<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_21_2035229</id>
	<title>Intel's New Atom D510 Benchmark Tested</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1261395360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>adeelarshad82 writes <i>"The Atom processor in nettops and netbooks is one of Intel's success stories for 2009. Recently PCMag  <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2357348,00.asp">put the new Intel Atom D510 processor through its paces</a>, to see how it stacks up against previous generation Atom CPUs. Using a whitebox system from Intel, they ran their usual set of benchmark tests on the system. In summary the D510-equipped whitebox finished neck and neck with the dual-core powered Acer R3610-U9012. So while there are <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/image\_popup/0,1871,iid=249504,00.asp">differences between the two</a>, if you already have a nettop running the dual-core Intel Atom 330 processor you won't have to upgrade 'just because' there's a new CPU in the wings."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>adeelarshad82 writes " The Atom processor in nettops and netbooks is one of Intel 's success stories for 2009 .
Recently PCMag put the new Intel Atom D510 processor through its paces , to see how it stacks up against previous generation Atom CPUs .
Using a whitebox system from Intel , they ran their usual set of benchmark tests on the system .
In summary the D510-equipped whitebox finished neck and neck with the dual-core powered Acer R3610-U9012 .
So while there are differences between the two , if you already have a nettop running the dual-core Intel Atom 330 processor you wo n't have to upgrade 'just because ' there 's a new CPU in the wings .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>adeelarshad82 writes "The Atom processor in nettops and netbooks is one of Intel's success stories for 2009.
Recently PCMag  put the new Intel Atom D510 processor through its paces, to see how it stacks up against previous generation Atom CPUs.
Using a whitebox system from Intel, they ran their usual set of benchmark tests on the system.
In summary the D510-equipped whitebox finished neck and neck with the dual-core powered Acer R3610-U9012.
So while there are differences between the two, if you already have a nettop running the dual-core Intel Atom 330 processor you won't have to upgrade 'just because' there's a new CPU in the wings.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30521456</id>
	<title>Re:It's an admission</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1261473060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disagree. I as an experiment reccently fired up my old Pentium III 512mb workstation which was well specc'd to run Windows XP in it's era, it was <b>slow</b> compared to my more reccent machines to that point I wondered how we ever put up with it, and the thing ran to 100\% cpu use on the first javascript laden web page I encountered. This made me realise our perception of performance has changed, and really what we see as simple tasks, such as viewing photos from our digital camera are now much more intensive than you think, because those tasks themselves have a bigger footprint. Best example, I had a 2 megapixel camera then, I have a 12mp now. You need more CPU juice just to scroll thumbnails on these!<p><div class="quote"><p>The very existence of netbooks and nettops are an admission by the entire industry that the majority of tasks performed by computers these days are served well enough by a "Pentium III", perhaps with the addition of a better GPU than existed back then.</p></div><p>Only to some extent. You wouldn't say that if you actually tried an old system on basic web surfing someone may do today. You'd see a atom really is quite quick. If you try loading slashdot or facebook in firefox would burn the CPU at 100\%, infact my web browser performance was CPU-bound. Oh and forget about anything resembling smooth scrolling in web pages.
<br> <br>
In my little experiment I found this old pentium III 1ghz to be painfully slow loading images from my mediocre 12-megapixel camera, an experience that is somewhat snappier on my atom netbook. <br> <br> I used to work with digital images back, then just the same, but they were at most 2 megapixels. So yeah I'm still doing the same list of every day tasks on my quad core rig or atom netbook, but lets not leave out the fact these tasks themselves are now higher fidelity.
<br> <br> Or am I just crazy that I can detect the lag on a atom versus a quad core rig?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
I as an experiment reccently fired up my old Pentium III 512mb workstation which was well specc 'd to run Windows XP in it 's era , it was slow compared to my more reccent machines to that point I wondered how we ever put up with it , and the thing ran to 100 \ % cpu use on the first javascript laden web page I encountered .
This made me realise our perception of performance has changed , and really what we see as simple tasks , such as viewing photos from our digital camera are now much more intensive than you think , because those tasks themselves have a bigger footprint .
Best example , I had a 2 megapixel camera then , I have a 12mp now .
You need more CPU juice just to scroll thumbnails on these ! The very existence of netbooks and nettops are an admission by the entire industry that the majority of tasks performed by computers these days are served well enough by a " Pentium III " , perhaps with the addition of a better GPU than existed back then.Only to some extent .
You would n't say that if you actually tried an old system on basic web surfing someone may do today .
You 'd see a atom really is quite quick .
If you try loading slashdot or facebook in firefox would burn the CPU at 100 \ % , infact my web browser performance was CPU-bound .
Oh and forget about anything resembling smooth scrolling in web pages .
In my little experiment I found this old pentium III 1ghz to be painfully slow loading images from my mediocre 12-megapixel camera , an experience that is somewhat snappier on my atom netbook .
I used to work with digital images back , then just the same , but they were at most 2 megapixels .
So yeah I 'm still doing the same list of every day tasks on my quad core rig or atom netbook , but lets not leave out the fact these tasks themselves are now higher fidelity .
Or am I just crazy that I can detect the lag on a atom versus a quad core rig ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
I as an experiment reccently fired up my old Pentium III 512mb workstation which was well specc'd to run Windows XP in it's era, it was slow compared to my more reccent machines to that point I wondered how we ever put up with it, and the thing ran to 100\% cpu use on the first javascript laden web page I encountered.
This made me realise our perception of performance has changed, and really what we see as simple tasks, such as viewing photos from our digital camera are now much more intensive than you think, because those tasks themselves have a bigger footprint.
Best example, I had a 2 megapixel camera then, I have a 12mp now.
You need more CPU juice just to scroll thumbnails on these!The very existence of netbooks and nettops are an admission by the entire industry that the majority of tasks performed by computers these days are served well enough by a "Pentium III", perhaps with the addition of a better GPU than existed back then.Only to some extent.
You wouldn't say that if you actually tried an old system on basic web surfing someone may do today.
You'd see a atom really is quite quick.
If you try loading slashdot or facebook in firefox would burn the CPU at 100\%, infact my web browser performance was CPU-bound.
Oh and forget about anything resembling smooth scrolling in web pages.
In my little experiment I found this old pentium III 1ghz to be painfully slow loading images from my mediocre 12-megapixel camera, an experience that is somewhat snappier on my atom netbook.
I used to work with digital images back, then just the same, but they were at most 2 megapixels.
So yeah I'm still doing the same list of every day tasks on my quad core rig or atom netbook, but lets not leave out the fact these tasks themselves are now higher fidelity.
Or am I just crazy that I can detect the lag on a atom versus a quad core rig?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518628</id>
	<title>It's an admission</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261401120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The very existence of netbooks and nettops are an admission by the entire industry that the majority of tasks performed by computers these days are served well enough by a "Pentium III", perhaps with the addition of a better GPU than existed back then.</p><p>It's confirmation of the old suspicion that computers were becoming TOO powerful for most current uses, that hardware has been advancing quicker than the typical needs of the software.  While everyone may benefit from a quad-core 3GHz CPU once in a while, it's not many of us even here that require it every hour of the day (you guys playing Forged Alliance in Mom's converted basement are excepted).  It's that "subjective experience" bit all over again: having to wait longer than an instant for something to complete, even just for a few minutes total a day, is the subjective experience that sticks with us, while we conveniently forget the good times that went on the rest of those 24 hours.  It's like what they say about it being the little (negative) things that wind up killing marriages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The very existence of netbooks and nettops are an admission by the entire industry that the majority of tasks performed by computers these days are served well enough by a " Pentium III " , perhaps with the addition of a better GPU than existed back then.It 's confirmation of the old suspicion that computers were becoming TOO powerful for most current uses , that hardware has been advancing quicker than the typical needs of the software .
While everyone may benefit from a quad-core 3GHz CPU once in a while , it 's not many of us even here that require it every hour of the day ( you guys playing Forged Alliance in Mom 's converted basement are excepted ) .
It 's that " subjective experience " bit all over again : having to wait longer than an instant for something to complete , even just for a few minutes total a day , is the subjective experience that sticks with us , while we conveniently forget the good times that went on the rest of those 24 hours .
It 's like what they say about it being the little ( negative ) things that wind up killing marriages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The very existence of netbooks and nettops are an admission by the entire industry that the majority of tasks performed by computers these days are served well enough by a "Pentium III", perhaps with the addition of a better GPU than existed back then.It's confirmation of the old suspicion that computers were becoming TOO powerful for most current uses, that hardware has been advancing quicker than the typical needs of the software.
While everyone may benefit from a quad-core 3GHz CPU once in a while, it's not many of us even here that require it every hour of the day (you guys playing Forged Alliance in Mom's converted basement are excepted).
It's that "subjective experience" bit all over again: having to wait longer than an instant for something to complete, even just for a few minutes total a day, is the subjective experience that sticks with us, while we conveniently forget the good times that went on the rest of those 24 hours.
It's like what they say about it being the little (negative) things that wind up killing marriages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30520044</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares about benchmarks?</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1261412820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well wonderful then, I'll just get an ARM netbook and run all my apps on it! What's that? My apps don't run on ARM? Well there you go then.</p><p>ARM fanboy: The reason people like the atom is because it runs the massive amount of x86 OSes and apps out there. You can crow on about how much better your CPU is as much as you like, it doesn't make any difference when you are sitting there not running anything because it doesn't have a good base of software. There is some extreme usefulness is having binary compatibility between your desktop, laptop, and netbook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well wonderful then , I 'll just get an ARM netbook and run all my apps on it !
What 's that ?
My apps do n't run on ARM ?
Well there you go then.ARM fanboy : The reason people like the atom is because it runs the massive amount of x86 OSes and apps out there .
You can crow on about how much better your CPU is as much as you like , it does n't make any difference when you are sitting there not running anything because it does n't have a good base of software .
There is some extreme usefulness is having binary compatibility between your desktop , laptop , and netbook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well wonderful then, I'll just get an ARM netbook and run all my apps on it!
What's that?
My apps don't run on ARM?
Well there you go then.ARM fanboy: The reason people like the atom is because it runs the massive amount of x86 OSes and apps out there.
You can crow on about how much better your CPU is as much as you like, it doesn't make any difference when you are sitting there not running anything because it doesn't have a good base of software.
There is some extreme usefulness is having binary compatibility between your desktop, laptop, and netbook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30523768</id>
	<title>Re:It's an admission</title>
	<author>Ozric</author>
	<datestamp>1261498080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The very existence of netbooks and nettops are an admission by the entire industry that the majority of tasks performed by computers these days are served well enough by a "Pentium III", perhaps with the addition of a better GPU than existed back then..</p></div><p>I agree 100\% the problem is Code Bloat and no optimization.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The very existence of netbooks and nettops are an admission by the entire industry that the majority of tasks performed by computers these days are served well enough by a " Pentium III " , perhaps with the addition of a better GPU than existed back then..I agree 100 \ % the problem is Code Bloat and no optimization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The very existence of netbooks and nettops are an admission by the entire industry that the majority of tasks performed by computers these days are served well enough by a "Pentium III", perhaps with the addition of a better GPU than existed back then..I agree 100\% the problem is Code Bloat and no optimization.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518814</id>
	<title>Re:It's an admission</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261403100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is why Flash was developed. It requires lots of resources even for simple tasks. It brings back the computing experience of the late 90s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is why Flash was developed .
It requires lots of resources even for simple tasks .
It brings back the computing experience of the late 90s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is why Flash was developed.
It requires lots of resources even for simple tasks.
It brings back the computing experience of the late 90s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518758</id>
	<title>Re:So in other words</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1261402620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That isn't exactly the surprising thing. If you look around, people are still spinning new embedded 386 cores, with all the screaming performance of 25 years ago.<br> <br>

What is <i>very</i> significant is that performance a decade old is being marketed directly to end users, in more or less overtly "computer" shaped packages. If you count embedded stuff, you can find all sorts of archaisms hanging around; but the fact that old performance is showing up in new computers, meant for individual use, is quite interesting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is n't exactly the surprising thing .
If you look around , people are still spinning new embedded 386 cores , with all the screaming performance of 25 years ago .
What is very significant is that performance a decade old is being marketed directly to end users , in more or less overtly " computer " shaped packages .
If you count embedded stuff , you can find all sorts of archaisms hanging around ; but the fact that old performance is showing up in new computers , meant for individual use , is quite interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That isn't exactly the surprising thing.
If you look around, people are still spinning new embedded 386 cores, with all the screaming performance of 25 years ago.
What is very significant is that performance a decade old is being marketed directly to end users, in more or less overtly "computer" shaped packages.
If you count embedded stuff, you can find all sorts of archaisms hanging around; but the fact that old performance is showing up in new computers, meant for individual use, is quite interesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30521454</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares about benchmarks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261473060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This shit is modded up?  It should be marked
-1 Troll as that's what it is.</p><p>
Unlike you, some of us left the MS treadmill
 long ago so our apps run just fine on ARM.  Many of
the apps I use on my desktop Linux machine even
work on Debian I have running in a bootstrap on
my G1 <i>cellphone</i>.
Just because you are locked in through your
combination of fear/ignorance/laziness doesn't
mean everyone else is too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This shit is modded up ?
It should be marked -1 Troll as that 's what it is .
Unlike you , some of us left the MS treadmill long ago so our apps run just fine on ARM .
Many of the apps I use on my desktop Linux machine even work on Debian I have running in a bootstrap on my G1 cellphone .
Just because you are locked in through your combination of fear/ignorance/laziness does n't mean everyone else is too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This shit is modded up?
It should be marked
-1 Troll as that's what it is.
Unlike you, some of us left the MS treadmill
 long ago so our apps run just fine on ARM.
Many of
the apps I use on my desktop Linux machine even
work on Debian I have running in a bootstrap on
my G1 cellphone.
Just because you are locked in through your
combination of fear/ignorance/laziness doesn't
mean everyone else is too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30520044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518590</id>
	<title>Euh, Atom 330?</title>
	<author>Corporate Troll</author>
	<datestamp>1261400700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sucks.... Major balls...  I have an Point Of View Atom 330 motherboard and it's barely usable for common task like surfing, email and word processing.  I only tried it using Ubuntu, but I have an ION version so it should compensate for video display.  Frankly.... No... It doesn't.  Flash video is barely usable, Flash games like Farmville on Facebook are unusable.</p><p>I know, I know... the focus is low power, but my Asus EEE 701 4G does better with it's Celeron 900MHz.  So saying that it's barely better than an Atom 330 is saying that a Lada is barely better than a Trabant. </p><p>I now installed WinXP SP3 on it.... Perhaps it's only a driver issue... Haven't had the time to play around with it....  Perhaps it will be better, perhaps not.</p><p> A AMD XP 2400+ with a bit of ram fares much better than any of these motherboards...Yes, except for power management.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sucks.... Major balls... I have an Point Of View Atom 330 motherboard and it 's barely usable for common task like surfing , email and word processing .
I only tried it using Ubuntu , but I have an ION version so it should compensate for video display .
Frankly.... No... It does n't .
Flash video is barely usable , Flash games like Farmville on Facebook are unusable.I know , I know... the focus is low power , but my Asus EEE 701 4G does better with it 's Celeron 900MHz .
So saying that it 's barely better than an Atom 330 is saying that a Lada is barely better than a Trabant .
I now installed WinXP SP3 on it.... Perhaps it 's only a driver issue... Have n't had the time to play around with it.... Perhaps it will be better , perhaps not .
A AMD XP 2400 + with a bit of ram fares much better than any of these motherboards...Yes , except for power management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sucks.... Major balls...  I have an Point Of View Atom 330 motherboard and it's barely usable for common task like surfing, email and word processing.
I only tried it using Ubuntu, but I have an ION version so it should compensate for video display.
Frankly.... No... It doesn't.
Flash video is barely usable, Flash games like Farmville on Facebook are unusable.I know, I know... the focus is low power, but my Asus EEE 701 4G does better with it's Celeron 900MHz.
So saying that it's barely better than an Atom 330 is saying that a Lada is barely better than a Trabant.
I now installed WinXP SP3 on it.... Perhaps it's only a driver issue... Haven't had the time to play around with it....  Perhaps it will be better, perhaps not.
A AMD XP 2400+ with a bit of ram fares much better than any of these motherboards...Yes, except for power management.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518500</id>
	<title>Re:So in other words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261399980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lower power, lower cost, bigger L2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lower power , lower cost , bigger L2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lower power, lower cost, bigger L2.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30521046</id>
	<title>You're right, some data to back it up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261424220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$ uptime<br>
&nbsp; 17:04:37 up 3 days,  7:03,  0 users,  load average: 0.04, 0.06, 0.01<br>$ cpufreq-info | grep "cpufreq stats"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; cpufreq stats: 2.40 GHz:1.97\%, 2.13 GHz:0.03\%, 1.87 GHz:0.04\%, 1.60 GHz:97.97\%  (302491)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; cpufreq stats: 2.40 GHz:2.11\%, 2.13 GHz:0.02\%, 1.87 GHz:0.03\%, 1.60 GHz:97.84\%  (254077)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; cpufreq stats: 2.40 GHz:2.18\%, 2.13 GHz:0.02\%, 1.87 GHz:0.02\%, 1.60 GHz:97.78\%  (203704)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; cpufreq stats: 2.40 GHz:1.15\%, 2.13 GHz:0.01\%, 1.87 GHz:0.01\%, 1.60 GHz:98.83\%  (118501)<br>$</p><p>(load the 'cpufreq\_stats' module to have the cpufreq-info utility display these stats)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ uptime   17 : 04 : 37 up 3 days , 7 : 03 , 0 users , load average : 0.04 , 0.06 , 0.01 $ cpufreq-info | grep " cpufreq stats "     cpufreq stats : 2.40 GHz : 1.97 \ % , 2.13 GHz : 0.03 \ % , 1.87 GHz : 0.04 \ % , 1.60 GHz : 97.97 \ % ( 302491 )     cpufreq stats : 2.40 GHz : 2.11 \ % , 2.13 GHz : 0.02 \ % , 1.87 GHz : 0.03 \ % , 1.60 GHz : 97.84 \ % ( 254077 )     cpufreq stats : 2.40 GHz : 2.18 \ % , 2.13 GHz : 0.02 \ % , 1.87 GHz : 0.02 \ % , 1.60 GHz : 97.78 \ % ( 203704 )     cpufreq stats : 2.40 GHz : 1.15 \ % , 2.13 GHz : 0.01 \ % , 1.87 GHz : 0.01 \ % , 1.60 GHz : 98.83 \ % ( 118501 ) $ ( load the 'cpufreq \ _stats ' module to have the cpufreq-info utility display these stats )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$ uptime
  17:04:37 up 3 days,  7:03,  0 users,  load average: 0.04, 0.06, 0.01$ cpufreq-info | grep "cpufreq stats"
    cpufreq stats: 2.40 GHz:1.97\%, 2.13 GHz:0.03\%, 1.87 GHz:0.04\%, 1.60 GHz:97.97\%  (302491)
    cpufreq stats: 2.40 GHz:2.11\%, 2.13 GHz:0.02\%, 1.87 GHz:0.03\%, 1.60 GHz:97.84\%  (254077)
    cpufreq stats: 2.40 GHz:2.18\%, 2.13 GHz:0.02\%, 1.87 GHz:0.02\%, 1.60 GHz:97.78\%  (203704)
    cpufreq stats: 2.40 GHz:1.15\%, 2.13 GHz:0.01\%, 1.87 GHz:0.01\%, 1.60 GHz:98.83\%  (118501)$(load the 'cpufreq\_stats' module to have the cpufreq-info utility display these stats)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30532200</id>
	<title>Re:It's an admission</title>
	<author>simplerThanPossible</author>
	<datestamp>1261498320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's part of a conspiracy of a world-wide cartel of efficiency-oriented programmer that control computing, to ensure their skills remain in demand. Whenever computers start getting too fast, they contrive another layer.  The iPhone is another of their strategies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's part of a conspiracy of a world-wide cartel of efficiency-oriented programmer that control computing , to ensure their skills remain in demand .
Whenever computers start getting too fast , they contrive another layer .
The iPhone is another of their strategies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's part of a conspiracy of a world-wide cartel of efficiency-oriented programmer that control computing, to ensure their skills remain in demand.
Whenever computers start getting too fast, they contrive another layer.
The iPhone is another of their strategies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518634</id>
	<title>Re:Euh, Atom 330?</title>
	<author>anss123</author>
	<datestamp>1261401180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Flash games like Farmville on Facebook</p></div><p>Gave my sister an 2.4 Ghz E6600 to tackle that game but it still runs like a dog.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash games like Farmville on FacebookGave my sister an 2.4 Ghz E6600 to tackle that game but it still runs like a dog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash games like Farmville on FacebookGave my sister an 2.4 Ghz E6600 to tackle that game but it still runs like a dog.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30522154</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares about benchmarks?</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1261482480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(Atom fanboys: First add the giant north bridge monster to your calculations before you answer. ^^)</p></div><p>Perhaps the ARM fanboy should RTFA, since there is no more giant north bridge?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Atom fanboys : First add the giant north bridge monster to your calculations before you answer .
^ ^ ) Perhaps the ARM fanboy should RTFA , since there is no more giant north bridge ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Atom fanboys: First add the giant north bridge monster to your calculations before you answer.
^^)Perhaps the ARM fanboy should RTFA, since there is no more giant north bridge?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518998</id>
	<title>Who cares about benchmarks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261404660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I care a bit. A little bit.</p><p>What I care more about, though, is if it can even come close to ARM CPUs in power per watt ratio. (Atom fanboys: First add the giant north bridge monster to your calculations before you answer. ^^)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I care a bit .
A little bit.What I care more about , though , is if it can even come close to ARM CPUs in power per watt ratio .
( Atom fanboys : First add the giant north bridge monster to your calculations before you answer .
^ ^ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I care a bit.
A little bit.What I care more about, though, is if it can even come close to ARM CPUs in power per watt ratio.
(Atom fanboys: First add the giant north bridge monster to your calculations before you answer.
^^)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518906</id>
	<title>Re:Euh, Atom 330?</title>
	<author>RuBLed</author>
	<datestamp>1261403820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe you had a defective one. I bought one a month ago to replace an aging home desktop and installed Linux Mint on it. Works like charm for the family's surfing needs, Facebook works, flash games works, youtube works, everything aside from 3D games.
<br>
<br>
What I noticed at first though that it would often lock up after 15 minutes or so and the screen would go corrupt. It was the know fan/heat issues on this one so I got myself a smaller casing (one made for Atom), bought a better GPU fan, replaced the thermal paste on both CPU and GPU heatsinks, cannibalized a heatsink from an old video card and glued it a little over the other exposed motherboard chip and it had worked like charm ever since.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you had a defective one .
I bought one a month ago to replace an aging home desktop and installed Linux Mint on it .
Works like charm for the family 's surfing needs , Facebook works , flash games works , youtube works , everything aside from 3D games .
What I noticed at first though that it would often lock up after 15 minutes or so and the screen would go corrupt .
It was the know fan/heat issues on this one so I got myself a smaller casing ( one made for Atom ) , bought a better GPU fan , replaced the thermal paste on both CPU and GPU heatsinks , cannibalized a heatsink from an old video card and glued it a little over the other exposed motherboard chip and it had worked like charm ever since .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you had a defective one.
I bought one a month ago to replace an aging home desktop and installed Linux Mint on it.
Works like charm for the family's surfing needs, Facebook works, flash games works, youtube works, everything aside from 3D games.
What I noticed at first though that it would often lock up after 15 minutes or so and the screen would go corrupt.
It was the know fan/heat issues on this one so I got myself a smaller casing (one made for Atom), bought a better GPU fan, replaced the thermal paste on both CPU and GPU heatsinks, cannibalized a heatsink from an old video card and glued it a little over the other exposed motherboard chip and it had worked like charm ever since.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30521262</id>
	<title>Nettop itx ATOM board done right.</title>
	<author>csoh</author>
	<datestamp>1261513560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at the picture of this board. Unlike typical atom330+945gc nettop board it has NO FAN. And if we recall the fact that 945gc chipset consumes 25w of power, way more than 8w cpu itself, I would rather call this board "Nettop ATOM board done right, powerwise". So if you already have netbook which uses 945gse mobile chipset(which is already power efficient), this would mean nothing more than minor facelift. But if you're going to buy atom330+945gc itx nettop board, this is much improved product to consider regarding power. And minor upgrade from gma950 to gma3150(slightly improved g31), would be better than nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the picture of this board .
Unlike typical atom330 + 945gc nettop board it has NO FAN .
And if we recall the fact that 945gc chipset consumes 25w of power , way more than 8w cpu itself , I would rather call this board " Nettop ATOM board done right , powerwise " .
So if you already have netbook which uses 945gse mobile chipset ( which is already power efficient ) , this would mean nothing more than minor facelift .
But if you 're going to buy atom330 + 945gc itx nettop board , this is much improved product to consider regarding power .
And minor upgrade from gma950 to gma3150 ( slightly improved g31 ) , would be better than nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the picture of this board.
Unlike typical atom330+945gc nettop board it has NO FAN.
And if we recall the fact that 945gc chipset consumes 25w of power, way more than 8w cpu itself, I would rather call this board "Nettop ATOM board done right, powerwise".
So if you already have netbook which uses 945gse mobile chipset(which is already power efficient), this would mean nothing more than minor facelift.
But if you're going to buy atom330+945gc itx nettop board, this is much improved product to consider regarding power.
And minor upgrade from gma950 to gma3150(slightly improved g31), would be better than nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30521404</id>
	<title>More reviews at techreport.com and anandtech.com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261515540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main benefit of the new Atom platform is its improved efficiency.</p><p>More info at:</p><p>Intel's next-gen Atom arrives in Asus' Eee PC 1005PE netbook<br><a href="http://techreport.com/articles.x/18167" title="techreport.com">http://techreport.com/articles.x/18167</a> [techreport.com]<br>"Pine Trail's pseudo-system-on-chip architecture is quite a departure from the first Atom platform and an impressive achievement for Intel. Not only has the company managed to drop the number of chips and dramatically reduce the platform's footprint, but it has also lowered power consumption by a healthy margin. Those improvements should make it easier for manufacturers to churn out slimmer and lighter netbooks with better battery life than ever before."</p><p>Intel Atom D510: Pine Trail Boosts Performance, Cuts Power<br><a href="http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3692" title="anandtech.com">http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3692</a> [anandtech.com]<br>"First, new vs. old Atom. With a real world performance improvement approaching 10\% on the desktop, I'm happy with the performance of Pine Trail. Short of Intel introducing a brand new architecture, Atom isn't going to get much better, so the fact that we're getting anything is worth being happy about.<br>The impact of the on-die memory controller is noticeable on overall system performance. As I said earlier, my Pine Trail testbed was snappier and more responsive than my older Atom machines. It's by no means fast, but it's noticeably faster than before.<br>Power consumption is also much improved thanks to Intel ditching the archaic 945 chipset. Although the impact on battery life in netbooks is going to be more exciting than drawing less power at the wall. Pine Trail is worth waiting for."</p><p>ASUS Eee PC 1005PE: Pineview Arrives<br><a href="http://anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3693" title="anandtech.com">http://anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3693</a> [anandtech.com]<br>"The latest release of Atom brings quite a few changes, but the net result isn't quite as impressive as we were hoping. We have an integrated memory controller in the CPU along with a GPU on package. Those are cost saving measures that also provide some benefits in terms of power requirements. What they apparently don't provide is a significant improvement in performance. Anand saw around a 10\% improvement in performance relative to Diamondville on the desktop, but the real problem is what we didn't get.<br>Specifically, Pineview needed a lot more than GMA 3150 to make it attractive. Given a choice between N280 ION and N450 Pineview, ION will offer a better overall experience for the vast majority of users. If you want to do a silent HTPC, Pineview is going to need some form of external graphics, making the GMA 3150 a waste of space. We would have been much happier if Intel had included GMA 4500 instead, and even then it would be underpowered compared to ION."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main benefit of the new Atom platform is its improved efficiency.More info at : Intel 's next-gen Atom arrives in Asus ' Eee PC 1005PE netbookhttp : //techreport.com/articles.x/18167 [ techreport.com ] " Pine Trail 's pseudo-system-on-chip architecture is quite a departure from the first Atom platform and an impressive achievement for Intel .
Not only has the company managed to drop the number of chips and dramatically reduce the platform 's footprint , but it has also lowered power consumption by a healthy margin .
Those improvements should make it easier for manufacturers to churn out slimmer and lighter netbooks with better battery life than ever before .
" Intel Atom D510 : Pine Trail Boosts Performance , Cuts Powerhttp : //anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx ? i = 3692 [ anandtech.com ] " First , new vs. old Atom .
With a real world performance improvement approaching 10 \ % on the desktop , I 'm happy with the performance of Pine Trail .
Short of Intel introducing a brand new architecture , Atom is n't going to get much better , so the fact that we 're getting anything is worth being happy about.The impact of the on-die memory controller is noticeable on overall system performance .
As I said earlier , my Pine Trail testbed was snappier and more responsive than my older Atom machines .
It 's by no means fast , but it 's noticeably faster than before.Power consumption is also much improved thanks to Intel ditching the archaic 945 chipset .
Although the impact on battery life in netbooks is going to be more exciting than drawing less power at the wall .
Pine Trail is worth waiting for .
" ASUS Eee PC 1005PE : Pineview Arriveshttp : //anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx ? i = 3693 [ anandtech.com ] " The latest release of Atom brings quite a few changes , but the net result is n't quite as impressive as we were hoping .
We have an integrated memory controller in the CPU along with a GPU on package .
Those are cost saving measures that also provide some benefits in terms of power requirements .
What they apparently do n't provide is a significant improvement in performance .
Anand saw around a 10 \ % improvement in performance relative to Diamondville on the desktop , but the real problem is what we did n't get.Specifically , Pineview needed a lot more than GMA 3150 to make it attractive .
Given a choice between N280 ION and N450 Pineview , ION will offer a better overall experience for the vast majority of users .
If you want to do a silent HTPC , Pineview is going to need some form of external graphics , making the GMA 3150 a waste of space .
We would have been much happier if Intel had included GMA 4500 instead , and even then it would be underpowered compared to ION .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main benefit of the new Atom platform is its improved efficiency.More info at:Intel's next-gen Atom arrives in Asus' Eee PC 1005PE netbookhttp://techreport.com/articles.x/18167 [techreport.com]"Pine Trail's pseudo-system-on-chip architecture is quite a departure from the first Atom platform and an impressive achievement for Intel.
Not only has the company managed to drop the number of chips and dramatically reduce the platform's footprint, but it has also lowered power consumption by a healthy margin.
Those improvements should make it easier for manufacturers to churn out slimmer and lighter netbooks with better battery life than ever before.
"Intel Atom D510: Pine Trail Boosts Performance, Cuts Powerhttp://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3692 [anandtech.com]"First, new vs. old Atom.
With a real world performance improvement approaching 10\% on the desktop, I'm happy with the performance of Pine Trail.
Short of Intel introducing a brand new architecture, Atom isn't going to get much better, so the fact that we're getting anything is worth being happy about.The impact of the on-die memory controller is noticeable on overall system performance.
As I said earlier, my Pine Trail testbed was snappier and more responsive than my older Atom machines.
It's by no means fast, but it's noticeably faster than before.Power consumption is also much improved thanks to Intel ditching the archaic 945 chipset.
Although the impact on battery life in netbooks is going to be more exciting than drawing less power at the wall.
Pine Trail is worth waiting for.
"ASUS Eee PC 1005PE: Pineview Arriveshttp://anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3693 [anandtech.com]"The latest release of Atom brings quite a few changes, but the net result isn't quite as impressive as we were hoping.
We have an integrated memory controller in the CPU along with a GPU on package.
Those are cost saving measures that also provide some benefits in terms of power requirements.
What they apparently don't provide is a significant improvement in performance.
Anand saw around a 10\% improvement in performance relative to Diamondville on the desktop, but the real problem is what we didn't get.Specifically, Pineview needed a lot more than GMA 3150 to make it attractive.
Given a choice between N280 ION and N450 Pineview, ION will offer a better overall experience for the vast majority of users.
If you want to do a silent HTPC, Pineview is going to need some form of external graphics, making the GMA 3150 a waste of space.
We would have been much happier if Intel had included GMA 4500 instead, and even then it would be underpowered compared to ION.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518682</id>
	<title>Re:Euh, Atom 330?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261401600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF!? I have an EEE 1000h, which means Atom N270. With that I surf, email and program a lot. I run Debian and Windows 7. And I have no reason to complain about performance.</p><p>I imagine everything could be slightly faster, but I am not seeing how that improves my experience. I also have a Core 2 Duo desktop. It sure does HD videos and games a lot better. But I don't feel any improvement with regards to surfing, emailing and programming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF ! ?
I have an EEE 1000h , which means Atom N270 .
With that I surf , email and program a lot .
I run Debian and Windows 7 .
And I have no reason to complain about performance.I imagine everything could be slightly faster , but I am not seeing how that improves my experience .
I also have a Core 2 Duo desktop .
It sure does HD videos and games a lot better .
But I do n't feel any improvement with regards to surfing , emailing and programming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF!?
I have an EEE 1000h, which means Atom N270.
With that I surf, email and program a lot.
I run Debian and Windows 7.
And I have no reason to complain about performance.I imagine everything could be slightly faster, but I am not seeing how that improves my experience.
I also have a Core 2 Duo desktop.
It sure does HD videos and games a lot better.
But I don't feel any improvement with regards to surfing, emailing and programming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518432</id>
	<title>So in other words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261399380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A chip released in 2009 is still on par with a PIII from close to a decade ago?<br> <br>Although lower power is always nice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A chip released in 2009 is still on par with a PIII from close to a decade ago ?
Although lower power is always nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A chip released in 2009 is still on par with a PIII from close to a decade ago?
Although lower power is always nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518992</id>
	<title>Re:Euh, Atom 330?</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1261404660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meh, I run 1080p video just fine on my 330/Ion/Linux machine. It's just flash that sucks balls, and seems persistent in doing so. If flash was open source someone would have patched in VDPAU support long ago, for now we're left at the mercy of Adobe *shudder*. From what I've understood their hardware acceleration support is DXVA = Windows only even in the latest beta, they need to be take out back and shot 100 times as bad as IE6.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh , I run 1080p video just fine on my 330/Ion/Linux machine .
It 's just flash that sucks balls , and seems persistent in doing so .
If flash was open source someone would have patched in VDPAU support long ago , for now we 're left at the mercy of Adobe * shudder * .
From what I 've understood their hardware acceleration support is DXVA = Windows only even in the latest beta , they need to be take out back and shot 100 times as bad as IE6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh, I run 1080p video just fine on my 330/Ion/Linux machine.
It's just flash that sucks balls, and seems persistent in doing so.
If flash was open source someone would have patched in VDPAU support long ago, for now we're left at the mercy of Adobe *shudder*.
From what I've understood their hardware acceleration support is DXVA = Windows only even in the latest beta, they need to be take out back and shot 100 times as bad as IE6.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30519102</id>
	<title>Re:It's an admission</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261405500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's confirmation of the old suspicion that computers were becoming TOO powerful for most current uses"</p><p>I think the issue is backwards, it's that computers are NOT powerful enough to enable the NEXT killer application, it's been a while since the there has been a killer app (for the pc) that required everyone to have a decent CPU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's confirmation of the old suspicion that computers were becoming TOO powerful for most current uses " I think the issue is backwards , it 's that computers are NOT powerful enough to enable the NEXT killer application , it 's been a while since the there has been a killer app ( for the pc ) that required everyone to have a decent CPU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's confirmation of the old suspicion that computers were becoming TOO powerful for most current uses"I think the issue is backwards, it's that computers are NOT powerful enough to enable the NEXT killer application, it's been a while since the there has been a killer app (for the pc) that required everyone to have a decent CPU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518752</id>
	<title>Re:Euh, Atom 330?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261402560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a home made box with intel's integrated atom 330 mini itx mobo. Running Xubuntu. Runs well for most things.</p><p>Video plays well.</p><p>Firefox sometimes scrolls slowly on big pages. This got a lot better with the last *buntu release though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a home made box with intel 's integrated atom 330 mini itx mobo .
Running Xubuntu .
Runs well for most things.Video plays well.Firefox sometimes scrolls slowly on big pages .
This got a lot better with the last * buntu release though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a home made box with intel's integrated atom 330 mini itx mobo.
Running Xubuntu.
Runs well for most things.Video plays well.Firefox sometimes scrolls slowly on big pages.
This got a lot better with the last *buntu release though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30527744</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, what?</title>
	<author>WarlockD</author>
	<datestamp>1261514820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You DO know the PCIe is a bus right?  You don't JUST plug a video card into it, this is not AGP world now.</p><p>Most modern motherboards use the PCIe bus for everything.  Built in network cards, the keyboard controller, USB ports all run on that bus on the board.  Just because there are no slots on the board dosn't mean it doesn't use it all internal.</p><p>My complaint was that I thought it only had a single 2.5Gbps bus channel for everything outside of the processor.  It was too limiting as if you wanted an MPEG4 decoder chip, you would use a good porton of the bandwith trasfing to the cpu's video controler.  Hell, lets not even think about gaming.  You can't get most of the figures out of Areo without at least DX10 compatibility.  The new Microsoft 2010 supposed to render windows in DirectX supposedly.  I was wrong however.  A closer look at the white paper showed:</p><p>"Support 4 lanes in each direction, 2.5 Gbps per lane per direction, poin-to-point DMI interface to Intel NM10 Express chipset."</p><p>Its just when you look at the pins, electrically, it looks like a PCIe interface so I was confused.  6Gbps is enough for anything on that laptop.  I just worry that intel has the DMI bus locked so no one can make their own chip set.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You DO know the PCIe is a bus right ?
You do n't JUST plug a video card into it , this is not AGP world now.Most modern motherboards use the PCIe bus for everything .
Built in network cards , the keyboard controller , USB ports all run on that bus on the board .
Just because there are no slots on the board dos n't mean it does n't use it all internal.My complaint was that I thought it only had a single 2.5Gbps bus channel for everything outside of the processor .
It was too limiting as if you wanted an MPEG4 decoder chip , you would use a good porton of the bandwith trasfing to the cpu 's video controler .
Hell , lets not even think about gaming .
You ca n't get most of the figures out of Areo without at least DX10 compatibility .
The new Microsoft 2010 supposed to render windows in DirectX supposedly .
I was wrong however .
A closer look at the white paper showed : " Support 4 lanes in each direction , 2.5 Gbps per lane per direction , poin-to-point DMI interface to Intel NM10 Express chipset .
" Its just when you look at the pins , electrically , it looks like a PCIe interface so I was confused .
6Gbps is enough for anything on that laptop .
I just worry that intel has the DMI bus locked so no one can make their own chip set .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You DO know the PCIe is a bus right?
You don't JUST plug a video card into it, this is not AGP world now.Most modern motherboards use the PCIe bus for everything.
Built in network cards, the keyboard controller, USB ports all run on that bus on the board.
Just because there are no slots on the board dosn't mean it doesn't use it all internal.My complaint was that I thought it only had a single 2.5Gbps bus channel for everything outside of the processor.
It was too limiting as if you wanted an MPEG4 decoder chip, you would use a good porton of the bandwith trasfing to the cpu's video controler.
Hell, lets not even think about gaming.
You can't get most of the figures out of Areo without at least DX10 compatibility.
The new Microsoft 2010 supposed to render windows in DirectX supposedly.
I was wrong however.
A closer look at the white paper showed:"Support 4 lanes in each direction, 2.5 Gbps per lane per direction, poin-to-point DMI interface to Intel NM10 Express chipset.
"Its just when you look at the pins, electrically, it looks like a PCIe interface so I was confused.
6Gbps is enough for anything on that laptop.
I just worry that intel has the DMI bus locked so no one can make their own chip set.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30520010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518674</id>
	<title>What's the point of the table?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261401540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't seem to understand what's the point of a table full of "N/A". If it doesn't apply then why would you put that in a table as a comparison?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't seem to understand what 's the point of a table full of " N/A " .
If it does n't apply then why would you put that in a table as a comparison ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't seem to understand what's the point of a table full of "N/A".
If it doesn't apply then why would you put that in a table as a comparison?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518486</id>
	<title>Very poor video build in to cpu and no DVI / hdmi?</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1261399860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very poor video build in to cpu and no DVI / hdmi?<br>What a joke VGA can do higher res then digital out on this cpu.</p><p>And there is no pci-e x16 bus to add a better video card.</p><p>I think that new intel laptop cpus use a faster ver of this carp video system.</p><p>Nvidia ion is faster and ion 2 is even faster and what is this half the speed of ion 1?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very poor video build in to cpu and no DVI / hdmi ? What a joke VGA can do higher res then digital out on this cpu.And there is no pci-e x16 bus to add a better video card.I think that new intel laptop cpus use a faster ver of this carp video system.Nvidia ion is faster and ion 2 is even faster and what is this half the speed of ion 1 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very poor video build in to cpu and no DVI / hdmi?What a joke VGA can do higher res then digital out on this cpu.And there is no pci-e x16 bus to add a better video card.I think that new intel laptop cpus use a faster ver of this carp video system.Nvidia ion is faster and ion 2 is even faster and what is this half the speed of ion 1?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30519050</id>
	<title>Re:Euh, Atom 330?</title>
	<author>Mad Merlin</author>
	<datestamp>1261405200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...Flash games like Farmville on Facebook are unusable.</p></div></blockquote><p>So play <a href="http://wittyrpg.com/" title="wittyrpg.com">Game!</a> [wittyrpg.com] instead, no Flash!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Flash games like Farmville on Facebook are unusable.So play Game !
[ wittyrpg.com ] instead , no Flash !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Flash games like Farmville on Facebook are unusable.So play Game!
[wittyrpg.com] instead, no Flash!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518828</id>
	<title>Re:Very poor video build in to cpu and no DVI / hd</title>
	<author>WarlockD</author>
	<datestamp>1261403220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No joke.  I can live without a full PCI-e bus IF you give me some decent performance I would let it ride.  God don't they own Ati?</p><p>But this thing?  Its DESIGNED to take the Ion and anyone else who wants to make a chipset for it out of the game.  Look at the whitepapers here: <a href="http://www.intel.com/products/processor/atom/techdocs.htm" title="intel.com">http://www.intel.com/products/processor/atom/techdocs.htm</a> [intel.com]</p><p>There will NEVER be a system, using this chip, with a DVI out neither.  Why?  The CPU outputs DIRECTLY to VGA.   It has a LDVS interface, but it doesn't look like you can split it off for a second display.   Maybe as a motherboard but never for the laptop.  With the exception of directly connecting it to memory, the only outside interface to the chipset is its "direct media interface", but it looks like the same signaling for PCI-E.  One channel.</p><p>Thats it.  You got a PC with a signle PCI-E slot, were all your USB/Wireless/Ethernet and Hard drive pipe though.  They did this to lock down the chip.</p><p>All that being said, if they make this chip cheap enough then everything I said is moot.  IF the D510 sells for under 299 and the D400's make a 199 laptop, its worth it for the price.   But if AMD can get on the ball with their new chip and the ion chipset, they might win this war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No joke .
I can live without a full PCI-e bus IF you give me some decent performance I would let it ride .
God do n't they own Ati ? But this thing ?
Its DESIGNED to take the Ion and anyone else who wants to make a chipset for it out of the game .
Look at the whitepapers here : http : //www.intel.com/products/processor/atom/techdocs.htm [ intel.com ] There will NEVER be a system , using this chip , with a DVI out neither .
Why ? The CPU outputs DIRECTLY to VGA .
It has a LDVS interface , but it does n't look like you can split it off for a second display .
Maybe as a motherboard but never for the laptop .
With the exception of directly connecting it to memory , the only outside interface to the chipset is its " direct media interface " , but it looks like the same signaling for PCI-E. One channel.Thats it .
You got a PC with a signle PCI-E slot , were all your USB/Wireless/Ethernet and Hard drive pipe though .
They did this to lock down the chip.All that being said , if they make this chip cheap enough then everything I said is moot .
IF the D510 sells for under 299 and the D400 's make a 199 laptop , its worth it for the price .
But if AMD can get on the ball with their new chip and the ion chipset , they might win this war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No joke.
I can live without a full PCI-e bus IF you give me some decent performance I would let it ride.
God don't they own Ati?But this thing?
Its DESIGNED to take the Ion and anyone else who wants to make a chipset for it out of the game.
Look at the whitepapers here: http://www.intel.com/products/processor/atom/techdocs.htm [intel.com]There will NEVER be a system, using this chip, with a DVI out neither.
Why?  The CPU outputs DIRECTLY to VGA.
It has a LDVS interface, but it doesn't look like you can split it off for a second display.
Maybe as a motherboard but never for the laptop.
With the exception of directly connecting it to memory, the only outside interface to the chipset is its "direct media interface", but it looks like the same signaling for PCI-E.  One channel.Thats it.
You got a PC with a signle PCI-E slot, were all your USB/Wireless/Ethernet and Hard drive pipe though.
They did this to lock down the chip.All that being said, if they make this chip cheap enough then everything I said is moot.
IF the D510 sells for under 299 and the D400's make a 199 laptop, its worth it for the price.
But if AMD can get on the ball with their new chip and the ion chipset, they might win this war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30521700</id>
	<title>Re:Euh, Atom 330?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261476300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main issue here is the new Atom is crippled, it is deliberately designed to keep the ION chipset at bay by doing a SOC design. There is no speed difference to its predecessors.<br>So what we will see from that will be just another flood of new netbooks doing the old things, and less ION based ones (as if there were that many to begin with, Intel was rather successful to keep them away by outpricing NVidia by illegal means - they sold the GMA + Atom combination cheaper than Atom alone so NVidia was on a lost course here)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main issue here is the new Atom is crippled , it is deliberately designed to keep the ION chipset at bay by doing a SOC design .
There is no speed difference to its predecessors.So what we will see from that will be just another flood of new netbooks doing the old things , and less ION based ones ( as if there were that many to begin with , Intel was rather successful to keep them away by outpricing NVidia by illegal means - they sold the GMA + Atom combination cheaper than Atom alone so NVidia was on a lost course here )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main issue here is the new Atom is crippled, it is deliberately designed to keep the ION chipset at bay by doing a SOC design.
There is no speed difference to its predecessors.So what we will see from that will be just another flood of new netbooks doing the old things, and less ION based ones (as if there were that many to begin with, Intel was rather successful to keep them away by outpricing NVidia by illegal means - they sold the GMA + Atom combination cheaper than Atom alone so NVidia was on a lost course here)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30520100</id>
	<title>Re:Euh, Atom 330?</title>
	<author>RMS Eats Toejam</author>
	<datestamp>1261413420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You were using Linux and didn't realize it would be slow?  Is your name "McFly" by any chance?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You were using Linux and did n't realize it would be slow ?
Is your name " McFly " by any chance ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You were using Linux and didn't realize it would be slow?
Is your name "McFly" by any chance?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518926</id>
	<title>power savings</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261404000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although performance is no better, the new chip sips power.  That will lead to longer life or cheaper batteries.  Win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although performance is no better , the new chip sips power .
That will lead to longer life or cheaper batteries .
Win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although performance is no better, the new chip sips power.
That will lead to longer life or cheaper batteries.
Win.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30519896</id>
	<title>Re:Euh, Atom 330?</title>
	<author>LordKronos</author>
	<datestamp>1261411620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An Ion based system can run a mythtv frontend with 1080p video and provide 1080i deinterlacing that is superior in quality to the software deinterlacing you can get off of a Core 2 Duo, and the Ion system does it with CPU &gt;90\% idle and about a 25 watt power draw for the whole system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An Ion based system can run a mythtv frontend with 1080p video and provide 1080i deinterlacing that is superior in quality to the software deinterlacing you can get off of a Core 2 Duo , and the Ion system does it with CPU &gt; 90 \ % idle and about a 25 watt power draw for the whole system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An Ion based system can run a mythtv frontend with 1080p video and provide 1080i deinterlacing that is superior in quality to the software deinterlacing you can get off of a Core 2 Duo, and the Ion system does it with CPU &gt;90\% idle and about a 25 watt power draw for the whole system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30519974</id>
	<title>Re:No kidding</title>
	<author>grapeape</author>
	<datestamp>1261412280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frankly to the detriment of my own business I have done more repair and upgrade than new builds.  I'm a bit too honest for my own good I guess, but I just don't see the point in telling a customer that the upgrade they think they need could be achieved through more ram or a better video card.  There are some exceptions of course but mostly heavy gamers or those into audio/video stuff.  I used to upgrade every 6-8 months, but my main desktop I have had for going on 3 years.  In fact the only machines I have had for personal use since that upgrade have been more toys to play with like the dual atom mini desktop im typing on now, its plenty sufficient for email and web use and the whole thing cost less than $300.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly to the detriment of my own business I have done more repair and upgrade than new builds .
I 'm a bit too honest for my own good I guess , but I just do n't see the point in telling a customer that the upgrade they think they need could be achieved through more ram or a better video card .
There are some exceptions of course but mostly heavy gamers or those into audio/video stuff .
I used to upgrade every 6-8 months , but my main desktop I have had for going on 3 years .
In fact the only machines I have had for personal use since that upgrade have been more toys to play with like the dual atom mini desktop im typing on now , its plenty sufficient for email and web use and the whole thing cost less than $ 300 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly to the detriment of my own business I have done more repair and upgrade than new builds.
I'm a bit too honest for my own good I guess, but I just don't see the point in telling a customer that the upgrade they think they need could be achieved through more ram or a better video card.
There are some exceptions of course but mostly heavy gamers or those into audio/video stuff.
I used to upgrade every 6-8 months, but my main desktop I have had for going on 3 years.
In fact the only machines I have had for personal use since that upgrade have been more toys to play with like the dual atom mini desktop im typing on now, its plenty sufficient for email and web use and the whole thing cost less than $300.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30519800</id>
	<title>How is VIA Nano in comparison?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261410720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>VIA has their Nano 3000 series.</p><p>Anyone knows how well (or bad) the VIA Nano 3000 stack against Intel Atom?</p><p>Any comparison / shootout done by any website?</p><p>Anyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>VIA has their Nano 3000 series.Anyone knows how well ( or bad ) the VIA Nano 3000 stack against Intel Atom ? Any comparison / shootout done by any website ? Anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VIA has their Nano 3000 series.Anyone knows how well (or bad) the VIA Nano 3000 stack against Intel Atom?Any comparison / shootout done by any website?Anyone?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30520010</id>
	<title>Wait, what?</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1261412580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want to add a PCIe video card to an atom system? WTF? Do you also want to fit a racing spoiler on your Smart Car? This is a low power chip. It is designed for efficient systems that doesn't do a whole lot, like netbooks. It is not designed for gaming. If you want a system with external graphics Intel makes a chip for that too. You hay have heard of a little thing called the Core 2, which is available in desktop and mobile versions, is fast as hell, and uses external graphics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want to add a PCIe video card to an atom system ?
WTF ? Do you also want to fit a racing spoiler on your Smart Car ?
This is a low power chip .
It is designed for efficient systems that does n't do a whole lot , like netbooks .
It is not designed for gaming .
If you want a system with external graphics Intel makes a chip for that too .
You hay have heard of a little thing called the Core 2 , which is available in desktop and mobile versions , is fast as hell , and uses external graphics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want to add a PCIe video card to an atom system?
WTF? Do you also want to fit a racing spoiler on your Smart Car?
This is a low power chip.
It is designed for efficient systems that doesn't do a whole lot, like netbooks.
It is not designed for gaming.
If you want a system with external graphics Intel makes a chip for that too.
You hay have heard of a little thing called the Core 2, which is available in desktop and mobile versions, is fast as hell, and uses external graphics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30527010</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares about benchmarks?</title>
	<author>rbanffy</author>
	<datestamp>1261512480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well... My apps run on ARM. They run on x86, SPARC, MIPS and would run just the same on zSeries mainframes.</p><p>If your apps don't run on the hardware you want, then, perhaps, they are not really your apps - they belong to their makers and you are just the person using them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well... My apps run on ARM .
They run on x86 , SPARC , MIPS and would run just the same on zSeries mainframes.If your apps do n't run on the hardware you want , then , perhaps , they are not really your apps - they belong to their makers and you are just the person using them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well... My apps run on ARM.
They run on x86, SPARC, MIPS and would run just the same on zSeries mainframes.If your apps don't run on the hardware you want, then, perhaps, they are not really your apps - they belong to their makers and you are just the person using them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30520044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30520812</id>
	<title>Re:It's an admission</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1261421100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The very existence of netbooks and nettops are an admission by the entire industry that the majority of tasks performed by computers these days are served well enough by a "Pentium III", perhaps with the addition of a better GPU than existed back then.</p></div></blockquote><p>No matter how far back you go, portable computers ALWAYS had CPUs slower than their desktop counterparts for the sake of lower heat, and longer battery life.</p><p>When the majority of DESKTOP PCs use such slow CPUs, THEN you might have a point.  Right now, you're just trying to force the facts to fit your worldview.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The very existence of netbooks and nettops are an admission by the entire industry that the majority of tasks performed by computers these days are served well enough by a " Pentium III " , perhaps with the addition of a better GPU than existed back then.No matter how far back you go , portable computers ALWAYS had CPUs slower than their desktop counterparts for the sake of lower heat , and longer battery life.When the majority of DESKTOP PCs use such slow CPUs , THEN you might have a point .
Right now , you 're just trying to force the facts to fit your worldview .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The very existence of netbooks and nettops are an admission by the entire industry that the majority of tasks performed by computers these days are served well enough by a "Pentium III", perhaps with the addition of a better GPU than existed back then.No matter how far back you go, portable computers ALWAYS had CPUs slower than their desktop counterparts for the sake of lower heat, and longer battery life.When the majority of DESKTOP PCs use such slow CPUs, THEN you might have a point.
Right now, you're just trying to force the facts to fit your worldview.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518692</id>
	<title>Re:Euh, Atom 330?</title>
	<author>PhrstBrn</author>
	<datestamp>1261401780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the previous posted said, use Flash 10.1.  The hardware acceleration makes a huge difference.  Before using the "beta" version Flash was practically unusable.</p><p>I have a Atom 330 with nVidia ION as well, and it can decode 720p H.264 video just fine (about 10-20\% CPU usage in media player classic, or 30-40\% with Flash).  Haven't tried 1080p, but I'd suspect it works okay too.  I'm using Win7, but I'd suspect that shouldn't make a difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the previous posted said , use Flash 10.1 .
The hardware acceleration makes a huge difference .
Before using the " beta " version Flash was practically unusable.I have a Atom 330 with nVidia ION as well , and it can decode 720p H.264 video just fine ( about 10-20 \ % CPU usage in media player classic , or 30-40 \ % with Flash ) .
Have n't tried 1080p , but I 'd suspect it works okay too .
I 'm using Win7 , but I 'd suspect that should n't make a difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the previous posted said, use Flash 10.1.
The hardware acceleration makes a huge difference.
Before using the "beta" version Flash was practically unusable.I have a Atom 330 with nVidia ION as well, and it can decode 720p H.264 video just fine (about 10-20\% CPU usage in media player classic, or 30-40\% with Flash).
Haven't tried 1080p, but I'd suspect it works okay too.
I'm using Win7, but I'd suspect that shouldn't make a difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30522688</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261490160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. No. No. Why have you jumped from non-integrated graphics to real-time raytracing? Just on day-to-day desktop things, advanced GPUs can do things so much better (faster, on less power; more efficiently) than an x86 CPU does.</p><p>Real world proof of this is the low-powered mobile graphics chipsets li the Nvidia 9400M (aka ION). They bring a huge amount to the table, including 3d that works but most importantly: hardware accellerated video decoding (VDAPU et al or DXVA). You can use 20\% of your GPU time on something that would have cost 130\% CPU time.</p><p>In terms of power usage: Low CPU + Medium GPU  High CPU.. And you get a better user experience to boot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
No. No .
Why have you jumped from non-integrated graphics to real-time raytracing ?
Just on day-to-day desktop things , advanced GPUs can do things so much better ( faster , on less power ; more efficiently ) than an x86 CPU does.Real world proof of this is the low-powered mobile graphics chipsets li the Nvidia 9400M ( aka ION ) .
They bring a huge amount to the table , including 3d that works but most importantly : hardware accellerated video decoding ( VDAPU et al or DXVA ) .
You can use 20 \ % of your GPU time on something that would have cost 130 \ % CPU time.In terms of power usage : Low CPU + Medium GPU High CPU.. And you get a better user experience to boot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
No. No.
Why have you jumped from non-integrated graphics to real-time raytracing?
Just on day-to-day desktop things, advanced GPUs can do things so much better (faster, on less power; more efficiently) than an x86 CPU does.Real world proof of this is the low-powered mobile graphics chipsets li the Nvidia 9400M (aka ION).
They bring a huge amount to the table, including 3d that works but most importantly: hardware accellerated video decoding (VDAPU et al or DXVA).
You can use 20\% of your GPU time on something that would have cost 130\% CPU time.In terms of power usage: Low CPU + Medium GPU  High CPU.. And you get a better user experience to boot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30520010</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30521456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30532200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30519896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30519102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30527744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30520010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30521454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30520044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30522154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30522688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30520010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30519800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30521700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30523768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30520100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30519974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30527010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30520044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30520812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30521046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2035229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30519050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2035229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30520010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30522688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30527744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2035229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2035229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2035229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30521404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2035229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30519896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30519050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30520100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30521700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2035229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30521046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30521456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30520812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30519974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518814
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30532200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30519102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30523768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30519800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518758
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2035229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30518998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30520044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30521454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30527010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2035229.30522154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
