<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_16_2212220</id>
	<title>Today's Best CPUs Compared... To a Pentium 4</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1266315480000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Dr. Damage writes <i>"How do current $74 CPUs compare to the $133 ones? To exclusive $1K Extreme Editions? Interesting questions, but what if you took a five-year-old Pentium 4 at 3.8GHz and <a href="http://techreport.com/articles.x/18448">pitted it against today's CPUs</a> in a slew of games and other applications? The results are eye-opening."</i> Note that this voluminous comparison is presented over 18 pages with no single-page view in sight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dr. Damage writes " How do current $ 74 CPUs compare to the $ 133 ones ?
To exclusive $ 1K Extreme Editions ?
Interesting questions , but what if you took a five-year-old Pentium 4 at 3.8GHz and pitted it against today 's CPUs in a slew of games and other applications ?
The results are eye-opening .
" Note that this voluminous comparison is presented over 18 pages with no single-page view in sight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dr. Damage writes "How do current $74 CPUs compare to the $133 ones?
To exclusive $1K Extreme Editions?
Interesting questions, but what if you took a five-year-old Pentium 4 at 3.8GHz and pitted it against today's CPUs in a slew of games and other applications?
The results are eye-opening.
" Note that this voluminous comparison is presented over 18 pages with no single-page view in sight.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31169010</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1265039340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's hardly insightful being completely wrong.  Physics is one of those tasks that lends itself very well to multi-threading actually.</p><p>Its just a completely different way of designing software.  Its very hard to find good programmers.  Its even harder to find good programmers who are skilled in threaded software design.  Just guess how hard it is to find the ones who can debug it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's hardly insightful being completely wrong .
Physics is one of those tasks that lends itself very well to multi-threading actually.Its just a completely different way of designing software .
Its very hard to find good programmers .
Its even harder to find good programmers who are skilled in threaded software design .
Just guess how hard it is to find the ones who can debug it : - ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's hardly insightful being completely wrong.
Physics is one of those tasks that lends itself very well to multi-threading actually.Its just a completely different way of designing software.
Its very hard to find good programmers.
Its even harder to find good programmers who are skilled in threaded software design.
Just guess how hard it is to find the ones who can debug it :-).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31186892</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1266518340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>nowadays all major games(dragon age, mass effect 2, battlefield bad company 2, etc..) uses my dual core at 100\%</i></p><p>Hell, Mass Effect <b>1</b> uses my dual core (C2D E8400) at 100\%.  Which is annoying since it means I can't play the game at steady 60fps.  The difference between 1920x1080 4xAA, all other settings maxed and 800x600 all settings lowest is maybe 5-10 fps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nowadays all major games ( dragon age , mass effect 2 , battlefield bad company 2 , etc.. ) uses my dual core at 100 \ % Hell , Mass Effect 1 uses my dual core ( C2D E8400 ) at 100 \ % .
Which is annoying since it means I ca n't play the game at steady 60fps .
The difference between 1920x1080 4xAA , all other settings maxed and 800x600 all settings lowest is maybe 5-10 fps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nowadays all major games(dragon age, mass effect 2, battlefield bad company 2, etc..) uses my dual core at 100\%Hell, Mass Effect 1 uses my dual core (C2D E8400) at 100\%.
Which is annoying since it means I can't play the game at steady 60fps.
The difference between 1920x1080 4xAA, all other settings maxed and 800x600 all settings lowest is maybe 5-10 fps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31172844</id>
	<title>Re:My old work computer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265051400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A $300 budget laptop isn't what I would consider "modern". Sure, it fits one definition of modern (in that it was built very recently and is for sale now) but a budget laptop is not "characterized by or using the most up-to-date techniques, ideas, or equipment".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A $ 300 budget laptop is n't what I would consider " modern " .
Sure , it fits one definition of modern ( in that it was built very recently and is for sale now ) but a budget laptop is not " characterized by or using the most up-to-date techniques , ideas , or equipment " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A $300 budget laptop isn't what I would consider "modern".
Sure, it fits one definition of modern (in that it was built very recently and is for sale now) but a budget laptop is not "characterized by or using the most up-to-date techniques, ideas, or equipment".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168004</id>
	<title>Re:P4 pride</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1265034600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My sister still used the original 386 running Windows 3.1 that I set up for her many years ago. I have thrown out countless computers since then that would blow that system out of the water, but she has no interest in upgrading it.</p><p>She just runs a few games and Word 6. I really have no argument to use to convince her to upgrade, because it still does what she wants. There isn't anything that she can't do now. (Obviously she doesn't access the Internet)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My sister still used the original 386 running Windows 3.1 that I set up for her many years ago .
I have thrown out countless computers since then that would blow that system out of the water , but she has no interest in upgrading it.She just runs a few games and Word 6 .
I really have no argument to use to convince her to upgrade , because it still does what she wants .
There is n't anything that she ca n't do now .
( Obviously she does n't access the Internet )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My sister still used the original 386 running Windows 3.1 that I set up for her many years ago.
I have thrown out countless computers since then that would blow that system out of the water, but she has no interest in upgrading it.She just runs a few games and Word 6.
I really have no argument to use to convince her to upgrade, because it still does what she wants.
There isn't anything that she can't do now.
(Obviously she doesn't access the Internet)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31169984</id>
	<title>Re:P4 pride</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265042640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why "obviously"?  Win3.1 + chameleon netsock worked fine for connecting to the net on any 386 with 2 megs of ram, (though it worked better with 4 or 8 megs).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why " obviously " ?
Win3.1 + chameleon netsock worked fine for connecting to the net on any 386 with 2 megs of ram , ( though it worked better with 4 or 8 megs ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why "obviously"?
Win3.1 + chameleon netsock worked fine for connecting to the net on any 386 with 2 megs of ram, (though it worked better with 4 or 8 megs).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167834</id>
	<title>Re:P4 is quite enough...?</title>
	<author>thejynxed</author>
	<datestamp>1265033520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize that overclocking Northwood core CPUs is a bad idea, right?</p><p>They have been known to suffer from random heat death, even with water cooling. They also tend to have computational errors and actually suffer worse performance when overclocked. This last bit is very batch dependent though - it really depends on where the chip was manufactured. The heat issue is still valid for every Northwood. There's a good reason most OEMs blocked overclocking in BIOS for their Northwood equipped systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that overclocking Northwood core CPUs is a bad idea , right ? They have been known to suffer from random heat death , even with water cooling .
They also tend to have computational errors and actually suffer worse performance when overclocked .
This last bit is very batch dependent though - it really depends on where the chip was manufactured .
The heat issue is still valid for every Northwood .
There 's a good reason most OEMs blocked overclocking in BIOS for their Northwood equipped systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that overclocking Northwood core CPUs is a bad idea, right?They have been known to suffer from random heat death, even with water cooling.
They also tend to have computational errors and actually suffer worse performance when overclocked.
This last bit is very batch dependent though - it really depends on where the chip was manufactured.
The heat issue is still valid for every Northwood.
There's a good reason most OEMs blocked overclocking in BIOS for their Northwood equipped systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31170806</id>
	<title>You only have a Pentium 4?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ha! I have a Pentium 90! - 2 of them infact.  Old DEC servers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha !
I have a Pentium 90 !
- 2 of them infact .
Old DEC servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha!
I have a Pentium 90!
- 2 of them infact.
Old DEC servers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167308</id>
	<title>Re:P4 pride</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1265027220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AthlonXP (of the slower kind - 1700+ / 1.46 GHz) is fine too...as long as one chooses properly written software and keeps the machine clean; having few times more RAM and faster HDD than was common back then also helps greatly. I rarely see a typical, home machine which is more snappy, even though they have few times more processing power - but are almost universally held down by bloat, until quite recently by small RAM and, still, by slow HDDs in case of ever more popular laptops.</p><p>Too bad the test didn't include, say, P3 Tualatin 1.4 GHz. Even in times of P4 they were very competitive with much higher clocked Netburst processors. And now...Netburst is long forgotten, software is optimised for C2D-like architectures; which are descendants of Tualatin - I'm curious if it has become even more competitive.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AthlonXP ( of the slower kind - 1700 + / 1.46 GHz ) is fine too...as long as one chooses properly written software and keeps the machine clean ; having few times more RAM and faster HDD than was common back then also helps greatly .
I rarely see a typical , home machine which is more snappy , even though they have few times more processing power - but are almost universally held down by bloat , until quite recently by small RAM and , still , by slow HDDs in case of ever more popular laptops.Too bad the test did n't include , say , P3 Tualatin 1.4 GHz .
Even in times of P4 they were very competitive with much higher clocked Netburst processors .
And now...Netburst is long forgotten , software is optimised for C2D-like architectures ; which are descendants of Tualatin - I 'm curious if it has become even more competitive .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AthlonXP (of the slower kind - 1700+ / 1.46 GHz) is fine too...as long as one chooses properly written software and keeps the machine clean; having few times more RAM and faster HDD than was common back then also helps greatly.
I rarely see a typical, home machine which is more snappy, even though they have few times more processing power - but are almost universally held down by bloat, until quite recently by small RAM and, still, by slow HDDs in case of ever more popular laptops.Too bad the test didn't include, say, P3 Tualatin 1.4 GHz.
Even in times of P4 they were very competitive with much higher clocked Netburst processors.
And now...Netburst is long forgotten, software is optimised for C2D-like architectures; which are descendants of Tualatin - I'm curious if it has become even more competitive.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31177202</id>
	<title>Re:Where's the P4 vs. Modern CPUs conclusion ?</title>
	<author>ColaMan</author>
	<datestamp>1265023620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't remember when I changed my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.sig - it was quite a few years ago now. Certainly before computers were measured in GHz.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't remember when I changed my .sig - it was quite a few years ago now .
Certainly before computers were measured in GHz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't remember when I changed my .sig - it was quite a few years ago now.
Certainly before computers were measured in GHz.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31172090</id>
	<title>Re:More interesting question: Pentium M vs Atom et</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265049180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I gave my X31 to my better half in favour of an X200s. She loves it as much as I did<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>The 200s is v.nice, but I can only get 2 hours out of if with the 4-cell battery. Get the 9-cell as an extra and you've got the best of both worlds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I gave my X31 to my better half in favour of an X200s .
She loves it as much as I did : - ) The 200s is v.nice , but I can only get 2 hours out of if with the 4-cell battery .
Get the 9-cell as an extra and you 've got the best of both worlds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I gave my X31 to my better half in favour of an X200s.
She loves it as much as I did :-)The 200s is v.nice, but I can only get 2 hours out of if with the 4-cell battery.
Get the 9-cell as an extra and you've got the best of both worlds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167542</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>iainl</author>
	<datestamp>1265030040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>it very surprising given that the PS3 has 7 cores to work with.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, firstly you'll remember that just about every discussion of 360 vs. PS3 performance descends into an argument about whether developers are just "lazy" because they don't push half those cores at full power. But secondly, the PS3 really is a weird architecture. Those 7 cores are in addition to a single main CPU core that does most of the work.</p><p>Actually, the real question, is why PC programmers aren't making more use of 2-4 cores when the 360 (which a depressingly large number of PC games are ported from) has three symmetric cores doing all the CPU legwork.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it very surprising given that the PS3 has 7 cores to work with.Well , firstly you 'll remember that just about every discussion of 360 vs. PS3 performance descends into an argument about whether developers are just " lazy " because they do n't push half those cores at full power .
But secondly , the PS3 really is a weird architecture .
Those 7 cores are in addition to a single main CPU core that does most of the work.Actually , the real question , is why PC programmers are n't making more use of 2-4 cores when the 360 ( which a depressingly large number of PC games are ported from ) has three symmetric cores doing all the CPU legwork .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it very surprising given that the PS3 has 7 cores to work with.Well, firstly you'll remember that just about every discussion of 360 vs. PS3 performance descends into an argument about whether developers are just "lazy" because they don't push half those cores at full power.
But secondly, the PS3 really is a weird architecture.
Those 7 cores are in addition to a single main CPU core that does most of the work.Actually, the real question, is why PC programmers aren't making more use of 2-4 cores when the 360 (which a depressingly large number of PC games are ported from) has three symmetric cores doing all the CPU legwork.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31186132</id>
	<title>Nothing wrong w/ that (bit late here though)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266515160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of you guys are concentrating on the "gaming aspect" of things, which is "fine &amp; dandy" &amp; all that!</p><p>However, I can tell you 1 thing, point-blank here (yes, from "personal/anecdotal experiences" of my own etc.), about doing "actual work related tasks" &amp; where Core I7 CPU's absolutely ROCK vs. the Pentium 4 &amp; my other previous system, a Dual Core AMD X2 6400 4800+:</p><p>E.G. -&gt; When I run a program I wrote that is multithreaded (3 threads - coarse designed threading), for removing HOSTS files duplicate entries &amp; more (when I merge in NEW hosts files, those of others that have been updated, or other blocking lists (like Dancho Danchev's of ZDNet, FireEye, WOT (web-of-trust), &amp; many others as I find them (for "the best possible protection" vs. KNOWN bad sites &amp;/or nameservers etc. et al))?</p><p>WELL - When I first wrote this program, it was on a Pentium 4 (fastest 3.2ghz unit, H/T enabled), through an AMD X2 6400 4800+ Dual Core, to currently on an Intel Core I7 920 Quad Core... results??</p><p>----</p><p>P4 = Took it 10 hours to finish!</p><p>AMD X2 6400 4800+ = Took it 4 hours to finish</p><p>Intel Core I7 920 = Takes it ONLY 1 HOUR TO FINISH...</p><p>----</p><p>(That tell anyone here anything? It does me...)</p><p>I.E.-&gt; My app's ALL about "String Processing" (e.g.-&gt; List sorts, entries comparisons, deletes/adds of new or old entries, duplicate entries removals, format of each line record changes etc. et al)</p><p>That type of processing FLOORS this sucker @ times (especially IF I have other apps running, &amp; that 0's my RAM quite often (working set is usually 90mb++ with the size of HOSTS file I use @ 18mb thusfar, &amp; 14\% of CPU (&amp;, that's WITH Sleep API calls (2ms each setting, so the system gets back SOME cpu time too, in relation to apps outside of itself) &amp; Delphi Application.ProcessMessages in its loops (a VB DoEvents analog really, for internal message processing)))</p><p>NOW - w/ out "time ceding" API calls &amp;/or Pascal methods/functions like those those in its loops???</p><p>Heck - I'd wager it'd "rip up" 50\% of my CPU easily (because when I set it initially THAT way????</p><p>Well - I could not even move its screen, &amp; the CPU 'sailed' up to that on a DualCore (the AMD I noted above))...</p><p>IN THE END:</p><p>Intel's "done very well" on their I7's, I'll give them that - they are EVERY BIT AS GOOD AS THEY SAID THEY WOULD BE, @ what they said they would be GOOD at: I.E.-&gt; Actual "work related" tasks...</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; On gaming? Well, I could "keep up with" Doom III &amp;/or Quake 4 "uncapped" &amp; on "nightmare level" (IDSoftware allows this in their games, to break the 60fps framerate cap) on my previous AMD noted above...</p><p>However - By way of comparison, on this Core I7 920 though?</p><p>Man - NO way: The enemies are just too, Too, TOO F A S T to keep up with on 'mightmare level'...</p><p>(So, that's been my experience in gaming with it (which may or may not "hold true" for various games, especially those where the vidcard matters more than the CPU does (from this test, it appears that Call of Duty Modern Warfare appears to be such a game - where the vidcards really make MORE of a diff. than CPU's do, although going from a P4 to a "state-of-the-art/latest-greatest" Intel I7 Core 9x5 does make a pretty big diff. too))...</p><p>Ah, nuff said! apk</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of you guys are concentrating on the " gaming aspect " of things , which is " fine &amp; dandy " &amp; all that ! However , I can tell you 1 thing , point-blank here ( yes , from " personal/anecdotal experiences " of my own etc .
) , about doing " actual work related tasks " &amp; where Core I7 CPU 's absolutely ROCK vs. the Pentium 4 &amp; my other previous system , a Dual Core AMD X2 6400 4800 + : E.G .
- &gt; When I run a program I wrote that is multithreaded ( 3 threads - coarse designed threading ) , for removing HOSTS files duplicate entries &amp; more ( when I merge in NEW hosts files , those of others that have been updated , or other blocking lists ( like Dancho Danchev 's of ZDNet , FireEye , WOT ( web-of-trust ) , &amp; many others as I find them ( for " the best possible protection " vs. KNOWN bad sites &amp;/or nameservers etc .
et al ) ) ? WELL - When I first wrote this program , it was on a Pentium 4 ( fastest 3.2ghz unit , H/T enabled ) , through an AMD X2 6400 4800 + Dual Core , to currently on an Intel Core I7 920 Quad Core.. .
results ? ? ----P4 = Took it 10 hours to finish ! AMD X2 6400 4800 + = Took it 4 hours to finishIntel Core I7 920 = Takes it ONLY 1 HOUR TO FINISH...---- ( That tell anyone here anything ?
It does me... ) I.E.- &gt; My app 's ALL about " String Processing " ( e.g.- &gt; List sorts , entries comparisons , deletes/adds of new or old entries , duplicate entries removals , format of each line record changes etc .
et al ) That type of processing FLOORS this sucker @ times ( especially IF I have other apps running , &amp; that 0 's my RAM quite often ( working set is usually 90mb + + with the size of HOSTS file I use @ 18mb thusfar , &amp; 14 \ % of CPU ( &amp; , that 's WITH Sleep API calls ( 2ms each setting , so the system gets back SOME cpu time too , in relation to apps outside of itself ) &amp; Delphi Application.ProcessMessages in its loops ( a VB DoEvents analog really , for internal message processing ) ) ) NOW - w/ out " time ceding " API calls &amp;/or Pascal methods/functions like those those in its loops ? ?
? Heck - I 'd wager it 'd " rip up " 50 \ % of my CPU easily ( because when I set it initially THAT way ? ? ?
? Well - I could not even move its screen , &amp; the CPU 'sailed ' up to that on a DualCore ( the AMD I noted above ) ) ...IN THE END : Intel 's " done very well " on their I7 's , I 'll give them that - they are EVERY BIT AS GOOD AS THEY SAID THEY WOULD BE , @ what they said they would be GOOD at : I.E.- &gt; Actual " work related " tasks...APKP.S. = &gt; On gaming ?
Well , I could " keep up with " Doom III &amp;/or Quake 4 " uncapped " &amp; on " nightmare level " ( IDSoftware allows this in their games , to break the 60fps framerate cap ) on my previous AMD noted above...However - By way of comparison , on this Core I7 920 though ? Man - NO way : The enemies are just too , Too , TOO F A S T to keep up with on 'mightmare level'... ( So , that 's been my experience in gaming with it ( which may or may not " hold true " for various games , especially those where the vidcard matters more than the CPU does ( from this test , it appears that Call of Duty Modern Warfare appears to be such a game - where the vidcards really make MORE of a diff .
than CPU 's do , although going from a P4 to a " state-of-the-art/latest-greatest " Intel I7 Core 9x5 does make a pretty big diff .
too ) ) ...Ah , nuff said !
apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of you guys are concentrating on the "gaming aspect" of things, which is "fine &amp; dandy" &amp; all that!However, I can tell you 1 thing, point-blank here (yes, from "personal/anecdotal experiences" of my own etc.
), about doing "actual work related tasks" &amp; where Core I7 CPU's absolutely ROCK vs. the Pentium 4 &amp; my other previous system, a Dual Core AMD X2 6400 4800+:E.G.
-&gt; When I run a program I wrote that is multithreaded (3 threads - coarse designed threading), for removing HOSTS files duplicate entries &amp; more (when I merge in NEW hosts files, those of others that have been updated, or other blocking lists (like Dancho Danchev's of ZDNet, FireEye, WOT (web-of-trust), &amp; many others as I find them (for "the best possible protection" vs. KNOWN bad sites &amp;/or nameservers etc.
et al))?WELL - When I first wrote this program, it was on a Pentium 4 (fastest 3.2ghz unit, H/T enabled), through an AMD X2 6400 4800+ Dual Core, to currently on an Intel Core I7 920 Quad Core...
results??----P4 = Took it 10 hours to finish!AMD X2 6400 4800+ = Took it 4 hours to finishIntel Core I7 920 = Takes it ONLY 1 HOUR TO FINISH...----(That tell anyone here anything?
It does me...)I.E.-&gt; My app's ALL about "String Processing" (e.g.-&gt; List sorts, entries comparisons, deletes/adds of new or old entries, duplicate entries removals, format of each line record changes etc.
et al)That type of processing FLOORS this sucker @ times (especially IF I have other apps running, &amp; that 0's my RAM quite often (working set is usually 90mb++ with the size of HOSTS file I use @ 18mb thusfar, &amp; 14\% of CPU (&amp;, that's WITH Sleep API calls (2ms each setting, so the system gets back SOME cpu time too, in relation to apps outside of itself) &amp; Delphi Application.ProcessMessages in its loops (a VB DoEvents analog really, for internal message processing)))NOW - w/ out "time ceding" API calls &amp;/or Pascal methods/functions like those those in its loops??
?Heck - I'd wager it'd "rip up" 50\% of my CPU easily (because when I set it initially THAT way???
?Well - I could not even move its screen, &amp; the CPU 'sailed' up to that on a DualCore (the AMD I noted above))...IN THE END:Intel's "done very well" on their I7's, I'll give them that - they are EVERY BIT AS GOOD AS THEY SAID THEY WOULD BE, @ what they said they would be GOOD at: I.E.-&gt; Actual "work related" tasks...APKP.S.=&gt; On gaming?
Well, I could "keep up with" Doom III &amp;/or Quake 4 "uncapped" &amp; on "nightmare level" (IDSoftware allows this in their games, to break the 60fps framerate cap) on my previous AMD noted above...However - By way of comparison, on this Core I7 920 though?Man - NO way: The enemies are just too, Too, TOO F A S T to keep up with on 'mightmare level'...(So, that's been my experience in gaming with it (which may or may not "hold true" for various games, especially those where the vidcard matters more than the CPU does (from this test, it appears that Call of Duty Modern Warfare appears to be such a game - where the vidcards really make MORE of a diff.
than CPU's do, although going from a P4 to a "state-of-the-art/latest-greatest" Intel I7 Core 9x5 does make a pretty big diff.
too))...Ah, nuff said!
apk</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31173138</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265052300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The main reasons:</p><ul><li>The program should still run well on a single core machine.</li></ul></div><p>i wish thunderbird and firefox did.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main reasons : The program should still run well on a single core machine.i wish thunderbird and firefox did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main reasons:The program should still run well on a single core machine.i wish thunderbird and firefox did.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167084</id>
	<title>Re:P4 pride</title>
	<author>h00manist</author>
	<datestamp>1265024580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Almost all our boxes at work are p4.  But now I would like to move some of them into some sort of virtual infrastructure rather than upgrade them all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost all our boxes at work are p4 .
But now I would like to move some of them into some sort of virtual infrastructure rather than upgrade them all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost all our boxes at work are p4.
But now I would like to move some of them into some sort of virtual infrastructure rather than upgrade them all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167938</id>
	<title>Re:Other factors</title>
	<author>moeinvt</author>
	<datestamp>1265034240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"AMD processors, they have no support for ECC."</p><p>Interesting.  I'm an EE, but not a microprocessor architecture guy.  Is this ECC for on-board cache memory where the processor is implementing an encoding mechanism between the processor and onboard cache read/write?  Does it do something similar between onboard cache and DRAM or external cache, or would that be something implemented at the OS level?  I'm guessing that the SER for built in cache has to be ridiculously low (a few per year?).  If you can say, what type of applications are you doing that requires this level of robustness?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" AMD processors , they have no support for ECC. " Interesting .
I 'm an EE , but not a microprocessor architecture guy .
Is this ECC for on-board cache memory where the processor is implementing an encoding mechanism between the processor and onboard cache read/write ?
Does it do something similar between onboard cache and DRAM or external cache , or would that be something implemented at the OS level ?
I 'm guessing that the SER for built in cache has to be ridiculously low ( a few per year ? ) .
If you can say , what type of applications are you doing that requires this level of robustness ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"AMD processors, they have no support for ECC."Interesting.
I'm an EE, but not a microprocessor architecture guy.
Is this ECC for on-board cache memory where the processor is implementing an encoding mechanism between the processor and onboard cache read/write?
Does it do something similar between onboard cache and DRAM or external cache, or would that be something implemented at the OS level?
I'm guessing that the SER for built in cache has to be ridiculously low (a few per year?).
If you can say, what type of applications are you doing that requires this level of robustness?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168070</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Er, real-time rendering is <i>embarrassingly</i> parallel.  Real-time physics has collision and constraint solving, for which good parallel algorithms exist.</p><p>Game AI is a tougher nut to crack, but only because developers are used to having messages received instantly.  If you allow time for messages to arrive, game AI is also embarrassingly parallel.</p><p>Simulating a parallel world is a highly parallelizable task.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Er , real-time rendering is embarrassingly parallel .
Real-time physics has collision and constraint solving , for which good parallel algorithms exist.Game AI is a tougher nut to crack , but only because developers are used to having messages received instantly .
If you allow time for messages to arrive , game AI is also embarrassingly parallel.Simulating a parallel world is a highly parallelizable task .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Er, real-time rendering is embarrassingly parallel.
Real-time physics has collision and constraint solving, for which good parallel algorithms exist.Game AI is a tougher nut to crack, but only because developers are used to having messages received instantly.
If you allow time for messages to arrive, game AI is also embarrassingly parallel.Simulating a parallel world is a highly parallelizable task.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167526</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265029860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Physics benefits massively from multiple cores - why else do you think people use compute clusters for physical simulations etc? For simple parallelisation techniques in molecular dynamics (replicated data strategies etc) the "processes" are communicating after every timestep.</p><p>Honestly, who marked this insightful?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Physics benefits massively from multiple cores - why else do you think people use compute clusters for physical simulations etc ?
For simple parallelisation techniques in molecular dynamics ( replicated data strategies etc ) the " processes " are communicating after every timestep.Honestly , who marked this insightful ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Physics benefits massively from multiple cores - why else do you think people use compute clusters for physical simulations etc?
For simple parallelisation techniques in molecular dynamics (replicated data strategies etc) the "processes" are communicating after every timestep.Honestly, who marked this insightful?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31261122</id>
	<title>Re:The most interesting part of the review:</title>
	<author>thickdiick</author>
	<datestamp>1265134020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if the software used to test modern CPUs is better-configured to give meaningful differences between very fast modern CPUs. Perhaps the old software would have all modern processors off the charts and wouldn't give meaningful numbers for comparison.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if the software used to test modern CPUs is better-configured to give meaningful differences between very fast modern CPUs .
Perhaps the old software would have all modern processors off the charts and would n't give meaningful numbers for comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if the software used to test modern CPUs is better-configured to give meaningful differences between very fast modern CPUs.
Perhaps the old software would have all modern processors off the charts and wouldn't give meaningful numbers for comparison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31176210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167732</id>
	<title>Love to see a true comparison</title>
	<author>filesiteguy</author>
	<datestamp>1265032380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember all the PC World/PC Magazine/Computer Shopper articles on the Pentium, P-II, P-III and the numbers they threw out. The numbers made sense, given a baseline of a 100 MHz Pentium or even a 66 MHz DX/2.<br><br>I would like to see the exact same tests run with these chips.  The software may be old - Word 2.0/Photoshop 4.0 - but it should still work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember all the PC World/PC Magazine/Computer Shopper articles on the Pentium , P-II , P-III and the numbers they threw out .
The numbers made sense , given a baseline of a 100 MHz Pentium or even a 66 MHz DX/2.I would like to see the exact same tests run with these chips .
The software may be old - Word 2.0/Photoshop 4.0 - but it should still work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember all the PC World/PC Magazine/Computer Shopper articles on the Pentium, P-II, P-III and the numbers they threw out.
The numbers made sense, given a baseline of a 100 MHz Pentium or even a 66 MHz DX/2.I would like to see the exact same tests run with these chips.
The software may be old - Word 2.0/Photoshop 4.0 - but it should still work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31170322</id>
	<title>Re:P4 is quite enough...?</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1265043780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Core 1 SVHOST.EXE<br>Core 2 Antivirus<br>Core 3 Virus/Malware/Crapware<br>Core 4 IE8</p><p>That is why you need quad cores on XP/VISTA/7</p><p>A P4 doesn't cut it any longer, as you'd never be able to run IE8 because the other three processes taking over your life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Core 1 SVHOST.EXECore 2 AntivirusCore 3 Virus/Malware/CrapwareCore 4 IE8That is why you need quad cores on XP/VISTA/7A P4 does n't cut it any longer , as you 'd never be able to run IE8 because the other three processes taking over your life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Core 1 SVHOST.EXECore 2 AntivirusCore 3 Virus/Malware/CrapwareCore 4 IE8That is why you need quad cores on XP/VISTA/7A P4 doesn't cut it any longer, as you'd never be able to run IE8 because the other three processes taking over your life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167584</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265030460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The main reasons:

<ul>
<li> Many problems cannot be parallelized at all. If a problem is sequential in nature, multiple cores cannot solve it faster.</li><li> Even when a task can be parallelized, this is at times complicated. Many developers lack the skills to implement or even invent efficient parallel algorithms. It's not just about spawing a few additional threads, there are usually complicated interprocess communication problems involved.</li><li> Since mainstream machines currently may contain everything from 1 to 8 cores (including the virtual ones created by hyperthreading), developing for n cores is always going to involve tradeoffs. The program should still run well on a single core machine.</li><li> Many game engines in use by studios are not yet updated to take full advantage of multiple cores and it is completely non-trivial or too expensive to change them accordingly.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main reasons : Many problems can not be parallelized at all .
If a problem is sequential in nature , multiple cores can not solve it faster .
Even when a task can be parallelized , this is at times complicated .
Many developers lack the skills to implement or even invent efficient parallel algorithms .
It 's not just about spawing a few additional threads , there are usually complicated interprocess communication problems involved .
Since mainstream machines currently may contain everything from 1 to 8 cores ( including the virtual ones created by hyperthreading ) , developing for n cores is always going to involve tradeoffs .
The program should still run well on a single core machine .
Many game engines in use by studios are not yet updated to take full advantage of multiple cores and it is completely non-trivial or too expensive to change them accordingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main reasons:


 Many problems cannot be parallelized at all.
If a problem is sequential in nature, multiple cores cannot solve it faster.
Even when a task can be parallelized, this is at times complicated.
Many developers lack the skills to implement or even invent efficient parallel algorithms.
It's not just about spawing a few additional threads, there are usually complicated interprocess communication problems involved.
Since mainstream machines currently may contain everything from 1 to 8 cores (including the virtual ones created by hyperthreading), developing for n cores is always going to involve tradeoffs.
The program should still run well on a single core machine.
Many game engines in use by studios are not yet updated to take full advantage of multiple cores and it is completely non-trivial or too expensive to change them accordingly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167224</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265026200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because game simulations are heavily linear (linear in time from frame to frame, and linear in execution in the parts of the engine that make up a frame).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because game simulations are heavily linear ( linear in time from frame to frame , and linear in execution in the parts of the engine that make up a frame ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because game simulations are heavily linear (linear in time from frame to frame, and linear in execution in the parts of the engine that make up a frame).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168148</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>jittles</author>
	<datestamp>1265035380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work on flight simulators and we DEPEND on multiple core processors to get everything done at once.  What used to take multiple racks of computers can now be done on a single computer with dual quad-core CPUs.</p><p>  You think IPC is slow on a single machine? Try using reflective memory across multiple computers.  Of course we have to handle a bit more than your typical video game since we have to handle hundreds of buttons and switches from multiple crew member stations, night vision, FLIR and day TV cameras, as well as out the window displays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work on flight simulators and we DEPEND on multiple core processors to get everything done at once .
What used to take multiple racks of computers can now be done on a single computer with dual quad-core CPUs .
You think IPC is slow on a single machine ?
Try using reflective memory across multiple computers .
Of course we have to handle a bit more than your typical video game since we have to handle hundreds of buttons and switches from multiple crew member stations , night vision , FLIR and day TV cameras , as well as out the window displays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work on flight simulators and we DEPEND on multiple core processors to get everything done at once.
What used to take multiple racks of computers can now be done on a single computer with dual quad-core CPUs.
You think IPC is slow on a single machine?
Try using reflective memory across multiple computers.
Of course we have to handle a bit more than your typical video game since we have to handle hundreds of buttons and switches from multiple crew member stations, night vision, FLIR and day TV cameras, as well as out the window displays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167372</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>redstar427</author>
	<datestamp>1265028000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, they tested only a few games.<br>Plus, the video card is far more important with intensive 3D games.</p><p>However, some games do take advantage of multiple cores.<br>I ran Unreal Tournament 3 on a dual quad-core computer, and it used all 8 cores.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , they tested only a few games.Plus , the video card is far more important with intensive 3D games.However , some games do take advantage of multiple cores.I ran Unreal Tournament 3 on a dual quad-core computer , and it used all 8 cores .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, they tested only a few games.Plus, the video card is far more important with intensive 3D games.However, some games do take advantage of multiple cores.I ran Unreal Tournament 3 on a dual quad-core computer, and it used all 8 cores.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31176386</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265020260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>      Many problems cannot be parallelized at all. If a problem is sequential
      in nature, multiple cores cannot solve it faster.</p></div>
 </blockquote><p>
This sounds like common sense that is often repeated but it is false.
</p><p>
Take a simple example of a typically sequential problem:
you have a process A which computes a result (true or false, say) and then
you have a process B which needs the result of A to do its part. With
a single processor, you have to compute A first, then B, and your intuition
is correct.
</p><p>
But say you have 3 processors available. Now use processor 1 to compute A.
At the same time, use processor 2 to compute B with input true, and
use processor 3 to compute B with input false. When all the processes are
finished, look up the result of A and choose the result of B that
corresponds to A.
</p><p>
So the idea that some problems are inherently sequential is wrong, it depends
on how you look at it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many problems can not be parallelized at all .
If a problem is sequential in nature , multiple cores can not solve it faster .
This sounds like common sense that is often repeated but it is false .
Take a simple example of a typically sequential problem : you have a process A which computes a result ( true or false , say ) and then you have a process B which needs the result of A to do its part .
With a single processor , you have to compute A first , then B , and your intuition is correct .
But say you have 3 processors available .
Now use processor 1 to compute A . At the same time , use processor 2 to compute B with input true , and use processor 3 to compute B with input false .
When all the processes are finished , look up the result of A and choose the result of B that corresponds to A . So the idea that some problems are inherently sequential is wrong , it depends on how you look at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      Many problems cannot be parallelized at all.
If a problem is sequential
      in nature, multiple cores cannot solve it faster.
This sounds like common sense that is often repeated but it is false.
Take a simple example of a typically sequential problem:
you have a process A which computes a result (true or false, say) and then
you have a process B which needs the result of A to do its part.
With
a single processor, you have to compute A first, then B, and your intuition
is correct.
But say you have 3 processors available.
Now use processor 1 to compute A.
At the same time, use processor 2 to compute B with input true, and
use processor 3 to compute B with input false.
When all the processes are
finished, look up the result of A and choose the result of B that
corresponds to A.

So the idea that some problems are inherently sequential is wrong, it depends
on how you look at it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982</id>
	<title>P4 pride</title>
	<author>dushkin</author>
	<datestamp>1265023440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm at work, where I have a P4 winXP machine.</p><p>AND I'M PROUD OF IT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm at work , where I have a P4 winXP machine.AND I 'M PROUD OF IT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm at work, where I have a P4 winXP machine.AND I'M PROUD OF IT.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996</id>
	<title>Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>damburger</author>
	<datestamp>1265023620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article:</p><blockquote><div><p>For about the same price as the Core i3-530, the Athlon II X4 635 offers four cores that perform better in applications that rely heavily on multiple threads, such as video encoding, 3D rendering, and Folding@Home. In other uses, such as video games and image processing, these two CPUs perform almost identically. The Athlon II X4 635 leads slightly in overall performance and, as we established on the previous page, in terms of performance value. If that's all you care about when choosing a processor, then your decision has been made.</p></div></blockquote><p>How can game engines not take advantage of multiple cores? I had no idea this was the case, and find it very surprising given that the PS3 has 7 cores to work with. Are games so lazily programmed that they don't take advantage of that either?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : For about the same price as the Core i3-530 , the Athlon II X4 635 offers four cores that perform better in applications that rely heavily on multiple threads , such as video encoding , 3D rendering , and Folding @ Home .
In other uses , such as video games and image processing , these two CPUs perform almost identically .
The Athlon II X4 635 leads slightly in overall performance and , as we established on the previous page , in terms of performance value .
If that 's all you care about when choosing a processor , then your decision has been made.How can game engines not take advantage of multiple cores ?
I had no idea this was the case , and find it very surprising given that the PS3 has 7 cores to work with .
Are games so lazily programmed that they do n't take advantage of that either ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:For about the same price as the Core i3-530, the Athlon II X4 635 offers four cores that perform better in applications that rely heavily on multiple threads, such as video encoding, 3D rendering, and Folding@Home.
In other uses, such as video games and image processing, these two CPUs perform almost identically.
The Athlon II X4 635 leads slightly in overall performance and, as we established on the previous page, in terms of performance value.
If that's all you care about when choosing a processor, then your decision has been made.How can game engines not take advantage of multiple cores?
I had no idea this was the case, and find it very surprising given that the PS3 has 7 cores to work with.
Are games so lazily programmed that they don't take advantage of that either?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167162</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>jamesswift</author>
	<datestamp>1265025360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most games these days do in fact use all available cores.<br>Game developers have been talking openly for a few years now about how they use lockless data structures in multi-threaded engines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most games these days do in fact use all available cores.Game developers have been talking openly for a few years now about how they use lockless data structures in multi-threaded engines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most games these days do in fact use all available cores.Game developers have been talking openly for a few years now about how they use lockless data structures in multi-threaded engines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166972</id>
	<title>I've got your Pentium 4, right here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b> <br> <tt>*\_g\_o\_a\_t\_s\_e\_x\_*\_g\_o\_a\_t\_s\_e\_x\_*\_g\_o\_a\_t\_s\_e\_x\_*\_       <br>

g\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_g\_       \_<br>

o\_/\_\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_/\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_o\_       \_<br>
a|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_a\_       \_<br>
t|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_`.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_:\_\_\_\_\_t\_       \_<br>

s`\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_s\_       \_<br>

e\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_/\_\_\_\_\_\_\_/\_\_\\\\_\_\_--\_\_\_\\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_:\_\_\_\_e\_       \_<br>
x\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\/\_\_\_\_--~~\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_~--\_\_|\_\\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_x\_       \_<br>
*\_\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\\_-~\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_~-\_\\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_*\_       \_<br>

g\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.--------.\_\_\_\_\_\_\|\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_g\_       \_<br>

o\_\_\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_//\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_(\_(\_\_&gt;\_\_\\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_o\_       \_<br>
a\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_.\_\_C\_\_\_\_)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_(\_(\_\_\_\_&gt;\_\_|\_\_/\_\_\_\_a\_       \_<br>

t\_\_\_\_\_\_\_/\\_|\_\_\_C\_\_\_\_\_)/INSERT\\_(\_\_\_\_\_&gt;\_\_|\_/\_\_\_\_\_t\_       \_<br>

s\_\_\_\_\_\_/\_/\|\_\_\_C\_\_\_\_\_)\_GERBIL|\_\_(\_\_\_&gt;\_\_\_/\_\_\\_\_\_\_s\_       \_<br>
e\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_(\_\_\_\_C\_\_\_\_\_)\\_HERE\_/\_\_//\_\_/\_/\_\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_e\_       \_<br>

x\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_//\_(\_\_/\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_x\_       \_<br>

*\_\_\_\_|\_\\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_\_)\_\_\_`----\_\_\_--'\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_*\_       \_<br>
g\_\_\_\_|\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_/\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_/\_|\_g\_       \_<br>
o\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_/\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_o\_       \_<br>

a\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_/\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_a\_       \_<br>

t\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_/\_/\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|t\_       \_<br>
s\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_/\_/\_\_\_\_\_\_\\_\_/\\_\_\_/\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|s\_       \_<br>
e\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_/\_/\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|e\_       \_<br>

x\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|x\_       \_<br>

*\_g\_o\_a\_t\_s\_e\_x\_*\_g\_o\_a\_t\_s\_e\_x\_*\_g\_o\_a\_t\_s\_e\_x\_*\_   </tt> <br> <br>
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
<br> <br>
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
<br> <br>

Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>* \ _g \ _o \ _a \ _t \ _s \ _e \ _x \ _ * \ _g \ _o \ _a \ _t \ _s \ _e \ _x \ _ * \ _g \ _o \ _a \ _t \ _s \ _e \ _x \ _ * \ _ g \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _g \ _ \ _ o \ _/ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _/ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _o \ _ \ _ a | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _a \ _ \ _ t | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ ` . \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ : \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _t \ _ \ _ s ` \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _s \ _ \ _ e \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _/ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _/ \ _ \ _ \ \ \ \ _ \ _ \ _-- \ _ \ _ \ _ \ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ : \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _e \ _ \ _ x \ _ \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ / \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _-- ~ ~ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ ~ -- \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _x \ _ \ _ * \ _ \ _ \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ \ _- ~ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ ~ - \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ * \ _ \ _ g \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _.--------. \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ | \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _g \ _ \ _ o \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _// \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ ( \ _ ( \ _ \ _ &gt; \ _ \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _o \ _ \ _ a \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _. \ _ \ _C \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ ) \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ ( \ _ ( \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ &gt; \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _/ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _a \ _ \ _ t \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _/ \ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _C \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ ) /INSERT \ \ _ ( \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ &gt; \ _ \ _ | \ _/ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _t \ _ \ _ s \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _/ \ _/ \ | \ _ \ _ \ _C \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ ) \ _GERBIL | \ _ \ _ ( \ _ \ _ \ _ &gt; \ _ \ _ \ _/ \ _ \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _s \ _ \ _ e \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ ( \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _C \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ ) \ \ _HERE \ _/ \ _ \ _// \ _ \ _/ \ _/ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _e \ _ \ _ x \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _// \ _ ( \ _ \ _/ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _x \ _ \ _ * \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ ) \ _ \ _ \ _ ` ---- \ _ \ _ \ _-- ' \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ * \ _ \ _ g \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _/ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _/ \ _ | \ _g \ _ \ _ o \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _/ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _o \ _ \ _ a \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _/ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _a \ _ \ _ t \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _/ \ _/ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | t \ _ \ _ s \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _/ \ _/ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ \ _ \ _/ \ \ _ \ _ \ _/ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | s \ _ \ _ e \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _/ \ _/ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | e \ _ \ _ x \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ | x \ _ \ _ * \ _g \ _o \ _a \ _t \ _s \ _e \ _x \ _ * \ _g \ _o \ _a \ _t \ _s \ _e \ _x \ _ * \ _g \ _o \ _a \ _t \ _s \ _e \ _x \ _ * \ _ Important Stuff : Please try to keep posts on topic .
Try to reply to other people 's comments instead of starting new threads .
Read other people 's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said .
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about .
Offtopic , Inflammatory , Inappropriate , Illegal , or Offensive comments might be moderated .
( You can read everything , even moderated posts , by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page ) If you want replies to your comments sent to you , consider logging in or creating an account .
Important Stuff : Please try to keep posts on topic .
Try to reply to other people 's comments instead of starting new threads .
Read other people 's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said .
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about .
Offtopic , Inflammatory , Inappropriate , Illegal , or Offensive comments might be moderated .
( You can read everything , even moderated posts , by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page ) If you want replies to your comments sent to you , consider logging in or creating an account .
Important Stuff : Please try to keep posts on topic .
Try to reply to other people 's comments instead of starting new threads .
Read other people 's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said .
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about .
Offtopic , Inflammatory , Inappropriate , Illegal , or Offensive comments might be moderated .
( You can read everything , even moderated posts , by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page ) If you want replies to your comments sent to you , consider logging in or creating an account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  *\_g\_o\_a\_t\_s\_e\_x\_*\_g\_o\_a\_t\_s\_e\_x\_*\_g\_o\_a\_t\_s\_e\_x\_*\_       

g\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_g\_       \_

o\_/\_\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_/\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_o\_       \_
a|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_a\_       \_
t|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_`.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_:\_\_\_\_\_t\_       \_

s`\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_s\_       \_

e\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_/\_\_\_\_\_\_\_/\_\_\\\\_\_\_--\_\_\_\\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_:\_\_\_\_e\_       \_
x\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\/\_\_\_\_--~~\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_~--\_\_|\_\\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_x\_       \_
*\_\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\\_-~\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_~-\_\\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_*\_       \_

g\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.--------.\_\_\_\_\_\_\|\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_g\_       \_

o\_\_\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_//\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_(\_(\_\_&gt;\_\_\\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_o\_       \_
a\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_.\_\_C\_\_\_\_)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_(\_(\_\_\_\_&gt;\_\_|\_\_/\_\_\_\_a\_       \_

t\_\_\_\_\_\_\_/\\_|\_\_\_C\_\_\_\_\_)/INSERT\\_(\_\_\_\_\_&gt;\_\_|\_/\_\_\_\_\_t\_       \_

s\_\_\_\_\_\_/\_/\|\_\_\_C\_\_\_\_\_)\_GERBIL|\_\_(\_\_\_&gt;\_\_\_/\_\_\\_\_\_\_s\_       \_
e\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_(\_\_\_\_C\_\_\_\_\_)\\_HERE\_/\_\_//\_\_/\_/\_\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_e\_       \_

x\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_//\_(\_\_/\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_x\_       \_

*\_\_\_\_|\_\\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_\_)\_\_\_`----\_\_\_--'\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_*\_       \_
g\_\_\_\_|\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_/\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_/\_|\_g\_       \_
o\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_/\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_o\_       \_

a\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_/\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_a\_       \_

t\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_/\_/\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|t\_       \_
s\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_/\_/\_\_\_\_\_\_\\_\_/\\_\_\_/\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|s\_       \_
e\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_/\_/\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|e\_       \_

x\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_|x\_       \_

*\_g\_o\_a\_t\_s\_e\_x\_*\_g\_o\_a\_t\_s\_e\_x\_*\_g\_o\_a\_t\_s\_e\_x\_*\_     
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated.
(You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated.
(You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated.
(You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31170578</id>
	<title>Re:P4 is quite enough...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except for all the new games that require multiple cores.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for all the new games that require multiple cores .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for all the new games that require multiple cores.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167754</id>
	<title>Mirror</title>
	<author>plaincorgi</author>
	<datestamp>1265032620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Site appears to be down;Coral mirror: <a href="http://techreport.com.nyud.net/articles.x/18448" title="nyud.net" rel="nofollow">http://techreport.com.nyud.net/articles.x/18448</a> [nyud.net]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Site appears to be down ; Coral mirror : http : //techreport.com.nyud.net/articles.x/18448 [ nyud.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Site appears to be down;Coral mirror: http://techreport.com.nyud.net/articles.x/18448 [nyud.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167400</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>ThePhilips</author>
	<datestamp>1265028300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Are games so lazily programmed that they don't take advantage of that either?</p> </div><p> Some games now are multi-threaded.

</p><p> The problem from perspective of game software is that it has to be near real-time. Synchronizing multiple threads in the time available to render a single frame (e.g. at 25fps that 40ms, or at 40fps - 25ms) is a very tricky task. It is more rewarding to invest into optimizing single-threaded engine, while optimizing multi-threaded variant is quite risky, often with bugs showing up only after the game reaches wide masses.

</p><p> P.S. Same applied btw to video playback software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are games so lazily programmed that they do n't take advantage of that either ?
Some games now are multi-threaded .
The problem from perspective of game software is that it has to be near real-time .
Synchronizing multiple threads in the time available to render a single frame ( e.g .
at 25fps that 40ms , or at 40fps - 25ms ) is a very tricky task .
It is more rewarding to invest into optimizing single-threaded engine , while optimizing multi-threaded variant is quite risky , often with bugs showing up only after the game reaches wide masses .
P.S. Same applied btw to video playback software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Are games so lazily programmed that they don't take advantage of that either?
Some games now are multi-threaded.
The problem from perspective of game software is that it has to be near real-time.
Synchronizing multiple threads in the time available to render a single frame (e.g.
at 25fps that 40ms, or at 40fps - 25ms) is a very tricky task.
It is more rewarding to invest into optimizing single-threaded engine, while optimizing multi-threaded variant is quite risky, often with bugs showing up only after the game reaches wide masses.
P.S. Same applied btw to video playback software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167036</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The so called 7 Cores are pretty specialized sub units. With the lack of good middleware and development kits at the PS3 release, the platform is just now after years starting to get somewhat used</htmltext>
<tokenext>The so called 7 Cores are pretty specialized sub units .
With the lack of good middleware and development kits at the PS3 release , the platform is just now after years starting to get somewhat used</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The so called 7 Cores are pretty specialized sub units.
With the lack of good middleware and development kits at the PS3 release, the platform is just now after years starting to get somewhat used</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31169758</id>
	<title>P4 has power!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say the P4 and Pentium D series of processors have kept up quite well. I primarily work with CAD (Solidworks and AutoCAD depending on location) and have noticed that the old processors chew through the programs quite well, I have found RAM (or lack there of) and GPU to be much more critical when working with high demand applications.</p><p>Work PC:<br>Pentium 4<br>1 GB RAM<br>Crappy GPU<br>OS: WinXP x32<br>Solidworks Startup time: Long enough to cross the office and get coffee.</p><p>Home PC:<br>Pentium D Dual Core 64-bit<br>4 GB RAM<br>GPU: Nvidia 8600 GT 256mb DDR3 VRAM<br>OS: Win7 x64<br>AutoCAD Startup: Near Instant<br>AutoCAD Inventor Startup: Long enough to get preheated coffee<br>Solidworks Startup: Near Instant<br>***Plays EVE Online and COD:WaW Fine</p><p>Looking at these systems I think it should be clear that processor makes little difference to CAD users which are considered to be one of the heavier uses of PC's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say the P4 and Pentium D series of processors have kept up quite well .
I primarily work with CAD ( Solidworks and AutoCAD depending on location ) and have noticed that the old processors chew through the programs quite well , I have found RAM ( or lack there of ) and GPU to be much more critical when working with high demand applications.Work PC : Pentium 41 GB RAMCrappy GPUOS : WinXP x32Solidworks Startup time : Long enough to cross the office and get coffee.Home PC : Pentium D Dual Core 64-bit4 GB RAMGPU : Nvidia 8600 GT 256mb DDR3 VRAMOS : Win7 x64AutoCAD Startup : Near InstantAutoCAD Inventor Startup : Long enough to get preheated coffeeSolidworks Startup : Near Instant * * * Plays EVE Online and COD : WaW FineLooking at these systems I think it should be clear that processor makes little difference to CAD users which are considered to be one of the heavier uses of PC 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say the P4 and Pentium D series of processors have kept up quite well.
I primarily work with CAD (Solidworks and AutoCAD depending on location) and have noticed that the old processors chew through the programs quite well, I have found RAM (or lack there of) and GPU to be much more critical when working with high demand applications.Work PC:Pentium 41 GB RAMCrappy GPUOS: WinXP x32Solidworks Startup time: Long enough to cross the office and get coffee.Home PC:Pentium D Dual Core 64-bit4 GB RAMGPU: Nvidia 8600 GT 256mb DDR3 VRAMOS: Win7 x64AutoCAD Startup: Near InstantAutoCAD Inventor Startup: Long enough to get preheated coffeeSolidworks Startup: Near Instant***Plays EVE Online and COD:WaW FineLooking at these systems I think it should be clear that processor makes little difference to CAD users which are considered to be one of the heavier uses of PC's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167512</id>
	<title>P4 is quite enough...?</title>
	<author>indre1</author>
	<datestamp>1265029800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>P4 3,2Ghz Northwood @3,6Ghz and a decent graphics card can easilly run Modern Warfare 2 @ 1280x1024 - what else do you need from a processor on a desktop computer?
<br>
All these multicores barely give any real advantage to a regular gamer/desktop user at the moment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>P4 3,2Ghz Northwood @ 3,6Ghz and a decent graphics card can easilly run Modern Warfare 2 @ 1280x1024 - what else do you need from a processor on a desktop computer ?
All these multicores barely give any real advantage to a regular gamer/desktop user at the moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>P4 3,2Ghz Northwood @3,6Ghz and a decent graphics card can easilly run Modern Warfare 2 @ 1280x1024 - what else do you need from a processor on a desktop computer?
All these multicores barely give any real advantage to a regular gamer/desktop user at the moment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167426</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>kripkenstein</author>
	<datestamp>1265028660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How can game engines not take advantage of multiple cores?</p></div><p>
Several reasons.
</p><ul>
<li>If your game will run on both single-core and multi-core machines, it might not make sense to optimize for the latter, which would likely make the former slower - and the former is already slower, so you care more about it.</li><li>Many games care more about responsiveness than throughput. While you can run N threads on N cores, getting full utilization of your resources, games usually have a loop in which input feeds into the logic system, which feeds into the physics system, which feeds into the rendering system, and the loop starts again. To get from input to viewable output in the same frame - responsiveness - you can't split up the tasks into multiple threads and let them complete whenever they can. Multithreading might make sense within tasks (say, physics of physically separate regions), but not between them - rendering needs for physics to completely finish before it starts.</li></ul><p>
That said, console games usually <b>are</b> multithreaded. Since they know the target hardware, they can plan how to use the cores exactly. The tests in TFA, however, were not run on console games but on PC games, which as mentioned in the first point, tend to be optimized for the single-core case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can game engines not take advantage of multiple cores ?
Several reasons .
If your game will run on both single-core and multi-core machines , it might not make sense to optimize for the latter , which would likely make the former slower - and the former is already slower , so you care more about it.Many games care more about responsiveness than throughput .
While you can run N threads on N cores , getting full utilization of your resources , games usually have a loop in which input feeds into the logic system , which feeds into the physics system , which feeds into the rendering system , and the loop starts again .
To get from input to viewable output in the same frame - responsiveness - you ca n't split up the tasks into multiple threads and let them complete whenever they can .
Multithreading might make sense within tasks ( say , physics of physically separate regions ) , but not between them - rendering needs for physics to completely finish before it starts .
That said , console games usually are multithreaded .
Since they know the target hardware , they can plan how to use the cores exactly .
The tests in TFA , however , were not run on console games but on PC games , which as mentioned in the first point , tend to be optimized for the single-core case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can game engines not take advantage of multiple cores?
Several reasons.
If your game will run on both single-core and multi-core machines, it might not make sense to optimize for the latter, which would likely make the former slower - and the former is already slower, so you care more about it.Many games care more about responsiveness than throughput.
While you can run N threads on N cores, getting full utilization of your resources, games usually have a loop in which input feeds into the logic system, which feeds into the physics system, which feeds into the rendering system, and the loop starts again.
To get from input to viewable output in the same frame - responsiveness - you can't split up the tasks into multiple threads and let them complete whenever they can.
Multithreading might make sense within tasks (say, physics of physically separate regions), but not between them - rendering needs for physics to completely finish before it starts.
That said, console games usually are multithreaded.
Since they know the target hardware, they can plan how to use the cores exactly.
The tests in TFA, however, were not run on console games but on PC games, which as mentioned in the first point, tend to be optimized for the single-core case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167720</id>
	<title>Force Factor</title>
	<author>Barrington21</author>
	<datestamp>1265032140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read this post. I totally agree with you.........
<a href="http://ezinearticles.com/?Force-Factor-Reviews---Dont-Buy-Until-You-Read-This-Review&amp;id=3016296" title="ezinearticles.com" rel="nofollow">http://ezinearticles.com/?Force-Factor-Reviews---Dont-Buy-Until-You-Read-This-Review&amp;id=3016296</a> [ezinearticles.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read this post .
I totally agree with you........ . http : //ezinearticles.com/ ? Force-Factor-Reviews---Dont-Buy-Until-You-Read-This-Review&amp;id = 3016296 [ ezinearticles.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read this post.
I totally agree with you.........
http://ezinearticles.com/?Force-Factor-Reviews---Dont-Buy-Until-You-Read-This-Review&amp;id=3016296 [ezinearticles.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167138</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265025120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dwarf fortress?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dwarf fortress ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dwarf fortress?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31173132</id>
	<title>12 pages to reach punhline: 5x faster</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1265052300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The gaming benchmarks ran five times faster on the latest multicores.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The gaming benchmarks ran five times faster on the latest multicores .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The gaming benchmarks ran five times faster on the latest multicores.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168392</id>
	<title>Pentium2 333Mhz</title>
	<author>gatkinso</author>
	<datestamp>1265036760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Runs PuTTy and Xming like a charm, best yet has a real serial port!</p><p>I guess this proves I am old, and should probably open up a tackle shop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Runs PuTTy and Xming like a charm , best yet has a real serial port ! I guess this proves I am old , and should probably open up a tackle shop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Runs PuTTy and Xming like a charm, best yet has a real serial port!I guess this proves I am old, and should probably open up a tackle shop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167114</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Graphics and game-play come first, then if there's time, optimisation. The average person won't play a game if it doesn't look pretty enough, and just about no one will play a game with abhorrent game-play. Now, there are a few developers who know their shit and can manage to put out something that plays like a dream, is pretty, and isn't resource hog. There aren't enough of them to fulfil people's gamelust so people tend to let those who can't perfect the last one off the hook provided they nail the first two.<br>Sometimes they have the skill to optimise but not the time; a publisher wants to rush something out the door before its ready in the vain hope of being the hit at some big-buying time in the year.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and then there are those developers who are just plain lazy. Doing things that I, as nothing more than a bumbling script kiddy, could do more elegantly and efficiently. Developers like that should be shot, but what can you do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Graphics and game-play come first , then if there 's time , optimisation .
The average person wo n't play a game if it does n't look pretty enough , and just about no one will play a game with abhorrent game-play .
Now , there are a few developers who know their shit and can manage to put out something that plays like a dream , is pretty , and is n't resource hog .
There are n't enough of them to fulfil people 's gamelust so people tend to let those who ca n't perfect the last one off the hook provided they nail the first two.Sometimes they have the skill to optimise but not the time ; a publisher wants to rush something out the door before its ready in the vain hope of being the hit at some big-buying time in the year .
...and then there are those developers who are just plain lazy .
Doing things that I , as nothing more than a bumbling script kiddy , could do more elegantly and efficiently .
Developers like that should be shot , but what can you do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Graphics and game-play come first, then if there's time, optimisation.
The average person won't play a game if it doesn't look pretty enough, and just about no one will play a game with abhorrent game-play.
Now, there are a few developers who know their shit and can manage to put out something that plays like a dream, is pretty, and isn't resource hog.
There aren't enough of them to fulfil people's gamelust so people tend to let those who can't perfect the last one off the hook provided they nail the first two.Sometimes they have the skill to optimise but not the time; a publisher wants to rush something out the door before its ready in the vain hope of being the hit at some big-buying time in the year.
...and then there are those developers who are just plain lazy.
Doing things that I, as nothing more than a bumbling script kiddy, could do more elegantly and efficiently.
Developers like that should be shot, but what can you do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31176210</id>
	<title>The most interesting part of the review:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265019480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this little jewel on page 14:</p><blockquote><div><p>Still, although PC hardware gets faster over time, software often gets slower. If you go look at our review from back in the day, the Pentium 4 670 rendered this same scene in 309 seconds using a single thread. Now it's taken over 600 seconds to do it with POV-Ray 3.7. Just to make sure we didn't have a configuration problem, I installed an old version of POV-Ray 3.6.1 64-bit from March, 2005 on our LGA775 test system. Lo and behold, the P4 670 completed the render in about the same time we'd measured way back when.</p></div></blockquote><p>This to me is the most telling thing in the review. The bloat that has crept into the software made the same cpu take twice as long to render the same scene. This is why we have machines now that make the machines we used 10 years ago look stupid by the numbers, while they don't really offer that much of an improvement in experience due to the incredible amounts of software bloat eating all the extra resources available. This one little paragraph should make the people involved with POVray bow their heads in shame.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this little jewel on page 14 : Still , although PC hardware gets faster over time , software often gets slower .
If you go look at our review from back in the day , the Pentium 4 670 rendered this same scene in 309 seconds using a single thread .
Now it 's taken over 600 seconds to do it with POV-Ray 3.7 .
Just to make sure we did n't have a configuration problem , I installed an old version of POV-Ray 3.6.1 64-bit from March , 2005 on our LGA775 test system .
Lo and behold , the P4 670 completed the render in about the same time we 'd measured way back when.This to me is the most telling thing in the review .
The bloat that has crept into the software made the same cpu take twice as long to render the same scene .
This is why we have machines now that make the machines we used 10 years ago look stupid by the numbers , while they do n't really offer that much of an improvement in experience due to the incredible amounts of software bloat eating all the extra resources available .
This one little paragraph should make the people involved with POVray bow their heads in shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this little jewel on page 14:Still, although PC hardware gets faster over time, software often gets slower.
If you go look at our review from back in the day, the Pentium 4 670 rendered this same scene in 309 seconds using a single thread.
Now it's taken over 600 seconds to do it with POV-Ray 3.7.
Just to make sure we didn't have a configuration problem, I installed an old version of POV-Ray 3.6.1 64-bit from March, 2005 on our LGA775 test system.
Lo and behold, the P4 670 completed the render in about the same time we'd measured way back when.This to me is the most telling thing in the review.
The bloat that has crept into the software made the same cpu take twice as long to render the same scene.
This is why we have machines now that make the machines we used 10 years ago look stupid by the numbers, while they don't really offer that much of an improvement in experience due to the incredible amounts of software bloat eating all the extra resources available.
This one little paragraph should make the people involved with POVray bow their heads in shame.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168180</id>
	<title>Re:Other factors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't about the machine that runs the LHC, it's about machines that 99\% of people use. Thus, no ECC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't about the machine that runs the LHC , it 's about machines that 99 \ % of people use .
Thus , no ECC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't about the machine that runs the LHC, it's about machines that 99\% of people use.
Thus, no ECC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167140</id>
	<title>Re:P4 pride</title>
	<author>ZeRu</author>
	<datestamp>1265025120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have my compassion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have my compassion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have my compassion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168054</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1265034960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, games need to be fast enough on a single core system, and if it's fast enough for that, it'll be fast enough on a multicore system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , games need to be fast enough on a single core system , and if it 's fast enough for that , it 'll be fast enough on a multicore system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, games need to be fast enough on a single core system, and if it's fast enough for that, it'll be fast enough on a multicore system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167478</id>
	<title>ZX Spectrum</title>
	<author>Ralz</author>
	<datestamp>1265029320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My ZX Spectrum doesn't handle Crysis very well, its probably because of the 16K memory. Maybe I should get something newer with more memory, 640K ought to be about enough for anybody.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My ZX Spectrum does n't handle Crysis very well , its probably because of the 16K memory .
Maybe I should get something newer with more memory , 640K ought to be about enough for anybody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My ZX Spectrum doesn't handle Crysis very well, its probably because of the 16K memory.
Maybe I should get something newer with more memory, 640K ought to be about enough for anybody.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167080</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>Rhaban</author>
	<datestamp>1265024520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>advantages of multiple cores are not so evident when dealing with real-time physics/rendering/etc.<br>If all your processes must communicate with each other constantly, you lose the benefits of having each process processed by a different core.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>advantages of multiple cores are not so evident when dealing with real-time physics/rendering/etc.If all your processes must communicate with each other constantly , you lose the benefits of having each process processed by a different core .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>advantages of multiple cores are not so evident when dealing with real-time physics/rendering/etc.If all your processes must communicate with each other constantly, you lose the benefits of having each process processed by a different core.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31217408</id>
	<title>Re: Today's Best CPUs Compared... To a Pentium 4</title>
	<author>farmpuma</author>
	<datestamp>1266753060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another in depth and highly informative review article in Scott 'Damage' Wasson's always enjoyable style.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another in depth and highly informative review article in Scott 'Damage ' Wasson 's always enjoyable style .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another in depth and highly informative review article in Scott 'Damage' Wasson's always enjoyable style.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167630</id>
	<title>More interesting question: Pentium M vs Atom etc?</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1265030940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a X31 (see <a href="http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Category:X31" title="thinkwiki.org">http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Category:X31</a> [thinkwiki.org] ) and I am thinking about upgrading to a X100e, X200, X201/X210 -- but I am not sure how my trusty X31 compares to current low-end hardware.</p><p>Hard requirements:</p><p>* At \_least\_ 3-4 hours of run time with normal workload (KDE4, konsole, half a dozen ssh sessions, no flash)<br>* TrackPoint - I hate touchpads<br>* sturdy - those things are there to be used, not pampered. I don't abuse them needlessly, but I will not go out of my way to make sure the purty purty thing does not get a scratch, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a X31 ( see http : //www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Category : X31 [ thinkwiki.org ] ) and I am thinking about upgrading to a X100e , X200 , X201/X210 -- but I am not sure how my trusty X31 compares to current low-end hardware.Hard requirements : * At \ _least \ _ 3-4 hours of run time with normal workload ( KDE4 , konsole , half a dozen ssh sessions , no flash ) * TrackPoint - I hate touchpads * sturdy - those things are there to be used , not pampered .
I do n't abuse them needlessly , but I will not go out of my way to make sure the purty purty thing does not get a scratch , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a X31 (see http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Category:X31 [thinkwiki.org] ) and I am thinking about upgrading to a X100e, X200, X201/X210 -- but I am not sure how my trusty X31 compares to current low-end hardware.Hard requirements:* At \_least\_ 3-4 hours of run time with normal workload (KDE4, konsole, half a dozen ssh sessions, no flash)* TrackPoint - I hate touchpads* sturdy - those things are there to be used, not pampered.
I don't abuse them needlessly, but I will not go out of my way to make sure the purty purty thing does not get a scratch, either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168388</id>
	<title>Everything's an Xbox port...</title>
	<author>rsilvergun</author>
	<datestamp>1265036760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's 5 years old, so it's no surprise to me that a high end P4 is all you need. Heck, I just bought a $80 GT 240 to go with my 2 year old Athlon and I can play anything on the shelf on high.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's 5 years old , so it 's no surprise to me that a high end P4 is all you need .
Heck , I just bought a $ 80 GT 240 to go with my 2 year old Athlon and I can play anything on the shelf on high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's 5 years old, so it's no surprise to me that a high end P4 is all you need.
Heck, I just bought a $80 GT 240 to go with my 2 year old Athlon and I can play anything on the shelf on high.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31169280</id>
	<title>Re:P4 pride</title>
	<author>jridley</author>
	<datestamp>1265040300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Me, too.  In fact, they just bought me a brand new Core2Duo based machine about 3 months ago - I used it for 2 months then gave up and put the old P4 back on the desk.  The reason?  The new machine had Office 2007 on it, the old, Office 2003.  The speed differences between the machines are utterly negligible for what I do (I need Firefox, Outlook, and about a dozen SSH windows - I could be using a 300 MHz Pentium if I wanted to), but having to put up with Office 2007 was costing me real productivity, even after I "got used to it" the workflow for the types of things I was doing was significantly slower.</p><p>I'm significantly more productive on the old P4 based machine and 2003 than I was on the Core2 machine with 2007.  Both are running XP; I tried 7 for about 6 weeks and again, even after getting used to it, it was still a net loss in productivity for me, so I went back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Me , too .
In fact , they just bought me a brand new Core2Duo based machine about 3 months ago - I used it for 2 months then gave up and put the old P4 back on the desk .
The reason ?
The new machine had Office 2007 on it , the old , Office 2003 .
The speed differences between the machines are utterly negligible for what I do ( I need Firefox , Outlook , and about a dozen SSH windows - I could be using a 300 MHz Pentium if I wanted to ) , but having to put up with Office 2007 was costing me real productivity , even after I " got used to it " the workflow for the types of things I was doing was significantly slower.I 'm significantly more productive on the old P4 based machine and 2003 than I was on the Core2 machine with 2007 .
Both are running XP ; I tried 7 for about 6 weeks and again , even after getting used to it , it was still a net loss in productivity for me , so I went back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me, too.
In fact, they just bought me a brand new Core2Duo based machine about 3 months ago - I used it for 2 months then gave up and put the old P4 back on the desk.
The reason?
The new machine had Office 2007 on it, the old, Office 2003.
The speed differences between the machines are utterly negligible for what I do (I need Firefox, Outlook, and about a dozen SSH windows - I could be using a 300 MHz Pentium if I wanted to), but having to put up with Office 2007 was costing me real productivity, even after I "got used to it" the workflow for the types of things I was doing was significantly slower.I'm significantly more productive on the old P4 based machine and 2003 than I was on the Core2 machine with 2007.
Both are running XP; I tried 7 for about 6 weeks and again, even after getting used to it, it was still a net loss in productivity for me, so I went back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31169370</id>
	<title>Mod this down, wrong!</title>
	<author>multimediavt</author>
	<datestamp>1265040600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If all your processes must communicate with each other constantly, you lose the benefits of having each process processed by a different core.</p></div><p>This statement is just flat wrong, and hardly insightful.  The only time this condition is true is if you are dealing with processors *completely isolated* from each other's memory resources.  To my knowledge, there is no such beast (cluster or multi-core system) and hasn't been since the days before MPI and OpenMP (or their predecessors) existed.  The only bottlenecks in the above quoted situation are latency and bandwidth so that each process CAN communicate simultaneously with any other process, running on any core, tied to the same high-speed bus/network.  There are actually other ways to create data parallelism within a system so that even discrete processors can still contribute work toward a larger problem.</p><p>I build supercomputers, so I should know!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If all your processes must communicate with each other constantly , you lose the benefits of having each process processed by a different core.This statement is just flat wrong , and hardly insightful .
The only time this condition is true is if you are dealing with processors * completely isolated * from each other 's memory resources .
To my knowledge , there is no such beast ( cluster or multi-core system ) and has n't been since the days before MPI and OpenMP ( or their predecessors ) existed .
The only bottlenecks in the above quoted situation are latency and bandwidth so that each process CAN communicate simultaneously with any other process , running on any core , tied to the same high-speed bus/network .
There are actually other ways to create data parallelism within a system so that even discrete processors can still contribute work toward a larger problem.I build supercomputers , so I should know !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If all your processes must communicate with each other constantly, you lose the benefits of having each process processed by a different core.This statement is just flat wrong, and hardly insightful.
The only time this condition is true is if you are dealing with processors *completely isolated* from each other's memory resources.
To my knowledge, there is no such beast (cluster or multi-core system) and hasn't been since the days before MPI and OpenMP (or their predecessors) existed.
The only bottlenecks in the above quoted situation are latency and bandwidth so that each process CAN communicate simultaneously with any other process, running on any core, tied to the same high-speed bus/network.
There are actually other ways to create data parallelism within a system so that even discrete processors can still contribute work toward a larger problem.I build supercomputers, so I should know!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31180822</id>
	<title>Re:P4 pride</title>
	<author>trapnest</author>
	<datestamp>1265051280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My two littlest sisters use a Powermac G3. 400MHz cpu, 512MB SDRAM, OS 9.2. It runs really well for what they do (simple games, typing, etc.)
<br> <br>
My older sister uses the hp netbook I got her. Dual core atom, 2GB ram, win 7...
<br> <br>
Anyone know a decent browser for PPC OS 9?</htmltext>
<tokenext>My two littlest sisters use a Powermac G3 .
400MHz cpu , 512MB SDRAM , OS 9.2 .
It runs really well for what they do ( simple games , typing , etc .
) My older sister uses the hp netbook I got her .
Dual core atom , 2GB ram , win 7.. . Anyone know a decent browser for PPC OS 9 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My two littlest sisters use a Powermac G3.
400MHz cpu, 512MB SDRAM, OS 9.2.
It runs really well for what they do (simple games, typing, etc.
)
 
My older sister uses the hp netbook I got her.
Dual core atom, 2GB ram, win 7...
 
Anyone know a decent browser for PPC OS 9?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31171536</id>
	<title>Re:My old work computer</title>
	<author>BitwizeGHC</author>
	<datestamp>1265047560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>P4 laptops tend to suck for portability. I had one. Bitch weighed eight pounds, had two huge fans, and much of the case interior was heatsink.</p><p>I gave it to my parents, who use it around the house. Good job they don't have to take it anywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>P4 laptops tend to suck for portability .
I had one .
Bitch weighed eight pounds , had two huge fans , and much of the case interior was heatsink.I gave it to my parents , who use it around the house .
Good job they do n't have to take it anywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>P4 laptops tend to suck for portability.
I had one.
Bitch weighed eight pounds, had two huge fans, and much of the case interior was heatsink.I gave it to my parents, who use it around the house.
Good job they don't have to take it anywhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31169196</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Many problems cannot be parallelized at all. If a problem is sequential in nature, multiple cores cannot solve it faster.</p></div><p>There are no such problems. They just require exponential amount of cores<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many problems can not be parallelized at all .
If a problem is sequential in nature , multiple cores can not solve it faster.There are no such problems .
They just require exponential amount of cores : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many problems cannot be parallelized at all.
If a problem is sequential in nature, multiple cores cannot solve it faster.There are no such problems.
They just require exponential amount of cores :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31171712</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265048100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Many developers lack the skills to implement</p></div><p>or T I M E to do it... time pressure is relentless in the game industry..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many developers lack the skills to implementor T I M E to do it... time pressure is relentless in the game industry. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many developers lack the skills to implementor T I M E to do it... time pressure is relentless in the game industry..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167464</id>
	<title>Where's the P4 vs. Modern CPUs conclusion ?</title>
	<author>MasJ</author>
	<datestamp>1265029200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this what the article summary gets at ? I couldn't find anywhere in the conclusion how the P4 actually compares to present day processors.<br>I'm not about to read through 17 pages of all of that just to open my eyes.</p><p>Oh, and for CPU comparisons, I usually use:<br><a href="http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu\_list.php" title="cpubenchmark.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu\_list.php</a> [cpubenchmark.net]</p><p>It's quite reliable for my choices. I just need everything to boil down to a number these days. Too much choice out there. Was simpler when you could just look at Ghz and know which is better. Now a P7700 and T8600 (examples I just made up..) could be at the same clock speed, be called Core 2 Duo and have totally different performance numbers. Confusing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this what the article summary gets at ?
I could n't find anywhere in the conclusion how the P4 actually compares to present day processors.I 'm not about to read through 17 pages of all of that just to open my eyes.Oh , and for CPU comparisons , I usually use : http : //www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu \ _list.php [ cpubenchmark.net ] It 's quite reliable for my choices .
I just need everything to boil down to a number these days .
Too much choice out there .
Was simpler when you could just look at Ghz and know which is better .
Now a P7700 and T8600 ( examples I just made up.. ) could be at the same clock speed , be called Core 2 Duo and have totally different performance numbers .
Confusing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this what the article summary gets at ?
I couldn't find anywhere in the conclusion how the P4 actually compares to present day processors.I'm not about to read through 17 pages of all of that just to open my eyes.Oh, and for CPU comparisons, I usually use:http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu\_list.php [cpubenchmark.net]It's quite reliable for my choices.
I just need everything to boil down to a number these days.
Too much choice out there.
Was simpler when you could just look at Ghz and know which is better.
Now a P7700 and T8600 (examples I just made up..) could be at the same clock speed, be called Core 2 Duo and have totally different performance numbers.
Confusing!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167382</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>Lord Byron Eee PC</author>
	<datestamp>1265028120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't play a lot of games, but I know for a fact that GTAIV was multi-threaded.

And as to why all games aren't multi-threaded, it's because it's hard to do and it's even harder to do right. Video processing and ray-tracing are two areas where multi-threading is a natural choice, but in a game where you've got multiple input and output streams, interacting with several different pieces of hardware, and no tolerance for lags and delays, it is much more difficult.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't play a lot of games , but I know for a fact that GTAIV was multi-threaded .
And as to why all games are n't multi-threaded , it 's because it 's hard to do and it 's even harder to do right .
Video processing and ray-tracing are two areas where multi-threading is a natural choice , but in a game where you 've got multiple input and output streams , interacting with several different pieces of hardware , and no tolerance for lags and delays , it is much more difficult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't play a lot of games, but I know for a fact that GTAIV was multi-threaded.
And as to why all games aren't multi-threaded, it's because it's hard to do and it's even harder to do right.
Video processing and ray-tracing are two areas where multi-threading is a natural choice, but in a game where you've got multiple input and output streams, interacting with several different pieces of hardware, and no tolerance for lags and delays, it is much more difficult.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167486</id>
	<title>Re:P4 pride</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265029440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just upgraded my home computer from a 3ghz p4 northwood  to a 3ghz p4 prescott on a slightly-newer motherboard. I have to say, the difference is more than I expected. beforehand, I got fairly serious lag whenever a page opened, say, 5 youtube videos or other flash objects at once. now it handles that much with relative ease.</p><p>in a few years time, maybe I'll even upgrade to one of those pentium-D's I've heard so much about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just upgraded my home computer from a 3ghz p4 northwood to a 3ghz p4 prescott on a slightly-newer motherboard .
I have to say , the difference is more than I expected .
beforehand , I got fairly serious lag whenever a page opened , say , 5 youtube videos or other flash objects at once .
now it handles that much with relative ease.in a few years time , maybe I 'll even upgrade to one of those pentium-D 's I 've heard so much about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just upgraded my home computer from a 3ghz p4 northwood  to a 3ghz p4 prescott on a slightly-newer motherboard.
I have to say, the difference is more than I expected.
beforehand, I got fairly serious lag whenever a page opened, say, 5 youtube videos or other flash objects at once.
now it handles that much with relative ease.in a few years time, maybe I'll even upgrade to one of those pentium-D's I've heard so much about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167518</id>
	<title>something missing....</title>
	<author>pjrc</author>
	<datestamp>1265029800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did anyone else notice how the Q9550 and Q9650 are absent from this article?</p><p>Probably the last thing Intel wants is these previous generation (and attractively priced) chips appearing in the "overall performance per dollar" chart on "Page 17 - The value proposition". Instead, we get a graph where only the i5 and i7 chips appear to perform well beyond any of the older options, but it's a carefully crafted illusion because the faster (and attractively priced) versions of those older chips weren't tested.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone else notice how the Q9550 and Q9650 are absent from this article ? Probably the last thing Intel wants is these previous generation ( and attractively priced ) chips appearing in the " overall performance per dollar " chart on " Page 17 - The value proposition " .
Instead , we get a graph where only the i5 and i7 chips appear to perform well beyond any of the older options , but it 's a carefully crafted illusion because the faster ( and attractively priced ) versions of those older chips were n't tested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone else notice how the Q9550 and Q9650 are absent from this article?Probably the last thing Intel wants is these previous generation (and attractively priced) chips appearing in the "overall performance per dollar" chart on "Page 17 - The value proposition".
Instead, we get a graph where only the i5 and i7 chips appear to perform well beyond any of the older options, but it's a carefully crafted illusion because the faster (and attractively priced) versions of those older chips weren't tested.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31171788</id>
	<title>Re:P4 is quite enough...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265048280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why did this get marked interesting. If you actually look at the benchmarks, you'll see nearly 100fps difference! While this is overkill for most games, I, and most PC gamers I know, can't *stand* to play games under 50fps or so. To get this, everyone ends up turning the settings wayyy down. So sure, you can play something like Modern Warfare 2, but, it'll more look like Quake 2. I guess if you're all about the game input and dynamics, and don't care at all about graphics or immersion, then yes, you're correct. Pffft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did this get marked interesting .
If you actually look at the benchmarks , you 'll see nearly 100fps difference !
While this is overkill for most games , I , and most PC gamers I know , ca n't * stand * to play games under 50fps or so .
To get this , everyone ends up turning the settings wayyy down .
So sure , you can play something like Modern Warfare 2 , but , it 'll more look like Quake 2 .
I guess if you 're all about the game input and dynamics , and do n't care at all about graphics or immersion , then yes , you 're correct .
Pffft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did this get marked interesting.
If you actually look at the benchmarks, you'll see nearly 100fps difference!
While this is overkill for most games, I, and most PC gamers I know, can't *stand* to play games under 50fps or so.
To get this, everyone ends up turning the settings wayyy down.
So sure, you can play something like Modern Warfare 2, but, it'll more look like Quake 2.
I guess if you're all about the game input and dynamics, and don't care at all about graphics or immersion, then yes, you're correct.
Pffft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167102</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>h00manist</author>
	<datestamp>1265024760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are games so lazily programmed that they don't take advantage of that either?</p></div><p>Obviously it's not exactly easy to make programs that can run either on multiple cpu's or a single one just as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are games so lazily programmed that they do n't take advantage of that either ? Obviously it 's not exactly easy to make programs that can run either on multiple cpu 's or a single one just as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are games so lazily programmed that they don't take advantage of that either?Obviously it's not exactly easy to make programs that can run either on multiple cpu's or a single one just as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31207040</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1266592740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That works if you have a significant chunk of the chain that produces a true/false result. If your previous chunk can produce a few billion possible results than unless you have a few billion processors this technique doesn't help you much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That works if you have a significant chunk of the chain that produces a true/false result .
If your previous chunk can produce a few billion possible results than unless you have a few billion processors this technique does n't help you much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That works if you have a significant chunk of the chain that produces a true/false result.
If your previous chunk can produce a few billion possible results than unless you have a few billion processors this technique doesn't help you much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31176386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31170706</id>
	<title>Re:P4 pride</title>
	<author>michael\_cain</author>
	<datestamp>1265045220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't drag it out very often, but still have <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/61386564@N00/69910121/" title="flickr.com">this one</a> [flickr.com] up on the closet shelf. 20 MHz 386SX, separate floating point coprocessor, pre-1.0 Linux, MGR windowing software. Passive matrix 640x480 LCD display, MGR drove it in one-bit mode. I recall doing a large amount of technical work on it -- simulations, 100-page technical reports, etc. Four D-sized nicad batteries lasted about two hours, but it was easy to carry a spare set.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't drag it out very often , but still have this one [ flickr.com ] up on the closet shelf .
20 MHz 386SX , separate floating point coprocessor , pre-1.0 Linux , MGR windowing software .
Passive matrix 640x480 LCD display , MGR drove it in one-bit mode .
I recall doing a large amount of technical work on it -- simulations , 100-page technical reports , etc .
Four D-sized nicad batteries lasted about two hours , but it was easy to carry a spare set .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't drag it out very often, but still have this one [flickr.com] up on the closet shelf.
20 MHz 386SX, separate floating point coprocessor, pre-1.0 Linux, MGR windowing software.
Passive matrix 640x480 LCD display, MGR drove it in one-bit mode.
I recall doing a large amount of technical work on it -- simulations, 100-page technical reports, etc.
Four D-sized nicad batteries lasted about two hours, but it was easy to carry a spare set.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167332</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265027460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How can game engines not take advantage of multiple cores? I had no idea this was the case, and find it very surprising given that the PS3 has 7 cores to work with. Are games so lazily programmed that they don't take advantage of that either?</p></div><p>this was the case a couple of years ago, nowadays all major games(dragon age, mass effect 2, battlefield bad company 2, etc..) uses my dual core at 100\% </p><p>
the frostbite engine(used in bfbc2 and bf1943) is even designed to use up to 16 threads <a href="http://repi.blogspot.com/2009/11/parallel-futures-of-game-engine.html" title="blogspot.com">http://repi.blogspot.com/2009/11/parallel-futures-of-game-engine.html</a> [blogspot.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can game engines not take advantage of multiple cores ?
I had no idea this was the case , and find it very surprising given that the PS3 has 7 cores to work with .
Are games so lazily programmed that they do n't take advantage of that either ? this was the case a couple of years ago , nowadays all major games ( dragon age , mass effect 2 , battlefield bad company 2 , etc.. ) uses my dual core at 100 \ % the frostbite engine ( used in bfbc2 and bf1943 ) is even designed to use up to 16 threads http : //repi.blogspot.com/2009/11/parallel-futures-of-game-engine.html [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can game engines not take advantage of multiple cores?
I had no idea this was the case, and find it very surprising given that the PS3 has 7 cores to work with.
Are games so lazily programmed that they don't take advantage of that either?this was the case a couple of years ago, nowadays all major games(dragon age, mass effect 2, battlefield bad company 2, etc..) uses my dual core at 100\% 
the frostbite engine(used in bfbc2 and bf1943) is even designed to use up to 16 threads http://repi.blogspot.com/2009/11/parallel-futures-of-game-engine.html [blogspot.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167390</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>TheThiefMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1265028180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking as a PS3 dev, the SPUs are very different to program for than a normal multi-core cpu (and you only get to use five and a half of them anyway, not 7).</p><p>On the flip side, everything based on UE3 (which is most big cpu-hungry multi-platform titles these days) is multithreaded to two or three significant threads: Game, rendering, and possibly physics (depending on physics engine used). None of them are SPU threads (though they may use the SPUs for some tasks), so PS3 performance isn't generally as good as the 360's, but in most games it's a non-issue as both platforms go over the 30 fps cap.</p><p>On PC, most UE3 games will run best on two cores, with anything above that being unnecessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking as a PS3 dev , the SPUs are very different to program for than a normal multi-core cpu ( and you only get to use five and a half of them anyway , not 7 ) .On the flip side , everything based on UE3 ( which is most big cpu-hungry multi-platform titles these days ) is multithreaded to two or three significant threads : Game , rendering , and possibly physics ( depending on physics engine used ) .
None of them are SPU threads ( though they may use the SPUs for some tasks ) , so PS3 performance is n't generally as good as the 360 's , but in most games it 's a non-issue as both platforms go over the 30 fps cap.On PC , most UE3 games will run best on two cores , with anything above that being unnecessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking as a PS3 dev, the SPUs are very different to program for than a normal multi-core cpu (and you only get to use five and a half of them anyway, not 7).On the flip side, everything based on UE3 (which is most big cpu-hungry multi-platform titles these days) is multithreaded to two or three significant threads: Game, rendering, and possibly physics (depending on physics engine used).
None of them are SPU threads (though they may use the SPUs for some tasks), so PS3 performance isn't generally as good as the 360's, but in most games it's a non-issue as both platforms go over the 30 fps cap.On PC, most UE3 games will run best on two cores, with anything above that being unnecessary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31170894</id>
	<title>Re:P4 pride</title>
	<author>Yadyn</author>
	<datestamp>1265045760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is yours a Gateway too?

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium\_4#Prescott" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Prescott</a> [wikipedia.org] FTW</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is yours a Gateway too ?
Prescott [ wikipedia.org ] FTW</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is yours a Gateway too?
Prescott [wikipedia.org] FTW</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31173894</id>
	<title>Re:My old work computer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265055000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A $300 laptop is disposable rubbish. A sub $1000 laptop is rubbish. Do yourself a favour and buy something you'll like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A $ 300 laptop is disposable rubbish .
A sub $ 1000 laptop is rubbish .
Do yourself a favour and buy something you 'll like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A $300 laptop is disposable rubbish.
A sub $1000 laptop is rubbish.
Do yourself a favour and buy something you'll like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167598</id>
	<title>Other factors</title>
	<author>HalfFlat</author>
	<datestamp>1265030580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The article makes a strong case for the i3-530 and the i5-750, but
unlike the comparable AMD processors, they have no support for ECC.
</p><p>
If you're using a computer just for game playing and email, that's
fine. On the other hand, if you are doing anything which requires
reliability &mdash; both in terms of machine stability and
the consistency of results and data &mdash; ECC is a must. The premium
that Intel charge for what should be a standard feature prices
them out of the value computing market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article makes a strong case for the i3-530 and the i5-750 , but unlike the comparable AMD processors , they have no support for ECC .
If you 're using a computer just for game playing and email , that 's fine .
On the other hand , if you are doing anything which requires reliability    both in terms of machine stability and the consistency of results and data    ECC is a must .
The premium that Intel charge for what should be a standard feature prices them out of the value computing market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The article makes a strong case for the i3-530 and the i5-750, but
unlike the comparable AMD processors, they have no support for ECC.
If you're using a computer just for game playing and email, that's
fine.
On the other hand, if you are doing anything which requires
reliability — both in terms of machine stability and
the consistency of results and data — ECC is a must.
The premium
that Intel charge for what should be a standard feature prices
them out of the value computing market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167288</id>
	<title>Re:P4 pride</title>
	<author>old\_kennyp</author>
	<datestamp>1265026980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Currently typing this on a P4 3GHz machine with 1.5Gb ram. running Ubuntu.

I regularly use a P3 Mobile laptop (Dell C400) with XP, recently upgraded it to 512Mb ram &amp; 20Gb hdd.

Also have a PII 266 under my desk which runs my Mail / Web server. I think it has 384Mb ram but a 200Mb Hdd. runs Debian

Ken</htmltext>
<tokenext>Currently typing this on a P4 3GHz machine with 1.5Gb ram .
running Ubuntu .
I regularly use a P3 Mobile laptop ( Dell C400 ) with XP , recently upgraded it to 512Mb ram &amp; 20Gb hdd .
Also have a PII 266 under my desk which runs my Mail / Web server .
I think it has 384Mb ram but a 200Mb Hdd .
runs Debian Ken</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Currently typing this on a P4 3GHz machine with 1.5Gb ram.
running Ubuntu.
I regularly use a P3 Mobile laptop (Dell C400) with XP, recently upgraded it to 512Mb ram &amp; 20Gb hdd.
Also have a PII 266 under my desk which runs my Mail / Web server.
I think it has 384Mb ram but a 200Mb Hdd.
runs Debian

Ken</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168832</id>
	<title>Re:More interesting question: Pentium M vs Atom et</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to notebookcheck.net (http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html), pretty much any P-M CPU is going to be faster than almost every Atom CPU.  They'll trade blows in benchmarks, but if you've got one of the faster P-Ms (1.6 GHz and up), you'll probably want to jump to a dual-core non-Atom CPU to see a notable performance improvement.  If you can find something similarly clocked to your P-M (e.g. actual GHz wise), it'll be an even larger improvement.</p><p>An SSD will also give a very noticeable boost to interactive performance.  Your X31 is SATA, so there's not as many SSD options as there are SATA, but they're out there.  There's even companies using good controllers like the Indilinx Barefoot on PATA SSDs.  I've also heard that it should be possible to use an Intel X18-E (which was available in PATA form) in a 1.8" to 2.5" adapter, but I've never heard of anyone actually doing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to notebookcheck.net ( http : //www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html ) , pretty much any P-M CPU is going to be faster than almost every Atom CPU .
They 'll trade blows in benchmarks , but if you 've got one of the faster P-Ms ( 1.6 GHz and up ) , you 'll probably want to jump to a dual-core non-Atom CPU to see a notable performance improvement .
If you can find something similarly clocked to your P-M ( e.g .
actual GHz wise ) , it 'll be an even larger improvement.An SSD will also give a very noticeable boost to interactive performance .
Your X31 is SATA , so there 's not as many SSD options as there are SATA , but they 're out there .
There 's even companies using good controllers like the Indilinx Barefoot on PATA SSDs .
I 've also heard that it should be possible to use an Intel X18-E ( which was available in PATA form ) in a 1.8 " to 2.5 " adapter , but I 've never heard of anyone actually doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to notebookcheck.net (http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html), pretty much any P-M CPU is going to be faster than almost every Atom CPU.
They'll trade blows in benchmarks, but if you've got one of the faster P-Ms (1.6 GHz and up), you'll probably want to jump to a dual-core non-Atom CPU to see a notable performance improvement.
If you can find something similarly clocked to your P-M (e.g.
actual GHz wise), it'll be an even larger improvement.An SSD will also give a very noticeable boost to interactive performance.
Your X31 is SATA, so there's not as many SSD options as there are SATA, but they're out there.
There's even companies using good controllers like the Indilinx Barefoot on PATA SSDs.
I've also heard that it should be possible to use an Intel X18-E (which was available in PATA form) in a 1.8" to 2.5" adapter, but I've never heard of anyone actually doing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167264</id>
	<title>Re:Games don't use multiple cores?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265026740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least he's planning on using them in the future.  He just has other things to get done first, to get the game into a state worthy of multiple cores.</p><p>You can try telling him to do it first, but interrupting Moods often has undesirable consequences, and Toady One is in one hell of a Mood, of one type or another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least he 's planning on using them in the future .
He just has other things to get done first , to get the game into a state worthy of multiple cores.You can try telling him to do it first , but interrupting Moods often has undesirable consequences , and Toady One is in one hell of a Mood , of one type or another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least he's planning on using them in the future.
He just has other things to get done first, to get the game into a state worthy of multiple cores.You can try telling him to do it first, but interrupting Moods often has undesirable consequences, and Toady One is in one hell of a Mood, of one type or another.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31180348</id>
	<title>Re:More interesting question: Pentium M vs Atom et</title>
	<author>icegreentea</author>
	<datestamp>1265045760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I while ago I was thinking about picking up a netbook versus a used X61. What I found while digging around is that, as a rough guide, any Pentium M of the same clockspeed of a a given Atom chip will kick that Atom's ass in terms of performance. As for your battery life expencancy, my experience with Lenovo Thinkpads (I'm using a T400 right now), is whatever they advertise, lob 10-20\% off it and you'll get a fairly representative number. A lot of it has to do with how low you're willing to turn down the backlight. In those terms, the newer thinkpads are really better, cause they're the only ones that have LED backlight option.<br><br>Basically, if your current X31 has maxed out RAM and anything but the slowest CPU option, it's at least at parity, if not better than pretty much any Atom powered netbook out there. It also has a much nicer keyboard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I while ago I was thinking about picking up a netbook versus a used X61 .
What I found while digging around is that , as a rough guide , any Pentium M of the same clockspeed of a a given Atom chip will kick that Atom 's ass in terms of performance .
As for your battery life expencancy , my experience with Lenovo Thinkpads ( I 'm using a T400 right now ) , is whatever they advertise , lob 10-20 \ % off it and you 'll get a fairly representative number .
A lot of it has to do with how low you 're willing to turn down the backlight .
In those terms , the newer thinkpads are really better , cause they 're the only ones that have LED backlight option.Basically , if your current X31 has maxed out RAM and anything but the slowest CPU option , it 's at least at parity , if not better than pretty much any Atom powered netbook out there .
It also has a much nicer keyboard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I while ago I was thinking about picking up a netbook versus a used X61.
What I found while digging around is that, as a rough guide, any Pentium M of the same clockspeed of a a given Atom chip will kick that Atom's ass in terms of performance.
As for your battery life expencancy, my experience with Lenovo Thinkpads (I'm using a T400 right now), is whatever they advertise, lob 10-20\% off it and you'll get a fairly representative number.
A lot of it has to do with how low you're willing to turn down the backlight.
In those terms, the newer thinkpads are really better, cause they're the only ones that have LED backlight option.Basically, if your current X31 has maxed out RAM and anything but the slowest CPU option, it's at least at parity, if not better than pretty much any Atom powered netbook out there.
It also has a much nicer keyboard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31170820</id>
	<title>Re:P4 pride</title>
	<author>Vr6dub</author>
	<datestamp>1265045580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not just install 03 on the C2D box?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just install 03 on the C2D box ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just install 03 on the C2D box?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31169280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168360</id>
	<title>Re:Other factors</title>
	<author>SIGBUS</author>
	<datestamp>1265036580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ECC support involves the motherboard RAM itself - each DIMM has extra chips to carry the error-correcting information. It's mainly used in servers that run 24x7. Single-bit errors are automatically corrected, and, if they occur, multiple-bit errors are at least detected. The point is of course to keep the server from crashing, or worse, silently corrupting data.</p><p>Up until about the mid-1990s, most PCs had parity memory, which provides error detection but not correction. But, in the rush to make things cheaper, computer makers realized that they could shave a few pennies off the cost of a machine by eliminating the parity chips. By doing so, they made it very easy for bad RAM to cause all sorts of hard-to-diagnose problems. Unfortunately, non-parity, non-ECC RAM became the standard, and there are very few places you can buy ECC DIMMs off-the-shelf.</p><p>Socket AM2+ and AM3 boards can easily support ECC RAM, but it's up to the motherboard maker to enable it. My recent Asus board for an OpenSolaris box has 4G of ECC memory installed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ECC support involves the motherboard RAM itself - each DIMM has extra chips to carry the error-correcting information .
It 's mainly used in servers that run 24x7 .
Single-bit errors are automatically corrected , and , if they occur , multiple-bit errors are at least detected .
The point is of course to keep the server from crashing , or worse , silently corrupting data.Up until about the mid-1990s , most PCs had parity memory , which provides error detection but not correction .
But , in the rush to make things cheaper , computer makers realized that they could shave a few pennies off the cost of a machine by eliminating the parity chips .
By doing so , they made it very easy for bad RAM to cause all sorts of hard-to-diagnose problems .
Unfortunately , non-parity , non-ECC RAM became the standard , and there are very few places you can buy ECC DIMMs off-the-shelf.Socket AM2 + and AM3 boards can easily support ECC RAM , but it 's up to the motherboard maker to enable it .
My recent Asus board for an OpenSolaris box has 4G of ECC memory installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ECC support involves the motherboard RAM itself - each DIMM has extra chips to carry the error-correcting information.
It's mainly used in servers that run 24x7.
Single-bit errors are automatically corrected, and, if they occur, multiple-bit errors are at least detected.
The point is of course to keep the server from crashing, or worse, silently corrupting data.Up until about the mid-1990s, most PCs had parity memory, which provides error detection but not correction.
But, in the rush to make things cheaper, computer makers realized that they could shave a few pennies off the cost of a machine by eliminating the parity chips.
By doing so, they made it very easy for bad RAM to cause all sorts of hard-to-diagnose problems.
Unfortunately, non-parity, non-ECC RAM became the standard, and there are very few places you can buy ECC DIMMs off-the-shelf.Socket AM2+ and AM3 boards can easily support ECC RAM, but it's up to the motherboard maker to enable it.
My recent Asus board for an OpenSolaris box has 4G of ECC memory installed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167530</id>
	<title>Probably better</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1265029920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haven't read TFA but probably better, this dual core crap is slow as hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have n't read TFA but probably better , this dual core crap is slow as hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haven't read TFA but probably better, this dual core crap is slow as hell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167670</id>
	<title>My old work computer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265031360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still using a HP zd7000, a P4 laptop from several years ago as my main PC. The battery has long since died, but it's still perfect for general use with the docking station.</p><p>I've considered plunking down $300 for a modern laptop, but it never seemed to be an issue. This laptop is still "good enough".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still using a HP zd7000 , a P4 laptop from several years ago as my main PC .
The battery has long since died , but it 's still perfect for general use with the docking station.I 've considered plunking down $ 300 for a modern laptop , but it never seemed to be an issue .
This laptop is still " good enough " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still using a HP zd7000, a P4 laptop from several years ago as my main PC.
The battery has long since died, but it's still perfect for general use with the docking station.I've considered plunking down $300 for a modern laptop, but it never seemed to be an issue.
This laptop is still "good enough".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167352</id>
	<title>Re:P4 pride</title>
	<author>muckracer</author>
	<datestamp>1265027700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I'm at work, where I have a P4 winXP machine.<br>&gt; AND I'M PROUD OF IT.</p><p>Well, there is no need to be ashamed of the P4 part...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I 'm at work , where I have a P4 winXP machine. &gt; AND I 'M PROUD OF IT.Well , there is no need to be ashamed of the P4 part.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I'm at work, where I have a P4 winXP machine.&gt; AND I'M PROUD OF IT.Well, there is no need to be ashamed of the P4 part...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31169370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31261122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31176210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31177202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31169010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31172844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31186132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31171536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31207040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31176386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31180822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31169984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31169196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31186892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31170820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31169280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31170578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31171788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31180348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31170322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31173138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31172090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31170894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31171712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31170706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2212220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31173894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2212220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2212220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31169196
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31171712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31176386
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31207040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31173138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31186892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167080
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31169370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31169010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2212220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31169280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31170820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31170894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31186132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31180822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31169984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31170706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2212220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31169758
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2212220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168360
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2212220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31172844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31171536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31173894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2212220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31177202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2212220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31170806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2212220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31171788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31170578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31170322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2212220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31176210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31261122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2212220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2212220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31166972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2212220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31167630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31172090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31180348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2212220.31168832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
