What's the name of this conglomerate? So you're saying that like PNY Kingston Corsair PATRIOT and every other brand from expensive American made to cheapy Chinese made is really from the same entity?
What's the name of this conglomerate? So you're saying that like PNY Kingston Corsair PATRIOT and every other brand from expensive American made to cheapy Chinese made is really from the same entity?
I thought there are a few memory chips manufacturers - Micron, Microchip, Qimonda, Hynix, etc.
They buy memory chips from those companies above, and slap them onto their own PCBs, and use their own branding. If you look at your memory modules (may need to take off the heatspreader if it's a high end module), you can probably see the chip manufacturer's name on the actual memory chips. Different modules from different manufacturers that use the same chips tend to behave very similarly (in terms of overclocking potential, and how well it responds to increased voltage).What's the name of this conglomerate? So you're saying that like PNY Kingston Corsair PATRIOT and every other brand from expensive American made to cheapy Chinese made is really from the same entity?
Yeah I used to think I was doing multithreading too prior to the advent of dual-core/dual-proc machines. Then I got my first one and had to troubleshoot a thread contention issue where two threads really WERE executing and it was a whole new ballgame.....a completely new class of bugs can manifest with multiple processors than what you see on a single-proc machine with threads....since then I don't touch anything with less than two cores (for development that is...my netbook is single-proc but I only use that for doing one-off projects or entertainment)....
You don't really need to argue this point with whomever it is. The evidence is all over the internet that is simply not true. Vista on average uses 1.5 times more RAM for any given application than XP does. Just look at the requirements for Vista and XP on any boxed app and you will see they clearly recommend more for Vista. But I doubt it takes 1.5GB just to get to the desktop.Among the retardations that I'm hearing are gems like "XP is low-end, Vista is faster" (which has been proven to be false) and "Vista uses 1.5GB of RAM just from booting to the desktop" (yeah right).
I think that's because Vista adopted the "Linux-style" disk caching. I guess people would rather have free RAM than cached disk content in unused RAM...
Many Linux beginners ask that question, too. After running for a few hours, almost all Linux installations will report close to 0 free RAM.
The problem is that Vista is too aggressive in allocating the 'free' ram to disk cache. This causes excessive disk thrashing.
I'm not sure how Vista does it, but for Linux, as soon as an application needs the RAM, the cached content is thrown out. It won't touch swap until nearly all RAM is occupied by applications.
Well, whatever, who cares. The thing most likely to get overheated around here processing on this machine is me.
What I really want is this:
Zenview Command Center Six-Screen LCD Monitors: Digital Tigers Multi-Screen LCD Displays: Six Monitors
C programming resources:
GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
The C Book -- nice online learner guide
Current ISO draft standard
CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge
That thing is puny, I'd rather have this one
Because memory cannot keep up! Processors are leaky and that's why they evolve so fast.
Memory cannot be leaky, which is one of the biggest problems.
At least, that is what I've heard some time ago.
We need some new revolutionary type of memory to boost speeds to processor levels in the same time. But if the clock speed stays static, then all we need is a little time. We're already up at 1.2 GHz memory.
I'm going to have to agree with zacs7 on this one. To say they use different boards to lock-in is ridiculous. It's a design matter, I think.
As for the original topic, I like the energy-efficient and cheap parts.
I don't like overclocking, either, at least not when it comes to raising the voltage.
Energy is more important to me than speed, and cheap parts more so than expensive ones.
I even had to underclock the graphics card because it was consuming too much wattage for my poor PSU.
My very uneducated guess is that it's because DRAM is more analog. CPU is just a bunch of transistors switching. DRAM is actually transistors and capacitors (that actually store the information). Charging up capacitors takes more time.
Static memory (flip-flops) used for CPU cache is a lot faster, but also a lot more expensive.
C programming resources:
GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
The C Book -- nice online learner guide
Current ISO draft standard
CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge
All transistors get hot if we switch them fast, because of their capacitances. Modern CMOS gates only consume significant power (and hence put out heat) when they switch, because Vdd and ground are connected briefly when they switch (both transistor networks conducting).
CMOS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For DRAM, I'm not sure.
They certainly do get warm, though. But it could just be the transistors.