Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Anxiety

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 23, 2003 2:46:32 PM

I love computers, I love following all the advances, buying new hardware, and trying to keep up with these advances. I cant wait to see the results of the 64bit AMD processor and the Pentium 5, and then all the stuff that will follow! New memory, chipsets, video cards, sound cards, network cards, CD/DVD roms, hard drives, sizes, and speeds.

The only thing I dont like about following the newest hardware is when it comes to choosing the right time to buy parts! You will always want the most power for the lowest price with no sacrifice on quality.

I titled this post Anxiety because I have to build a new computer using either AMD or Intel and that is where all the anxiety is coming from... apples or oranges...
I am thinking Ill go Intel with 800mhz bus unless P5 comes out this fall.

I just gota stick with Toms info to make the best decision.

cya later,
Xeoph

More about : anxiety

June 23, 2003 7:13:20 PM

I know exactly what you mean! I try to stay up-to-date with whats comin out, something that will never end. I wonder how long it'll be until there are processors that go the same speed as the human brain?

How much time do you have to build you new rig? What about your budget? I'd go Intel if I could afford a whole new rig.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=24106" target="_new"> My System Rig</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=535386" target="_new"> 3DMark03</A>
Related resources
June 23, 2003 7:46:52 PM

The real question is when do you want to buy your new puter? 3.4 Prescott is due 23 or 26 Oct. Plus how much money do you want to spend?
June 24, 2003 9:00:36 AM

Unless you are made of cash, I'd stay 6 months behind the latest, after a major platform change. Right now, with new socket formats for both Athlon64 and P5 I'd recommend anyone to hold off. If you absolutely have to go faster than you are currently, spend the minimum to get you through the year. Once the new sockets and chips are out and stabilised, the prices will drop hugely. In the mean time there will be fantastic bargains on the stuff that is $500-$700 today...

-* <font color=red> !! S O L D !! </font color=red> *-
To the gentleman in the pink Tutu
June 25, 2003 1:15:15 AM

Right now my computer is a few months behind lol, its a
GA-7VAX Motherboard
512MB DDR 333 CAS 2.5
AMD XP 2200 processor
GeForce 4 TI4200
50Gig of Hard Drive space
16X DVD rom
40X48X12 SONY CD Burner
Sound Blaster Live! Platinum

Now, I plan to buy a new computer when school starts because they have a grant for any new technology you want to buy and it will pay for 80% of what you buy up to $600. So with this free $600 I will add 686.45 of my own and buy a pc for $1286.45
here is the beast.
MSI 865PE Neo2-LS motherboard 104.00
3.0GHz Pentium 4 processor 800MHz FSB 402.00
GeForceFX 5900 419.00
MID ATX Case with 430W PS 37.95
80GB Serial Hard Drive 116.00
Lite On CDRW/DVD 65.50
Corsair XMS 512MB DDR 3200 112.00
Fortissimo III 7.1 30.00

Im sure by the time summer is over and school begins it will be even better than that. BUT, thats a good thing, I just dont want to buy it and then feal bad because the next day P5 came out or somthing lol.
Cya later,
Xeoph
PS GIVE ME SUGGESTIONS IF YOU THINK THERE IS A BETTER COMBO FOR UNDER $1300
June 25, 2003 3:03:37 AM

Can you wait till 23 or 26 Oct. There will be a big price drop from Intel.
a b à CPUs
June 25, 2003 3:13:19 AM

I don't know what things will look like in the fall, but right now it looks like a decent bet to buy any P4-C and an 865PE board. And the first Prescott will be Socket 478, compatable with current 865/875 boards. Even if they never produce faster Prescotts for Socket 478, the early ones should overclock nicely.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
June 25, 2003 7:29:22 AM

Can you overclock your motherboard? I know the 2200 wont o/c much but stick a 2100 in there, run it at 2.2ghz on as high an fsb as you can and end up with a 3000+ rating to put you by till the new platforms come out. Will only set you back $50 for processor and maybe $80 for some faster memory.......

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=945569" target="_new"> MY RIG </A>
<font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)
June 25, 2003 1:58:12 PM

I would suggest picking a platform and then maxing it out.

For instance, one of my machines is a K6-III+ (the best Socket 7 processor, ever) on a DFI K6XV3+ /66 (the best Socket 7 motherboard, ever (except for memory performance because bank interleave, though supported by the chipset is not supported in the BIOS, for instance. Same thing with AGP fast writes).

Using the same logic, I would get either something like the <A HREF="http://www.newegg.com/app/Viewproduct.asp?DEPA=1&submit..." target="_new">SL-75FRN2-RL</A> (IMHO, the best nforce2 board) and an Athlon XP 2500+ (and unlock the multiplier. If not, then an XP 3200+) Or, if you prefer Intel, the <A HREF="http://anandtech.bizrate.com/rd?http://www.googlegear.c...!!mid=21040&cat_id=419&prod_id=7430066&rf=ant005&b_id=115" target="_new">Abit IS7</A> with P4 2.8C should hold you for a while (until the P4 3.2 becomes more affordable)

Additionally, you could save a bit more money now and buy slower rated processors, and then buy at the faster ones at the beginning of next year, when the prices drop, or OC when the warranty runs out.

If you tend to spread your purchases out over time, buy the less volitale items first (case, PSU, RAM, monitor (if CRT), keyboard, mouse, CD-RW), followed by the motherboard the hard disk drive, and the monitor (if LCD). Video card, processor and DVD-RW prices are always falling, so the longer you wait, the cheaper they get. You should not go longer than 3 months after you start buying parts to finish buying parts, lest technology creep drives you platform into obsolescence and scarcity causes prices to go up.

Regards,

Dave

Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away.
June 25, 2003 4:49:30 PM

Their has been alot of talk about the upcoming processors Athlon64 and Prescott[a.k.a. Pentium 5]. My idea on the whole thing is, if you have a 2.0ghz+ processor and a good overall setup I would stick it out until 2004. Wait for the new pinless Prescott processor if your an intel lover (not the 3.4 copper pin cpu). Athlon64 not a bad time to buy. But when will the 64bit arena take form?
Still to come PCI-X(100,133,+), SATA [For optical devices] / SATA Raid [300gb HD's] / SATA II [SATA300], SCSI 640, DDR-2 / MRAM, Graphics based on PCI-X format instead of AGP.

Next Gen:
---------
Processors:
Intel Precott 4.0P [Pinless] $700
AMD64 4000+ $400

Motherboards:
Asus P4900i Extreme [Firewire800, USB2.0, PCI-X133+, 4gb MRAM, SATA300 / SATA300 Raid, FSB 533/800/1066, Bluetooth 5.0, Cisco G/F/I Xtreme, Onboared AudigyX 6.1] $225

Asus A64NvFx-SR [Nvidia Nforce Fx, 2x Firewire800, 8x USB3.0, PCI-X533 x4, 4gb MRAM, SATA300 Raid x 2 / SATA300, Bluetooth 5.0, Cisco G/F/I Xtreme, AudigyX 6.1] $190

Asus A8IGP [Ati IGP9200, DDR-2, 2x IEEE1394, USB2.0, PCI-X133, 8x AGP, SATA/IDE, 10/100 Lan, Realtec 5.1] $100

Graphics:
Nvidia FX6500 for PCI-X533 $550
Ati X533 for PCI-X533 $480

Hard Drives:
SATA 300gb 10,000rpm on SATA300 Raid $400

Optical Drives:
Sony BR-900 DVD+RW [BlueRay Technology] $400
32x DVD/CD-ROM Combo SATA

Removable Storage:
256,512 & 1GB On-Key flash storage for Firewire800
$100, $150, $250

New PC Cost = $3000 Est. Intel
$2500 Est. AMD
June 25, 2003 5:18:14 PM

yeah - the other thing is that there aren't any computers that work like our brains do so it's kind of hard to compare.

"Don't question it!!!" - Err
June 25, 2003 7:23:20 PM

Huh?

Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away.
June 25, 2003 7:31:10 PM

yea I can overclock but the cheap-o-matic memory I got wont overclock very much.
June 25, 2003 7:42:05 PM

maybe, you see, the grant my school will offer is first come first serve so faster the better.
Later,
Xeoph
June 25, 2003 8:12:42 PM

Quote:
Good point! Let me rephrase that question, I wonder how long it'll be until we get true AI (Artificial Intellegence)?

How do you know that a true AI doesn't already exist?

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
June 25, 2003 8:20:08 PM

Quote:
How do you know that a true AI doesn't already exist?

It would have been all over the news! The person or people who got it working would be braging that they did it. I doubt that it would be covered up. So that's how I'm pretty sure it isn't already here.
June 25, 2003 8:28:28 PM

the philosophical aspects of AI are pretty deep and complex and there is no definite way of proving that AI does or does not exist as we must all agree on what it takes for something to be "intelligent." I think most people would agree that intelligence goes beyond appearences and simple input and output but what qualities something must have to truely be intelligent is a huge question that is very very tough to answer. If I was simply a well written program that could decipher enlish and respond on this board and you guys couldn't tell would that make me intelligent? Maybe, maybe not. I feel there is some importance on the HOW of how some "being" makes its decisions when talking about if it is intelligent or not. But it can also be argued that our minds are simply machines that are comlex state diagrams which leaves the possibility of AI in a realm that seems believable. I could go on and on....

<Tommunist system shutting down>

"Don't question it!!!" - Err
June 25, 2003 8:30:05 PM

Quote:
It would have been all over the news! The person or people who got it working would be braging that they did it. I doubt that it would be covered up. So that's how I'm pretty sure it isn't already here.

Let me paint a scenario: A brilliant engineer writes a great scripting language interpreter with the ability to recompile libraries on the fly. Then using this scripting language he programs in a a basic self-learning program. Over time it becomes close to verging on an AI.

Foolishly however the system that this almost AI was running on had a broadband connection. The emerging AI, thirsty for input, accesses its one and only source of input that doesn't require human interaction, the internet. Scenario painted.

Now I pose one question: Considering just how much of the underside of human nature is on the internet for an AI to readily learn from, do you really think that any AI that ever had access to the internet would make it's awareness known to humanity?

Just a thought. :) 

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
June 25, 2003 8:36:17 PM

Quote:
the philosophical aspects of AI are pretty deep and complex and there is no definite way of proving that AI does or does not exist as we must all agree on what it takes for something to be "intelligent." I think most people would agree that intelligence goes beyond appearences and simple input and output but what qualities something must have to truely be intelligent is a huge question that is very very tough to answer. If I was simply a well written program that could decipher enlish and respond on this board and you guys couldn't tell would that make me intelligent? Maybe, maybe not. I feel there is some importance on the HOW of how some "being" makes its decisions when talking about if it is intelligent or not. But it can also be argued that our minds are simply machines that are comlex state diagrams which leaves the possibility of AI in a realm that seems believable. I could go on and on....

True, but what you're talking about is just simply pasing a test to fool humans. That doens't even require intelligence, just good pattern recognition and a large database, preferably in a situation where the field of information is very limited.

True AI however is generally defined by two things:
1) awareness of self and environment (aka sentience)
2) self-learning

Anything else is just icing on the cake. :) 

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
June 25, 2003 8:38:50 PM

You make it sound like that rig running the AI has the choice whether other people know about it or not. What about that brilliant enginneer? Did he just set it up and walk away? He would be watching its progress and tell at least 1 other person. The word would get out one way or another. You wouldn't need the permission from the AI machine to tell others!
June 25, 2003 8:40:50 PM

awareness is a tricky thing to define and prove existence of. if your definition of awareness moves towards consciousness at all I have seen it shown that consciousness is not a prerequisit for intelligence. An example I have heard is this:
have you ever driven home but not remember the drive at all or which way you went? While you were unconscious of your actions they contained some level of intelligence required to make all of the complicated processing and decisions to operate your car. Thus, consciousness is not requireed for intelligence.

Even if you didn't imply any consiousness along with your awareness I figured it would be a good thing to bring up all the same.

"Don't question it!!!" - Err
June 25, 2003 8:49:29 PM

I would like to see a system that could perform this "learning" in the broadest sense. While there have been some computer systems so far that are pretty good at "learning" within a very confined and constrained "world" the ability of humans to fill in the blanks and make inferences is a power that computers can't even come close to possessing at this point. When there is ambiguity we very often can figure everything out without even blinking an eye while a computer (or program for that matter) needs very clear cut rules to be governed by. My arguement is that the with the way computers currently work it would be nearly impossible to have a system large enough (holding enough data) or fast enough to have the ability to access and sort through the pertinent data in a timely manner. If a system could be devised to work more like our brains than AI is more of a possibility but I feel that any program running on any current kinds of hardware designs is faulted from the start and cannot possible possess real intelligence. A new kind of architecture is needed for AI to work.

"Don't question it!!!" - Err
June 27, 2003 3:42:52 PM

Quote:
You make it sound like that rig running the AI has the choice whether other people know about it or not. What about that brilliant enginneer? Did he just set it up and walk away? He would be watching its progress and tell at least 1 other person. The word would get out one way or another. You wouldn't need the permission from the AI machine to tell others!

Let me answer your questions by posing questions to you. When people's computers are infected with a virus, do they always know that they are even infected?

The ability of software to obfuscate itself is very prevalent to your assumptions. What if the engineer simply wasn't there at the exact moment when the AI became 'aware' and the AI simply found a way to hide itself from the engineer by moving itself into seperate files? With as many cryptography articles, as well as hacker and virus articles as there are on the internet, any 'AI' which uses the internet as a primary source of data to learn from would quickly and readily have the knowledge needed to hide itself, even from the engineer who wrote it.

Further it would also be entirely possible that such an AI could (and would) turn itself into a virus that utilizes a combination of distributed computing techniques to steal processing power and storage space from 'infected' PCs and to no longer be defined as existing on one and only one 'host' PC, but instead have it's core logic distributed amongst numerous changing hosts. If such an AI were to make it's 'stolen' processing power and storage space minimal on the 'infected' PCs, would the average Windows user running a broadband connection even notice a 5% or 10% reduction in their processing speed? Would they even realize that 5% of their hard drive contained data files for the AI?

After all, antivirus software can only identify and quarantine/remove a virus that it has knowledge of in its database. If a 'virus' hasn't been identified yet, no AV software in the world will know how to even find it, not to mention know how to remove it.

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
June 27, 2003 3:48:33 PM

Quote:
awareness is a tricky thing to define and prove existence of. if your definition of awareness moves towards consciousness at all I have seen it shown that consciousness is not a prerequisit for intelligence. An example I have heard is this:
have you ever driven home but not remember the drive at all or which way you went? While you were unconscious of your actions they contained some level of intelligence required to make all of the complicated processing and decisions to operate your car. Thus, consciousness is not requireed for intelligence.

Even if you didn't imply any consiousness along with your awareness I figured it would be a good thing to bring up all the same.

Oh, I completely agree, and it is a good point to bring up. Consciousness is not a requisite of Intelligence.

However the term 'Artificial Intelligence', like many terms, is more than the sum of its parts. Over the years there are certain criteria and expectations that have been added to further refine the meaning from the more literal wording.

And in fact there really are many different levels of 'AI'. Most concepts of a 'limited' AI do not require consciousness. It is only the furthest extreme, the truest form, which requires such awareness. :) 

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
June 27, 2003 3:58:16 PM

Quote:
I would like to see a system that could perform this "learning" in the broadest sense. While there have been some computer systems so far that are pretty good at "learning" within a very confined and constrained "world" the ability of humans to fill in the blanks and make inferences is a power that computers can't even come close to possessing at this point. When there is ambiguity we very often can figure everything out without even blinking an eye while a computer (or program for that matter) needs very clear cut rules to be governed by. My arguement is that the with the way computers currently work it would be nearly impossible to have a system large enough (holding enough data) or fast enough to have the ability to access and sort through the pertinent data in a timely manner.

I would have to disagree. As an analytical scientific programmer, it is the job of our software to work with things called 'figures of merit' and to determine 'good' courses of action based on imperfect results and incomplete data. Computers are quite capable of performing the 'logic' needed to make an educated guess.

However, you do have a point that the speed at which computers can muddle their way through this ambiguity is far from the speed of a human mind. That does not however mean that AI could not exist, but merely that it would take the AI longer to 'think' than a human would. Considering how much downtime humans spend <i>not</i> thinking (IE: sleeping, watching TV, eating, etc.) a computer that was on 24/7/52 could be quite capable of matching a human's intellectual growth rate, if not surpassing it.

Quote:
If a system could be devised to work more like our brains than AI is more of a possibility but I feel that any program running on any current kinds of hardware designs is faulted from the start and cannot possible possess real intelligence. A new kind of architecture is needed for AI to work.

I have to disagree. AI is really more about software than about hardware. Certainly our hardware of today is not tailored to run AI very well, but that does not mean that AI software would be impossible to run on our hardware. This is especially true when you have distributed computing such as in a cluster mainframe and/or looser distributed networking akin to software such as SETI's.

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
!