cosplayers are making effect driven ambient girl pop ? interesting culture shift I missed, videos are hard to get right though, swanging off the van side, with fwords took the edge off a bit.
swanging = swinging & hanging
fwords = fake swords
I suggest you use
it enables you to set a fan speed slope profile min speed max speed and min and max temps etc for all three imac fans, CPU, optical hard drive, it also set the cpu and hard fans to 1200rpm minimum which now means my GPU die is operating at 68deg then playing 720p youtube video on a second screen.
donate to the guy if you like and use it
It works for me on an imac 27″ mid 2011 running mountain lion
intel’s subconsciously projected view of their users needs is “our quad core power is all you’ve needed for the last 5 years” which is why its stayed roughly in the same range for 5 years. most of their “designed in power increases” are subsumed and overtaken by overclocking the right CPU harder.
at same clocks haswell is proving 5-15% more than ivy … at most, the majority of the transistor count increase has gone into the iGPU which doesn’t much interest LGA socket users with discrete cards. quad core processor power hasn’t improved massively over the last 5 years, unless your OC’ing to 5ghz on an i5 2500k. Haswell & Ivy due to IHS issues won’t reach the speeds of an i5 2500k & have high core temp variability when OCed hard. little epeen to be had from haswell except energy savings.
“Moore’s law is the observation that, over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors on integrated circuits doubles approximately every two years”
in 1971 the intel 4004 processor was released with a cpu die area of 12mm square and 2300 transistors
lets assume for our calculation that the die area remains the same size just the transistor count doubles every 2 years ? due to a halving of fab process once every four years.
2013 – 1971 = 42 years double very 2 would mean 21 doublings of transistors since the intel 4004 in 1971
this would mean
2300 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2
= 4,823,449,600 transistors or 4.8 billion in the same cpu die area 12mm square as the original 4004 ? actually i think I got it wrong 21 doublings is double this figure so 4.8 billion is being generous.
which is 13 times smaller than the CPU die of the average quad core today ?
meaning if you were to use the same cpu die area of an average quad core today 160mm squared
the number of transistors should be in the region of 64,151,879,680 transistors in todays processors by moores laws prediction ?
which means were missing about 62,751,879,680 transistors from moores law projections ?
a current quad core 4670k has 1,400,000,000 transistors ie 1.4 billion transistors sadly in a cpu die area of 160mm square,
if we were using 300mm wafers to produce 4004 processors using the original 10um transistor scale you could get 5282 cpus per wafer at 10um, if you were using the 22nm scale of todays process you could get 228,869,565 ie 222.8 million 4004 processors from one 300mm wafer, thats if you could theoretically cut them out with zero width cutting of the wafer ;)
literal scientifically accurate moores law has not occurred.
This can be explained easily because fab nm process halving changes I presume must have not occurred every 4 years, were missing about 5 and a bit doublings which is about 98% off from the number of transistors, easily done with square area transistor reduction doubling.
looking through this page I calculate the number of doublings achieved by halving of fab process scale that has actually occured
it took intel from 1971 till 1976 to third the fab process from 10um to 3um in the 8085 cpu
then 1976 to 1982 to get to 1.5um 286
then from 1982 to 1993 to halve the fab process and get to 0.8um as was used in the pentium etc
this was practically 11 years for not even a full a halving of the fab process size ? and thereby not even a full doubling of the transistor count. if fab transistor scale was halved every four years we would now be at 5nm to 2.5nm features in lithography, moores law is a marketing tool used by intel, not a guarantee-able law. Nor could it ever be, since its dependant on scientific breakthroughs that are not a given, Intel have done an amazing job, but moores law is not a scientific law.
as you can see the halving of process nm scale is not occuring every 4 years which would quadruple the transistor count with the square area, leading to moores law and the doubling of transistor counts every 2 years, if once every four years fab processes did half this would stand, but since were still behind on that projection we can see that moores law does not stand true, because of fab process not halving every four years, the other element to take into account is wafer size increase and cpu die size increase which goes some way to explaining why transistor count has not been much worse in relation to moores law.
Intel have deliberately dumbed down their new “package specifications” on their website, so as to no longer highlight die size or transistor count compared to spec listings for older processors
all so as to avoid the concept theyre not keeping pace with moores law nor have matched it over the years.
mobile parts is what theyre bent towards now in haswell ? well whose left making parts for desktop then !? not every maker can focus on mobile, dont follow amd, the cpu transistor count has not significantly gone up, i had my i7 920 at 4.2ghz, i5 2500k could easily get 4.8ghz, haswell slightly worse due to the IHS issues unless its delidded core temp variation is too high, so the desktop CPU is getting worse every year, this is not moores law, this is not progress, haswell is a pathetic increase in power over Ivy, no excuses, quad core cpus have stagnated, your argument doesnt stack for the desktop user.
I pay for a new CPU and motherboard when there is a significant transistor and speed increase on offer, theyre seeing desktop cpu sales dropping because we dont have significant enough power increases to justify it, and theyre bending they’re whole platform toward mobile to compete with AMD and more power saving states and giving us smaller CPU die size chips from the wafer, with integrated graphics we didnt ask for, at the same speed and price as last years chip, there is no point in paying for this ?
8 cores next chip or I’ll wait for an affordable 8 core amd jaguar setup once the consoles have had their fill, hyper threading is weaksauce compared to higher clock frequency. and how about a little big core scenario so It can be my always on low power home server until I decide to crank it up to full bore mode.
there are now phones with more cores than your average i5 desktop chip, samsungs octacore arm 4 big 4 little seems intriguing and innovative at least in comparison.
Software and digital service EULA’s are completely out of whack in favour of the companies, at some point were going to have to tackle this.
The app store development agreement I assume rephrased ? agreed … I assume apple must be getting all developers at least 40-50% more sales, otherwise how could they justify this being beneficial to developers or consumers at all? surely in a digital system the take should be allot lower under 10% at most I would have thought ? I Dont understand why digital distribution and sales seems to cost as much as physical, its the same with ebay auctions taking the same percentage as physical auctions ? The other day the app store wouldn’t let me download a piece of software whose only distribution method is the app store! because mistakenly the app store thought I already had it. And censorship in the distribution chain becomes a very big issue, when the only way of being realistically noticed is in that said same chain.
agreed , but sadly the transistor count has no longer been doubling CPU perfomance in the last 4 quad core intel i7 chips, the 2008 i7 was 830million transistors currently 2013 i7 haswell is 1.4 billion, in 5 years thats an increase of less than 75% and, most of that being spent on integrated GPU perfomance rather than the CPU itself, in that period CPU performance has not increased by 75% ? if moores law were still accurate we would be at 4.98 billion transistors by now and 8 cores would be standard, moore’s law has been dead for a while, because CPU manufacturers are pouring the dies size savings into more chips per wafer as they internally believe current performance for the average user is very much sufficient, more chips per wafer leads to better profits.
with alternate reality’s on the scale and detail of these occupying them with fake esteem and ambition ?
3 of those mmo games alone would be enough to occupy a youthtime ?
surely the game industry must implode can there really be enough gamers to play all those games ?
what is the loss of productivity from all this.
if this man need your help – harbour him – whistleblowers are important
we cant have another bradley manning happening
lap It up morons, weve made some especially custom super compact designer apple crap for you, hmm let me see >
Non Standards Adherent – bespoke custom apple nightmare
Surface Mount BGA city – heat death ? 1 chip dies your whole computer is f*d, thats another £1500 logic board please mr customer
Still Using Xeons, the least price efficient form of CPU power clocked at half their 5ghz potential.
BGA twin mobile graphics :( or single X2 desktop card ?
not upgradeable ?
airflow not filtered ?
why is every company trying to kill concept of an open standards based PC ?
looks like their going down a kind of SGI iris style compact designer wastebasket route, what would be revolutionary power wise ? 16 cores at as close to 5ghz as possible, which is the maximal potential of intel’s platform ? but in that thermal envelope its unlikely to get anywhere near it, the only benefit would be if being surface mount everything made it allot cheaper to manufacture, but no doubt since its so custom, it will be vastly more expensive per core than a powerful pc ?
if it is ATI in some form of crossfire, then they will have performance issues with crossfire mode and runt frames no doubt that mac ati driver will have this issue sorted way behind the PC driver.
your PS4 will have faster DDR5 memory
the top spec version wil be £6000 ?
upto 128gb memory
yet the truth is I will probably still be buying one ! hypocrit that I am, as there will be little choice, why ? because dual processor macs aren’t purchasable any other ways, this machines is going to be as usual perversely expensive to fix if anything goes wrong as it looks apple bespoke proprietary custom parts all the way ? each processor board including surface mount CPU ? £800 ? want to open it up into an open hardware standard apple ? … no I didn’t think so.
looks like all mechanical storage will be external if used. doubt it will be overclockable since the thermal solution is fixed.
looks like their custom dual gpu boards with the CPU on the other side of the triangle ? looks like a darth vader r2d2 space heater that will warm a room nicely.
They’ve shaken up PC design perhaps, but since its no doubt all patented up the wazoo and not an open standard it will just be, bleed through the posterior custom expensive.
apple will no doubt come out with a custom thunderbolt raid array to match it ?
upgradeable elements after purchase ? memory and custom design pcie ssd ?