E3 2013

[ark_ader]

A proper Apple fan girl.

[shmokes]

I wouldn't have thought such a thing was possible. And yet . . .

[marioxb]

Soo... about those other things at E3 that don't say Apple.. Last I checked, E3 was about video games and hot chicks (mostly). I've been there like 3 or 4 times and (last time in 2000) I only drool over the booth babes and new console games/ systems.

[Le Chuck]

You lost all credibility about what features are important when you said that its ok to have a mac without touchscreen support, because macOS is does not to take advantage of a touchscreen, but somehow on windows, it is uber important . . . . You just voiced displeasure because they were not in the same "class" Just like any modern apple shill, you care about how you look holding the device more than what you can do with the device.

Christ . . . lmao. Vigo, this can't be that hard for you to understand. The touchscreen matters in Windows 8 because it is one of the, if not THE, main reasons that I prefer Windows 8 to Windows 7 or MacOS. Mother of god, exactly what I said about not caring about a Mac not having a Touchscreen applies to a Windows 7 laptop. You see that. It DOESN'T MATTER if those computers have touch screens. But the reason it matters with Windows 8 is that Windows 8 is no longer more desirable than those other OSes when you nullify that feature. Does this honestly not make sense to you? Like . . . I think my position here is super reasonable and I think that you are either being obstinate are actually aren't fully understanding me.

Not to mention that I'm having a slightly hard time buying your charge of me being an Apple shill when my entire complaint resolves around me preferring Windows 8. Shrug.

As for your article . . . I didn't read the whole thing. I skimmed. I got that it's apparently not for overclockers (doesn't affect me) and, like, the conclusion:

It’s also very important to remember that Haswell is a much more advanced chip than Ivy Bridge. In terms of transistor counts, disregarding any changes to the GPU, a quad-core Haswell CPU has roughly 200 million more transistors than a quad-core Ivy Bridge CPU (1.4 billion vs. 1.2 billion). A lot of these transistors were spent on increasing the chip’s IPC (instructions-per-clock) by adding more execution resources and beefing up out-of-order execution (OoOE) capabilities, but most of them are dedicated to brand new features such as AVX2, FMA3, and TSX. These are very powerful features, but for the most part they only boost performance when software  has been specifically written/compiled to take advantage of them. Today, we are merely seeing the ~10% speed-up provided by Haswell’s reworked execution core; tomorrow, when software uses AVX2, FMA3, and TSX, the speed-up could be 25% or more.

In this light, Haswell is a monster of a chip. Intel has produced a chip that decimates power usage on the low end — which, let’s be honest, is the market that Intel is really interested in — and yet will also provide a huge speed-up for power users once software and compilers are updated. It’s easy to be disappointed by Haswell’s performance on paper, but remember: There really is no other chip out there, especially from AMD, that comes anywhere close. Still, between the death of overclocking, Intel’s focus on mobile, and the shift to soldered-on chips, it’s clear that the writing is on the wall for desktop PC power users. [edit: emphasis mine]

So . . . yeah . . . pretty sure your article says Haswell is ---smurfing--- awesome.

Repped for using the word obstinate

[ark_ader]

You lost all credibility about what features are important when you said that its ok to have a mac without touchscreen support, because macOS is does not to take advantage of a touchscreen, but somehow on windows, it is uber important . . . . You just voiced displeasure because they were not in the same "class" Just like any modern apple shill, you care about how you look holding the device more than what you can do with the device.

Christ . . . lmao. Vigo, this can't be that hard for you to understand. The touchscreen matters in Windows 8 because it is one of the, if not THE, main reasons that I prefer Windows 8 to Windows 7 or MacOS. Mother of god, exactly what I said about not caring about a Mac not having a Touchscreen applies to a Windows 7 laptop. You see that. It DOESN'T MATTER if those computers have touch screens. But the reason it matters with Windows 8 is that Windows 8 is no longer more desirable than those other OSes when you nullify that feature. Does this honestly not make sense to you? Like . . . I think my position here is super reasonable and I think that you are either being obstinate are actually aren't fully understanding me.

Not to mention that I'm having a slightly hard time buying your charge of me being an Apple shill when my entire complaint resolves around me preferring Windows 8. Shrug.

As for your article . . . I didn't read the whole thing. I skimmed. I got that it's apparently not for overclockers (doesn't affect me) and, like, the conclusion:

It’s also very important to remember that Haswell is a much more advanced chip than Ivy Bridge. In terms of transistor counts, disregarding any changes to the GPU, a quad-core Haswell CPU has roughly 200 million more transistors than a quad-core Ivy Bridge CPU (1.4 billion vs. 1.2 billion). A lot of these transistors were spent on increasing the chip’s IPC (instructions-per-clock) by adding more execution resources and beefing up out-of-order execution (OoOE) capabilities, but most of them are dedicated to brand new features such as AVX2, FMA3, and TSX. These are very powerful features, but for the most part they only boost performance when software  has been specifically written/compiled to take advantage of them. Today, we are merely seeing the ~10% speed-up provided by Haswell’s reworked execution core; tomorrow, when software uses AVX2, FMA3, and TSX, the speed-up could be 25% or more.

In this light, Haswell is a monster of a chip. Intel has produced a chip that decimates power usage on the low end — which, let’s be honest, is the market that Intel is really interested in — and yet will also provide a huge speed-up for power users once software and compilers are updated. It’s easy to be disappointed by Haswell’s performance on paper, but remember: There really is no other chip out there, especially from AMD, that comes anywhere close. Still, between the death of overclocking, Intel’s focus on mobile, and the shift to soldered-on chips, it’s clear that the writing is on the wall for desktop PC power users. [edit: emphasis mine]

So . . . yeah . . . pretty sure your article says Haswell is ---smurfing--- awesome.

Repped for using the word obstinate

What about my pic?  It's worth at least two reps!