
April 2000
|
{"name":"duck-quack.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/a\/4a380fee414239f38633bd6e8dba912c.jpg","w":1920,"h":1080,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/a\/4a380fee414239f38633bd6e8dba912c"} -- |
|
MiquelFire
Member #3,110
January 2003
 |
Quack! --- |
|
Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
|
Played Portal 2 through again. Man I love those games. Need more like them. {"name":"611253","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/0\/e0ad06ef395c3408053f5c69e5dc5e0b.jpg","w":960,"h":625,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/0\/e0ad06ef395c3408053f5c69e5dc5e0b"} --- |
|
amarillion
Member #940
January 2001
 |
Portal 2 is awesome. Stephen Merchant is awesome. Spaaaaaace! -- |
|
Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
|
I loved it. So many laughs, fascinating puzzles. There was just nothing about it I disliked. It's sad to think there will probably not be another. I'm not sure how many more times I will end up replaying Portal 1 and 2. I especially love the actor that done the voice for Cave Johnson, I don't recall his name, but I know who that is. Perfect choice. --- |
|
|
|
I liked XP when it was current, but it's way too buggy for current use. I agree with Chris; go with Windows 7 instead.
I may have to buy another copy of it for myself. 
