'Angry Buick' is Not Necessarily an Oxymoron
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d3f40/d3f404ef6842291b21e1091adaa157e0a3218225" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cf7b0/cf7b0e9f846b26db4ed13d29832d4d40ddb87380" alt=""
Going nowhere at the speed of light
"From a science perspective, there isn't much talking up of Ageia's PhysX card. Granted, the scientists we talked to hadn't been able to get their hands on that piece of hardware, but their opinions still have weight as they know what is to be expected from it. They know about the mathematical limitations, and know that it won't help them do real physics simulations. But, as we all know, and maybe you're saying it out loud right now: science is not gaming. What really matters in the game is how it performs, and how physics is applied in that specific setting.
What many folks want to see in games is an increase of effects that add realism. For example, debris that actually stays on the ground after an explosion, rather than going away when you leave a scene and later return. Imagine being able to actually destroy walls inside a building until it collapses under its own weight. If you're able to interact with everything in a game as well as just look at it, you're a big step away from effects that just look good and actually heading towards seeing new types of games.
An obvious fact is that physics isn't just lights and mirrors like graphics, where you can accept the illusion that a large square area looks like a realistic wooden wall. You don't want a cloth towel behaving like a wooden board when colliding with something else. Gaming physics that makes things more realistic needs insane amounts of calculations, something a PPU might do quite well in some areas but more inaccurately, whereas the CPU does more correctly but at the cost of speed.
So, what hardware will be best for physics? We still have to wait and see. The optimal solution will probably be some sort of compromise, where a multi-core CPU does the complex calculations, and some kind of hardware (be it the GPU or a PPU) takes care of easier calculations where a larger number of objects is involved. And of course, you wouldn't go wrong having dual graphic cards to render it all on the screen with a decent frame rate.
All in all - hardware accelerated physics has arrived, and will stay in one form or another."
"In the cases above, both defendants had complex domicile arrangements that could be backed up by affidavits and, eventually, testimony. This is an important point, because a number of people have suggested that those engaging in piracy could construct an impenetrable defense for themselves by having an open wireless access point on their property. The thinking is simple: if you have an open WAP, then who's to say it wasn't your neighbor or some vagabond that did the pirating? This argument is specious however, both for the fact that no ruling supporting that argumentation alone has been made as of yet, and because in both instances discussed above, the evidence of multiple computer users in the home was undeniable. One should not expect the same result merely because of an open WAP on the premises. To scare the RIAA away, it takes evidence of multiple computer users in the home, and even then, the special circumstances of both of these cases suggests that the burden of proof would have been significant for the RIAA."From Arstechnica
"World's Fastest RC Car Challenge: Nic Case wins with 160mph run.
Nic showed up with two cars, a LiPo/brushless converted Nitro TC3 that went over 130mph, and a Custom Works 2WD dirt-oval car (also LiPo/BL) that made a run at 160mph, but not without controversy:
The controversy comes from the huge jump in speed. Nic's previous best was a 134.4 with his 4WD car. When he rolled out with his 2WD car, I didn't even know it was a different car (all I saw was a neon orange blur!). When the radar showed a clean 160mph pass, I thought, "no way he found an extra 25mph that easily." But it was, in fact, a whole new car that was a pound lighter than the 4WD car (and may have had more cells as well, I'm still writing the story). I wanted another run to confirm the car was capable of that kind of speed, but the car was broken beyond repair within the remaining time of the event.
Given the aerodynamic forces at play and the power required to go from 134mph to 160mph (the power requirement goes up exponentially, not in direct proportion to speed), I'm afraid that if there is an error we may have a record that will be unapproachable even by the guy who set it! And so, the OFFICIAL record will be set at 134.4. Full credit will be given for the UNofficial record of 160, and we'll tell the whole story in RC Car Action. Next year, we'll use a speed trap to eliminate any chance of radar error."
"World's Fastest RC Car Challenge: Nic Case wins with 160mph run.
Nic showed up with two cars, a LiPo/brushless converted Nitro TC3 that went over 130mph, and a Custom Works 2WD dirt-oval car (also LiPo/BL) that made a run at 160mph, but not without controversy:
The controversy comes from the huge jump in speed. Nic's previous best was a 134.4 with his 4WD car. When he rolled out with his 2WD car, I didn't even know it was a different car (all I saw was a neon orange blur!). When the radar showed a clean 160mph pass, I thought, "no way he found an extra 25mph that easily." But it was, in fact, a whole new car that was a pound lighter than the 4WD car (and may have had more cells as well, I'm still writing the story). I wanted another run to confirm the car was capable of that kind of speed, but the car was broken beyond repair within the remaining time of the event.
Given the aerodynamic forces at play and the power required to go from 134mph to 160mph (the power requirement goes up exponentially, not in direct proportion to speed), I'm afraid that if there is an error we may have a record that will be unapproachable even by the guy who set it! And so, the OFFICIAL record will be set at 134.4. Full credit will be given for the UNofficial record of 160, and we'll tell the whole story in RC Car Action. Next year, we'll use a speed trap to eliminate any chance of radar error."
"We put the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 up against the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 processor. With careful optimization, the performance of an Intel Core 2 Extreme system can be increased by a substantial average of 16.8 percent (though this is where a look at our test applications is required). The Athlon 64 FX-62 only managed a performance jump of less than half that figure, 7.2 percent, with equally careful optimization. When compared head-to-head, the overclocked Core 2 Extreme outperformed its AMD counterpart by nearly 30 percent across the board.
A quick look at the power consumption we measured during our testing also shows that an overclocked Intel system under heavy load requires 29 fewer watts than the AMD unit, while delivering 30 percent more performance. The strengths of the overclocked AMD system showed up at the other end of the usage spectrum under light or idle loads. In that case, the AMD system consumed 29 fewer watts than did the Intel Core 2 Extreme.
We also took a look at our lab engineers' notebooks. Raising the FSB and memory clocks on the Intel system increased memory throughput from 5.7 to 7.3 GB/s. AMD's integrated memory controller enabled memory throughput for the Athlon 64 FX-62 to increase from 9.3 GB/s to a record-breaking value of 10.7 GB/s.
Want an comparison of a more mundane, everyday sort? Try this on for size: the overclocked Intel system compressed an entire 2.5 hour movie on DVD in under 6 minutes! This involved converting from DVD9 to DVD4.7 formats. The real strengths of the Intel Core 2 clearly lie in the video realm: the Intel system converts a 2 hour movie into the well-known DivX format in 93 minutes, whereas the AMD system takes 155, or just more than one hour longer, to complete the same task."