Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | llomlup's commentslogin

Location: Europe Remote: Yes Willing to relocate: No Technologies: Go, Python, .NET, APIs, full-stack Résumé/CV: Email: jambandic @ gmail dot com

I'm a senior Go consultant, having 5+ years of Go experience and over 15 overall.


From the article: > Apple boss Tim Cook blamed a "pause" as customers wait for the next iPhone.


Which means the iPhone 7 wasn't enticing enough to lure people to buy it


Are you, primarily, a developer? Did you find enough scenarios where i7-6950X feels justified, aside from rendering, encoding where this CPU really shines? What does the rest of the setup look like?

Thanks!


Finally, multicore for the masses. A 6C12T based workstation is also a sweet spot for development work.


Multicore has been 'for the masses' for a decade or more by now, even in mobile phones. What is different here than with other chips made by Intel or AMD that makes you say that?


Intel's offerings with more than 4 cores have been segregated into an "enthusiast"/HEDT platform (X99) with more expensive mainboards and the CPUs have been overpriced too.

Ryzen is reasonably priced & has one socket for the 4, 8 and 6 core CPUs.


4 cores still is multicore though.

But ok, I see what you mean: anything with more than 4 cores that is affordable.


If anything Intel quad-cores have been regressing in the market over the past few years. The quad-cores have gotten more expensive (in laptops), and Intel has started naming dual-core chips "Core i7", as another trick to charge almost the same prices it charges for quad-cores.


Intel has been putting die space into integrated graphics instead of more cores. Higher core machines have been available only at very high prices.


Which has been a bad move in the desktop market. Who want's to pay for integrated graphics when they are just going to put one or more discreet GPUs in their system?

The only reason LGA 1151 has been so successful is that most of the market consists of "gamers" who are convinced that they need higher clock speed and IPC.

AM4 should only be compared to LGA 2011v3, which has a very inflated price.


Intel's multicore CPUs (hexa-core and octa-core chips) have been available for for Intel's socket B/R systems, which are the HEDT grade. These systems came with a price premium, which isn't exactly the case for R5 and even R7 builds.


Currently my home 'workstation' is running a x5670@4Ghz, a 6C12T Westmere xeon from 2010, but it still competitive and can be bought for peanuts today (bought mine for 70£). Its base clock is 2.95Ghz, but it easily overclocks to 4Ghz and beyond.


I wonder how much more you pay in electricity costs over a Kaby Lake 7700K for example, which idles much lower and wouldn’t need to overclock.


I'm sure that KL consumes significantly less in practice, especially idle, but for what is worth they are 91W vs 95W TDP.

Anyway, the machine runs an, admittedly overkill, GTX 1070 with a TDP of 150W, so the CPU power usage is the least concern.


Since TDP is not power consumption, the GTX 1070 will most likely consume less power than your CPU because it has much better power saving features.

Also, since CPU's are idle more of the time than under load the savings by using a newer CPU like Kaby Lake or Ryzen could be interesting. There is also the motherboard. Newer boards consume less power because the chips are on a smaller node.

But I guess the money you saved on buying the CPU will outweigh the electricity costs even in countries where electricity is expensive.


> But I guess the money you saved on buying the CPU will outweigh the electricity costs even in countries where electricity is expensive.

Unless he's running 24/7 and paying way too much, yeah, by a large margin. Even these older Xeons weren't that bad at energy saving.


To be honest the machine is turned off most of the time, as I have very little time to play with it.


But the overclock is going to affect actual draw. Not sure by how much... possibly a lot.


Isn't the issue with these old Intel CPUs not the CPUs but the motherboards, which can retail for 2-300 as their supplies dwindle.


Yes, it is the motherboard.

Get a second hand workstation on ebay, don't get individual components.


It might be an issue, but I still got mine (a Gigabyte x58A-UD3) for 140£. I was specifically looking for a MB with decent overclocking support and working VT-d, which limits the choice. You can get entry level x58 Intel MBs for much less (overclocking these xeons only requires bumping the BCKL to 200Mhz and maybe bumping the core voltage a bit, nothing fancy). The RAM is also still fairly cheap.

If you care more about core counts than single thread clock you can find used x58 dual socket workstation MBs which also have support for large amounts of server ECC ram which is very cheap.


R7 1700 is even more of a sweet spot for development though


Especially at 65 watts. That's incredible.


Not 65 watts if you overclock to 4 GHz :D


First, while it's a noble goal, to save the world requires a position of power. So, your goal is to obtain some power. The problem with power is that it corrupts, and it may happen that once you yield significant amount of power, you may not want to use it as you may have originally intended to, because it might be too risky and as a result, you could lose it.

Second - thus, your goal now is to maintain the achieved level of power and look for ways to enlarge it.

Keep in mind that many people don't really care about the good in the world, let alone saving it. Their perspective is a personal one, I'd say even a selfish one.


Mr. Ha


Here's the live event starting in an hour: http://livestream.com/breakthroughprize/starshot


Quite unreal.


Yeah, it's absolutely an amazing thing to watch.


Watching the webcast feels like being at some blockbuster movie premiere. There's a largish crowd following the launch and applauding on every launch stage completion. Not that it's a bad thing per se, it's rather the opposite, it however, feels quite weird and staged as opposed to launches done by ESA, Roscosmos or even NASA.


Pretty sure the large crowd are the people who built the rocket, which somehow makes it okay in my book.


There is the technical webcast in complete silence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh8V0COrrzE


The NASA people seemed pretty happy when Curiosity landed on Mars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svUJdzMHwmM&t=3m10s


I cried like a baby that night. I wish my son had been a bit older to be able to stay up and have watched it with me.


That was a memorable night. I remember feeling like I was going to pay for it in the morning, but it was worth every bit.


I'm curious why it feels "staged" to you? Are you that uncomfortable with expressions of genuine enthusiasm?


They might not show it but surely the people working at ESA, Roscomos and NASA are excited and celebrating successful launches as well.


Of course they do, why wouldn't they? The way they're doing it, seems more spontaneous.


ESA and Roscosmos launches are fairly sedate (almost fell asleep watching an Ariane 5 launch), but since the beginning launches managed by NASA have been pretty heavy with theatrics. Someone else mentioned JPL/Curiosity, which is one good example. Let's also not forget the massive cheering crowds at every Shuttle launch: https://youtu.be/OnoNITE-CLc?t=1m24s

The SpaceX hype is just a logical continuation of that, IMO.


It's probably propaganda, but I might be okay with progress propaganda.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: