|
kyojin posted:I'm looking at buying a 2500 purely for a file and VM server. I want to run 6-8 low intensity servers on there - a DC, SQL, SAbnzbd, fileserver, mythTV (hence not the K - I want VT-d) etc. Is this realistic or is performance going to be too poor with that many machines? 8GB RAM and I'll be using an SSD for the OS to run from so hopefully drive performance should not be a bottleneck. Keen to use as little power as possible when nothing much is going on too. The answer to your question depends entirely on what load these servers are going to deal with. The maximum number of VMs you can run on any computer is more ram limited than anything else.
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2011 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 17:25 |
|
|
Alereon posted:Anyone who was relying on Intel's quoted failure rate estimates for a sense of security should definitely think carefully about that after reading this post. Perhaps what people don't realize is that "15% in X years" doesn't mean that it takes X years before anything happens to those 15%.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2011 10:41
|
|
|
Alereon posted:The relationship between voltage increases and power consumption is exponential, not linear. It's approximated for by (V/Vs)^2, with V being the actual voltage and Vs being the stock voltage. Power conversion efficiency and losses due to increased temperatures are an additional factor, but the largest factor is a genuine increase in CPU power draw (you can tell because the additional power is turning into heat in the CPU). I don't know enough about semiconductors to explain why, however. Joule's first law states P = IV. Substituting in Ohm's law (I=V/R) gets you P = V²/R. If you increase voltage from V1 to V2 you can find the increase in power as the ratio P2/P1 = (V2/V1)².
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2011 08:48
|
|
|
Wedesdo posted:I guess they're going to limit this to low-end processors. Otherwise hackers who want to pay mid-range prices and get premium processors would have a pretty big incentive to crack the system. Intel probably thinks no one who buys a Pentium Gxxx would possibly hack their code. Calling it now, in a few years Intel will follow the video game developers in requiring always on internet connection in order to use your unlocked processor. If you are offline it'll revert back to the pre unlocked values until you can get back online.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2011 02:55
|
|
|
priznat posted:Yeah it'll definitely need some quality software developed for it, but the offload capabilities in the CPU is a pretty nifty thing. Well, if it can be done on an FPGA then you could also do it on a regular ASIC. I'm pretty sure you could write a smoking encoder targeting the PS3s cell chip if you wanted. It's economics that dictate what route you take. VVV Why would you want a 3TB boot drive anyway? It's much better to make a small fast SSD the boot disk. Longinus00 fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Oct 12, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2011 06:19
|
|
). Decent motion estimation alone took up a high end and bloody expensive FPGA and all that.
|
movax posted:Jesus christ, $55 billion in revenue Makes that $1 billion payout to AMD seem like peanuts.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2011 03:22
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Anyone have more intel (har har) on Intel's Near Threshold Voltage efforts than AnandTech? Is that solar panel really sufficient for it to run windows or just putter around in one of the low energy P states?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
Alucardd posted:In fact, you have to remember that the transistor(and hundreds of other things) was made possible by the near inexhaustible funds that AT&T funneled into Bell Labs. So you're saying we'll soon be leasing our CPUs from intel? 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2012 07:43
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:In other news if you open up a computer and plug in a PCIe card you also get DMA access. And if you solder a different bios flash chip in you can bypass a boot password. The point is plugging a device into someone else's macbook which is just lying around somewhere is a lot easier than opening their desktop and stuffing a new card in/soldering a new bios. Especially since you can do this while the computer is running and maybe be able to get something out of it even if it's only plugged in for a few seconds. Imagine cruising around a library with a worm payload on a flash drive back when all windows machines would autorun. Even if there are some restrictions to plugging devices without user interaction it doesn't prevent lending/borrowing of malicious devices. You're far more likely to borrow a tbolt device than borrow someone else's pcie cards or randomly solder poo poo to your computer. Longinus00 fucked around with this message at 22:06 on May 13, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
movax posted:I guess you can "blame" Microsoft for enabling lazy companies to skirt around being "100% compliant" with ACPI and their BIOSes breaking on Linux. Personally, our company is the exact opposite; we test/debug our BIOS code against Linux 99% of the time because that's all our hardware will run in a customer setting. Booting anything else is just icing on the cake. It doesn't help that statements like this are in the public record. http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03020.pdf There's really no reason to do anything else once you get the magic WHQL certification for consumer/laptop boards anyway as the following exchange illustrates. Foxconn posted:Dear Ryan, Ryan posted:I saw you targeting Linux with an intentionally broken ACPI table, you also have one for NT and ME, a separate one for newer NT variants like 2000, XP, Vista, and 2003/2008 Server, I'm sure that if you actually wrote to Intel ACPI specs instead of whatever quirks you can get away with for 8 versions of Windows and then go to the trouble of giving a botched table to Linux http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=869249 Longinus00 fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Jul 25, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
movax posted:For consumers, we just have to wait for the cost of fiber to come down, or see what Intel does with regards to their next generation TB controllers and still operating over copper. Having PCIe 3.0 x4 over copper would finally be enough to drive all but the most demanding resolutions/games, I think. I know I could do PCIe 3.0 x4 using a QSFP and some PLX hardware, and I'd love to try it if I had a spare $2k laying around. Is this new enough for you? http://www.anandtech.com/show/5458/the-radeon-hd-7970-reprise-pcie-bandwidth-overclocking-and-msaa quote:The good news is that even at 2GB/sec the bottlenecking is rather limited, and based on our selection of benchmarks it looks like a handful of games will be bottlenecked.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2012 08:03
|
|
|
Zoom Shroom posted:I'm in Australia so it's $350 for an i7 3770S for me. They've got the i5 3475S advertised for $249 but they quoted me $295. If they can do $249 I'm sold. If not, I'll just have to live with an i5 3470S. The TDP numbers are maximums and it's unlikely you'll ever hit them in practice. If you want to cut power/heat then a simple way would be to simply disable turbo boost. It's doubtful you'll ever find a buyer who will want to pay you a premium for an 'S' when you try and sell down the line. What do you mean by PSU overloaded anyway? How close are you trying to cut it?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
You guys are missing another great upside to this whole deal. Instead of buying i3/i5/i7, intel is now in a better position than ever to make that software controllable. This gives you the upgrade path that you want without having to buy a whole new mobo/cpu combo. Hell, if you have a OS that supports cpu hotplug you might even be able to do this online.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
Is there a timetable for when the haswell i3/pentium/celeron lines will get released?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Ignoarints posted:Welll that's how the dwave sorta-kina works anyways. The theoretical one should be as capable and humanity altering as we imagine Not quite. Solving np-complete problems in polynomial time (with reasonable constants) could be humanity altering sure but quantum computers don't do that. Basically, don't believe the
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Yeah as cool as it would be I don't believe you can re-enable disabled features just via bitflips in microcode, if anything it might be an efuse that didn't quite open, or was marginal then failed closed in some manner. I wonder if you can even download microcode from the CPU, or just upload it? New microcode doesn't get saved on CPUs, it's not persistent. It's uploaded during the boot process either from bios or, if you don't want to/can't upgrade the bios, from the OS. In windows I'm guessing it's included as the "cpu driver" or whatever. In linux you can just check dmesg to see what version you have. If you want to know more, this is all in Intel's system programming guide. You want section 9.11. http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/manuals/64-ia-32-architectures-software-developer-vol-3a-part-1-manual.pdf Longinus00 fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Jun 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Chuu posted:your board doesn't support NVMe. There should be no need for this if you're just plugging directly into a PCIe slot right?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
GokieKS posted:First, I'm pretty sure that the wattage listed is total system power draw (though I don't know if it's their full test bed of components) - I'm pretty sure the CPU alone is not drawing 350W (I don't believe there's really a way they could measure actual power draw, rather than changes in power draw). The cpu does actually know its current powerdraw. It needs to know this for all the advanced power management that it does these days (e.g. turbo states). If you want an example of a tool that can report on this information look up turbostat.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 17:25 |
|
|
movax posted:Huh, didn't know they did that -- smart and forward-looking of them, it's a fairly large "security hole", though building devices that can take advantage of that type of access (at least in hardware; modifying firmware of a device with that access is much easier) can be though. Nothing is virtualized. DMA is just disabled, sometimes .http://www.frameloss.org/2011/09/18/firewire-attacks-against-mac-os-lion-filevault-2-encryption/ It's not limited to apple in any way of course, but they're just the most ubiquitous devices with firewire. Thunderbolt also allows all sorts of fun stuff. https://trmm.net/Thunderstrike Longinus00 fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Feb 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 19:34
|
|