2009年10月14日 星期三
中文期刊篇目索影像系統---數位生活
- 鄭仁傑 行動數位生活技術研發計畫成果與展望=Mobile Digital Life Technology Program 電腦與通訊 128 2009.06[民98.06] 頁19-24
- 陳昌勇 ; 梁隆星 我國推動無線寬頻與數位生活之成果與展望 工程 81:4 2008.08[民97.08] 頁12-17
引用自:國家圖書館
2009年9月16日 星期三
SSD
1.
等不及想要用大容量的 SSD 取代現有的硬碟了嗎？那麼請看看 Intel 最新推出，以 34 奈米製程製作的 Postville 系列吧。早在一月份的時候就傳出 Intel 正努力研發大容量 SSD 的風聲，而現在這個風聲目前似乎已經成真。根據德國 Golum 的報導，Intel 最新的 Postville 系列 SSD，不僅大幅提昇容量到 320GB，每單位價格也比先前推出的產品便宜許多。以市價來看，新系列 80GB 及 160GB 容量的產品，售價至少都比前一代的 X25-M 系列便宜 100 美元( 約新台幣 3,300 元 )之多。而 320GB 的產品目前市價未明，不過以 160GB 要價 384 歐元來看，320GB 的價格應該會落在 760 歐元上下( 約新台幣 35,205 元 )。
2.OCZ 全新固態硬碟 Agility 系列
OCZ 推出全新的 SATA II 2.5吋 固態硬碟系列 - Agility 系列。Agility 系列定位在 Vertex 系列與 Apex 系列之間，在提供 Apex 系列等級的讀寫速度外，加入了 Vertex 系列的 64MB 記憶體。讀寫速度提升至 230MB/sec 及 135MB/sec，而且備有 64MB 作緩衝，而OCZ 將提供兩年的保固時間。價格分別是 30GB USD$129.99（約台幣4千3）、60GB USD$219.99（約7千2出頭） 及 120GB USD$349.99（約台幣1萬2）。
3.WD用6500萬鎂買下SiliconSystems
SiliconSystems是一家專門製造Flash解決方案的公司，其中所出的SSD - SiliconDrive，更是在美國被廣泛使用，大多是用在企業與工業用途，因此在消費端可說幾乎沒知名度，不過，說SiliconSystems是一家專作SSD的公司也不為過。日前，SiliconSystems被WD以6500萬美元收購。用意很明顯，WD一直在SSD方面相當低調，可以說是幾乎沒有動作，這次一舉買下SiliconSystems，看中的就是他們在SSD多項的專利與技術。不過，要看到有WD logo的SSD可能還沒那麼快，至少，對我們來說，算是個好消息就是了。（謎之聲
等不及想要用大容量的 SSD 取代現有的硬碟了嗎？那麼請看看 Intel 最新推出，以 34 奈米製程製作的 Postville 系列吧。早在一月份的時候就傳出 Intel 正努力研發大容量 SSD 的風聲，而現在這個風聲目前似乎已經成真。根據德國 Golum 的報導，Intel 最新的 Postville 系列 SSD，不僅大幅提昇容量到 320GB，每單位價格也比先前推出的產品便宜許多。以市價來看，新系列 80GB 及 160GB 容量的產品，售價至少都比前一代的 X25-M 系列便宜 100 美元( 約新台幣 3,300 元 )之多。而 320GB 的產品目前市價未明，不過以 160GB 要價 384 歐元來看，320GB 的價格應該會落在 760 歐元上下( 約新台幣 35,205 元 )。
2.OCZ 全新固態硬碟 Agility 系列
OCZ 推出全新的 SATA II 2.5吋 固態硬碟系列 - Agility 系列。Agility 系列定位在 Vertex 系列與 Apex 系列之間，在提供 Apex 系列等級的讀寫速度外，加入了 Vertex 系列的 64MB 記憶體。讀寫速度提升至 230MB/sec 及 135MB/sec，而且備有 64MB 作緩衝，而OCZ 將提供兩年的保固時間。價格分別是 30GB USD$129.99（約台幣4千3）、60GB USD$219.99（約7千2出頭） 及 120GB USD$349.99（約台幣1萬2）。
3.WD用6500萬鎂買下SiliconSystems
SiliconSystems是一家專門製造Flash解決方案的公司，其中所出的SSD - SiliconDrive，更是在美國被廣泛使用，大多是用在企業與工業用途，因此在消費端可說幾乎沒知名度，不過，說SiliconSystems是一家專作SSD的公司也不為過。日前，SiliconSystems被WD以6500萬美元收購。用意很明顯，WD一直在SSD方面相當低調，可以說是幾乎沒有動作，這次一舉買下SiliconSystems，看中的就是他們在SSD多項的專利與技術。不過，要看到有WD logo的SSD可能還沒那麼快，至少，對我們來說，算是個好消息就是了。（謎之聲
cpu
CPU scaling in games with quad-core processors
The core truth ...
Each year the topic of CPU scaling comes to mind in relation to gaming. Especially when we see new processors enter the market time after time I ask myself again; how much influence do these new model processors actually have? There have been some dramatic changes over the past couple of years though as processor manufacturers have hit a hard brick wall. That wall being the incremental increase of the clock frequency, or moreover ... the lack of it. Somehow everything stops at 3200 MHz in the processor R&D segment and for years now the fastest clocked processors never have exceeded that magic number. Surely we overclock much higher and new records have been set at 4 and with LN2 sub-zero temperature cooling reaching 5 GHz, for us 'regular' consumers we stick at that 3.2 GHz frequency border.
Apparently it's difficult to get the hundreds of millions transistors clocked higher. Therefore in an attempt to divert that fundamental issue, a couple of years ago we saw the introduction of multi-core processors. See, it's way more easy to shrink the die-size of a processor than to get it faster clocked. Shrinking die's makes more room for other stuff. Moore's Law ceased to exist and became Moores laws (e.g. multiple). Multi-threaded computing was introduced. The problem to date however is simple .. right down to the source all software was never developed with multiple processor cores in mind, and though we see some applications being supported better, the one type of application you guys like the most, games, are very much hindered by this fact. 80% of the games currently available will only use one logical CPU core at best, perhaps add another 18% that finally does support two cores, and the remaining 2% uses multiple cores, ideally. These numbers do change when you look at the games released over the past 12 months though.
None-the-less the past year has been an interesting one, we've seen a strong development in gaming with multi-core CPU's, AMD released the B3 stepping of its Phenom quad-core and triple core processors while Intel is steadily shifting towards it's Penryn based 45nm processors. Two, three, four even 8 logical processor cores is now a viable option in the consumer market. Prices for an entry level quad core processor hover at 200-300 USD in the mainstream segment. Everybody is jumping the multi-core bandwagon, but guys ... quite honestly, the most value is still to be found in the mid-range dual-core processors.
We figured it's be a good idea to have a look at the performance of your average Core 2 Duo dual-core processor, and then take a handful of quad-core processors, throw them at a high-end specced graphics card and see what processor and platform really will:
a) bring the most valueb) be the fastest
We'll test the following processors:
AMD Athlon X2 4850E
AMD Phenom X3 8750
AMD Phenom X4 9450
AMD Phenom X4 9850
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400
Intel Core 2 Duo X6800 Extreme
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6850
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450
Intel Core 2 Quad QX9770
So from top to bottom that's a decent set of processors. Now we'll take 2 GB of memory and lock it at 1066 MHz and equal timings on both the AMD and Intel platform. Take Windows Vista 32-bit with SP1 installed, pop in a GeForce 8800 Ultra and use the following applications:
World in Conflict
Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. - Shadow of Chernobyl
F.E.A.R.
Quake Wars: Enemy territory
Call of Duty 4
Crysis
3DMark Vantage
The results ... well you'll find them to be quite interesting. This article is not so much a shootout of graphics cards. No, to the contrary it has been made with one thing in mind: To observe the effect of the faster multi-core processors on a modern graphics card. We'll dive immediately into the benchmarks. First up the test systems used and then we'll start off with contestant number one.
The core truth ...
Each year the topic of CPU scaling comes to mind in relation to gaming. Especially when we see new processors enter the market time after time I ask myself again; how much influence do these new model processors actually have? There have been some dramatic changes over the past couple of years though as processor manufacturers have hit a hard brick wall. That wall being the incremental increase of the clock frequency, or moreover ... the lack of it. Somehow everything stops at 3200 MHz in the processor R&D segment and for years now the fastest clocked processors never have exceeded that magic number. Surely we overclock much higher and new records have been set at 4 and with LN2 sub-zero temperature cooling reaching 5 GHz, for us 'regular' consumers we stick at that 3.2 GHz frequency border.
Apparently it's difficult to get the hundreds of millions transistors clocked higher. Therefore in an attempt to divert that fundamental issue, a couple of years ago we saw the introduction of multi-core processors. See, it's way more easy to shrink the die-size of a processor than to get it faster clocked. Shrinking die's makes more room for other stuff. Moore's Law ceased to exist and became Moores laws (e.g. multiple). Multi-threaded computing was introduced. The problem to date however is simple .. right down to the source all software was never developed with multiple processor cores in mind, and though we see some applications being supported better, the one type of application you guys like the most, games, are very much hindered by this fact. 80% of the games currently available will only use one logical CPU core at best, perhaps add another 18% that finally does support two cores, and the remaining 2% uses multiple cores, ideally. These numbers do change when you look at the games released over the past 12 months though.
None-the-less the past year has been an interesting one, we've seen a strong development in gaming with multi-core CPU's, AMD released the B3 stepping of its Phenom quad-core and triple core processors while Intel is steadily shifting towards it's Penryn based 45nm processors. Two, three, four even 8 logical processor cores is now a viable option in the consumer market. Prices for an entry level quad core processor hover at 200-300 USD in the mainstream segment. Everybody is jumping the multi-core bandwagon, but guys ... quite honestly, the most value is still to be found in the mid-range dual-core processors.
We figured it's be a good idea to have a look at the performance of your average Core 2 Duo dual-core processor, and then take a handful of quad-core processors, throw them at a high-end specced graphics card and see what processor and platform really will:
a) bring the most valueb) be the fastest
We'll test the following processors:
AMD Athlon X2 4850E
AMD Phenom X3 8750
AMD Phenom X4 9450
AMD Phenom X4 9850
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400
Intel Core 2 Duo X6800 Extreme
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6850
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450
Intel Core 2 Quad QX9770
So from top to bottom that's a decent set of processors. Now we'll take 2 GB of memory and lock it at 1066 MHz and equal timings on both the AMD and Intel platform. Take Windows Vista 32-bit with SP1 installed, pop in a GeForce 8800 Ultra and use the following applications:
World in Conflict
Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. - Shadow of Chernobyl
F.E.A.R.
Quake Wars: Enemy territory
Call of Duty 4
Crysis
3DMark Vantage
The results ... well you'll find them to be quite interesting. This article is not so much a shootout of graphics cards. No, to the contrary it has been made with one thing in mind: To observe the effect of the faster multi-core processors on a modern graphics card. We'll dive immediately into the benchmarks. First up the test systems used and then we'll start off with contestant number one.
2009年9月9日 星期三
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)