Monday, January 07, 2008
Friday, January 04, 2008
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Oh my god, you killed RIbby...
You bastards!
It's official, McDOnalds is (for the third time), discontinuing the McRib sandwich.
I used to LOVE the McRib, even though as food products go it's about on par with the quality of cheez with a "z". No pickles or onions, and give me a pack of hot mustard sauce to go with it... yummy.
Unfortunately, they haven't had the McRib in my area for quite some time. It's a regional item in Florida, Georgia, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinatti, and Kansas City...
...and that right there is racial marketing at its finest folks.
This is only a few months after killing my favorite McDonalds menu item, the crispy chicken sandwich. The new 'southern style" chicken they replaced it with is like a nastier, cheaper copy of chik-fil-a. I used to love THAT with the hot mustard sauce too.
Reminding me thereof; if someone sold that hot mustard sauce on the open market, my god I'd buy it by the case load. It's the only reason to eat chicken McNuggets.
It's official, McDOnalds is (for the third time), discontinuing the McRib sandwich.
I used to LOVE the McRib, even though as food products go it's about on par with the quality of cheez with a "z". No pickles or onions, and give me a pack of hot mustard sauce to go with it... yummy.
Unfortunately, they haven't had the McRib in my area for quite some time. It's a regional item in Florida, Georgia, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinatti, and Kansas City...
...and that right there is racial marketing at its finest folks.
This is only a few months after killing my favorite McDonalds menu item, the crispy chicken sandwich. The new 'southern style" chicken they replaced it with is like a nastier, cheaper copy of chik-fil-a. I used to love THAT with the hot mustard sauce too.
Reminding me thereof; if someone sold that hot mustard sauce on the open market, my god I'd buy it by the case load. It's the only reason to eat chicken McNuggets.
AGNTSA
With the emphasis on the "S"
UPDATE:
The results are in
Dem:
Obama - 38%
Edwards - 30%
Clinton - 29%
Rep:
Huckabee - 34%
Romney - 25%
Thompson - 13%
I'm liking those results. Obama kicks Hilary's ass, and Thompson comes in third; after being outspent 70 to 1 by Romney (Huckabee had Iowa sewn up a month ago with the conservative christian, and anti-mormon vote if for no other reason; and it was actually about 23 to 1, $9 million vs $400,000). Oh and Rudy didn't even try for a showing in Iowa, so hes not even on the board.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Good Christ, Gaffer Tape is EXPENSIVE
So as a part of going back on the diet, we are of course going back on the excercise regime as well. Only one issue; the cats have SHREDDED the pads on the smith machine over the past two months.
The solution of course, is not just gaffer tape; but the super high strength vinyl over cotton, extra strength adhesive Permacel 672 pro gaffers tape, in the black 3" wide variety.
The best part though, is that it's got a 69lb (per 1") tensile strength, and 60lbs per sq. in of holding power. So a 2" strip of the 3" wide stuff can pretty much support the weight of a full grown man. ...and of course being gaffer tape rather than duct tape, it leaves very little residue when you DO want to take it off.
You could upholster your car with this stuff if you wanted to; though of course you wouldn't want to.
Only one problem, the stuff is $30 a roll even at discount places on line (it's $50 a roll at local race shops, and theater supply places); plus shipping.
Damn.
Oh well, at least there's 50 yards of the stuff on the roll; and it's a hell of a lot cheaper than buying new pads, or re-covering the old ones with new vinyl.
Oh and that isn't the most expensive gaffers tape by far. Extra strength racers tape, and PC-68 super premium vinyl gaffers tape are both $40 a roll in 6 roll cases; and only available by the case.
The solution of course, is not just gaffer tape; but the super high strength vinyl over cotton, extra strength adhesive Permacel 672 pro gaffers tape, in the black 3" wide variety.
The best part though, is that it's got a 69lb (per 1") tensile strength, and 60lbs per sq. in of holding power. So a 2" strip of the 3" wide stuff can pretty much support the weight of a full grown man. ...and of course being gaffer tape rather than duct tape, it leaves very little residue when you DO want to take it off.
You could upholster your car with this stuff if you wanted to; though of course you wouldn't want to.
Only one problem, the stuff is $30 a roll even at discount places on line (it's $50 a roll at local race shops, and theater supply places); plus shipping.
Damn.
Oh well, at least there's 50 yards of the stuff on the roll; and it's a hell of a lot cheaper than buying new pads, or re-covering the old ones with new vinyl.
Oh and that isn't the most expensive gaffers tape by far. Extra strength racers tape, and PC-68 super premium vinyl gaffers tape are both $40 a roll in 6 roll cases; and only available by the case.
Back on the diet
Ok, as of today Mel and I are off our holiday hiatus, and back on the diet.
From late November when we went off it for thanksgiving (the week before for a party actually), and today... This one is not good... I gained 35lbs.
AARGH.
Of course I was eating anything I wanted, at any quantity I wanted, so I expected 20 or maybe 25lbs... but 35.
Oy.
Mel has put on about 15 as well.
Oh well. Thems the breaks.
Oh, and the puppy's put on nearly as much weight as I have. When we brought him home he was about 25lbs; as of this morning, he was 57.
From late November when we went off it for thanksgiving (the week before for a party actually), and today... This one is not good... I gained 35lbs.
AARGH.
Of course I was eating anything I wanted, at any quantity I wanted, so I expected 20 or maybe 25lbs... but 35.
Oy.
Mel has put on about 15 as well.
Oh well. Thems the breaks.
Oh, and the puppy's put on nearly as much weight as I have. When we brought him home he was about 25lbs; as of this morning, he was 57.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Why todays CD's sound like crap
Leaving aside your judgment of the "quality" of music produced by Britney Spears , Justin Timberlake, and their ilk; most of todays CD's, even from otherwise great artists, unquestionably sound like crap to anyone who appreciates music as something other than a beat to bob your head to.
The reason why, is often referred to in the business as "the loudness war", and this is about the best simple, but clear explanation of why it's ruining music:
Oh and here's a REALLY great explanation of it, that someone who linked to this piece pointed out (better than mine I think, but I didn't know about it 'til after I wrote this): Imperfect Sound Forever
Music is sound waves, just like any other sound. It has peaks and valleys in the wave form corresponding to frequency and amplitude. The higher the amplitude, the higher the peak, and the louder it is.
Dynamic range, is the difference between the quietest audible sounds in a recording, and the loudest (the big peaks and valleys I just mentioned above). Live music has a maximum dynamic range of around 120db. Vinyl records only have a maximum dynamic range of around 70db. CD's, which in comparison to vinyl are very "wide open" so to speak; still have far less available range than live music, at about 96db.
Now, for any recording, there is a maximum possible level; above which the sound will drop out or "clip", which causes distortion.
When music was mastered for vinyl records, that clipping level was relatively low; because the available dynamic range was relatively low (at 50db less than live music, and 26db less than a CD). Because of this, instead of trying for "loudness", recording engineers tried to get the most dynamic range out of a recording that they possibly could (excepting pop singles intended for dance and radio airplay, where loudness was considered more important).
Also, records were generally listened to in relatively quiet, stationary environments (again, except for 45rpm singles) on hi-fi stereo systems. These listening environments and equipment strongly emphasized detail (or the lack of it) and clarity over loudness; because when you have a medium working against you (the vinyl LP, which has an inherently low dynamic range compared to a CD, never mind a 9 or 14 track master audio tape), you do everything you can to compensate for it.
When the music business transitioned from vinyl to CDs in the late 80s, recoding engineers suddenly had a (relatively) HUGE amount of overhead available to them for the music. This allowed for much greater dynamic range to be reproduced.
Greater dynamic range means more detail, space, and expressiveness in music. It lets you reproduce the sound of live music better.
Unfortunately for us listeners 20 years later, it also makes recordings less loud on average; because the loudest sounds in a rock or pop recording (usually kick drums) are typically 5 or more times as loud as the average sounds; and may be 50 times as loud as the quietest. In classical music (which in general is noted for it's dynamic range) the difference from the loudest, can be 30 or 40 times or more than the average.
Given the basic characteristics of the music, when the kick drums (or brass, or kettle drums in classical) are set to just below the clipping level, the vocals (or the woodwinds), are a little bit quiet in comparison.
Which is as it should be; because human hearing is far less sensitive in the very low bass, and very high treble ranges. So those sounds NEED to be louder, to be heard properly. Also, they are INTENDED to be louder by the artists and performers. If the performers wanted the vocals to be as loud as the drums, they would have sung that way in the first place.
If the vocals are quiet, turn up the volume (not the loudness), and you'll hear BOTH clearly, and without distortion (well... the overly loud brass in todays classical is another discussion entirely).
The average loudness of a pop recording in the pre-loudness war era was -18db (18db below the clipping level), while the loudest sounds in a recording were mastered at just below that level (well... -3 to -6db, but still); indicating a very large variation in sound levels.
Now if you love music, this is how it SHOULD be. If you want it louder, you just turn up the volume knob.
Unfortunately, record company executives don't love music, they love record sales; and quiet music doesn't grab peoples attention as much as louder music. If your track is louder on the radio without the listener having to turn their volume knob up, people are more likely to notice it; and the thinking goes, more likely to buy it.
Also, if your music is being played in a very noisy environment; having the vocals be as loud as the drums, means people can hear the vocals easier without turning up the volume. If you're in a very loud environment, like a club, or in your car in heavy traffic, or listening to your mp3 player on a crowded train; again, people are more likely to notice, and possibly buy.
So starting in about 1989, when digital tools to do so with less distortion became available; record companies started having engineers pump the loudness up.
Prior to this time, the analog compression filters used to hot master those old 45 dance singles, would produce very poor results if you attempted to hot master a CD with them. With a record, you couldn't hear just how bad it was; with a CD, well, clarity works both way. Garbage in, Garbage out.
Also, the nature of analog vs. digital signal was working in favor of the records; because when you slightly overdrive analog amplifiers, with an analog signal, they distort in ways that are warm, and organic sounding. It's a gentle fuzz, with interesting overtones. In fact, it's something that was (and is) often done intentionally in rock music. When you overdrive a discrete solid state amp (the kind most of us have now) with a digital signal however, the results are distinctly unpleasant. You get loud hissing, pops, dropout, and squeals.
Up until very recently, the dominant mode of recording in a studio was on a 1/2", 3/4", 1" or even 2" master tape (9 track is common at the bottom end, all the way up to 28 track tape). A 2" master tape, has the dynamic range to capture just about everything you can get out of a microphone, or an amplifier. Recently digital recording onto hard disk has taken over; and again, you have enough dynamic range in the medium to capture the full expressiveness of a live performance... or at least as much as the mikes can get anyway (microphones don't capture harmonics and overtones very well; in fact they deliberately supress some of them because they can cause odd sounds in the recoding. Recording directly off a pre-amp output for an instrument cant capture them at all).
With the original high dynamic range master recordings of the artist playing live in the studio, the level of the loudest sound (like the kick drums) is set so that to a few decibels below the clipping point. If you do that; then you can't increase the overall volume of the recording without losing and distorting (clipping) a lot of that drum sound.
Unfortunately, record executives want louder music; and in order to get it, they use full track audio compression.
Now, audio compression isn't like file compression, where you reduce the size of the data. With audio compression you are reducing, or "compressing" the differences in amplitude between the loudest, and the quietest sounds. This makes the average loudness of the recording higher; and thus overall louder; but you lose dynamic range.
Losing dynamic range, means losing that detail, space, "air" that made CD's better than vinyl in the first place (ok you analog heads, back off).
Not only that, but increasing the volume like that doesn't increase the music, it just kind of adds dimensionless, detailless noise. It increases the sound pressure level without increasing the content. It sounds like noise, because it IS noise.
Compression has been around forever, and in some cases the effect is good, and not harmful. analog compression has been used in guitar and vocal recordings since the 50's to make them sound "fuller", and stand out more in a mix for example. But those are relatively small variations, focused on the mid and mid high frequencies.
Full track audio compression (dynamic range compression) is a little bit different. Instead of using it to fill out the sound of a vocal, they're taking ALL the sound and making it stand out more; and if everything is "standing out more", obviously nothing is. When everyone in a conversation starts shouting, you don't hear anything clearer... in fact, everything gets muddier and harder to pick out.
Importantly, we aren't talking about just increasing the volume; because that would make everything louder, but keep the range of variation. With dynamic range compression, you're just making the stuff that should be quiet, louder. You are increasing loudness, not volume.
For those of you who understand classical music, or musical notation, what they are doing is effectively taking whatever the loudest sound of the recording is, setting that at fortissimo (even if it should only be forte); and taking the absolute quietest sound which should be pianissimo, and playing it mezzo forte.
It's as if you were taking Mozarts "Agnus Dei", from Requiem; and playing it with as much intensity and loudness as the allegro sections "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik", the whole time, with no variation.
Or for those of you not classical fans, Imagine if Queens "who wants to live forever" which has a HUGE dynamic range from Pianissimo to Fortissimo in the same song, were simply all sung and played at the level of "We Will Rock You".
This practice is called "hot mastering", and as I said, its been with us since the days of 45rpm dance records; but it was never widespread for all types of popular music, until the '90s.
The pre-hot master days (as I mentioned above) had an average recoding loudness of -18db. Todays hot mastered recordings have an average loudness of -9db.
Thats a HUGE difference, because the DB scale is logarithmic, not linear. Every 3db of loudness increase is actually a doubling of the sound pressure, so going from -18 to -9 doesn't just double the sound, it's actually 8 times as loud.
Human hearing isn't calibrated the same way electronics are, so we don't quite hear it that way. To us, a 3db change in loudness is about the smallest clearly audible step (yes, really, it takes a doubling or halving of sound energy for us to notice). We perceive a 9db change as a doubling or halving of sound.
What that means, is that compared to a 1987 recording, a 2007 recording will sound twice as loud for a given volume setting on your stereo; or if you don't WANT to blow your eardrums out, you'll turn the volume down; but when you turn the volume down on a low dynamic range recording, it sounds even worse. It's muddy and lacks definition; and it completely negates the purpose of having hot mastered the thing in the first place.
Which means of course that record company executives are idiots; but we all knew that.
If proper mastering is Pavarotti singing "Nessun Dorma", then hot mastering is Ben Stein reading Ayn Rand VERY LOUDLY.
Here's another graphic illustration of what I'm talking about. These two images are both of the same recording; The track "One of Us" off the very first commercially released popular music CD, ABBA's "The Visitors".
The first image (left and right waveforms are shown in each) is the original CD release from 1981, and the second is a re-relase, remastered in 2005 under todays practices:
You can easily see here what I'm talking about (click to enlarge); where the loudest sound in the track is set to be just a bit below the clipping level, and the quietest audible sound is at perhaps 1/30th that level, with the average being about 1/4th or 1/5th the level.
Now the hot mastered track...
Remember, these are the EXACT SAME SONG, from the exact same original master recordings. Looking at those wave forms however, you can tell just how different they would sound.
In the second recording, instead of the loudest send being set slightly below the clipping level, almost all of the recording is set AT the clipping level. The differences are gone; and clearly, so is the detail. The differences between the loudest and quietest sounds in this track is 1/8th or maybe 1/10th that of the loudest, instead of 1/30th. Worse, with so much of the track at the clipping level (the average on this track is -8db)... well, it just sounds like noise to your ears.
When your ear hears continuous sound at the exact same amplitude level, your brain tends to disregard frequency variations, and it all sort of blends together into mud and noise.
LISTENINGTOMUSICLIKETHATISLIKETRYINGTOREADAPARAGRAPH
WRITTENINALLCAPSANDBOLDUNDERLINEDWITHOUTPUNCTUATION
YESYOUCANREADITBUTITTAKESALOTOFEFFORTITSFATIGUINGAND
IRRITATINGANDJUSTPLAINHARDWHYWOULDYOUWANTOLISTENTO
MUSICLIKETHAT
Bob Dylan, who has always kept tight control over his music (though the uses for which he licenses it are a different story), has been very vocal in speaking out against this practice; going so far as to say he can't listen to most new CDs without pain. He has always prevented record companies from hot mastering his music; and is actively trying to get other artists to do the same.
Notably, classical and Jazz (with the exception of pop pseudo jazz idiots like Kenny G) artists have also strongly resisted such adulteration of their music; and for the most part record companies have wisely stayed away; because they know that Jazz and classical consumers will not stand for their music being destroyed by stupidity.
Destroyed? Absolutely. A hot mastered Jazz recording isn't music, it's noise.
I have listened to original CD remasters of "Kind of Blue" (actually, I listen to it frequently), and a hot mastered re-release of it produced after Miles death (not the '97 remaster; a compilation set remaster from I think 2004)... The re-release is absolutely unlistenable. I forced myself to listen through the whole thing, at the same volume I used for the original; and at the end of it, I felt like I had been listening to jackhammers for 45 minutes.
I haven't listened to any classical that has been hot mastered; but if you want the same effect, turn up a TV or radio commercial with classical music in it really loud. See, hot mastering was originally (and still is) a technique used to make commercials louder than the music they were played between.
Would you really want to listen to that for an hour?
But wait, it gets worse...
The last few years, CD sales have been heading downward, as digital download sales have been soaring; never mind the effects of digital piracy etc...
Even physical CD's that are being purchased, are more than likely going to end up on a computer, or a personal media player like the iPod; because almost everyone under 35 (and thats almost the entire demographic market for new music purchases) listens to most of their music either in their car, on their computer, or on their PMP.
Unfortunately, digital downloads as we commonly use today, have a few weaknesses when it comes to music reproduction.
A typical CD audio track is mastered at 44,100 samples per second, or 44.1khz, and 16 bits per sample. That's about 706kilobits of data per second; 86.1 kilobytes per second, or about 5 megabytes per minute.
It's that 16 bits per sample by the way that gives us the 96db of dynamic range mentioned above; because you get approximately 6db of dynamic range per sampling bit.
Just as a comparison, DVD-Audo discs use 24 bits per sample (by default anyway, DVD-A also supports increasing sampling rates up to 176khz). This is the current standard for professional audio recording as well; because it provides for approximately 144db of dynamic range (which is about 24db more than almost all live music, and about 4db more than the difference between silence, and a jet engine at full throttle).
A 24 bit bitstream at 44.1khz would result in a bitstream of just under 130 kilobytes per second; or about 7.5 megabytes per minute.
If you could write a raw single channel bitstream, that would only be 550 megabytes for a full 74 minute CD (or 377mb for standard 16 bit).
Of course, you cant just write the raw bitstream to the disc, and have anything other than the original recording equipment read it; and of course there are multiple channels in a sound mix (in cd's two discrete PCM channels, with the potential for superencoded pseudo channels like Dolby ProLogic). There has to be some encoding standard that recorders and readers can all use, to maintain compatibility.
So, CD's do have some encoding involved (it's called Red Book encoding, which uses specific PCM and filesystem parameters ), as well as additional data for error correction etc... Unfortunately, it's rather bandwidth inefficient (it produces relatively large, sparse datastreams that take up more space than some other formats); so a full 74 minute CD, has about 650 megabytes of info, about 9 megabytes per minute, or about 150kilobytes per second (1200 kilobits). Given that an average pop song is 3:05, you're looking at about 27 megabytes for a song.
Given that most people in the US have a 1.5 megabit per second or so internet connection, (6 or so seconds per megabyte in theory; usually its more like about 20 seconds minimum ), a single track download would take 10 minutes, and a full album download would take about 2-4 hours.
Clearly, that wouldn't fly commercially.
What was needed was compression, in the other sense; file compression, or data compression.
In the late 80s, the Frauenhoffer institute used something called psychoacoustic analysis to determine how you could best remove data from an audio recording, and still have it sound acceptable to the human ear. They submitted the CODEC (coding/decoding algoritm) that resulted to the motion picture experts group (mpeg - sounds familiar don't it), and it became the MP3 format.
It was well known that we are most sensitive to upper mid range frequencies (those around the range of the human voice), less sensitive to low bass (below 80hz, and especially below 30hz), and most of us have little sensitivity above 12khz and almost none at all above 16khz (the conventional "limits of human hearing" are regarded as 20hz to 20khz, though some can hear as low as 16hz, or as high as 22khz). They took those sensitivities, and then mapped the actual response of the ear and the brain exactly.
Once they figured out what are brain mostly ignores, they just dropped it. The rest, they compressed, folded, spindled, and mutilated so that our brain and ears "fill in" the missing information. In so doing, they took raw (well... encoded) data that was 1200 kilobits per second; and they reduced it to the point where you brain can't tell the difference, but the file size is only 320 kilobits per second.
That means that they compressed the file from about 9 megs per minute PCM, to about 2.3 megs per minute average; without any perceptible loss of quality (it takes an oscilloscope to tell the difference. Double blind studies have proven it repeatedly; no matter what audiophile snobs like to think).
The length of time it takes to download a full 74 minute album on a 1.5Mb internet connection just went from 4 hours, to an hour and a bit; slightly better than real time download speed... and most albums aren't 74 minutes long.
That's amazing. It's really really impressive. It's also meaningless, because almost no-one uses the near perfect 320kbit encoding rate.
When MP3 first became popular in the mid 90s, DSL and Cablemodems were just becoming widely available, and you were lucky if you could get 256k over DSL, and 512k over your cablemodem. Most people were still on 56k dialup, which in the real world meant 32k (or less); and remember all these numbers are in bits not bytes.
Realworld download speeds for a single 320k music track on 56k dialup were something on the order of 90 minutes or so for a three minute song; or about a day and a half for a full album. Even on 512k cablemodem, you were talking about 6-10 minutes per song, and two hours per album.
Also, portable music players of the day only had 32-512 megabytes of storage space, not the 2-80 gigabytes of todays players, so 8 megabyte songs were just too big.
Obviously this wasn't commercially viable either.
The MP3 standard however doesn't require you to use a specific encoding bit rate. You can encode sound at lower bit rates, for smaller sizes. Of course doing so reduces quality greatly, but some music at lower quality is better than no music right?
You can encode a human voice all the way down to 32k and still have it be intelligible; but it sounds pretty bad. Music encoded at128k though has about the same quality level as FM radio, which most people find acceptable; and the file sizes are only bout 40% that of 320k encoded files. It's also good for internet streaming, because your connection can usually download it faster than your computer can play it (in fact all the youtube clips I've linked here, probably the ultimate expression of streaming media in todays internet, are probably encoded at 96k or 128k, and thus subject to the same issues).
2.5 to 3.2 megabytes a song was doable. You could fit a whole Ramones album on the small 32mb internal memories of the first generation music players; or a single 'Yes" song...
Okay Yes fans, back away from the keyboard slowly. I love them too; but seriously, "Dance of the Dawn" ? It's an incredible song (off an incredible album. You really have to listen to "Tales from Topographic Oceans"), but it's over 23 minutes long.
At any rate, 128k became the dominant encoding rate for MP3s, and today it still is; though bandwidth and storage increases have been slowly changing that. Most newly encoded tracks are at least available at 192k or 256k (though still most often downloaded at 128k); and most people, on most equipment, can't hear the difference between 256k and a CD...
IF...
The equalization is adjusted properly for MP3 that is.
Because MP3 uses that psychoacoustic algorithm, it emphasizes certain frequencies, and deemphasizes others. The lower the bit rate, the more it deemphasizes.
Well, at 128k, and even 256k, this results in somewhat overloaded midrange with response dips in odd places, and a lack of bass and treble response.
Unfortunately, most people have no idea how to use an equalizer, if they even have one. Most portable music players have a very limited EQ capability, with a bass and treble slider; if they have any at all.
To compensate for that, the labels have in the last two years, started changing the music even more. In addition to boosting loudness; they are now equalizing for mp3.
They're applying what's called "smile curve" equailiztion, named because if you plot the freqeuncy EQ curve it looks kind of like a smile, with upturned corners (bass and treble), and a dip in the middle (midrange).
Of course if you happen to be listing to a CD on a good stereo system, what you get is loud, noisy, boomy, hollow, tinny, and harsh sounding "music".
... and yet, the record companies wonder why sales are down?
The reason why, is often referred to in the business as "the loudness war", and this is about the best simple, but clear explanation of why it's ruining music:
Oh and here's a REALLY great explanation of it, that someone who linked to this piece pointed out (better than mine I think, but I didn't know about it 'til after I wrote this): Imperfect Sound Forever
Music is sound waves, just like any other sound. It has peaks and valleys in the wave form corresponding to frequency and amplitude. The higher the amplitude, the higher the peak, and the louder it is.
Dynamic range, is the difference between the quietest audible sounds in a recording, and the loudest (the big peaks and valleys I just mentioned above). Live music has a maximum dynamic range of around 120db. Vinyl records only have a maximum dynamic range of around 70db. CD's, which in comparison to vinyl are very "wide open" so to speak; still have far less available range than live music, at about 96db.
Now, for any recording, there is a maximum possible level; above which the sound will drop out or "clip", which causes distortion.
When music was mastered for vinyl records, that clipping level was relatively low; because the available dynamic range was relatively low (at 50db less than live music, and 26db less than a CD). Because of this, instead of trying for "loudness", recording engineers tried to get the most dynamic range out of a recording that they possibly could (excepting pop singles intended for dance and radio airplay, where loudness was considered more important).
Also, records were generally listened to in relatively quiet, stationary environments (again, except for 45rpm singles) on hi-fi stereo systems. These listening environments and equipment strongly emphasized detail (or the lack of it) and clarity over loudness; because when you have a medium working against you (the vinyl LP, which has an inherently low dynamic range compared to a CD, never mind a 9 or 14 track master audio tape), you do everything you can to compensate for it.
When the music business transitioned from vinyl to CDs in the late 80s, recoding engineers suddenly had a (relatively) HUGE amount of overhead available to them for the music. This allowed for much greater dynamic range to be reproduced.
Greater dynamic range means more detail, space, and expressiveness in music. It lets you reproduce the sound of live music better.
Unfortunately for us listeners 20 years later, it also makes recordings less loud on average; because the loudest sounds in a rock or pop recording (usually kick drums) are typically 5 or more times as loud as the average sounds; and may be 50 times as loud as the quietest. In classical music (which in general is noted for it's dynamic range) the difference from the loudest, can be 30 or 40 times or more than the average.
Given the basic characteristics of the music, when the kick drums (or brass, or kettle drums in classical) are set to just below the clipping level, the vocals (or the woodwinds), are a little bit quiet in comparison.
Which is as it should be; because human hearing is far less sensitive in the very low bass, and very high treble ranges. So those sounds NEED to be louder, to be heard properly. Also, they are INTENDED to be louder by the artists and performers. If the performers wanted the vocals to be as loud as the drums, they would have sung that way in the first place.
If the vocals are quiet, turn up the volume (not the loudness), and you'll hear BOTH clearly, and without distortion (well... the overly loud brass in todays classical is another discussion entirely).
The average loudness of a pop recording in the pre-loudness war era was -18db (18db below the clipping level), while the loudest sounds in a recording were mastered at just below that level (well... -3 to -6db, but still); indicating a very large variation in sound levels.
Now if you love music, this is how it SHOULD be. If you want it louder, you just turn up the volume knob.
Unfortunately, record company executives don't love music, they love record sales; and quiet music doesn't grab peoples attention as much as louder music. If your track is louder on the radio without the listener having to turn their volume knob up, people are more likely to notice it; and the thinking goes, more likely to buy it.
Also, if your music is being played in a very noisy environment; having the vocals be as loud as the drums, means people can hear the vocals easier without turning up the volume. If you're in a very loud environment, like a club, or in your car in heavy traffic, or listening to your mp3 player on a crowded train; again, people are more likely to notice, and possibly buy.
So starting in about 1989, when digital tools to do so with less distortion became available; record companies started having engineers pump the loudness up.
Prior to this time, the analog compression filters used to hot master those old 45 dance singles, would produce very poor results if you attempted to hot master a CD with them. With a record, you couldn't hear just how bad it was; with a CD, well, clarity works both way. Garbage in, Garbage out.
Also, the nature of analog vs. digital signal was working in favor of the records; because when you slightly overdrive analog amplifiers, with an analog signal, they distort in ways that are warm, and organic sounding. It's a gentle fuzz, with interesting overtones. In fact, it's something that was (and is) often done intentionally in rock music. When you overdrive a discrete solid state amp (the kind most of us have now) with a digital signal however, the results are distinctly unpleasant. You get loud hissing, pops, dropout, and squeals.
Up until very recently, the dominant mode of recording in a studio was on a 1/2", 3/4", 1" or even 2" master tape (9 track is common at the bottom end, all the way up to 28 track tape). A 2" master tape, has the dynamic range to capture just about everything you can get out of a microphone, or an amplifier. Recently digital recording onto hard disk has taken over; and again, you have enough dynamic range in the medium to capture the full expressiveness of a live performance... or at least as much as the mikes can get anyway (microphones don't capture harmonics and overtones very well; in fact they deliberately supress some of them because they can cause odd sounds in the recoding. Recording directly off a pre-amp output for an instrument cant capture them at all).
With the original high dynamic range master recordings of the artist playing live in the studio, the level of the loudest sound (like the kick drums) is set so that to a few decibels below the clipping point. If you do that; then you can't increase the overall volume of the recording without losing and distorting (clipping) a lot of that drum sound.
Unfortunately, record executives want louder music; and in order to get it, they use full track audio compression.
Now, audio compression isn't like file compression, where you reduce the size of the data. With audio compression you are reducing, or "compressing" the differences in amplitude between the loudest, and the quietest sounds. This makes the average loudness of the recording higher; and thus overall louder; but you lose dynamic range.
Losing dynamic range, means losing that detail, space, "air" that made CD's better than vinyl in the first place (ok you analog heads, back off).
Not only that, but increasing the volume like that doesn't increase the music, it just kind of adds dimensionless, detailless noise. It increases the sound pressure level without increasing the content. It sounds like noise, because it IS noise.
Compression has been around forever, and in some cases the effect is good, and not harmful. analog compression has been used in guitar and vocal recordings since the 50's to make them sound "fuller", and stand out more in a mix for example. But those are relatively small variations, focused on the mid and mid high frequencies.
Full track audio compression (dynamic range compression) is a little bit different. Instead of using it to fill out the sound of a vocal, they're taking ALL the sound and making it stand out more; and if everything is "standing out more", obviously nothing is. When everyone in a conversation starts shouting, you don't hear anything clearer... in fact, everything gets muddier and harder to pick out.
Importantly, we aren't talking about just increasing the volume; because that would make everything louder, but keep the range of variation. With dynamic range compression, you're just making the stuff that should be quiet, louder. You are increasing loudness, not volume.
For those of you who understand classical music, or musical notation, what they are doing is effectively taking whatever the loudest sound of the recording is, setting that at fortissimo (even if it should only be forte); and taking the absolute quietest sound which should be pianissimo, and playing it mezzo forte.
It's as if you were taking Mozarts "Agnus Dei", from Requiem; and playing it with as much intensity and loudness as the allegro sections "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik", the whole time, with no variation.
Or for those of you not classical fans, Imagine if Queens "who wants to live forever" which has a HUGE dynamic range from Pianissimo to Fortissimo in the same song, were simply all sung and played at the level of "We Will Rock You".
This practice is called "hot mastering", and as I said, its been with us since the days of 45rpm dance records; but it was never widespread for all types of popular music, until the '90s.
The pre-hot master days (as I mentioned above) had an average recoding loudness of -18db. Todays hot mastered recordings have an average loudness of -9db.
Thats a HUGE difference, because the DB scale is logarithmic, not linear. Every 3db of loudness increase is actually a doubling of the sound pressure, so going from -18 to -9 doesn't just double the sound, it's actually 8 times as loud.
Human hearing isn't calibrated the same way electronics are, so we don't quite hear it that way. To us, a 3db change in loudness is about the smallest clearly audible step (yes, really, it takes a doubling or halving of sound energy for us to notice). We perceive a 9db change as a doubling or halving of sound.
What that means, is that compared to a 1987 recording, a 2007 recording will sound twice as loud for a given volume setting on your stereo; or if you don't WANT to blow your eardrums out, you'll turn the volume down; but when you turn the volume down on a low dynamic range recording, it sounds even worse. It's muddy and lacks definition; and it completely negates the purpose of having hot mastered the thing in the first place.
Which means of course that record company executives are idiots; but we all knew that.
If proper mastering is Pavarotti singing "Nessun Dorma", then hot mastering is Ben Stein reading Ayn Rand VERY LOUDLY.
Here's another graphic illustration of what I'm talking about. These two images are both of the same recording; The track "One of Us" off the very first commercially released popular music CD, ABBA's "The Visitors".
The first image (left and right waveforms are shown in each) is the original CD release from 1981, and the second is a re-relase, remastered in 2005 under todays practices:
You can easily see here what I'm talking about (click to enlarge); where the loudest sound in the track is set to be just a bit below the clipping level, and the quietest audible sound is at perhaps 1/30th that level, with the average being about 1/4th or 1/5th the level.Now the hot mastered track...
Remember, these are the EXACT SAME SONG, from the exact same original master recordings. Looking at those wave forms however, you can tell just how different they would sound.In the second recording, instead of the loudest send being set slightly below the clipping level, almost all of the recording is set AT the clipping level. The differences are gone; and clearly, so is the detail. The differences between the loudest and quietest sounds in this track is 1/8th or maybe 1/10th that of the loudest, instead of 1/30th. Worse, with so much of the track at the clipping level (the average on this track is -8db)... well, it just sounds like noise to your ears.
When your ear hears continuous sound at the exact same amplitude level, your brain tends to disregard frequency variations, and it all sort of blends together into mud and noise.
LISTENINGTOMUSICLIKETHATISLIKETRYINGTOREADAPARAGRAPH
WRITTENINALLCAPSANDBOLDUNDERLINEDWITHOUTPUNCTUATION
YESYOUCANREADITBUTITTAKESALOTOFEFFORTITSFATIGUINGAND
IRRITATINGANDJUSTPLAINHARDWHYWOULDYOUWANTOLISTENTO
MUSICLIKETHAT
An aside: To anyone who would mock my choice of ABBA as an example above; first, let me say they are a PERFECT choice, because they are the exact type of music that would have been compressed even in the 70s (pop/dance records).Well, some artists are finally doing something about it; because they want their music to sound like, oh, I dunno... Music.
The fact that they maintained a wide dynamic range, clarity, and definition in their recordings; even though they were producing for a "wall of sound" effect, for dance music, is quite impressive. In fact ABBA have always been noted for producing very high quality recordings.
Not only that, but say what you will about the content of their songs (yes, it's mostly silly or sappy bouncy pop. Thats what they were trying for, and that's what they got), they produced perfect pop music, they wrote all their own lyrics and music, and their singing is uniformly excellent. They sold 400 million records in a time when the only artists to have broken 100 million were Elvis, the Beatles, and Frank Sinatra; and they are still today, the second best selling recording group of all time (second only to the Beatles).
So, though you may not like them; you have to respect their achievement.
Bob Dylan, who has always kept tight control over his music (though the uses for which he licenses it are a different story), has been very vocal in speaking out against this practice; going so far as to say he can't listen to most new CDs without pain. He has always prevented record companies from hot mastering his music; and is actively trying to get other artists to do the same.
Notably, classical and Jazz (with the exception of pop pseudo jazz idiots like Kenny G) artists have also strongly resisted such adulteration of their music; and for the most part record companies have wisely stayed away; because they know that Jazz and classical consumers will not stand for their music being destroyed by stupidity.
Destroyed? Absolutely. A hot mastered Jazz recording isn't music, it's noise.
I have listened to original CD remasters of "Kind of Blue" (actually, I listen to it frequently), and a hot mastered re-release of it produced after Miles death (not the '97 remaster; a compilation set remaster from I think 2004)... The re-release is absolutely unlistenable. I forced myself to listen through the whole thing, at the same volume I used for the original; and at the end of it, I felt like I had been listening to jackhammers for 45 minutes.
I haven't listened to any classical that has been hot mastered; but if you want the same effect, turn up a TV or radio commercial with classical music in it really loud. See, hot mastering was originally (and still is) a technique used to make commercials louder than the music they were played between.
Would you really want to listen to that for an hour?
But wait, it gets worse...
The last few years, CD sales have been heading downward, as digital download sales have been soaring; never mind the effects of digital piracy etc...
Even physical CD's that are being purchased, are more than likely going to end up on a computer, or a personal media player like the iPod; because almost everyone under 35 (and thats almost the entire demographic market for new music purchases) listens to most of their music either in their car, on their computer, or on their PMP.
Unfortunately, digital downloads as we commonly use today, have a few weaknesses when it comes to music reproduction.
A typical CD audio track is mastered at 44,100 samples per second, or 44.1khz, and 16 bits per sample. That's about 706kilobits of data per second; 86.1 kilobytes per second, or about 5 megabytes per minute.
It's that 16 bits per sample by the way that gives us the 96db of dynamic range mentioned above; because you get approximately 6db of dynamic range per sampling bit.
Just as a comparison, DVD-Audo discs use 24 bits per sample (by default anyway, DVD-A also supports increasing sampling rates up to 176khz). This is the current standard for professional audio recording as well; because it provides for approximately 144db of dynamic range (which is about 24db more than almost all live music, and about 4db more than the difference between silence, and a jet engine at full throttle).
A 24 bit bitstream at 44.1khz would result in a bitstream of just under 130 kilobytes per second; or about 7.5 megabytes per minute.
If you could write a raw single channel bitstream, that would only be 550 megabytes for a full 74 minute CD (or 377mb for standard 16 bit).
Of course, you cant just write the raw bitstream to the disc, and have anything other than the original recording equipment read it; and of course there are multiple channels in a sound mix (in cd's two discrete PCM channels, with the potential for superencoded pseudo channels like Dolby ProLogic). There has to be some encoding standard that recorders and readers can all use, to maintain compatibility.
So, CD's do have some encoding involved (it's called Red Book encoding, which uses specific PCM and filesystem parameters ), as well as additional data for error correction etc... Unfortunately, it's rather bandwidth inefficient (it produces relatively large, sparse datastreams that take up more space than some other formats); so a full 74 minute CD, has about 650 megabytes of info, about 9 megabytes per minute, or about 150kilobytes per second (1200 kilobits). Given that an average pop song is 3:05, you're looking at about 27 megabytes for a song.
Given that most people in the US have a 1.5 megabit per second or so internet connection, (6 or so seconds per megabyte in theory; usually its more like about 20 seconds minimum ), a single track download would take 10 minutes, and a full album download would take about 2-4 hours.
Clearly, that wouldn't fly commercially.
What was needed was compression, in the other sense; file compression, or data compression.
In the late 80s, the Frauenhoffer institute used something called psychoacoustic analysis to determine how you could best remove data from an audio recording, and still have it sound acceptable to the human ear. They submitted the CODEC (coding/decoding algoritm) that resulted to the motion picture experts group (mpeg - sounds familiar don't it), and it became the MP3 format.
It was well known that we are most sensitive to upper mid range frequencies (those around the range of the human voice), less sensitive to low bass (below 80hz, and especially below 30hz), and most of us have little sensitivity above 12khz and almost none at all above 16khz (the conventional "limits of human hearing" are regarded as 20hz to 20khz, though some can hear as low as 16hz, or as high as 22khz). They took those sensitivities, and then mapped the actual response of the ear and the brain exactly.
Once they figured out what are brain mostly ignores, they just dropped it. The rest, they compressed, folded, spindled, and mutilated so that our brain and ears "fill in" the missing information. In so doing, they took raw (well... encoded) data that was 1200 kilobits per second; and they reduced it to the point where you brain can't tell the difference, but the file size is only 320 kilobits per second.
That means that they compressed the file from about 9 megs per minute PCM, to about 2.3 megs per minute average; without any perceptible loss of quality (it takes an oscilloscope to tell the difference. Double blind studies have proven it repeatedly; no matter what audiophile snobs like to think).
The length of time it takes to download a full 74 minute album on a 1.5Mb internet connection just went from 4 hours, to an hour and a bit; slightly better than real time download speed... and most albums aren't 74 minutes long.
That's amazing. It's really really impressive. It's also meaningless, because almost no-one uses the near perfect 320kbit encoding rate.
When MP3 first became popular in the mid 90s, DSL and Cablemodems were just becoming widely available, and you were lucky if you could get 256k over DSL, and 512k over your cablemodem. Most people were still on 56k dialup, which in the real world meant 32k (or less); and remember all these numbers are in bits not bytes.
Realworld download speeds for a single 320k music track on 56k dialup were something on the order of 90 minutes or so for a three minute song; or about a day and a half for a full album. Even on 512k cablemodem, you were talking about 6-10 minutes per song, and two hours per album.
Also, portable music players of the day only had 32-512 megabytes of storage space, not the 2-80 gigabytes of todays players, so 8 megabyte songs were just too big.
Obviously this wasn't commercially viable either.
The MP3 standard however doesn't require you to use a specific encoding bit rate. You can encode sound at lower bit rates, for smaller sizes. Of course doing so reduces quality greatly, but some music at lower quality is better than no music right?
You can encode a human voice all the way down to 32k and still have it be intelligible; but it sounds pretty bad. Music encoded at128k though has about the same quality level as FM radio, which most people find acceptable; and the file sizes are only bout 40% that of 320k encoded files. It's also good for internet streaming, because your connection can usually download it faster than your computer can play it (in fact all the youtube clips I've linked here, probably the ultimate expression of streaming media in todays internet, are probably encoded at 96k or 128k, and thus subject to the same issues).
2.5 to 3.2 megabytes a song was doable. You could fit a whole Ramones album on the small 32mb internal memories of the first generation music players; or a single 'Yes" song...
Okay Yes fans, back away from the keyboard slowly. I love them too; but seriously, "Dance of the Dawn" ? It's an incredible song (off an incredible album. You really have to listen to "Tales from Topographic Oceans"), but it's over 23 minutes long.
At any rate, 128k became the dominant encoding rate for MP3s, and today it still is; though bandwidth and storage increases have been slowly changing that. Most newly encoded tracks are at least available at 192k or 256k (though still most often downloaded at 128k); and most people, on most equipment, can't hear the difference between 256k and a CD...
IF...
The equalization is adjusted properly for MP3 that is.
Because MP3 uses that psychoacoustic algorithm, it emphasizes certain frequencies, and deemphasizes others. The lower the bit rate, the more it deemphasizes.
Well, at 128k, and even 256k, this results in somewhat overloaded midrange with response dips in odd places, and a lack of bass and treble response.
Unfortunately, most people have no idea how to use an equalizer, if they even have one. Most portable music players have a very limited EQ capability, with a bass and treble slider; if they have any at all.
To compensate for that, the labels have in the last two years, started changing the music even more. In addition to boosting loudness; they are now equalizing for mp3.
They're applying what's called "smile curve" equailiztion, named because if you plot the freqeuncy EQ curve it looks kind of like a smile, with upturned corners (bass and treble), and a dip in the middle (midrange).
Of course if you happen to be listing to a CD on a good stereo system, what you get is loud, noisy, boomy, hollow, tinny, and harsh sounding "music".
... and yet, the record companies wonder why sales are down?
Deep and Wide
In my previous two computer posts, especially "Build or Buy for 2007", I talked extensively about choosing monitors. Specifically I talked about how I was vacillating a bit about monitor choice.
Right now, I'm on a top of the line 19" LCD, at 1280x1024, and it's great. It's got a color corrected back light, 600:1 contrast ratio, 5ms GtG response time etc...
Now, I use my system for four visually oriented tasks
1. Photography
2. Video editing
3. Design (CAD, some 3D modeling, model and project plans etc...)
4. Gaming
All of those are very demanding on both monitor, and video card. They require correct color, great sharpness and definition, good response time, correct black levels etc...
Importantly though; all but gaming, also require something else...
SIZE.
(big monitors actually reduce gaming performance, because they need to be driven at higher resolution, which takes more horsepower and slows rendering down).
My friend Og (not his real name, but it fits him so well), is a specialty machines engineer, designer, and machinist (and many other things besides); and he's building a new dedicated design box. Being that I just bought a hybrid design/gaming box myself, and my previous computer items, he looked to me for a bit of advice.
Although video cards are important here (you've got to keep up after all), my biggest recommendation is that he buy a new 24" or 30" monitor.
Like myself, Og is currently running a high quality 19", and is quite satisfied with it; but he says that his primary concerns are image quality (especially sharpness to avoid eyestrain), and speed of workflow.
... and speed of workflow, is where big screens, and dual screens, really make a difference.
Let me tell you, either going dual head, or going to a 24" or larger widescreen, will greatly speed your workflow. Doing both is even better, if you've got the desk space; and here's why:
Just a single 24" makes a big difference over a single 19"; because you have the same screen height, and 4" of extra screen width.
If you're just used to word docs, you might not think the extra screen area would make that big a difference, but you'd be wrong. Oh, for you, it probably doesn't. If all you're using your computer for is text, and a few snapshots at home etc... Extra screen area doesn't do much for you.
For a designer though, the ability to view larger drawings without zooming and scrolling makes a HUGE difference in speed of work; and especially in reduction of fatigue.
Take a look at the actual screen areas of those monitors, and you'll start to see why:
A 30" 16:9 display is 26" x 14.7"
A 24" 16:9 display is 21"x 11.8"
A 19" 4:3 display is 15.4"x11.6" (4:3 is "standard", 16:9 is widescreen)
Importantly, on a 24" widescreen, it means you can fit the same sized drawing (same height and width) as on the 19", and then have 5.5" of screen space left over for your tools.
And of course the effect is only magnified as you go larger. With a 30" you can have the same size drawing as the 19", and have 10.5" of free space on the side, and 3" on the bottom.
This extra screen area is especially critical for video production where you can have a full, unzoomed and uncropped, native HD video window running at 1920x1080 (that's 1080p resolution), and still have 7" of width, and 5" of height left over on the screen for tools (or for uncropped zooming)
Ok, so the benefits of a single larger screen are clear; but why bother with two?
Double the desktop area for one; and having a full screen render, video, or display window going on one screen while you've still got your tools open on the other.
Going dual head lets you position a fully maximized drawing window on one screen, and have all your tools visible on the other; along with your email, office apps etc... This means less (and faster) context switching, and instant access to tool windows and other programs without waiting, or covering up a portion of the drawing.
One VERY cool thing you can do with dual head (if your system has the horsepower), is update your raw data on one screen; and have a full screen render reflect those changes in near real time on the other.
Of course the same advantages apply to all visual media; be it design, photography, or video.
Almost the entire visual design industry has gone dual head at this point; and they are starting to move wholesale towards 24" and 30" displays, just for those very reasons.
Of course their are costs associated with this. For one thing, the 24" displays are... big; and the 30" are downright huge. Typically, they're 28" wide. Although they are flat panel shallow; that's still a HUGE amount of desktop real estate.
Then there's the not insubstantial monetary costs, An absolute top quality 19" display runs $300-$400, and a middle of the road one $250 these days. The equivalent quality 24" display, costs between $400 and $600 right now; and add another $1000 on top of that for a 30".
$1400-$1600 is a lot of money for a monitor. In fact, it's a couple hundred more than the top of the line system built to drive it would cost; or as much as my quad core system would cost, if I added an $800 QuadroFX 3500 video card to it.
For me, I can easily justify the $400-$600 for a 24". The additional screen area, speed of workflow, and convenience over a 19" monitor is great; and I can use my existing 19" monitor in a dual head configuration with the 24".
A 30" though... $1000 more to get another 135sq in. of screen area is a hell of a lot. Though a 30" has about 50% more screen area than a 24" (and in fact more than double that of a 19"), I don't think the extra cost is a good value for me. Added to that, I personally can't fit a 30" and a 19" on my desk at the same time for a dual head configuration (I've only got a48" desk, that would take up almost all of it), so I'd be wasting my existing monitor, and wouldn't get the dual head advantages.
If I was a photography, video production professional; or if I worked with very large drawings all the time; there would be no question for me though: I'd buy a 30" and a bigger desk. The additional speed of workflow allowed by that extra screen area DOES provide value for those folks.
Now, I'm going to excerpt out the monitor section from my "Build or Buy" post, and reprint it here; for those of you who are in the market for a new monitor, but don't want to wade through 5000 words on building a new computer system.
On buying a monitor...
Firstly, I never count the monitor as part of the computer purchase. Oh yes, you need to budget for it; but it’s like counting your TV as part of your stereo. You don't want to economize on your monitor to get more computer; neither do you want to economize on your computer to get more monitor.
The monitor is the most important element of your human computer interface. Every interaction you have with your computer runs through that monitor; and how happy you are with your computer is to a large extent determined by how happy you are with your monitor.
Also, monitors are one area of computing where you get a decent return on your investment in a higher end piece of gear; because you are likely to keep your monitor for far longer than you keep the rest of the computer. Up until I moved to all LCD a few years back, I had monitors from 5 years, and even 10 years ago; and because I spent the money on top quality, they still looked and worked great.
The prices and deals on LCD displays change from day to day, so it's very hard to make specific recommendations.
Making it even harder, often brand is really little or no indicator as to quality, because there are only 6 fabs that make 19” and bigger LCD panels for computer displays anyway; it’s all the little extras like ports and warranties that make the difference.
I know lots of folks who think they’d never buy an LCD from Goldstar... except they don’t know that Goldstar and Samsung are two of the three leading manufacturers of LCD panels for computer displays (NEC are the third); and that almost every manufacturer other than Sony (who make their own), including Apple, HP, Dell, Planar and ViewSonic, all use Samsung, Goldstar, or NEC panels.
All that said, the extras really do make a difference. When you buy quality, what you're paying for TECHNICALLY is response time, different connectivity, better quality of signal processing, and better backlights (brighter, and with more accurate color spectrum).
More important though, you are also paying for a better warranty and fewer dead or stuck pixels. The better manufacturers all warrant against more than one or two stuck pixels, and most will replace the display if there is even one in a very noticeable spot. The lesser manufacturers offer little to no warranty.
Really, that IS worth the extra $50 or even $100 you pay for going to a higher end manufacturer; especially when buying a 24" or 30" panel.
Ok, now let's talk about the specific features to look for:
1. FOFO (full on/full off) response time of 4ms or less, and GTG (gray to gray) response time of 6ms or less (6ms and 8ms respectively are acceptable, 2 and 4 are ideal).
Unfortunately, most manufacturers are unclear as to what response time they are quoting. If you see 4ms (min) thats the Full On/Full Off response time. If you see 6ms(max) thats the GTG time. If they don’t specify FOFO, GTG, min, or max, then it’s either the average of the two (where they’ll usually note avg. or typ.), or they’re quoting a rise only time, which is actually twice as fast as the real number.
Important to note, if you see a time of 4ms or under quoted without a specific notation as to what they are quoting, and it’s on a less than top of the line display, they are almost certainly quoting rise time; so double it to get the real number.
2. Refresh rate of 120hz is preferred. Refresh rate may not be quoted; if the display has a GTG response time of 8ms or less, it’s probably 120hz. It's not absolutely necessary, but it helps.
3. Static (typical) contrast ratio above 600:1, 1000:1 or above preferred. Again, you may not be sure what number you're being quoted here.
4. dynamic contrast ratio of at least 3000:1, and 10000:1 preferred. Unfortunately, dynamic CR is a marketing number, but with many manufacturers, it’s all they give you.
Heres a tip: if you see a number above 1,000:1 on anything other than a top end display, it's dynamic; and if you see a number higher than 3000:1 on a display less than $2500, it’s a dynamic ratio.
5. A brightness of at least 300cdm^2/300nit at D6500K.
6. A color corrected backlight at D6500K. LED backlight if possible. This gives you better color accuracy, and longer display life.
7. DVI with HDCP, and possibly HDMI. Multiple inputs preferred. DisplayPort if possible. Basically, the more inputs the better. One should note that DVI and HDMI are electrically compatible, and you just need a $20 adapter to convert one to the other.
8. Pixel pitch of under .28mm; .25mm or under preferred. If pixel pitch isn’t quoted you can figure it by dividing the long dimension of the screen in mm by the long dimension of the native resolution in pixels.
Here's a trick for you. If the length and width of the display area are not quoted, you can figure them with the aspect ratio, the diagonal measurement, and the Pythagorean theorem.
A 19” diagonal screen at 4:3 is as follows:
19^2=371
(4^2)+(3^2)=25
371/25=14.84
sqrt(14.84)=3.85
4x3.85=15.4” width
3x3.85= 11.55” height
A 24” 16:9 screen is as follows:
24^2=576
(16^2)+(9^2)= 337
576/337=1.709
sqrt(1.709)=1.307
16x1.307=20.91” width
9x1.307= 11.77 height
Knowing this height and width spec is important in deciding between 4:3 and 16:9; because the diagonal measurements are not comparable. A 24” 16:9 actually gives you the same screen HEIGHT as a 19” 4:3; it just adds an extra 5.5” of width.
The smallest I’d personally go with right now would be a 19” 4:3 or a 24” 16:9. The smaller models are almost all considered “economy” models. Either are the minimum size to display a standard 8.5"x11" piece of paper at 100% scale in portrait orientation.
Personally, I happen to think the sweet spot today is in the 24” 16:9 displays. They give you a massive screen area, with great resolution and pixel pitch; but they’re down under $600 for even the best quality models, and around $350 for discount models. If you don’t feel like spending that much, then get a 19” 4:3. Don't bother going for a 20" or 22" 16:9 or a 17" 4:3 unless you are really looking to save money.
The next step up that’s worthwhile is the 30” now offered by Apple, HP, Dell, and Samsung (all using the same Samsung panel actually), and they’re incredibly gorgeous, huge, and spectacular… but they sell from $1300 to $1900. There are 26" and 28" models, but I really don't think they offer much advantage over 24" displays, or much price savings over 30".
As to brands, I like NEC, ViewSonic, Samsung, HP and Dell (usually Samsung), Apple (also usually Samsung), LG, and Planar.
Now, talking about specs. Some manufacturers are more honest than others. Most of the mass market manufacturers (even the good ones) vastly overstate their actual performance. Companies that cater to graphics professionals (Apple, Viewsonic, Planar etc...) on the other hand tend to report their specifications relatively accurately.
All of my recommendations above are based on the semi-reliable marketing numbers of the better mass market brands.
If the manufacturer is very specific, quoting GTG, typical contrast ratio instead of dynamic, exact pixel pitch etc… they are most likely at least reasonably accurate; so if they quote a spec thats good, but less than another brand, it’s likely that the more accurate number is going to be just as good, or even better than the “better”, but less accurate number.
Right now, I'm on a top of the line 19" LCD, at 1280x1024, and it's great. It's got a color corrected back light, 600:1 contrast ratio, 5ms GtG response time etc...
Now, I use my system for four visually oriented tasks
1. Photography
2. Video editing
3. Design (CAD, some 3D modeling, model and project plans etc...)
4. Gaming
All of those are very demanding on both monitor, and video card. They require correct color, great sharpness and definition, good response time, correct black levels etc...
Importantly though; all but gaming, also require something else...
SIZE.
(big monitors actually reduce gaming performance, because they need to be driven at higher resolution, which takes more horsepower and slows rendering down).
My friend Og (not his real name, but it fits him so well), is a specialty machines engineer, designer, and machinist (and many other things besides); and he's building a new dedicated design box. Being that I just bought a hybrid design/gaming box myself, and my previous computer items, he looked to me for a bit of advice.
Although video cards are important here (you've got to keep up after all), my biggest recommendation is that he buy a new 24" or 30" monitor.
Like myself, Og is currently running a high quality 19", and is quite satisfied with it; but he says that his primary concerns are image quality (especially sharpness to avoid eyestrain), and speed of workflow.
... and speed of workflow, is where big screens, and dual screens, really make a difference.
Let me tell you, either going dual head, or going to a 24" or larger widescreen, will greatly speed your workflow. Doing both is even better, if you've got the desk space; and here's why:
Just a single 24" makes a big difference over a single 19"; because you have the same screen height, and 4" of extra screen width.
If you're just used to word docs, you might not think the extra screen area would make that big a difference, but you'd be wrong. Oh, for you, it probably doesn't. If all you're using your computer for is text, and a few snapshots at home etc... Extra screen area doesn't do much for you.
For a designer though, the ability to view larger drawings without zooming and scrolling makes a HUGE difference in speed of work; and especially in reduction of fatigue.
Take a look at the actual screen areas of those monitors, and you'll start to see why:
A 30" 16:9 display is 26" x 14.7"
A 24" 16:9 display is 21"x 11.8"
A 19" 4:3 display is 15.4"x11.6" (4:3 is "standard", 16:9 is widescreen)
Importantly, on a 24" widescreen, it means you can fit the same sized drawing (same height and width) as on the 19", and then have 5.5" of screen space left over for your tools.
And of course the effect is only magnified as you go larger. With a 30" you can have the same size drawing as the 19", and have 10.5" of free space on the side, and 3" on the bottom.
This extra screen area is especially critical for video production where you can have a full, unzoomed and uncropped, native HD video window running at 1920x1080 (that's 1080p resolution), and still have 7" of width, and 5" of height left over on the screen for tools (or for uncropped zooming)
Ok, so the benefits of a single larger screen are clear; but why bother with two?
Double the desktop area for one; and having a full screen render, video, or display window going on one screen while you've still got your tools open on the other.
Going dual head lets you position a fully maximized drawing window on one screen, and have all your tools visible on the other; along with your email, office apps etc... This means less (and faster) context switching, and instant access to tool windows and other programs without waiting, or covering up a portion of the drawing.
One VERY cool thing you can do with dual head (if your system has the horsepower), is update your raw data on one screen; and have a full screen render reflect those changes in near real time on the other.
Of course the same advantages apply to all visual media; be it design, photography, or video.
Almost the entire visual design industry has gone dual head at this point; and they are starting to move wholesale towards 24" and 30" displays, just for those very reasons.
Of course their are costs associated with this. For one thing, the 24" displays are... big; and the 30" are downright huge. Typically, they're 28" wide. Although they are flat panel shallow; that's still a HUGE amount of desktop real estate.
Then there's the not insubstantial monetary costs, An absolute top quality 19" display runs $300-$400, and a middle of the road one $250 these days. The equivalent quality 24" display, costs between $400 and $600 right now; and add another $1000 on top of that for a 30".
$1400-$1600 is a lot of money for a monitor. In fact, it's a couple hundred more than the top of the line system built to drive it would cost; or as much as my quad core system would cost, if I added an $800 QuadroFX 3500 video card to it.
For me, I can easily justify the $400-$600 for a 24". The additional screen area, speed of workflow, and convenience over a 19" monitor is great; and I can use my existing 19" monitor in a dual head configuration with the 24".
A 30" though... $1000 more to get another 135sq in. of screen area is a hell of a lot. Though a 30" has about 50% more screen area than a 24" (and in fact more than double that of a 19"), I don't think the extra cost is a good value for me. Added to that, I personally can't fit a 30" and a 19" on my desk at the same time for a dual head configuration (I've only got a48" desk, that would take up almost all of it), so I'd be wasting my existing monitor, and wouldn't get the dual head advantages.
If I was a photography, video production professional; or if I worked with very large drawings all the time; there would be no question for me though: I'd buy a 30" and a bigger desk. The additional speed of workflow allowed by that extra screen area DOES provide value for those folks.
Now, I'm going to excerpt out the monitor section from my "Build or Buy" post, and reprint it here; for those of you who are in the market for a new monitor, but don't want to wade through 5000 words on building a new computer system.
On buying a monitor...
Firstly, I never count the monitor as part of the computer purchase. Oh yes, you need to budget for it; but it’s like counting your TV as part of your stereo. You don't want to economize on your monitor to get more computer; neither do you want to economize on your computer to get more monitor.
The monitor is the most important element of your human computer interface. Every interaction you have with your computer runs through that monitor; and how happy you are with your computer is to a large extent determined by how happy you are with your monitor.
Also, monitors are one area of computing where you get a decent return on your investment in a higher end piece of gear; because you are likely to keep your monitor for far longer than you keep the rest of the computer. Up until I moved to all LCD a few years back, I had monitors from 5 years, and even 10 years ago; and because I spent the money on top quality, they still looked and worked great.
The prices and deals on LCD displays change from day to day, so it's very hard to make specific recommendations.
Making it even harder, often brand is really little or no indicator as to quality, because there are only 6 fabs that make 19” and bigger LCD panels for computer displays anyway; it’s all the little extras like ports and warranties that make the difference.
I know lots of folks who think they’d never buy an LCD from Goldstar... except they don’t know that Goldstar and Samsung are two of the three leading manufacturers of LCD panels for computer displays (NEC are the third); and that almost every manufacturer other than Sony (who make their own), including Apple, HP, Dell, Planar and ViewSonic, all use Samsung, Goldstar, or NEC panels.
All that said, the extras really do make a difference. When you buy quality, what you're paying for TECHNICALLY is response time, different connectivity, better quality of signal processing, and better backlights (brighter, and with more accurate color spectrum).
More important though, you are also paying for a better warranty and fewer dead or stuck pixels. The better manufacturers all warrant against more than one or two stuck pixels, and most will replace the display if there is even one in a very noticeable spot. The lesser manufacturers offer little to no warranty.
Really, that IS worth the extra $50 or even $100 you pay for going to a higher end manufacturer; especially when buying a 24" or 30" panel.
Ok, now let's talk about the specific features to look for:
1. FOFO (full on/full off) response time of 4ms or less, and GTG (gray to gray) response time of 6ms or less (6ms and 8ms respectively are acceptable, 2 and 4 are ideal).
Unfortunately, most manufacturers are unclear as to what response time they are quoting. If you see 4ms (min) thats the Full On/Full Off response time. If you see 6ms(max) thats the GTG time. If they don’t specify FOFO, GTG, min, or max, then it’s either the average of the two (where they’ll usually note avg. or typ.), or they’re quoting a rise only time, which is actually twice as fast as the real number.
Important to note, if you see a time of 4ms or under quoted without a specific notation as to what they are quoting, and it’s on a less than top of the line display, they are almost certainly quoting rise time; so double it to get the real number.
2. Refresh rate of 120hz is preferred. Refresh rate may not be quoted; if the display has a GTG response time of 8ms or less, it’s probably 120hz. It's not absolutely necessary, but it helps.
3. Static (typical) contrast ratio above 600:1, 1000:1 or above preferred. Again, you may not be sure what number you're being quoted here.
4. dynamic contrast ratio of at least 3000:1, and 10000:1 preferred. Unfortunately, dynamic CR is a marketing number, but with many manufacturers, it’s all they give you.
Heres a tip: if you see a number above 1,000:1 on anything other than a top end display, it's dynamic; and if you see a number higher than 3000:1 on a display less than $2500, it’s a dynamic ratio.
5. A brightness of at least 300cdm^2/300nit at D6500K.
6. A color corrected backlight at D6500K. LED backlight if possible. This gives you better color accuracy, and longer display life.
7. DVI with HDCP, and possibly HDMI. Multiple inputs preferred. DisplayPort if possible. Basically, the more inputs the better. One should note that DVI and HDMI are electrically compatible, and you just need a $20 adapter to convert one to the other.
8. Pixel pitch of under .28mm; .25mm or under preferred. If pixel pitch isn’t quoted you can figure it by dividing the long dimension of the screen in mm by the long dimension of the native resolution in pixels.
Here's a trick for you. If the length and width of the display area are not quoted, you can figure them with the aspect ratio, the diagonal measurement, and the Pythagorean theorem.
A 19” diagonal screen at 4:3 is as follows:
19^2=371
(4^2)+(3^2)=25
371/25=14.84
sqrt(14.84)=3.85
4x3.85=15.4” width
3x3.85= 11.55” height
A 24” 16:9 screen is as follows:
24^2=576
(16^2)+(9^2)= 337
576/337=1.709
sqrt(1.709)=1.307
16x1.307=20.91” width
9x1.307= 11.77 height
Knowing this height and width spec is important in deciding between 4:3 and 16:9; because the diagonal measurements are not comparable. A 24” 16:9 actually gives you the same screen HEIGHT as a 19” 4:3; it just adds an extra 5.5” of width.
The smallest I’d personally go with right now would be a 19” 4:3 or a 24” 16:9. The smaller models are almost all considered “economy” models. Either are the minimum size to display a standard 8.5"x11" piece of paper at 100% scale in portrait orientation.
Personally, I happen to think the sweet spot today is in the 24” 16:9 displays. They give you a massive screen area, with great resolution and pixel pitch; but they’re down under $600 for even the best quality models, and around $350 for discount models. If you don’t feel like spending that much, then get a 19” 4:3. Don't bother going for a 20" or 22" 16:9 or a 17" 4:3 unless you are really looking to save money.
The next step up that’s worthwhile is the 30” now offered by Apple, HP, Dell, and Samsung (all using the same Samsung panel actually), and they’re incredibly gorgeous, huge, and spectacular… but they sell from $1300 to $1900. There are 26" and 28" models, but I really don't think they offer much advantage over 24" displays, or much price savings over 30".
As to brands, I like NEC, ViewSonic, Samsung, HP and Dell (usually Samsung), Apple (also usually Samsung), LG, and Planar.
Now, talking about specs. Some manufacturers are more honest than others. Most of the mass market manufacturers (even the good ones) vastly overstate their actual performance. Companies that cater to graphics professionals (Apple, Viewsonic, Planar etc...) on the other hand tend to report their specifications relatively accurately.
All of my recommendations above are based on the semi-reliable marketing numbers of the better mass market brands.
If the manufacturer is very specific, quoting GTG, typical contrast ratio instead of dynamic, exact pixel pitch etc… they are most likely at least reasonably accurate; so if they quote a spec thats good, but less than another brand, it’s likely that the more accurate number is going to be just as good, or even better than the “better”, but less accurate number.
Happy New Year
Apparently no-one I know has been accidentally shot; which is always a plus (I lost count of the gunshots I heard).
Monday, December 31, 2007
Well... I hadn't planned on it...
But the deal was so good, I couldn't pass it up....
Well... actually... BOTH deals; but I only ended up with one, and that was as a result of the first one falling through.
What am I babbling on about?
Why, buying my SEVENTH computer for the holiday season; this one for lil'ol'me.
Kinda funny how this one worked out.
I had wisely avoided the day after Christmas mess; but I got several emails that day alerting me to "special savings" etc...
One of them had a system exactly like what I was planning to build, excepting without the second hard drive, or bluray/hd-dvd combo drive. The kicker was, it was only $999... but they wanted $70 shipping.
Well, that set me off on a research run as to specials available that day, and build vs. buy values based on those specials.... then I remembered I had seen one of the exact same computers that I was looking at as a "special value" deal in Costco with a 24" monitor, for $300 more than I was seeing it on the net for... which was a worthwhile deal if I decided I wanted that monitor; but I don't buy monitors sight unseen.
So the day AFTER the day after Christmas, I headed down to Costco to check it out.
Thus the adventure TRULY began.
When I got to Costco, they indeed had the system I remembered; but apparently that price was only good just before, and the day after Christmas. It was running $200 higher that day.
... still a good deal actually, but not better than I could build after taxes vs. shipping were taken into account.
At any rate, since I was out; I decided to head down to Frys, just to do a little comparison shopping; and because I knew their after Christmas sale went through the 1st... well technically their after Christmas sale went through the 28th, and their New Years sale went through the 2nd but anyway.
I got down to Frys, and they had the same system as Costco, but without the monitor; for about $400 less. Again, a good deal, but not better than I could build; and it's a $580 monitor, so I'd be better off buying from Costco.
Now I don't know if you've ever been to Frys, but they tend to be thin staffed at the best of times; and this was not the best of times. Also, unfortunately, my smart phones internet connection doesn't work inside their store; and I had various technical questions I needed answered about several models.
Let's just say it took me a while.
At any rate; I didn't care for the price on the Intel C2-Q6600 machine with the BluRay/HD-DVD combo drive. It was $1350; the exact same price as I would get online actually, but $25 shipping vs $90 tax... Not a great deal.
... BUUUUT
They had a brand new quad core AMD Phenom system, identical to the Intel box 'cept without the BluRay combo drive... and they had it for $950... and they sell the BluRay drive separately for $299.
and I really like the memory architecture on the phenom; it's actually significantly better than that of the Core 2 (there are errata on both processors by the way; neither is likely to occur iN any real world instance).
Better yet though, that is actually cheaper than I could build the same system for.
Now remember, this is after an hour driving to and shopping in Costco then driving down to Frys, and another 90 minutes in Frys trying to get served etc... etc...
I looked at the deal, I thought about it for a couple minutes, I thought about the online prices and the build prices... and I said what the hell, let's buy it.
So, 20 minutes later the sales guy finds the box in the back (they've only got one and it's stacked in some weird location), and I head up to the line with it.
Again, if you've never been to Frys, the lines are legendary. They have 30-50 cashiers lined up at the front of the store, and one REALLY long line, that snakes back and forth across the full width of the store, in multiple rows of S curves.
On this night, there were about 200 people in line ahead of me. From the time I made my "let's buy it" decision, to the time I got to the register, was about an hour. A total of about 2 and a half hours in the store...
And I get to the register, and check all my things in, which takes a good ten minutes because of a malfunctioning scanner...
And I present my card for payment and get in response "I'm sorry sir, we no longer accept American Express".
WHAT!
Now let me just let you know something. We have a few cards, but they are all low limit (on purpose), and used mostly for the reward points, and for the convenience of buying and paying bills online. We pay our cards off like cash every month. The only higher limit card we have is the Amex, which we use as our primary large purchase card, because it's the only card they take at Costco (in fact, it's the Costco Amex rewards card. A great deal by the way).
Now technically, I could have done it by splitting the purchase across two other cards (which they will do); or I could have paid in cash on the debit card, but this is just after Christmas, and I'd just (that day) paid every credit card off in full to account for Christmas purchasing. Not only did I not want to put more on the other cards, but I wasn't sure which payments had cleared yet and which hadn't... and I didn't want to dip into the cash reserves that far (the total including tax, and the bluray combo drive was $1300 something).
So after two and a half hours in Frys, and another hour in Costco, I just abandoned the hardware there and made ready to go home.
Man I was irritated. I HATE wasting my time like that; and I espeically hate having to change things around after coming to a decision.
What happened next... well, that's another post; but lets just say that my weirdness magnet proved once again infallible, and it cost me $150, and a fair bit of irritation. When I say this is for another post, I mean it. It's too good a story not to share, but I'm going to share it some other day soon.
At any rate, by the end of all this, I'd been out for four hours or so, and it had not only been a complete waste of time, it had been net loss. I was tired, and pissed off, and annoyed (yes I can be all three at once, and it's not a pretty sight)....
I needed to either break something, or build something... or maybe both.
So there was a Best Buy not too far out of my way home, and just for the hell of it I stopped in; not expecting I'd find anything, but I wanted to see what their after Christmas deals were...
And damned if they didn't have a core 2 quad system, identical to the one I'd got an email about, that started this whole mess... and for $910... $90 cheaper than the email box. In fact, because the email box had such high shipping; accounting for tax vs shipping, still $90 cheaper.
So I asked the sales guy about it, and he said "Oh, it's the last one we've got, a floor model; you can get it for $800".
To which I said "do you take Amex?"
Yes, yes they do.
So, the specs:
Proc: Core 2 quad 6600 at 2.4ghz
Mem: 3gb PC6400 (2x 1gb 2x 512m)
Video: Nvidia GeForce 8500GT
Board: Intel G33 oem workstation board (good quality, a bit light on features)
Drives: 2x 500gb 7200rpm SATA3 with 16mb cache
Other: Lightscribe DVD combo drive, 15 way media reader, optical out and HD surround, 2 firewire ports onboard, 8 USB2, eSATA port, 7 sata ports total, GigE.
The only thing I'd change if I were building it myself, is go with a gamers motherboard (about $70 for an equivalent board) , and to use an 8600gt instead of an 8500gt ($150 vs $75). My cost including tax: $865 dollars. Difference in component cost: $145. Cost to build it and ship it as I would have built it: $1110 dollars.
Hmmm.... looks like I break even, even replacing the motherboard and video card, and I'm not going to replace the mobo. Honestly, I don't need to overclock a quad 2.4ghz machine, and that's the only reason to replace the mobo.
Oh and of course this way I get a 1 year warranty, tech support, and an OS; rather than having to actually pay MS an extra $150 for an OEM copy, which I didn't include in the build price (I have OEM XP, I don't have OEM Vista, and if I want DX10 games, it's Vista only).
I MAY replace the video card at some point; but I can reuse the 8500gt in my kids computer (which has crappy video), so it's no loss.
In the mean time even this vid card overclocks to 600mhz stable with no heat issues (the entire 8 series are overclocking monsters), maxes out the Vista performance scores, and screams in every game I've tried it on... though I haven't tried to run Crysis yet; and I'd expect it wouldn't do too well since it's only a 256mb board (actually the only reason why I'd bother changing it is to get 512 or 640).
I stuck in a wireless card; and I'm going to grab that $300 combo drive (funny enough, it's not cheaper anywhere online than it is here locally), and a Hauppage PCIe HDTV/VidCap card with remote.
I actually could've bought the comp with the 24" monitor, and got another $140 off, but I was still trying to decide what to do about a new display (and I have a really top quality 19" already) so I declined that deal (it WAS a smokin deal though).
I'm still trying to decide if I want a new 24" monitor; or if I want to go whole hog and get the 30" and just use the whole thing as my secondary HDTV/Media center.
Or hell, I could even go dual head on the thing with my 19" as my "windows" display, and use an HDTV as my other display. They've got some really nice smaller model LCDs at quite low prices these days; and 1920x1080 on an $800 30", 32", or 37" TV looks just as good on an HDTV from a computer over HDMI as it does on a $1400 monitor (of course the $1400 30" monitor can do 2560x1900, but I don't NEED more than 1920x1080).
Oh and before you real hardcore geeks ask, yes it's dual booting Ubuntu, and yes, kernel compiles absolutely SCREAM.
For my graphics geek friends, don't expect TOO much because it's just an 8500gt; but the cpu scaling results are pretty damn good:
CINEBENCH R10
****************************************************
Tester : Chris Byrne
Processor : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz
MHz : 2400
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : WINDOWS 32 BIT 6.0.6000
Graphics Card : GeForce 8500 GT/PCIe/SSE2
Resolution : <1280x1024>
Color Depth : <32>
Rendering (Single CPU): 2435 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 8586 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.53
Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 3285 CB-GFX
Oh and thats on the standard clock; the fan always being on high when I had the video oc'ed was irritating me.
The 8600gt typically sees 1000 better or so on the Shading test. I haven't seen an 8800gt yet, but I'd guess its another 500 over and above that. Also, Vista typically sees lower results than XP (or OS-X), and for "standard" tests, benchmarkers usually use 16 bit, because some systems use 24 bit and some 42 bit as their maximum, but they all support 16 bit.
I'll run a few more different benchmarks (any requests?) and post them up tomorrow.
Well... actually... BOTH deals; but I only ended up with one, and that was as a result of the first one falling through.
What am I babbling on about?
Why, buying my SEVENTH computer for the holiday season; this one for lil'ol'me.
Kinda funny how this one worked out.
I had wisely avoided the day after Christmas mess; but I got several emails that day alerting me to "special savings" etc...
One of them had a system exactly like what I was planning to build, excepting without the second hard drive, or bluray/hd-dvd combo drive. The kicker was, it was only $999... but they wanted $70 shipping.
Well, that set me off on a research run as to specials available that day, and build vs. buy values based on those specials.... then I remembered I had seen one of the exact same computers that I was looking at as a "special value" deal in Costco with a 24" monitor, for $300 more than I was seeing it on the net for... which was a worthwhile deal if I decided I wanted that monitor; but I don't buy monitors sight unseen.
So the day AFTER the day after Christmas, I headed down to Costco to check it out.
Thus the adventure TRULY began.
When I got to Costco, they indeed had the system I remembered; but apparently that price was only good just before, and the day after Christmas. It was running $200 higher that day.
... still a good deal actually, but not better than I could build after taxes vs. shipping were taken into account.
At any rate, since I was out; I decided to head down to Frys, just to do a little comparison shopping; and because I knew their after Christmas sale went through the 1st... well technically their after Christmas sale went through the 28th, and their New Years sale went through the 2nd but anyway.
I got down to Frys, and they had the same system as Costco, but without the monitor; for about $400 less. Again, a good deal, but not better than I could build; and it's a $580 monitor, so I'd be better off buying from Costco.
Now I don't know if you've ever been to Frys, but they tend to be thin staffed at the best of times; and this was not the best of times. Also, unfortunately, my smart phones internet connection doesn't work inside their store; and I had various technical questions I needed answered about several models.
Let's just say it took me a while.
At any rate; I didn't care for the price on the Intel C2-Q6600 machine with the BluRay/HD-DVD combo drive. It was $1350; the exact same price as I would get online actually, but $25 shipping vs $90 tax... Not a great deal.
... BUUUUT
They had a brand new quad core AMD Phenom system, identical to the Intel box 'cept without the BluRay combo drive... and they had it for $950... and they sell the BluRay drive separately for $299.
and I really like the memory architecture on the phenom; it's actually significantly better than that of the Core 2 (there are errata on both processors by the way; neither is likely to occur iN any real world instance).
Better yet though, that is actually cheaper than I could build the same system for.
Now remember, this is after an hour driving to and shopping in Costco then driving down to Frys, and another 90 minutes in Frys trying to get served etc... etc...
I looked at the deal, I thought about it for a couple minutes, I thought about the online prices and the build prices... and I said what the hell, let's buy it.
So, 20 minutes later the sales guy finds the box in the back (they've only got one and it's stacked in some weird location), and I head up to the line with it.
Again, if you've never been to Frys, the lines are legendary. They have 30-50 cashiers lined up at the front of the store, and one REALLY long line, that snakes back and forth across the full width of the store, in multiple rows of S curves.
On this night, there were about 200 people in line ahead of me. From the time I made my "let's buy it" decision, to the time I got to the register, was about an hour. A total of about 2 and a half hours in the store...
And I get to the register, and check all my things in, which takes a good ten minutes because of a malfunctioning scanner...
And I present my card for payment and get in response "I'm sorry sir, we no longer accept American Express".
WHAT!
Now let me just let you know something. We have a few cards, but they are all low limit (on purpose), and used mostly for the reward points, and for the convenience of buying and paying bills online. We pay our cards off like cash every month. The only higher limit card we have is the Amex, which we use as our primary large purchase card, because it's the only card they take at Costco (in fact, it's the Costco Amex rewards card. A great deal by the way).
Now technically, I could have done it by splitting the purchase across two other cards (which they will do); or I could have paid in cash on the debit card, but this is just after Christmas, and I'd just (that day) paid every credit card off in full to account for Christmas purchasing. Not only did I not want to put more on the other cards, but I wasn't sure which payments had cleared yet and which hadn't... and I didn't want to dip into the cash reserves that far (the total including tax, and the bluray combo drive was $1300 something).
So after two and a half hours in Frys, and another hour in Costco, I just abandoned the hardware there and made ready to go home.
Man I was irritated. I HATE wasting my time like that; and I espeically hate having to change things around after coming to a decision.
What happened next... well, that's another post; but lets just say that my weirdness magnet proved once again infallible, and it cost me $150, and a fair bit of irritation. When I say this is for another post, I mean it. It's too good a story not to share, but I'm going to share it some other day soon.
At any rate, by the end of all this, I'd been out for four hours or so, and it had not only been a complete waste of time, it had been net loss. I was tired, and pissed off, and annoyed (yes I can be all three at once, and it's not a pretty sight)....
I needed to either break something, or build something... or maybe both.
So there was a Best Buy not too far out of my way home, and just for the hell of it I stopped in; not expecting I'd find anything, but I wanted to see what their after Christmas deals were...
And damned if they didn't have a core 2 quad system, identical to the one I'd got an email about, that started this whole mess... and for $910... $90 cheaper than the email box. In fact, because the email box had such high shipping; accounting for tax vs shipping, still $90 cheaper.
So I asked the sales guy about it, and he said "Oh, it's the last one we've got, a floor model; you can get it for $800".
To which I said "do you take Amex?"
Yes, yes they do.
So, the specs:
Proc: Core 2 quad 6600 at 2.4ghz
Mem: 3gb PC6400 (2x 1gb 2x 512m)
Video: Nvidia GeForce 8500GT
Board: Intel G33 oem workstation board (good quality, a bit light on features)
Drives: 2x 500gb 7200rpm SATA3 with 16mb cache
Other: Lightscribe DVD combo drive, 15 way media reader, optical out and HD surround, 2 firewire ports onboard, 8 USB2, eSATA port, 7 sata ports total, GigE.
The only thing I'd change if I were building it myself, is go with a gamers motherboard (about $70 for an equivalent board) , and to use an 8600gt instead of an 8500gt ($150 vs $75). My cost including tax: $865 dollars. Difference in component cost: $145. Cost to build it and ship it as I would have built it: $1110 dollars.
Hmmm.... looks like I break even, even replacing the motherboard and video card, and I'm not going to replace the mobo. Honestly, I don't need to overclock a quad 2.4ghz machine, and that's the only reason to replace the mobo.
Oh and of course this way I get a 1 year warranty, tech support, and an OS; rather than having to actually pay MS an extra $150 for an OEM copy, which I didn't include in the build price (I have OEM XP, I don't have OEM Vista, and if I want DX10 games, it's Vista only).
I MAY replace the video card at some point; but I can reuse the 8500gt in my kids computer (which has crappy video), so it's no loss.
In the mean time even this vid card overclocks to 600mhz stable with no heat issues (the entire 8 series are overclocking monsters), maxes out the Vista performance scores, and screams in every game I've tried it on... though I haven't tried to run Crysis yet; and I'd expect it wouldn't do too well since it's only a 256mb board (actually the only reason why I'd bother changing it is to get 512 or 640).
I stuck in a wireless card; and I'm going to grab that $300 combo drive (funny enough, it's not cheaper anywhere online than it is here locally), and a Hauppage PCIe HDTV/VidCap card with remote.
I actually could've bought the comp with the 24" monitor, and got another $140 off, but I was still trying to decide what to do about a new display (and I have a really top quality 19" already) so I declined that deal (it WAS a smokin deal though).
I'm still trying to decide if I want a new 24" monitor; or if I want to go whole hog and get the 30" and just use the whole thing as my secondary HDTV/Media center.
Or hell, I could even go dual head on the thing with my 19" as my "windows" display, and use an HDTV as my other display. They've got some really nice smaller model LCDs at quite low prices these days; and 1920x1080 on an $800 30", 32", or 37" TV looks just as good on an HDTV from a computer over HDMI as it does on a $1400 monitor (of course the $1400 30" monitor can do 2560x1900, but I don't NEED more than 1920x1080).
Oh and before you real hardcore geeks ask, yes it's dual booting Ubuntu, and yes, kernel compiles absolutely SCREAM.
For my graphics geek friends, don't expect TOO much because it's just an 8500gt; but the cpu scaling results are pretty damn good:
CINEBENCH R10
****************************************************
Tester : Chris Byrne
Processor : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz
MHz : 2400
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : WINDOWS 32 BIT 6.0.6000
Graphics Card : GeForce 8500 GT/PCIe/SSE2
Resolution : <1280x1024>
Color Depth : <32>
Rendering (Single CPU): 2435 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 8586 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.53
Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 3285 CB-GFX
Oh and thats on the standard clock; the fan always being on high when I had the video oc'ed was irritating me.
The 8600gt typically sees 1000 better or so on the Shading test. I haven't seen an 8800gt yet, but I'd guess its another 500 over and above that. Also, Vista typically sees lower results than XP (or OS-X), and for "standard" tests, benchmarkers usually use 16 bit, because some systems use 24 bit and some 42 bit as their maximum, but they all support 16 bit.
I'll run a few more different benchmarks (any requests?) and post them up tomorrow.
One of the interesting things....
about living in Arizona, is that at 4:30pm on New Years Eve, the temperature can be 78 degrees... as it was today.
The previous evenings low having been 37 degrees...
Gotta love that desert eh?
The previous evenings low having been 37 degrees...
Gotta love that desert eh?
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Undefeated
On Saturday, December 29th, 2007; at 11:22pm Eastern time; the 2007 New England Patriots are officiallythe greatest single season team in football history.
Beating the Giants for A 16-0 undefeated season; the Pats have achieved only the fourth undefeated season in NFL history, the first in 35 years, and the only undefeated season in the 16 game era (the previous undefeated teams were the 1934 and 1942 bears, at 13 and 11 games respectively, though both were defeated in the championship; and the 1972 Miami Dolphins at 14-0 regular season, and 3-0 in the post season).
Additionally, the patriots bested the all time single season scoring record; and individually Tom Brady beat the single season touchdown pass record (50), and Randy Moss beat the single season touchdown reception record (23).
Right now I'm watching the local post game commenters, and some minor ex-Cardinal (Jay Taylor) is saying "eh, the patriots aren't that great, they're good, and they're lucky".
I'm sorry, I don't see how anyone can look at the Patriots performance this year and not say that this years team is the greatest single season team ever.
Further, they have been the best team in football since 2001 (scoring, win/loss, division, conference and superbowl championships), and among the best since 1996; and have the fourth best superbowl record all time, (behind the Cowboys, 49ers, and Steelers).
Clearly, the Cowboys are the best team overall in the superbowl era NFL(5-3 superbowls) , and the 49ers are second (5-0). I really think it's reasonable to say though, that the Patriots are in a dead heat for third with the Steelers if they win the superbowl this year.
If the Pats win this year they'll be 4-2, and the Steelers are 5-1; but the Steelers have never had an undefeated season, nor have they had a winning streak like the 2003-2004 Patriots; and they've only been in two, and won a single superbowl since 1979 (they did win 4 in 6 years though; a record the Patriots could beat this year by doing it in 5)
The Packers of course have more league championships than anyone else (12), but all but three of those were in the pre-superbowl era; and they have only won a single superbowl since 1968 (against the patriots as it happens
I can't wait to see the boys go 19-0 and beat (most likely) the Colts, and the Cowboys for a perfect post season as well. That should finally shut those idiots (like Taylor) up about how the Patriots really aren't "great".
Beating the Giants for A 16-0 undefeated season; the Pats have achieved only the fourth undefeated season in NFL history, the first in 35 years, and the only undefeated season in the 16 game era (the previous undefeated teams were the 1934 and 1942 bears, at 13 and 11 games respectively, though both were defeated in the championship; and the 1972 Miami Dolphins at 14-0 regular season, and 3-0 in the post season).
Additionally, the patriots bested the all time single season scoring record; and individually Tom Brady beat the single season touchdown pass record (50), and Randy Moss beat the single season touchdown reception record (23).
Right now I'm watching the local post game commenters, and some minor ex-Cardinal (Jay Taylor) is saying "eh, the patriots aren't that great, they're good, and they're lucky".
I'm sorry, I don't see how anyone can look at the Patriots performance this year and not say that this years team is the greatest single season team ever.
Further, they have been the best team in football since 2001 (scoring, win/loss, division, conference and superbowl championships), and among the best since 1996; and have the fourth best superbowl record all time, (behind the Cowboys, 49ers, and Steelers).
Clearly, the Cowboys are the best team overall in the superbowl era NFL(5-3 superbowls) , and the 49ers are second (5-0). I really think it's reasonable to say though, that the Patriots are in a dead heat for third with the Steelers if they win the superbowl this year.
If the Pats win this year they'll be 4-2, and the Steelers are 5-1; but the Steelers have never had an undefeated season, nor have they had a winning streak like the 2003-2004 Patriots; and they've only been in two, and won a single superbowl since 1979 (they did win 4 in 6 years though; a record the Patriots could beat this year by doing it in 5)
The Packers of course have more league championships than anyone else (12), but all but three of those were in the pre-superbowl era; and they have only won a single superbowl since 1968 (against the patriots as it happens
I can't wait to see the boys go 19-0 and beat (most likely) the Colts, and the Cowboys for a perfect post season as well. That should finally shut those idiots (like Taylor) up about how the Patriots really aren't "great".
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
The Haul
So, as has become traditional in the blog world, people are talking about what they got for Christmas.
So what the hell, let's join the party.
Firstly, I didn’t really get much gun stuff this year:
Winchester gun cabinet
Lyman 2500 magnum tumbler
3x 10mm magazines
I had a decent haul on non-gun stuff (individual):
New guitar (big present from wife) - Ovation celebrity ultraslim electracoustic
New watch (other big present from wife) - Invicta automatic dive watch, with diamond markers
New turkish cotton bathrobe (very big and comfy)
About 20 books
About 40 dvds and HD dvds (a couple of full series sets, plus individual movies)
Family presents:
61” HDTV
New desktop computer for the family
A new puppy ( Jayne was an early christmas present)
It was a techie year for most of my gift giving as well.
What I got for Mel:
New laptop
Yamaha electric piano
The complete Calvin and Hobbes (hardbound collectors edition)
DVDs
5 magazines for the Hi-Power
Everyone else gave her books and DVDs.
I gave a new (or refurbished) laptop to two of my friends, and my mother. I gave a new or refurbished desktop to the kids (as a family present), and my father in law.
In terms of gunnie presents that I GAVE…
I built JohnOC a new work counter height (elbow height on a standing man) reloading and projects bench, and gave him all of my old turret press and manual reloading stuff (everything, including tumbler, press, powder measure, dies, calipers, etc...) plus a label maker, and a magnifying lamp.
A couple of us got together and bought Kommander a new Burris Speed dot XTR.
That was about it. I gave a total of 6 computers this year, which is a new record for me. Even including the big family presents, we spent less than last year (thank god. We went a little nuts last year); and everybody is happy and healthy.
What more can you ask for.
So what the hell, let's join the party.
Firstly, I didn’t really get much gun stuff this year:
Winchester gun cabinet
Lyman 2500 magnum tumbler
3x 10mm magazines
I had a decent haul on non-gun stuff (individual):
New guitar (big present from wife) - Ovation celebrity ultraslim electracoustic
New watch (other big present from wife) - Invicta automatic dive watch, with diamond markers
New turkish cotton bathrobe (very big and comfy)
About 20 books
About 40 dvds and HD dvds (a couple of full series sets, plus individual movies)
Family presents:
61” HDTV
New desktop computer for the family
A new puppy ( Jayne was an early christmas present)
It was a techie year for most of my gift giving as well.
What I got for Mel:
New laptop
Yamaha electric piano
The complete Calvin and Hobbes (hardbound collectors edition)
DVDs
5 magazines for the Hi-Power
Everyone else gave her books and DVDs.
I gave a new (or refurbished) laptop to two of my friends, and my mother. I gave a new or refurbished desktop to the kids (as a family present), and my father in law.
In terms of gunnie presents that I GAVE…
I built JohnOC a new work counter height (elbow height on a standing man) reloading and projects bench, and gave him all of my old turret press and manual reloading stuff (everything, including tumbler, press, powder measure, dies, calipers, etc...) plus a label maker, and a magnifying lamp.
A couple of us got together and bought Kommander a new Burris Speed dot XTR.
That was about it. I gave a total of 6 computers this year, which is a new record for me. Even including the big family presents, we spent less than last year (thank god. We went a little nuts last year); and everybody is happy and healthy.
What more can you ask for.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Merry Christmas, From Our Family, to Yours
This is the first, and thus far only, picture posted online of my kids, or of my family together.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Bursting Your Bubble - The Investment Fallacy
"Buy a house, it's the best investment you'll ever make"
Half of that is sound advice; buying a house is, in general, a good idea. The second half of that statement though, is completely and utterly false.
Unless you are paying cash, a house isn't an investment; and even then, you can almost always get a better return out of your cash than you would have out of the house.
"Oh you're so right, but if you get a 15 year mortgage, you're paying a little bit more, but THEN you're really building equity so you come out ahead"
Well, actually, you're paying a LOT more; and you come out further behind.
"Well I waited 'til I had the cash to buy, and didn't get into any debt"
Okay, now your house IS an investment; but it's one with a very high risk, a poor return; and most importantly a VERY high opportunity cost. You could have been making a hell of a lot more money with that cash.
All of what I'm saying goes against the conventional wisdom, and even financial advice from some people who should (or who do) know better. In fact, on its face, it seems contradictory to it's own internal logic.... So why am I the super genius saying this, not some financial guru?
Because everyone likes to think of their house as a investment. People get angry and lash out at you if you threaten that idea in their head. Most of the famous type people who should be saying this are trying to sell books to those same people who would burn them at the stake for challenging their idea about their house.
I won't say number don't lie; because of course you CAN lie with numbers; but seriously, run them. When you run the numbers, you will see that not only is a house not an investment, it is almost always a major liability...
But wait a sec, I said that buying a house was good advice... if a house is a major liability, how can it be good advice to buy one? The answer is, once again, in the numbers.
Let me show you what I'm talking about:
My home is worth about $300,000. I am currently in a lease to own deal; which means that at the end of my lease I have the option to buy at an agreed price, with a portion of my lease payments discounted off that price.
I do not have, and cannot easily save, the $60,000 necessary for a 20% down payment... and in fact I don't know anyone who is paying 20% down anymore. That means 5% down mortgages, and PMI for me... and just about everybody else as well.
Most people traditionally opted for a 30 year fixed mortgage. Although other options have proliferated greatly in the last few years, especially interest only, jumbo, and 3/1 or 5/1 adjustable; for most people the 30 year fixed is still by far the best deal... or rather the least bad deal; and I'll explain why as we go.
Now accepting that buying a house is a good idea, and starting with the default 30 year fixed, let's look at why the advice to go to a 15 year mortgage is a bad idea financially.
A 30 year fixed mortgage on my house at 6% interest, no points, and 5% down would result in a payment of $1800 a month, not including property taxes and PMI.
Going from a 30, to a 15 year mortgage on my house would add an additional $1000 a month to the payment; though it would cut $144,000 in interest charges off ($648,000 vs $504,000).
$144,000 saved in interest; that's a great deal right?
Well, saving on interest is good, but the real question there is, would putting the cash towards early payoff, or into a mutual fund instead result in a better return after 15 years?
Presuming your house appreciates 50% in value over 15 years (the average since 1980 rather than the recent bubble rates), including inflation, then that $300,000 house will be worth $450,000; and you will have paid $504,000 for it; a net loss of $54,000.
If you use the extra $1000 per month for early payoff of a 30 year fixed, you end up paying $561,000 total; a net loss of $111,000.
Now, presuming you put all $1000 per month into a fund; and aggregating for annual performance, plus assuming reinvestment of earnings, at an average year over year of 8% (that's average fund performance over the last 30 years for index funds. Some do much better), and capital gains of 15%; you come up with $384,000.
You will have paid $324,000 in mortgage payments, which at the 15 year point will have reduced your principal balance to about $200,000, for a total liability of $524,000. If you then sell the house for $450,000 your net loss would be $74,000.
However, you now have $384,000 in savings and investment income; which offset against that $74,000 net loss, is a $310,000 gain. Even removing your initial capital investment of $180,000 over 15 years, you’re talking about a $130,000 gain.
Or better, don’t sell. Just pay off the loan and take the $1800 a month that was going into your mortgage, and put it into your 8% fund instead. Now you’re starting with $184,000, and your annuals go up to about $34,000. At the end of that second 15 years, you’ve got about 1.6 million in cash, AND a $600,000 house.
I keep trying to explain it to people; houses are not an investment unless you can pay cash.
Paying a house off early may make you more secure, and it may very well be a good idea; the less interest you pay the better; but mortgages are not a good deal for you. Interest almost always accrues faster than value; and most often you would be better off taking that money and investing it.
The only good thing about a mortgage, is that unlike rent, you have an asset to recover value from. I’d rather be paying $1800 a month, and recovering some asset value, than paying $1800 a month in rent, with no asset value. That’s why mortgages make sense at all; because you’d have to be paying rent anyway.
Over a typical 15 year mortgage, you are going to pay around 65% of the original mortgage value as interest, and a house will increase in value about 50%; you come out at a substantial net loss.
Over a 30 year mortgage you pay about 105% as interest. A house will typically double in value over 30 years, so you come out pretty close to even.
Now, if you pay your house off in 15 years, then hold on to it and sell it after 30, you make about $100,000; but 30 years worth of inflation makes $100,000 a pretty small number.
The only way mortgages makes sense, is if you look at them as an alternative to rent. 30 years of rent at $1800 (let’s presume rent is the same as the mortgage payment) is $648,000; and at the end you’ve got nothing but a net loss; whereas with a mortgage, you’ve got a $600,000 asset for a net loss of just $48,000.
Even for a 15 year, it’s a better deal; with a $504,000 net loss, vs a $54,000 net loss.
So don’t look at your house as an investment; what it is, is a stoploss.
Of course this should make it clear why IO loans make no sense whatsoever. They are in fact worse then rent; because not only are you not building asset value (in effect you are paying the bank rent), you are incurring a huge liability and risk at the same time. There is no upside to you, and no downside to the bank when you are in an IO loan.
If you do take an IO, it's because you are going into more house than you can afford; and betting that the houses value will increase fast enough to offset your liability, and build equity for you.
Bad bet.
In order to get value, you need to understand just how much you are losing; and how much less you lose with different mortgage and payment options. This lets you maximize the value of your stoploss, and direct your assets and income into areas where they can best earn for you.
Half of that is sound advice; buying a house is, in general, a good idea. The second half of that statement though, is completely and utterly false.
Unless you are paying cash, a house isn't an investment; and even then, you can almost always get a better return out of your cash than you would have out of the house.
"Oh you're so right, but if you get a 15 year mortgage, you're paying a little bit more, but THEN you're really building equity so you come out ahead"
Well, actually, you're paying a LOT more; and you come out further behind.
"Well I waited 'til I had the cash to buy, and didn't get into any debt"
Okay, now your house IS an investment; but it's one with a very high risk, a poor return; and most importantly a VERY high opportunity cost. You could have been making a hell of a lot more money with that cash.
All of what I'm saying goes against the conventional wisdom, and even financial advice from some people who should (or who do) know better. In fact, on its face, it seems contradictory to it's own internal logic.... So why am I the super genius saying this, not some financial guru?
Because everyone likes to think of their house as a investment. People get angry and lash out at you if you threaten that idea in their head. Most of the famous type people who should be saying this are trying to sell books to those same people who would burn them at the stake for challenging their idea about their house.
I won't say number don't lie; because of course you CAN lie with numbers; but seriously, run them. When you run the numbers, you will see that not only is a house not an investment, it is almost always a major liability...
But wait a sec, I said that buying a house was good advice... if a house is a major liability, how can it be good advice to buy one? The answer is, once again, in the numbers.
Let me show you what I'm talking about:
My home is worth about $300,000. I am currently in a lease to own deal; which means that at the end of my lease I have the option to buy at an agreed price, with a portion of my lease payments discounted off that price.
I do not have, and cannot easily save, the $60,000 necessary for a 20% down payment... and in fact I don't know anyone who is paying 20% down anymore. That means 5% down mortgages, and PMI for me... and just about everybody else as well.
Most people traditionally opted for a 30 year fixed mortgage. Although other options have proliferated greatly in the last few years, especially interest only, jumbo, and 3/1 or 5/1 adjustable; for most people the 30 year fixed is still by far the best deal... or rather the least bad deal; and I'll explain why as we go.
Now accepting that buying a house is a good idea, and starting with the default 30 year fixed, let's look at why the advice to go to a 15 year mortgage is a bad idea financially.
A 30 year fixed mortgage on my house at 6% interest, no points, and 5% down would result in a payment of $1800 a month, not including property taxes and PMI.
Going from a 30, to a 15 year mortgage on my house would add an additional $1000 a month to the payment; though it would cut $144,000 in interest charges off ($648,000 vs $504,000).
$144,000 saved in interest; that's a great deal right?
Well, saving on interest is good, but the real question there is, would putting the cash towards early payoff, or into a mutual fund instead result in a better return after 15 years?
Presuming your house appreciates 50% in value over 15 years (the average since 1980 rather than the recent bubble rates), including inflation, then that $300,000 house will be worth $450,000; and you will have paid $504,000 for it; a net loss of $54,000.
If you use the extra $1000 per month for early payoff of a 30 year fixed, you end up paying $561,000 total; a net loss of $111,000.
Now, presuming you put all $1000 per month into a fund; and aggregating for annual performance, plus assuming reinvestment of earnings, at an average year over year of 8% (that's average fund performance over the last 30 years for index funds. Some do much better), and capital gains of 15%; you come up with $384,000.
You will have paid $324,000 in mortgage payments, which at the 15 year point will have reduced your principal balance to about $200,000, for a total liability of $524,000. If you then sell the house for $450,000 your net loss would be $74,000.
However, you now have $384,000 in savings and investment income; which offset against that $74,000 net loss, is a $310,000 gain. Even removing your initial capital investment of $180,000 over 15 years, you’re talking about a $130,000 gain.
Or better, don’t sell. Just pay off the loan and take the $1800 a month that was going into your mortgage, and put it into your 8% fund instead. Now you’re starting with $184,000, and your annuals go up to about $34,000. At the end of that second 15 years, you’ve got about 1.6 million in cash, AND a $600,000 house.
I keep trying to explain it to people; houses are not an investment unless you can pay cash.
Paying a house off early may make you more secure, and it may very well be a good idea; the less interest you pay the better; but mortgages are not a good deal for you. Interest almost always accrues faster than value; and most often you would be better off taking that money and investing it.
The only good thing about a mortgage, is that unlike rent, you have an asset to recover value from. I’d rather be paying $1800 a month, and recovering some asset value, than paying $1800 a month in rent, with no asset value. That’s why mortgages make sense at all; because you’d have to be paying rent anyway.
Over a typical 15 year mortgage, you are going to pay around 65% of the original mortgage value as interest, and a house will increase in value about 50%; you come out at a substantial net loss.
Over a 30 year mortgage you pay about 105% as interest. A house will typically double in value over 30 years, so you come out pretty close to even.
Now, if you pay your house off in 15 years, then hold on to it and sell it after 30, you make about $100,000; but 30 years worth of inflation makes $100,000 a pretty small number.
The only way mortgages makes sense, is if you look at them as an alternative to rent. 30 years of rent at $1800 (let’s presume rent is the same as the mortgage payment) is $648,000; and at the end you’ve got nothing but a net loss; whereas with a mortgage, you’ve got a $600,000 asset for a net loss of just $48,000.
Even for a 15 year, it’s a better deal; with a $504,000 net loss, vs a $54,000 net loss.
So don’t look at your house as an investment; what it is, is a stoploss.
Of course this should make it clear why IO loans make no sense whatsoever. They are in fact worse then rent; because not only are you not building asset value (in effect you are paying the bank rent), you are incurring a huge liability and risk at the same time. There is no upside to you, and no downside to the bank when you are in an IO loan.
If you do take an IO, it's because you are going into more house than you can afford; and betting that the houses value will increase fast enough to offset your liability, and build equity for you.
Bad bet.
In order to get value, you need to understand just how much you are losing; and how much less you lose with different mortgage and payment options. This lets you maximize the value of your stoploss, and direct your assets and income into areas where they can best earn for you.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Interesting twist on a quiz
 | I received 86 credits on The Sci Fi Sounds Quiz How much of a Sci-Fi geek are you? |
| Take the Sci-Fi Movie Quiz canon s5 is | |
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Choosing your HD service - HD Cable, or DirecTV HD?
So as I've written over the past few weeks, we've upgraded to an HDTV and TiVO-HD, along with HD service with our local cable company (Cox).
A lot of folks have chosen to go with satellite for their HD service, and that can be a very good choice. DirecTV has far more channels in HD than most cable providers. As of today they have 85 HD channels available, whereas in my market, Cox only offers 24.
Both are of course expanding their offerings. DirecTV have said they will have 100 channels available in HD by the middle of 2008 (it was originally supposed to be by the end of 2007, but they are still 15 short). Cox is planning on 80 channels by the end of 2008, rolling them out 12 per quarter, the first group coming March 8th.
More important to many, DirecTV offers out of region NFL football, and MLB baseball on an exclusive basis (they have NASCAR and NBA with enhanced programming but not exclusive). If you live in Phoenix, and want to watch a Patriots homegame that's in local blackout, DirecTV is the only way you can get it.
In terms of general HD programming, that situation is going to equalize over the next two years. By 2009, HD will be the default choice for all cable and satellite providers, and the basic HD tier will be included for free (Cox has just announced this in fact. They will stop charging for basic HD service as of 2008).
Also, by 2009, all broadcast TV will be fully transitioned to HD, because of the analog cutoff. This means all your local channels will be in HD; and by extension all national network channels. Unfortunately, a lot of the cable channels will still only be 480p ED (extended definition), because the providers are trying to save bandwidth by using lower resolution and higher compression.
The broadcasters have all gone to HD, because switching off analog (which they legally had to do anyway) cost them roughly the same whether it was SD or HD, and HD got them more viewers. The cable providers on the other hand (although HD is also bringing them more viewers); are not as enthused, because their networks have bandwidth limitations that OTA (over the air) digital broadcasts don’t have (or rather the limits exist, but they are not an issue for a single channel broadcast). This means infrastructure upgrades for a lot of cable systems; which have cost them billions of dollars over the past few years (and will continue to cost them billions for the next two or three years as well).
These limitations also exist for satellite providers, but the sat companies don't have millions of miles of substandard copper cabling to replace; they just need to replace the head ends and receivers, and rent more bandwidth on the satellites (or launch more satellites - they’ve been doing both).
This has allowed satellite providers to move faster in putting HD content out there; but the costs are still substantial. There are only so many satellites in the sky, and only so much bandwidth available on them. Right now, HD service with DirecTV requires a clear view of a 5 satellite constellation; and that's the limit without launching more satellites, and upgrading every subscribers dish.
In order to minimize these infrastructure costs, the cable and satellite companies have both limited the number of HD signals they are offering; and they are compressing those signals as much as possible.
Of course compression allows them to squeeze more programming into a given amount of bandwidth; but it also reduces quality. Some channels are contracted to be broadcast with less compression, and some signal formats or content survive compression better. This compression is one reason why some channels look quite poor in HD (food network for example), while others look flat out spectacular (discovery HD).
By about 2010, the cable companies will have completed their physical plant upgrades in most regions; and the satellite providers will have reached the maximum capacity of their existing infrastructure without a MAJOR upgrade (as in hundreds of billions of dollars major). At that point, other than contract exclusivity (which I predict won't survive very long in the ubiquitous HD era as more customers complain to the sports leagues rather than switch providers), the programming should equalize between cable and satellite.
I should note cable and DirecTV are not the only alternatives. There are still c-band ("big" dish) and Dish Network on the satellite side for example; and a few lucky folks in some markets have fiber optic based TV services.
Dish offers a similar level of service to DirecTV, with 70 HD channels (and growing), and a SIGNIFICANTLY better HD-DVR (also TiVO technology based, but without the extra features); but they don't have DirecTVs marketing muscle, or their exclusive contracts.
Right now Dish stands at about 14 million subscribers, to DirecTVs 17 million (those are world wide numbers, though both have the vast majority of their subscribers in the US); and neither company are in particularly great financial shape, though both have strong revenues.
Simply put, the Satellite business is expensive, and capital intensive. Every satellite launched can cost upwards of a billion dollars, they have a limited lifespan (15-25 years depending); and sometimes the launches fail (there were two major failures last year for example). Local cable companies have their cable plants to maintain, which are also very expensive; but the cost is spread out to the local providers rather than concentrated on two companies.
This large capital cost, is the primary reason why satellite companies haven't been able to simply add a huge number of services and run away with the market. That said, as you can see by the numbers, mini-dish providers combined now represent a little less than 1/3 of the US "enhanced" television market (the 106 million households with cable, satellite, or other non local broadcasts); a huge leap from where they were 10 years ago.
C-Band services, which once dominated satellite; have fallen out of favor in regions where mini-dish services are available. Though they are still going strong outside of those regions, programming availability may be inconsistent. Many new HD signal streams are in a format that no c-band home receiver can decode for example, so even if you wanted to you couldn't subscribe to them.
The major Telcos are leveraging some of their cable plant expenses, and beginning to offer television services over their local loop; where the loop has been upgraded to either FTTP (fiber to the premesis, also called FTTH) or FTTN (fiber to the node, also called fiber to the neighborhood). These services use high bandwidth fiber optics to transmit IP (internet networking) based telephone, internet, and television programming.
Currently these services are well known as Verizons FiOS (an FTTH service), but other providers offer varying levels of service in different areas. THe second largest provider of these services is Qwest. Both telcos also resell DirecTV in areas where their FTTP/N services are unavailable.
CUrrently these services are both technically immature, and not commonly available. Most providers of the service are in the midst of a transition from first generation VDSL services which used analog multiplexed television signals over relatively low bandwidth links (under 40 megabit, which is barely sufficient for two simultaneous HD streams) to second generation services which offer several hundred megabits of fully digital bandwdith (enough for 10 simultaneous streams or more). Because IPTV only streams one channel per receiver from the head end at any given time, you can in theory offer better service on every channel, without overcompression or compromising on resolution.
Unfortunately, fiber to the neighborhood, and fiber to the home are still rare; and in the first generation form are significantly worse than cable in quality of service. I can't wait for them to be common and viable alternatives, but that isn't likely before 2010 or perhaps later.
Of course that's 2010. Given the fact that as of today, satellite offers ME personally better programming choices however, why did I still choose to go with cable?
Well I didn't exactly, I chose to go with a digital TV service from Qwest (my telco), but it was so poor (they sold me second generation service, but delivered first generation) I canceled it the same day it was installed, and went BACK to cable.... but I still went back to cable instead of going to satellite.
Honestly, Cox HD service is so-so, unless you skip their DVR and buy an HD TiVO. I wholeheartedly recommend doing so. The COX DVR just plain sucks.
With DirecTV you get more HD channels, and for now a TiVO based DVR (though they are moving away from TiVO next year some time), but you have to deal with DirecTVs shortcomings.
So why?
Three things:
1. Loss or degradation of signal
With satellite, you get loss of signal in certain atmospheric conditions. Lots of people say this never happens to them; but lots of others say it happens all the time.
If you can get a good install, and there’s not a lot of electrical noise in your neighborhood, and no obstructions; you’ll only have signal problems during heavy rain and wind.
...Of course we get heavy rain and wind every day for six weeks, twice a year (our monsoons); and high winds can be an issue year round. We also get dust storms here, and they can block signal as well.
Basically, your signal depends on your neighborhood, and the quality of your install. If you can get good, strong, clear, unobstructed signal then signal loss should only be an issue during the peaks of the monsoon (or heavy snow fall, or thunderstorms). If your signal is marginal, then you could get dropouts all the time, with just high winds and blowing dust (which we get all the time down here).
I know a lot of people around this area with DirecTV, and just as I note above; they get mixed results, depending on the weather, their neighborhood, and the quality of their install.
2. Latency
It can take up to 20 seconds for your satellite receiver to lock in and tune a station when you flip channels (it's also filling a read ahead buffer, to smooth out signal jitter). I find this INCREDIBLY irritating. Forget about flipping through channels to see what's on; you pretty much have to use the program guide no matter what.
3. HD-DVR
DirecTV charges a HELL of a lot for their HD DVR, it doesn't record very much video, and it just isn't as good as a real TiVO.
For now, DirecTV uses software licensed from TiVO for their DVR, but beginning in 2008 they are moving to their own software. Worse, the current software doesn't have NEAR the features that TiVO does.
Oh and even though you're paying $300 for your DVR, it isn't yours; it's a lease. If you cancel your DirecTV service, they own the box not you; and you (obviously) can't take it to another provider.
For me, all those irritations more than counterbalance the better HD programming that DirecTV offers over Cox. You on the other hand may weight your priorities differently.
A lot of folks have chosen to go with satellite for their HD service, and that can be a very good choice. DirecTV has far more channels in HD than most cable providers. As of today they have 85 HD channels available, whereas in my market, Cox only offers 24.
Both are of course expanding their offerings. DirecTV have said they will have 100 channels available in HD by the middle of 2008 (it was originally supposed to be by the end of 2007, but they are still 15 short). Cox is planning on 80 channels by the end of 2008, rolling them out 12 per quarter, the first group coming March 8th.
More important to many, DirecTV offers out of region NFL football, and MLB baseball on an exclusive basis (they have NASCAR and NBA with enhanced programming but not exclusive). If you live in Phoenix, and want to watch a Patriots homegame that's in local blackout, DirecTV is the only way you can get it.
In terms of general HD programming, that situation is going to equalize over the next two years. By 2009, HD will be the default choice for all cable and satellite providers, and the basic HD tier will be included for free (Cox has just announced this in fact. They will stop charging for basic HD service as of 2008).
Also, by 2009, all broadcast TV will be fully transitioned to HD, because of the analog cutoff. This means all your local channels will be in HD; and by extension all national network channels. Unfortunately, a lot of the cable channels will still only be 480p ED (extended definition), because the providers are trying to save bandwidth by using lower resolution and higher compression.
The broadcasters have all gone to HD, because switching off analog (which they legally had to do anyway) cost them roughly the same whether it was SD or HD, and HD got them more viewers. The cable providers on the other hand (although HD is also bringing them more viewers); are not as enthused, because their networks have bandwidth limitations that OTA (over the air) digital broadcasts don’t have (or rather the limits exist, but they are not an issue for a single channel broadcast). This means infrastructure upgrades for a lot of cable systems; which have cost them billions of dollars over the past few years (and will continue to cost them billions for the next two or three years as well).
These limitations also exist for satellite providers, but the sat companies don't have millions of miles of substandard copper cabling to replace; they just need to replace the head ends and receivers, and rent more bandwidth on the satellites (or launch more satellites - they’ve been doing both).
This has allowed satellite providers to move faster in putting HD content out there; but the costs are still substantial. There are only so many satellites in the sky, and only so much bandwidth available on them. Right now, HD service with DirecTV requires a clear view of a 5 satellite constellation; and that's the limit without launching more satellites, and upgrading every subscribers dish.
In order to minimize these infrastructure costs, the cable and satellite companies have both limited the number of HD signals they are offering; and they are compressing those signals as much as possible.
Of course compression allows them to squeeze more programming into a given amount of bandwidth; but it also reduces quality. Some channels are contracted to be broadcast with less compression, and some signal formats or content survive compression better. This compression is one reason why some channels look quite poor in HD (food network for example), while others look flat out spectacular (discovery HD).
By about 2010, the cable companies will have completed their physical plant upgrades in most regions; and the satellite providers will have reached the maximum capacity of their existing infrastructure without a MAJOR upgrade (as in hundreds of billions of dollars major). At that point, other than contract exclusivity (which I predict won't survive very long in the ubiquitous HD era as more customers complain to the sports leagues rather than switch providers), the programming should equalize between cable and satellite.
I should note cable and DirecTV are not the only alternatives. There are still c-band ("big" dish) and Dish Network on the satellite side for example; and a few lucky folks in some markets have fiber optic based TV services.
Dish offers a similar level of service to DirecTV, with 70 HD channels (and growing), and a SIGNIFICANTLY better HD-DVR (also TiVO technology based, but without the extra features); but they don't have DirecTVs marketing muscle, or their exclusive contracts.
Right now Dish stands at about 14 million subscribers, to DirecTVs 17 million (those are world wide numbers, though both have the vast majority of their subscribers in the US); and neither company are in particularly great financial shape, though both have strong revenues.
Simply put, the Satellite business is expensive, and capital intensive. Every satellite launched can cost upwards of a billion dollars, they have a limited lifespan (15-25 years depending); and sometimes the launches fail (there were two major failures last year for example). Local cable companies have their cable plants to maintain, which are also very expensive; but the cost is spread out to the local providers rather than concentrated on two companies.
This large capital cost, is the primary reason why satellite companies haven't been able to simply add a huge number of services and run away with the market. That said, as you can see by the numbers, mini-dish providers combined now represent a little less than 1/3 of the US "enhanced" television market (the 106 million households with cable, satellite, or other non local broadcasts); a huge leap from where they were 10 years ago.
C-Band services, which once dominated satellite; have fallen out of favor in regions where mini-dish services are available. Though they are still going strong outside of those regions, programming availability may be inconsistent. Many new HD signal streams are in a format that no c-band home receiver can decode for example, so even if you wanted to you couldn't subscribe to them.
The major Telcos are leveraging some of their cable plant expenses, and beginning to offer television services over their local loop; where the loop has been upgraded to either FTTP (fiber to the premesis, also called FTTH) or FTTN (fiber to the node, also called fiber to the neighborhood). These services use high bandwidth fiber optics to transmit IP (internet networking) based telephone, internet, and television programming.
Currently these services are well known as Verizons FiOS (an FTTH service), but other providers offer varying levels of service in different areas. THe second largest provider of these services is Qwest. Both telcos also resell DirecTV in areas where their FTTP/N services are unavailable.
CUrrently these services are both technically immature, and not commonly available. Most providers of the service are in the midst of a transition from first generation VDSL services which used analog multiplexed television signals over relatively low bandwidth links (under 40 megabit, which is barely sufficient for two simultaneous HD streams) to second generation services which offer several hundred megabits of fully digital bandwdith (enough for 10 simultaneous streams or more). Because IPTV only streams one channel per receiver from the head end at any given time, you can in theory offer better service on every channel, without overcompression or compromising on resolution.
Unfortunately, fiber to the neighborhood, and fiber to the home are still rare; and in the first generation form are significantly worse than cable in quality of service. I can't wait for them to be common and viable alternatives, but that isn't likely before 2010 or perhaps later.
Of course that's 2010. Given the fact that as of today, satellite offers ME personally better programming choices however, why did I still choose to go with cable?
Well I didn't exactly, I chose to go with a digital TV service from Qwest (my telco), but it was so poor (they sold me second generation service, but delivered first generation) I canceled it the same day it was installed, and went BACK to cable.... but I still went back to cable instead of going to satellite.
Honestly, Cox HD service is so-so, unless you skip their DVR and buy an HD TiVO. I wholeheartedly recommend doing so. The COX DVR just plain sucks.
With DirecTV you get more HD channels, and for now a TiVO based DVR (though they are moving away from TiVO next year some time), but you have to deal with DirecTVs shortcomings.
So why?
Three things:
1. Loss or degradation of signal
With satellite, you get loss of signal in certain atmospheric conditions. Lots of people say this never happens to them; but lots of others say it happens all the time.
If you can get a good install, and there’s not a lot of electrical noise in your neighborhood, and no obstructions; you’ll only have signal problems during heavy rain and wind.
...Of course we get heavy rain and wind every day for six weeks, twice a year (our monsoons); and high winds can be an issue year round. We also get dust storms here, and they can block signal as well.
Basically, your signal depends on your neighborhood, and the quality of your install. If you can get good, strong, clear, unobstructed signal then signal loss should only be an issue during the peaks of the monsoon (or heavy snow fall, or thunderstorms). If your signal is marginal, then you could get dropouts all the time, with just high winds and blowing dust (which we get all the time down here).
I know a lot of people around this area with DirecTV, and just as I note above; they get mixed results, depending on the weather, their neighborhood, and the quality of their install.
2. Latency
It can take up to 20 seconds for your satellite receiver to lock in and tune a station when you flip channels (it's also filling a read ahead buffer, to smooth out signal jitter). I find this INCREDIBLY irritating. Forget about flipping through channels to see what's on; you pretty much have to use the program guide no matter what.
3. HD-DVR
DirecTV charges a HELL of a lot for their HD DVR, it doesn't record very much video, and it just isn't as good as a real TiVO.
For now, DirecTV uses software licensed from TiVO for their DVR, but beginning in 2008 they are moving to their own software. Worse, the current software doesn't have NEAR the features that TiVO does.
Oh and even though you're paying $300 for your DVR, it isn't yours; it's a lease. If you cancel your DirecTV service, they own the box not you; and you (obviously) can't take it to another provider.
For me, all those irritations more than counterbalance the better HD programming that DirecTV offers over Cox. You on the other hand may weight your priorities differently.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Build or buy for 2007
So, I'm giving computers as gifts to a half dozen people this year; and every time I've mentioned it, I've had someone ask for computer advice.
So, continuing on my gadgetary thrust for the end of the year, lets talk about computers.
Now, the first question is always "build or buy"; by which I mean do you buy a pre-built system from a major vendor, or do you build your own.
Generally speaking, this is a two part question:
1. Does it make sense technically
2. Does it make sense in terms of value
The first part of the first question is also split into a couple of parts; or perhaps I should say there is an immediate definitive discriminator, and that is this: Are you buying a laptop or a Mac (or both)?
If you want a Mac, you only have one choice, and that's from Apple; ether direct (which I recommend) or from a reseller. Either way you get great support from Apple (which is kinda the point); at least if you have a problem that Apple acknowledges (the last couple years they've had a nasty tendency of releasing laptops with major issues and pretending there was no problem until too many people complained).
If you are buying a Mac, the only advice I can give you is this: If you want performance and don't care about your warranty, buy it stripped and add your own parts. If you care about the warranty then you need to pay Apples OUTFRIKKENRAGEOUS prices for RAM and hard drives. Oh and if you DO care, buy the Applecare warranty, because the basic warranty isn't great.
If you are buying a laptop, buy it from a major system vendor. There are a few specialty vendors that will sell you laptop pars, or custom build you a laptop, but they aren't worth the hassle and the incompatibilities, unless you are an expert, or you need something very specialized.
The best advice I can give you here, is to physically try out the keyboards, pointing devices, and screens of any laptop (or at least a comparable model) before buying it. They are greatly subjective matters of personal comfort and preference; and you don't want to end up with a laptop keyboard you can't change, and can't stand to type on.
The second part of the question comes down to this: do you need basic tech support, or tech support for the OS? If you do, or if the eventual end user does (buying a computer for your mom for example), then go ahead and buy from a major vendor.
Don't bother buying a pre-built system from a small independent vendor if you need the tech support; what you're looking for is 24/7 response, depot parts etc...
Also, if you need the tech support, and you plan on keeping the system for more than a year, this is one of the few times when you should consider a factory extended warranty. Factory warranties range from 90 days to one year; which isn't an awfully long time; and may not cover 2 days service etc... Extended warranties from Dell, HP etc.. are generally reasonably priced, and can provide up to a full three years of warranty protection, usually with one week or less turnaround time. They may have two day service available.
That said, only buy the factory extended warranty, directly from the vendor. Don't even think about buying a reseller warranty from Best Buy or somesuch.
Which brings up another good point: If you are going to buy a major vendor system, buy it direct from the vendor when it's on clearance; or through an authorized reseller like CDW, Insight, tiger direct, or newegg.
Unless your local Best Buy is offering an identical system (check the part numbers and spec sheets) on a HUGE discount, you generally don't want to buy a computer from them. For one thing, the prices on the direct vendor and internet clearance houses are usually better; but also the tech support for systems you buy from Best Buy often goes through Best Buy first rather than direct with the system vendor. If there are two systems which appear identical, and several resellers have on part number and Best Buy has a different part number, you can bet it's a BB only part number (even if it's the same model number by the way), and that the tech support is going to go through BB.
Kinda defeats the purpose of buying from a major system vendor in the first place eh?
Now I'm not saying you can't get a great deal from a brick and mortar store (in fact, I just bought a laptop at BB a month ago); just that you have to be absolutely 100% sure of what you are getting. When you go with Best Buy vs. the net, yes, you get to pick it up that day, and return it there if it is broken; but shipping is usually lower than taxes; you generally can't buy the factory extended warranty (at least not without some hassle), and you may be getting a BB only part number with substandard support.
Ok so, technical question out of the way; what about value?
Obviously, if you need the support that a major vendor offers, the value is there. But if you don't really need that support; if you are capable of supporting yourself, and building your own system; there is still a question about whether doing so provides value to you.
This one can be a BIT harder to pin down, but what it comes down to is, how are you going to use the pc? What are you going to use it for, and how hard are you going to use it?
If you are just using a system for email, web surfing, general office tasks etc... then your needs can be met with the lowest of low end systems; and quite frankly, you can't build a low end system on your own for what Dell and the like are selling them for these days.
Today, on the Dell web site, you can buy a brand new (not refurbished) pc, with a gig of RAM, 250 gigs of hard drive space, a 17" lcd, keyboard, mouse, Windows Vista home basic, MS works, and a DVD burner with player and burner software; for $500, or for $300 without the monitor, and with a smaller drive.
That's an every day price, not a clearance or sale. If you get it on one of their nearly weekly clearance deals, you might snag the system with Monitor for $400.
Going to HPs web site yields similar results. They have five computers selling at under $400; and the lowest price system they are selling today is $299, plus $100 for a monitor.
If you catch it at the right time, you can often get the same, or even slightly higher end systems as factory refurbished for as little as $250 (I bought one a couple months ago in fact).
Even without including the software costs (about $200) you simply cannot buy the parts necessary to build these systems for $500; and certainly not for $400.
Keeping everything comparable to the bottom end major systems, you come up at a fair bit higher price. If you account for $60 for a motherboard, $60 for a processor, $25 for RAM, $80 for a case with power supply, $30 for a DVD burner, $90 for a hard drive, $20 for keyboard and mouse; you've got $365 before we even get into a monitor (about $100 minimum) and the operating system ($90 for an OEM version). Oh and of course none of that includes shipping (which Dell will often throw in for free).
Basically, the major system vendors have taken the low end of the market, and dropped the prices to cost or below, as a loss leader. They get you in with the cheap systems, and the refurbished systems; and they make their money on the high end boxes, accessories, software, and extended warranties. You might have noticed you cant just buy a computer at one of these sites anymore without clicking through 5 pages of add-on stuff they want to sell you; well that's why.
Of course that brings up the other half of the home computing equation... the mid-range and high end machines for power using and gaming.
This is where the fun starts.
You really can't beat the majors when it comes to the low end; but if you're building a gaming rig, even only a midrange system; you can either get substandard and proprietary components, or you can get absolutely reamed on price by the likes of Dell and HP.
For example, if I wanted a mid-configured core 2 quad Q6600 HP Blackbird, air cooled (they make water cooled versions for a couple hundred bucks more) with a 640mb 8800gts, 4gb of corsair dominator ram (about twice as expensive as normal ram), an X-fi extreme gamer, two pairs of 500gb hard drives, two dvd drives, and a 1000 watt power supply; I’d play close to $5000 ($4928 to be exact).
That is a midrange system; but from HP, you're paying a high end systems price (Dell sells something similar in the XPS line; for a similar price)
If I built it myself, it would only run about $2500, with all the EXACT same major components, a case of equivalent quality (obviously, HP uses their own case that you can’t buy), and vista home premium (no point in buying ultimate).
If I wanted to, I could add an HD-DVD or BlueRay drive for $200 on top of that, or $400 a BluRay or HD writer; something very few system vendors offer (HP does offer a BluRay writer for $400)
Now remember, that’s a midrange gaming system. If I want to go truly hard core with dual quad xeons, 16 gigs of ram (64 bit os obviously), an SLI setup, 4x 1tb RAID array etc… I'd be looking at $15-$18k from a major vendor; but under $10k to do it myself.
Even aiming a bit lower, into the intro gaming segment, your options aren't just more expensive, they tend to be few and far between. In order to get standard, reasonable quality components, you generally have to move up to the specialized gaming lines; and instead of starting at $300 you start at $1500.
Going with Dell this time, and the XPS line, we intro at that $1500 base price. For that, you get that same Core 2 Quad 6600 (it's the best deal in computing right now), 2 gigs of mid grade RAM ($100 more for the corsair dominator I mentioned earlier), a single 250gb hard drive ($110 more to go to two drives), a single low end DVD burner ($40 for two of them, $250 more for a single BluRay drive, and $350 more for a BluRay writer), and an 8800GT with 512mb of RAM (also the best bargain in gaming video cards right now).
Honestly, that's a pretty decent system. In fact, other than upgrading the RAM and motherboard to slightly higher end models, and adding a second (and larger) hard drive, I'm thinking about building a very similar system myself. If you don't know any better, $1500 sounds like a reasonable price. In fact, if you want a gaming system, and you need tech support and a warranty, it IS a reasonable price.
...The only problem with that is, I can build the EXACT same system at NewEgg for just under $1000 (not including software)... or the slightly upgraded version I'm thinking about for another $120 on top of that.
The higher you aim in systems, the more expensive it gets; or looking at it from the other side, the more you can save. If I wanted to upgrade my processor, go to 4 gigs of premium gaming ram, a 2x750 raid array, and an X-fi sound card, I'd be paying Dell over $2500, maybe $3000. For the same system at NewEgg, I'd be paying around $1700.
I've built three sample configurations at NewEgg; corresponding to what would be $1800, $5500 and $18,500 boxes respectively if purchased from major vendors.
Value box - $1200
God-ish box - $2800
Super-god box - $7700
The super god box listed there is roughly the same raw spec as a fully loaded MacPro tower by the by; excepting better, with more options, better hardware, more storage, more RAM... well, just more and better of everything; and less than half the price.
...Of course it doesn't give you Steve Jobs reflected cool factor; and wont help you score hipster chicks.
If only Steve would sell us his wonderful operating system (and I mean that without any sarcasm. OS X is great).
Talking in more general terms, roughly speaking this is what you need to build a decent midrange or gaming system:
Mid range dual core processor: $150 ($190 gets you into a 4m cache 2.66ghz dual core , $260 gets you a quad core)
mid range motherboard: $70 ($150 gets you a bunch of neat extras)
2 gigs half decent RAM: $60 (spend $200 to go to 4 gigs of medium grade ram)
Mid range graphics card with 340-512 ram: $150 ($300 gives you about 50% more power)
500 gig hard drive: $125 (or $250 for two)
Good quality DVD writer, and second dvd drive: $75
Mid range sound card: $100 (or buy a $150 motherboard and get pretty good onboard sound)
Good quality case: $100
Good quality PSU: $100
Total inc tax and shipping: about $1000 for the bottom, up to about $1500.
My current plan for a new gaming box I want to build early next year looks a little more like this:
Mid range quad core processor: $260
top quality non-sli mobo: $175
4 gigs of very good ram: $350
Medium high end non-sli graphics: $350
4x500gb hard drives in a raid array: $500
HD-DVD burner: $300
BluRay burner: $400
Mid range sound card: $100
VERY good quality aluminum case: $200
VERY good quality modular power supply: $250
Total inc tax and shipping: about $3k
Of course I could easily drop $600 of that $700 for the HD and BluRay drives, $100 on the video card, $100 on the ram, $250 on the hard drives, and $150 on the case and PSU; and still have almost all the speed, computing power, and graphical performance for around $1800 instead.
Ok so why a quad, and why bother with BluRay and HD?
First, the quad question. Why bother with a quad core, it just seems like overkill.
Well, for games it usually is; but for hardcore multi tasking, video editing, photo editing and the like, that quad really helps.
It really depends on the workload, but take a look at performance number between a non-extreme core 2 duo, and a core 2 quad. If the app being test4ed uses multicore well at all, the quads beat out everything other than the Core 2 Extremes (which are more than twice as expensive); and for 64 bit multithreaded apps… there's no comparison. At only $100 more than an equivalently clocked Core 2 duo, they are definitely worth it, if you can use it.
Even better though, the C2 Q6600, that I have called the best bargain in computing above; is actually a 1333mhz part that’s been downclocked to 1066mhz. On most motherboards, you can run it at 1333mhz, with the original OEM heat sink and no additional cooling; and now you’ve got a 3.0GHz quad core with 8mb of cache.
Now why would I add next gen discs to my preferred box; and if they are that great, why not add them to the value system?
Well first, movies. I happen to like watching movies on my computer. I also really like using my computer as a media server. Then of course there's the high volume data storage (50gb per disc in this generation).
Remember now, the higher end selections were intended to be just that, higher end. It’s not something I would recommend to everyone. With my highest end box though, I want to be able to read, and write, any common format. I also need something for offsite backup of critical files (my onsite backup is to my local NAS server), and HD and BluRay are a HELL of a lot cheaper than LTO tape.
Of course that still leaves a couple of important decisions:
1. What about a monitor
2. How much graphic power to pay for (and specifically, to SLI/X-fire or not)
3. How much memory (which is related to the SLI question)
I want to address the monitor question first here; because it's of use to everyone, not just the hard core gamer types.
So, what about monitor?
Firstly, I never count the monitor as part of the computer purchase. Oh yes, you need to budget for it; but it’s like counting your TV as part of your stereo. You don't want to economize on your monitor to get more computer; neither do you want to economize on your computer to get more monitor.
The monitor is the most important element of your human computer interface. Every interaction you have with your computer runs through that monitor; and how happy you are with your computer is to a large extent determined by how happy you are with your monitor.
Also, monitors are one area of computing where you get a decent return on your investment in a higher end piece of gear; because you are likely to keep your monitor for far longer than you keep the rest of the computer. Up until I moved to all LCD a few years back, I had monitors from 5 years, and even 10 years ago; and because I spent the money on top quality, they still looked and worked great.
The prices and deals on LCD displays change from day to day, so it's very hard to make specific recommendations.
Making it even harder, often brand is really little or no indicator as to quality, because there are only 6 fabs that make 19” and bigger LCD panels for computer displays anyway; it’s all the little extras like ports and warranties that make the difference.
I know lots of folks who think they’d never buy an LCD from Goldstar... except they don’t know that Goldstar and Samsung are two of the three leading manufacturers of LCD panels (NEC are the third); and that almost every manufacturer other than Sony (who make their own), including Apple, HP, Dell, Planar and ViewSonic all use Samsung, Goldstar, or NEC panels.
All that said, the extras really do make a difference. When you buy quality, what you're paying for TECHNICALLY is response time, different connectivity, better quality of signal processing, and better backlights (brighter, and with more accurate color spectrum).
More important though, you are also paying for a better warranty and fewer dead or stuck pixels. The better manufacturers all warrant against more than one or two stuck pixels, and most will replace the display if there is even one in a very noticeable spot. The lesser manufacturers offer little to no warranty.
Really, that IS worth the extra $50 or even $100 you pay for going to a higher end manufacturer; especially when buying a 24" or 30" panel.
Ok, now let's talk about the specific features to look for:
1. FOFO (full on/full off) response time of 4ms or less, and GTG (gray to gray) response time of 6ms or less (6ms and 8ms respectively are acceptable, 2 and 4 are ideal).
Unfortunately, most manufacturers are unclear as to what response time they are quoting. If you see 4ms (min) thats the Full On/Full Off response time. If you see 6ms(max) thats the GTG time. If they don’t specify FOFO, GTG, min, or max, then it’s either the average of the two (where they’ll usually note avg. or typ.), or they’re quoting a rise only time, which is actually twice as fast as the real number.
Important to note, if you see a time of 4ms or under quoted without a specific notation as to what they are quoting, and it’s on a less than top of the line display, they are almost certainly quoting rise time; so double it to get the real number.
2. Refresh rate of 120hz is preferred. Refresh rate may not be quoted; if the display has a GTG response time of 8ms or less, it’s probably 120hz. It's not absolutely necessary, but it helps.
3. Static (typical) contrast ratio above 600:1, 1000:1 or above preferred. Again, you may not be sure what number you're being quoted here.
4. dynamic contrast ratio of at least 3000:1, and 10000:1 preferred. Unfortunately, dynamic CR is a marketing number, but with many manufacturers, it’s all they give you.
Heres a tip: if you see a number above 1,000:1 on anything other than a top end display, it's dynamic; and if you see a number higher than 3000:1 on a display less than $2500, it’s a dynamic ratio.
5. A brightness of at least 300cdm^2/300nit at D6500K.
6. A color corrected backlight at D6500K. LED backlight if possible. This gives you better color accuracy, and longer display life.
7. DVI with HDCP, and possibly HDMI. Multiple inputs preferred. DisplayPort if possible. Basically, the more inputs the better.
8. Pixel pitch of under .28mm; .25mm or under preferred. If pixel pitch isn’t quoted you can figure it by dividing the long dimension of the screen in mm by the long dimension of the native resolution in pixels.
Here's a trick for you. If the length and width of the display area are not quoted, you can figure them with the aspect ratio, the diagonal measurement, and the Pythagorean theorem.
A 19” diagonal screen at 4:3 is as follows:
19^2=371
(4^2)+(3^2)=25
371/25=14.84
sqrt(14.84)=3.85
4x3.85=15.4” width
3x3.85= 11.55” height
A 24” 16:9 screen is as follows:
24^2=576
(16^2)+(9^2)= 337
576/337=1.709
sqrt(1.709)=1.307
16x1.307=20.91” width
9x1.307= 11.77 height
Knowing this height and width spec is important in deciding between 4:3 and 16:9; because the diagonal measurements are not comparable. A 24” 16:9 actually gives you the same screen HEIGHT as a 19” 4:3; it just adds an extra 5.5” of width.
The smallest I’d personally go with right now would be a 19” 4:3 or a 24” 16:9. The smaller models are almost all considered “economy” models. Either are the minimum size to display a standard 8.5"x11" piece of paper at 100% scale in portrait orientation.
Personally, I happen to think the sweet spot today is in the 24” 16:9 displays. They give you a massive screen area, with great resolution and pixel pitch; but they’re down under $500 for even the best quality models, and around $350 for discount models. If you don’t feel like spending that much, then get a 19” 4:3. Don't bother going for a 20" or 22" 16:9 or a 17" 4:3 unless you are really looking to save money.
The next step up that’s worthwhile is the 30” now offered by Apple, HP, Dell, and Samsung (all using the same Samsung panel actually), and they’re incredibly gorgeous, huge, and spectacular… but they sell from $1300 to $1900. There are 26" and 28" models, but I really don't think they offer much advantage over 24" displays, or much price savings over 30".
As to brands, I like NEC, ViewSonic, Samsung, HP and Dell (usually Samsung), Apple (also usually Samsung), LG, and Planar.
Now, talking about specs. Some manufacturers are more honest than others. Most of the mass market manufacturers (even the good ones) vastly overstate their actual performance. Companies that cater to graphics professionals (Apple, Viewsonic, Planar etc...) on the other hand tend to report their specifications relatively accurately.
All of my recommendations above are based on the semi-reliable marketing numbers of the better mass market brands.
If the manufacturer is very specific, quoting GTG, typical contrast ratio instead of dynamic, exact pixel pitch etc… they are most likely at least reasonably accurate; so if they quote a spec thats good, but less than another brand, it’s likely that the more accurate number is going to be just as good, or even better than the “better”, but less accurate number.
Alright now, graphics and memory...
If in fact you ARE a hardcore gamer or power user, your memory, and your video card are your most important configuration decisions; and they are tightly interrelated.
If you are a power user, but NOT a gamer, you should simply pack as much memory in as you can afford; and your operating system supports. If you run 32 bit windows (about 96% of all computer users), that's 4GB; which conveniently is the amount that most consumer motherboards support.
More memory is just about always better; because you can have more files open and in relatively fast memory without going back to relatively slow disk. For applications like video editing software, where you are performing multiple operations simultaneously on very large files, memory is as important as electricity.
If you are a hardcore gamer though, the question becomes more difficult; and modern graphics cards, especially with SLI; are the reason.
SLI is a way of using multiple video cards to improve performance; and the next few hundred words or so are why I think that even a hardcore gamer shouldn't bother with it.
There’s two reasons why SLI either doesn’t make much difference in performance; or can actually hurt it; in most real world configurations. To talk about this intelligently though, we’re going to have to go into a little compu-history lesson (and believe me, I’m being as brief as possible here. The FULL story would be a hell of a lot longer).
The original implementation of SLI, from 3DFx in 1998, was actually quite useful.
The 3d cards of the time just barely had the guts to render full scenes at 640x480 (yes, that low) and 30 frames per second. Most in fact could only run at 512x384... which is worse than my PDA today.
When 3DFx introduced the Voodoo 2 in ‘98, it was a revolution. The Voodoo2 could render 800x600x16bit at 30 frames per second (native TV refresh rate).
The biggest news with Voodoo2 however, was SLI; which stood for "scan line interleaving".
Unlike LCDs, which have discrete pixels that are turned on and off individually; analog CRT based displays (including tube televisions) have an electron gun which draws on the displays surface in scan lines. These scan lines are split into two sets, half of which are displayed on one pass; then the other half are are interlaced in between on the next pass.
By using two video cards, and having each card render every other scan line within a frame, you could go up to 640x480, and 60 frames per second, or 1024x768 and 30 frames per second.
Of course these days, even with the gnarliest dx9 3d games, the graphics card is no longer the limiting factor. Since 2004, with the mainstreaming of the PCIe bus for graphics; even relatively cheap graphics cards can render most games at 1280x1024x32bit, and 120fps, with 2x anti-aliasing, and trilinear filtering (graphics geek speak for "looks pretty damn good").
Given that’s the best frame rate and resolution that most peoples monitors can display, anything over and above that doesn’t do much to improve the play experience unless you’ve got a very large, very high end display (or multiple displays; but most games don’t work well, or at all, with multi-monitors).
In 2004, Nvidia (who acquired 3dfx from bankruptcy) announced a new version of SLI for their top end cards; and using their own motherboard chipset. ATI also introduced their own version, which they call "CrossFire" and which works very similarly (I'm just going to refer to SLI from this point forward for convenience, but most of what I say applies to both).
The NEW version of SLI, is the “scalable link interface”. Since we’ve switched to primarily progressive mode displays for our computers (LCDs), it uses one of two different methods for sharing the rendering load. It can split a frame and have each card render half; or it can have each card render every other frame. It’s not a terribly efficient way of doing things, because each card is often processing the same data as the other over and over (static backgrounds and the like) but it will give you an increase in frame rates at maximum resolution.
Now, no monitor today can display at more than 120 frames per second, because that’s the maximum refresh rate of the monitors; so going above 120fps is pointless.
On test scenes where the CPU doesn’t have to deal with physics issues, and the scene is programmed to use all the advanced features of the cards, a top end SLI configuration can render scenes at 2560x1600x32bit, on a 30” display, with 8x anti-aliasing, smart filtering, smart texturing, smart shading, and full dynamic lighting; at over 120 frames per second.
In fact some cards in SLI mode can render such a scene at 200+ frames per second… but the best monitor can only display 120fps; and this isn’t a case where having too much data is actually still helpful because you can accurately downsample (as it is when you can compute at a higher resolution than you can display). There is nothing to downsample to, the card simply drops the extra frames on the floor when it pushes out to the display.
Oh and of course I should note, most displays still can’t do 120hz; most LCDs are just 60hz, and most CRTs can only do 75-90hz. So again, unless you have a top end display…
The third way that SLI can increase performance can actually be useful for something other than raw framerate. In SLI Anti-aliasing mode, the cards render alternate frames, and export them back to each other; then one card is used to handle half of the anti-aliasing on a single frame, and the other card to handle the other half.
This works, because Anti-aliasing is the most intensive work the GPU does; involving oversampling each polygon as many as 64 times in as many as 8 locations per vertex. By enabling this mode, you can have one card anti-alias half the locations per vertex, and the other, the other half. This lets you maintain frame rates that you got from 8x anti-aliasing on a single card, all the way up to 32x anti-aliasing (Nvidia just announced a 3 way SLI implementation that enables 64x anti-aliasing); and produces slightly better image quality even at the same level as with single card AA.
Of course the human eye can’t see the difference between 8x and 32x at most resolutions on most sized screens; and in reality none of those scenes could be rendered that highly anyway, because in a real game, the CPU would be too busy with AI and physics information to keep the pipeline full at those resolutions.
At lower resolutions, as I said before, even low end cards can render acceptably, and midrange cards render just as well as the high end ones. There’s really no benefit to SLI at lower resolutions at all.
As you can see, SLI is really just bragging points right now; because the GPU is no longer a limiting factor in any modern game, at any reasonable resolution, level of detail, or level of filtering.
For the last few years, programmers have been focused on improving the physics engines, AIs, and element simulation in their games. This has all put massive strain on the CPU, while graphics have been relatively static (and has also resulted in the development of a physics accelerator card).
Now that DX10 games are coming out, we’re getting a little more demand on the video cards. Games like Crysis for example really do need a high end card to keep up; but still, the limiting factor on games is mostly the CPU; and likely will be until games are programmed to offload physics tasks onto multiple cores or dedicated sub processors (which is starting to happen, slowly).
There are two other things that together make SLI kind of pointless; the 4GB memory barrier, and MMIO.
On 32 bit operating systems, the maximum physical memory addressing space is 4GB. That means that no matter how much memory is in a box, a 32 bit OS will only see 4GB of it, unless you do some weird tricks with memory allocation (which many dedicated servers can do for example).
Now, for most applications and with most hardware, that isn’t an issue; because the maximum memory space that can be assigned to a single application is 3GB anyway (with 1GB allocated to the Operating System Kernel). Unfortunately for us, memory requirements have really been going up on games the last few years, and so now, some games can easily use all 3GB available to them (and all your swap space too).
Ok, again, still not a problem because you’ve got 4gb right?
Well… no.
When the 32 bit memory space was first opened up to personal computers, with the introduction of the Intel 80386 processor in 1986 (Macs had 32 bit processors beginning with the mac plus in 1986; but only got a full 32 bit address space with System 7 in 1991) ; the idea of 4GB in a home computer was thought preposterous. The few people who thought we may eventually see such memory usage, all assumed we would have transitioned to 64 bit systems by then.
In fact, every other platform HAS transitioned to 64 bit; most of them within 10 years of the 386’s introduction (though most still operate in both modes depending on circumstances).
Every platform except Windows.
Even more irritating, is that for about 3 years now, every new processor and chipset has also been 64bit; but the operating system isn’t using that capability.
At any rate, no-one thought we would ever use 4GB of RAM, for as long as 4GB of RAM was a limitation; so they decided to use that “extra” addressing space”.
What they came up with, was called “Memory Mapped Input and Output” or MMIO.
Actually MMIO had been used before; it was used in the 640k days as well, and there were several different workarounds and memory managers that moved the MMIO space into the HMA (high memory areas). This gave you most of your memory below 640k back, and put the device maps into the area above 640k, so that the low memory area was usable by programs.
Well, an identical situation exists today. Every physical device in a computer needs to have a dedicated address space so that software can talk to it. The way MMIO works, is that rather than create a separate addressing space for every device (which would have been a nightmare); programmers simply wrote the BIOS and OS to write to an address in main memory that was mapped to the IO of that device; thus Memory Mapped IO.
When the 32 bit address space became available, it was a natural to use MMIO again. S0 for all these new devices, they allocated addresses starting with the very last byte of the 4GB space, and counted down from there.
Initially this wasn’t a big deal. The MMIO space used by devices on a system was typically less than 64k. Then AGP and USB came along, and devices started requesting a lot more address space. Sometimes as much as 256MB; because the video card needed to map every bit of it’s onboard memory into the main memory addressing space.
Again, not a problem; because no-one could afford more than 2GB of RAM, and no non-server chipsets (which handle the problem by extending their mapping space through mutliple 32bit address tables, and remapping MMIO to a virtual space counting down from 32GB) supported 4GB anyway.
In 2004, four things happened pretty much all at once to make this 4GB issue a potential problem: Graphics cards started regularly coming with 512MB of memory or more (there are now cards with two GPUs on one card, and 1.5GB of memory), Nvidia introduced their new SLI system to work with these higher end cards, Intel and Nvidia both introduced new chipsets and reference motherboards that supported 4GB (or even 8GB) of RAM, and RAM prices crashed through the floor.
At this point, you could put 4GB of RAM in a system for a relatively reasonable amount of money; but when you put that 768MB graphics card in, all of a sudden your operating system could only see and address 3.2GB. Put two of them into a box, and you’re down to 2.5GB.
So you’ve paid for 4GB, and installed 4GB; but you’re only actually able to use 2.5GB?
That’s a problem… but at least there weren’t very any games that needed more than 2GB of ram…
...Until Supreme Commander came out, and it wanted every bit of memory you could give it. In fact, it wanted MORE than you could give it, and tried to steal memory from the OS, thus causing many many crashes.
In Supreme Commander, you are the strategic commander of an armored mech army, which can vary in size from a few units, up to several thousand. Each individual unit is fully rendered and textured, and has it’s own AI. All terrain is also fully rendered. There can be several hundred fully rendered units on screen at any given time.
There is no system today that can handle supreme commander at… really any resolution. 3ghz quad core with 3.2gb of RAM (down from 4gb), and a 768mb 8800GTX is the best you can do, and even then it slows down to under 30fps quite frequently.
Given the amount of 3D work required, one would think an SLI configuration would be perfect for Supreme commander. The problem is the memory hole created by the cards memory.
If you run supreme commander on an SLI system all you’re doing is taking away memory that the CPU needs to handle all the units on the screen.
Today, you have the capability to put 3 gigs worth of video ram into a system; but if you did that in a system with 4GB of RAM, you'd end up with just 1GB usable system memory. Because of the 4gb memory barrier on 32 bit operating systems, you can't add more RAM to compensate. All you can do is decided whether you need more video RAM, or more system RAM; and choose your video memory accordingly.
Honestly, my personal recommendation is to skip the SLI, and cards with more than 512mb of video memory; and keep that system memory available.
It's only very rarely can a single card effectively use more than 512 megs of RAM. In theory, there are some situations where running two 512 meg cards in an SLI configuration; which cuts you down to under 3gb of RAM usable, will give you enough graphical performance increase to justify losing that gig. Most of the time however, you aren't going to see that kind of performance boost.
My personal recommendation is to buy one very good card with 512 megs of video ram (or if you must, up to 768); and pay for the full 4 gigs of system RAM.
Well, I hope this was helpful. I realize theres a lot of obscure detail here, but if you're trying to make an informed decision, this is the absolute minimum of what you need to know. We haven't even gone in to things like chipset differences, sound cards, or processor architecture issues; and those would be another 10,000 words easy. Don't even get me started on Vista vs. XP, or 32bit vs. 64 bit.
Any questions?
So, continuing on my gadgetary thrust for the end of the year, lets talk about computers.
Now, the first question is always "build or buy"; by which I mean do you buy a pre-built system from a major vendor, or do you build your own.
Generally speaking, this is a two part question:
1. Does it make sense technically
2. Does it make sense in terms of value
The first part of the first question is also split into a couple of parts; or perhaps I should say there is an immediate definitive discriminator, and that is this: Are you buying a laptop or a Mac (or both)?
If you want a Mac, you only have one choice, and that's from Apple; ether direct (which I recommend) or from a reseller. Either way you get great support from Apple (which is kinda the point); at least if you have a problem that Apple acknowledges (the last couple years they've had a nasty tendency of releasing laptops with major issues and pretending there was no problem until too many people complained).
If you are buying a Mac, the only advice I can give you is this: If you want performance and don't care about your warranty, buy it stripped and add your own parts. If you care about the warranty then you need to pay Apples OUTFRIKKENRAGEOUS prices for RAM and hard drives. Oh and if you DO care, buy the Applecare warranty, because the basic warranty isn't great.
If you are buying a laptop, buy it from a major system vendor. There are a few specialty vendors that will sell you laptop pars, or custom build you a laptop, but they aren't worth the hassle and the incompatibilities, unless you are an expert, or you need something very specialized.
The best advice I can give you here, is to physically try out the keyboards, pointing devices, and screens of any laptop (or at least a comparable model) before buying it. They are greatly subjective matters of personal comfort and preference; and you don't want to end up with a laptop keyboard you can't change, and can't stand to type on.
The second part of the question comes down to this: do you need basic tech support, or tech support for the OS? If you do, or if the eventual end user does (buying a computer for your mom for example), then go ahead and buy from a major vendor.
Don't bother buying a pre-built system from a small independent vendor if you need the tech support; what you're looking for is 24/7 response, depot parts etc...
Also, if you need the tech support, and you plan on keeping the system for more than a year, this is one of the few times when you should consider a factory extended warranty. Factory warranties range from 90 days to one year; which isn't an awfully long time; and may not cover 2 days service etc... Extended warranties from Dell, HP etc.. are generally reasonably priced, and can provide up to a full three years of warranty protection, usually with one week or less turnaround time. They may have two day service available.
That said, only buy the factory extended warranty, directly from the vendor. Don't even think about buying a reseller warranty from Best Buy or somesuch.
Which brings up another good point: If you are going to buy a major vendor system, buy it direct from the vendor when it's on clearance; or through an authorized reseller like CDW, Insight, tiger direct, or newegg.
Unless your local Best Buy is offering an identical system (check the part numbers and spec sheets) on a HUGE discount, you generally don't want to buy a computer from them. For one thing, the prices on the direct vendor and internet clearance houses are usually better; but also the tech support for systems you buy from Best Buy often goes through Best Buy first rather than direct with the system vendor. If there are two systems which appear identical, and several resellers have on part number and Best Buy has a different part number, you can bet it's a BB only part number (even if it's the same model number by the way), and that the tech support is going to go through BB.
Kinda defeats the purpose of buying from a major system vendor in the first place eh?
Now I'm not saying you can't get a great deal from a brick and mortar store (in fact, I just bought a laptop at BB a month ago); just that you have to be absolutely 100% sure of what you are getting. When you go with Best Buy vs. the net, yes, you get to pick it up that day, and return it there if it is broken; but shipping is usually lower than taxes; you generally can't buy the factory extended warranty (at least not without some hassle), and you may be getting a BB only part number with substandard support.
Ok so, technical question out of the way; what about value?
Obviously, if you need the support that a major vendor offers, the value is there. But if you don't really need that support; if you are capable of supporting yourself, and building your own system; there is still a question about whether doing so provides value to you.
This one can be a BIT harder to pin down, but what it comes down to is, how are you going to use the pc? What are you going to use it for, and how hard are you going to use it?
If you are just using a system for email, web surfing, general office tasks etc... then your needs can be met with the lowest of low end systems; and quite frankly, you can't build a low end system on your own for what Dell and the like are selling them for these days.
Today, on the Dell web site, you can buy a brand new (not refurbished) pc, with a gig of RAM, 250 gigs of hard drive space, a 17" lcd, keyboard, mouse, Windows Vista home basic, MS works, and a DVD burner with player and burner software; for $500, or for $300 without the monitor, and with a smaller drive.
That's an every day price, not a clearance or sale. If you get it on one of their nearly weekly clearance deals, you might snag the system with Monitor for $400.
Going to HPs web site yields similar results. They have five computers selling at under $400; and the lowest price system they are selling today is $299, plus $100 for a monitor.
If you catch it at the right time, you can often get the same, or even slightly higher end systems as factory refurbished for as little as $250 (I bought one a couple months ago in fact).
Even without including the software costs (about $200) you simply cannot buy the parts necessary to build these systems for $500; and certainly not for $400.
Keeping everything comparable to the bottom end major systems, you come up at a fair bit higher price. If you account for $60 for a motherboard, $60 for a processor, $25 for RAM, $80 for a case with power supply, $30 for a DVD burner, $90 for a hard drive, $20 for keyboard and mouse; you've got $365 before we even get into a monitor (about $100 minimum) and the operating system ($90 for an OEM version). Oh and of course none of that includes shipping (which Dell will often throw in for free).
Basically, the major system vendors have taken the low end of the market, and dropped the prices to cost or below, as a loss leader. They get you in with the cheap systems, and the refurbished systems; and they make their money on the high end boxes, accessories, software, and extended warranties. You might have noticed you cant just buy a computer at one of these sites anymore without clicking through 5 pages of add-on stuff they want to sell you; well that's why.
Of course that brings up the other half of the home computing equation... the mid-range and high end machines for power using and gaming.
This is where the fun starts.
You really can't beat the majors when it comes to the low end; but if you're building a gaming rig, even only a midrange system; you can either get substandard and proprietary components, or you can get absolutely reamed on price by the likes of Dell and HP.
For example, if I wanted a mid-configured core 2 quad Q6600 HP Blackbird, air cooled (they make water cooled versions for a couple hundred bucks more) with a 640mb 8800gts, 4gb of corsair dominator ram (about twice as expensive as normal ram), an X-fi extreme gamer, two pairs of 500gb hard drives, two dvd drives, and a 1000 watt power supply; I’d play close to $5000 ($4928 to be exact).
That is a midrange system; but from HP, you're paying a high end systems price (Dell sells something similar in the XPS line; for a similar price)
If I built it myself, it would only run about $2500, with all the EXACT same major components, a case of equivalent quality (obviously, HP uses their own case that you can’t buy), and vista home premium (no point in buying ultimate).
If I wanted to, I could add an HD-DVD or BlueRay drive for $200 on top of that, or $400 a BluRay or HD writer; something very few system vendors offer (HP does offer a BluRay writer for $400)
Now remember, that’s a midrange gaming system. If I want to go truly hard core with dual quad xeons, 16 gigs of ram (64 bit os obviously), an SLI setup, 4x 1tb RAID array etc… I'd be looking at $15-$18k from a major vendor; but under $10k to do it myself.
Even aiming a bit lower, into the intro gaming segment, your options aren't just more expensive, they tend to be few and far between. In order to get standard, reasonable quality components, you generally have to move up to the specialized gaming lines; and instead of starting at $300 you start at $1500.
Going with Dell this time, and the XPS line, we intro at that $1500 base price. For that, you get that same Core 2 Quad 6600 (it's the best deal in computing right now), 2 gigs of mid grade RAM ($100 more for the corsair dominator I mentioned earlier), a single 250gb hard drive ($110 more to go to two drives), a single low end DVD burner ($40 for two of them, $250 more for a single BluRay drive, and $350 more for a BluRay writer), and an 8800GT with 512mb of RAM (also the best bargain in gaming video cards right now).
Honestly, that's a pretty decent system. In fact, other than upgrading the RAM and motherboard to slightly higher end models, and adding a second (and larger) hard drive, I'm thinking about building a very similar system myself. If you don't know any better, $1500 sounds like a reasonable price. In fact, if you want a gaming system, and you need tech support and a warranty, it IS a reasonable price.
...The only problem with that is, I can build the EXACT same system at NewEgg for just under $1000 (not including software)... or the slightly upgraded version I'm thinking about for another $120 on top of that.
The higher you aim in systems, the more expensive it gets; or looking at it from the other side, the more you can save. If I wanted to upgrade my processor, go to 4 gigs of premium gaming ram, a 2x750 raid array, and an X-fi sound card, I'd be paying Dell over $2500, maybe $3000. For the same system at NewEgg, I'd be paying around $1700.
I've built three sample configurations at NewEgg; corresponding to what would be $1800, $5500 and $18,500 boxes respectively if purchased from major vendors.
Value box - $1200
God-ish box - $2800
Super-god box - $7700
The super god box listed there is roughly the same raw spec as a fully loaded MacPro tower by the by; excepting better, with more options, better hardware, more storage, more RAM... well, just more and better of everything; and less than half the price.
...Of course it doesn't give you Steve Jobs reflected cool factor; and wont help you score hipster chicks.
If only Steve would sell us his wonderful operating system (and I mean that without any sarcasm. OS X is great).
Talking in more general terms, roughly speaking this is what you need to build a decent midrange or gaming system:
Mid range dual core processor: $150 ($190 gets you into a 4m cache 2.66ghz dual core , $260 gets you a quad core)
mid range motherboard: $70 ($150 gets you a bunch of neat extras)
2 gigs half decent RAM: $60 (spend $200 to go to 4 gigs of medium grade ram)
Mid range graphics card with 340-512 ram: $150 ($300 gives you about 50% more power)
500 gig hard drive: $125 (or $250 for two)
Good quality DVD writer, and second dvd drive: $75
Mid range sound card: $100 (or buy a $150 motherboard and get pretty good onboard sound)
Good quality case: $100
Good quality PSU: $100
Total inc tax and shipping: about $1000 for the bottom, up to about $1500.
My current plan for a new gaming box I want to build early next year looks a little more like this:
Mid range quad core processor: $260
top quality non-sli mobo: $175
4 gigs of very good ram: $350
Medium high end non-sli graphics: $350
4x500gb hard drives in a raid array: $500
HD-DVD burner: $300
BluRay burner: $400
Mid range sound card: $100
VERY good quality aluminum case: $200
VERY good quality modular power supply: $250
Total inc tax and shipping: about $3k
Of course I could easily drop $600 of that $700 for the HD and BluRay drives, $100 on the video card, $100 on the ram, $250 on the hard drives, and $150 on the case and PSU; and still have almost all the speed, computing power, and graphical performance for around $1800 instead.
Ok so why a quad, and why bother with BluRay and HD?
First, the quad question. Why bother with a quad core, it just seems like overkill.
Well, for games it usually is; but for hardcore multi tasking, video editing, photo editing and the like, that quad really helps.
It really depends on the workload, but take a look at performance number between a non-extreme core 2 duo, and a core 2 quad. If the app being test4ed uses multicore well at all, the quads beat out everything other than the Core 2 Extremes (which are more than twice as expensive); and for 64 bit multithreaded apps… there's no comparison. At only $100 more than an equivalently clocked Core 2 duo, they are definitely worth it, if you can use it.
Even better though, the C2 Q6600, that I have called the best bargain in computing above; is actually a 1333mhz part that’s been downclocked to 1066mhz. On most motherboards, you can run it at 1333mhz, with the original OEM heat sink and no additional cooling; and now you’ve got a 3.0GHz quad core with 8mb of cache.
Now why would I add next gen discs to my preferred box; and if they are that great, why not add them to the value system?
Well first, movies. I happen to like watching movies on my computer. I also really like using my computer as a media server. Then of course there's the high volume data storage (50gb per disc in this generation).
Remember now, the higher end selections were intended to be just that, higher end. It’s not something I would recommend to everyone. With my highest end box though, I want to be able to read, and write, any common format. I also need something for offsite backup of critical files (my onsite backup is to my local NAS server), and HD and BluRay are a HELL of a lot cheaper than LTO tape.
Of course that still leaves a couple of important decisions:
1. What about a monitor
2. How much graphic power to pay for (and specifically, to SLI/X-fire or not)
3. How much memory (which is related to the SLI question)
I want to address the monitor question first here; because it's of use to everyone, not just the hard core gamer types.
So, what about monitor?
Firstly, I never count the monitor as part of the computer purchase. Oh yes, you need to budget for it; but it’s like counting your TV as part of your stereo. You don't want to economize on your monitor to get more computer; neither do you want to economize on your computer to get more monitor.
The monitor is the most important element of your human computer interface. Every interaction you have with your computer runs through that monitor; and how happy you are with your computer is to a large extent determined by how happy you are with your monitor.
Also, monitors are one area of computing where you get a decent return on your investment in a higher end piece of gear; because you are likely to keep your monitor for far longer than you keep the rest of the computer. Up until I moved to all LCD a few years back, I had monitors from 5 years, and even 10 years ago; and because I spent the money on top quality, they still looked and worked great.
The prices and deals on LCD displays change from day to day, so it's very hard to make specific recommendations.
Making it even harder, often brand is really little or no indicator as to quality, because there are only 6 fabs that make 19” and bigger LCD panels for computer displays anyway; it’s all the little extras like ports and warranties that make the difference.
I know lots of folks who think they’d never buy an LCD from Goldstar... except they don’t know that Goldstar and Samsung are two of the three leading manufacturers of LCD panels (NEC are the third); and that almost every manufacturer other than Sony (who make their own), including Apple, HP, Dell, Planar and ViewSonic all use Samsung, Goldstar, or NEC panels.
All that said, the extras really do make a difference. When you buy quality, what you're paying for TECHNICALLY is response time, different connectivity, better quality of signal processing, and better backlights (brighter, and with more accurate color spectrum).
More important though, you are also paying for a better warranty and fewer dead or stuck pixels. The better manufacturers all warrant against more than one or two stuck pixels, and most will replace the display if there is even one in a very noticeable spot. The lesser manufacturers offer little to no warranty.
Really, that IS worth the extra $50 or even $100 you pay for going to a higher end manufacturer; especially when buying a 24" or 30" panel.
Ok, now let's talk about the specific features to look for:
1. FOFO (full on/full off) response time of 4ms or less, and GTG (gray to gray) response time of 6ms or less (6ms and 8ms respectively are acceptable, 2 and 4 are ideal).
Unfortunately, most manufacturers are unclear as to what response time they are quoting. If you see 4ms (min) thats the Full On/Full Off response time. If you see 6ms(max) thats the GTG time. If they don’t specify FOFO, GTG, min, or max, then it’s either the average of the two (where they’ll usually note avg. or typ.), or they’re quoting a rise only time, which is actually twice as fast as the real number.
Important to note, if you see a time of 4ms or under quoted without a specific notation as to what they are quoting, and it’s on a less than top of the line display, they are almost certainly quoting rise time; so double it to get the real number.
2. Refresh rate of 120hz is preferred. Refresh rate may not be quoted; if the display has a GTG response time of 8ms or less, it’s probably 120hz. It's not absolutely necessary, but it helps.
3. Static (typical) contrast ratio above 600:1, 1000:1 or above preferred. Again, you may not be sure what number you're being quoted here.
4. dynamic contrast ratio of at least 3000:1, and 10000:1 preferred. Unfortunately, dynamic CR is a marketing number, but with many manufacturers, it’s all they give you.
Heres a tip: if you see a number above 1,000:1 on anything other than a top end display, it's dynamic; and if you see a number higher than 3000:1 on a display less than $2500, it’s a dynamic ratio.
5. A brightness of at least 300cdm^2/300nit at D6500K.
6. A color corrected backlight at D6500K. LED backlight if possible. This gives you better color accuracy, and longer display life.
7. DVI with HDCP, and possibly HDMI. Multiple inputs preferred. DisplayPort if possible. Basically, the more inputs the better.
8. Pixel pitch of under .28mm; .25mm or under preferred. If pixel pitch isn’t quoted you can figure it by dividing the long dimension of the screen in mm by the long dimension of the native resolution in pixels.
Here's a trick for you. If the length and width of the display area are not quoted, you can figure them with the aspect ratio, the diagonal measurement, and the Pythagorean theorem.
A 19” diagonal screen at 4:3 is as follows:
19^2=371
(4^2)+(3^2)=25
371/25=14.84
sqrt(14.84)=3.85
4x3.85=15.4” width
3x3.85= 11.55” height
A 24” 16:9 screen is as follows:
24^2=576
(16^2)+(9^2)= 337
576/337=1.709
sqrt(1.709)=1.307
16x1.307=20.91” width
9x1.307= 11.77 height
Knowing this height and width spec is important in deciding between 4:3 and 16:9; because the diagonal measurements are not comparable. A 24” 16:9 actually gives you the same screen HEIGHT as a 19” 4:3; it just adds an extra 5.5” of width.
The smallest I’d personally go with right now would be a 19” 4:3 or a 24” 16:9. The smaller models are almost all considered “economy” models. Either are the minimum size to display a standard 8.5"x11" piece of paper at 100% scale in portrait orientation.
Personally, I happen to think the sweet spot today is in the 24” 16:9 displays. They give you a massive screen area, with great resolution and pixel pitch; but they’re down under $500 for even the best quality models, and around $350 for discount models. If you don’t feel like spending that much, then get a 19” 4:3. Don't bother going for a 20" or 22" 16:9 or a 17" 4:3 unless you are really looking to save money.
The next step up that’s worthwhile is the 30” now offered by Apple, HP, Dell, and Samsung (all using the same Samsung panel actually), and they’re incredibly gorgeous, huge, and spectacular… but they sell from $1300 to $1900. There are 26" and 28" models, but I really don't think they offer much advantage over 24" displays, or much price savings over 30".
As to brands, I like NEC, ViewSonic, Samsung, HP and Dell (usually Samsung), Apple (also usually Samsung), LG, and Planar.
Now, talking about specs. Some manufacturers are more honest than others. Most of the mass market manufacturers (even the good ones) vastly overstate their actual performance. Companies that cater to graphics professionals (Apple, Viewsonic, Planar etc...) on the other hand tend to report their specifications relatively accurately.
All of my recommendations above are based on the semi-reliable marketing numbers of the better mass market brands.
If the manufacturer is very specific, quoting GTG, typical contrast ratio instead of dynamic, exact pixel pitch etc… they are most likely at least reasonably accurate; so if they quote a spec thats good, but less than another brand, it’s likely that the more accurate number is going to be just as good, or even better than the “better”, but less accurate number.
Alright now, graphics and memory...
If in fact you ARE a hardcore gamer or power user, your memory, and your video card are your most important configuration decisions; and they are tightly interrelated.
If you are a power user, but NOT a gamer, you should simply pack as much memory in as you can afford; and your operating system supports. If you run 32 bit windows (about 96% of all computer users), that's 4GB; which conveniently is the amount that most consumer motherboards support.
More memory is just about always better; because you can have more files open and in relatively fast memory without going back to relatively slow disk. For applications like video editing software, where you are performing multiple operations simultaneously on very large files, memory is as important as electricity.
If you are a hardcore gamer though, the question becomes more difficult; and modern graphics cards, especially with SLI; are the reason.
SLI is a way of using multiple video cards to improve performance; and the next few hundred words or so are why I think that even a hardcore gamer shouldn't bother with it.
There’s two reasons why SLI either doesn’t make much difference in performance; or can actually hurt it; in most real world configurations. To talk about this intelligently though, we’re going to have to go into a little compu-history lesson (and believe me, I’m being as brief as possible here. The FULL story would be a hell of a lot longer).
The original implementation of SLI, from 3DFx in 1998, was actually quite useful.
The 3d cards of the time just barely had the guts to render full scenes at 640x480 (yes, that low) and 30 frames per second. Most in fact could only run at 512x384... which is worse than my PDA today.
When 3DFx introduced the Voodoo 2 in ‘98, it was a revolution. The Voodoo2 could render 800x600x16bit at 30 frames per second (native TV refresh rate).
The biggest news with Voodoo2 however, was SLI; which stood for "scan line interleaving".
Unlike LCDs, which have discrete pixels that are turned on and off individually; analog CRT based displays (including tube televisions) have an electron gun which draws on the displays surface in scan lines. These scan lines are split into two sets, half of which are displayed on one pass; then the other half are are interlaced in between on the next pass.
By using two video cards, and having each card render every other scan line within a frame, you could go up to 640x480, and 60 frames per second, or 1024x768 and 30 frames per second.
Of course these days, even with the gnarliest dx9 3d games, the graphics card is no longer the limiting factor. Since 2004, with the mainstreaming of the PCIe bus for graphics; even relatively cheap graphics cards can render most games at 1280x1024x32bit, and 120fps, with 2x anti-aliasing, and trilinear filtering (graphics geek speak for "looks pretty damn good").
Given that’s the best frame rate and resolution that most peoples monitors can display, anything over and above that doesn’t do much to improve the play experience unless you’ve got a very large, very high end display (or multiple displays; but most games don’t work well, or at all, with multi-monitors).
In 2004, Nvidia (who acquired 3dfx from bankruptcy) announced a new version of SLI for their top end cards; and using their own motherboard chipset. ATI also introduced their own version, which they call "CrossFire" and which works very similarly (I'm just going to refer to SLI from this point forward for convenience, but most of what I say applies to both).
The NEW version of SLI, is the “scalable link interface”. Since we’ve switched to primarily progressive mode displays for our computers (LCDs), it uses one of two different methods for sharing the rendering load. It can split a frame and have each card render half; or it can have each card render every other frame. It’s not a terribly efficient way of doing things, because each card is often processing the same data as the other over and over (static backgrounds and the like) but it will give you an increase in frame rates at maximum resolution.
Now, no monitor today can display at more than 120 frames per second, because that’s the maximum refresh rate of the monitors; so going above 120fps is pointless.
On test scenes where the CPU doesn’t have to deal with physics issues, and the scene is programmed to use all the advanced features of the cards, a top end SLI configuration can render scenes at 2560x1600x32bit, on a 30” display, with 8x anti-aliasing, smart filtering, smart texturing, smart shading, and full dynamic lighting; at over 120 frames per second.
In fact some cards in SLI mode can render such a scene at 200+ frames per second… but the best monitor can only display 120fps; and this isn’t a case where having too much data is actually still helpful because you can accurately downsample (as it is when you can compute at a higher resolution than you can display). There is nothing to downsample to, the card simply drops the extra frames on the floor when it pushes out to the display.
Oh and of course I should note, most displays still can’t do 120hz; most LCDs are just 60hz, and most CRTs can only do 75-90hz. So again, unless you have a top end display…
The third way that SLI can increase performance can actually be useful for something other than raw framerate. In SLI Anti-aliasing mode, the cards render alternate frames, and export them back to each other; then one card is used to handle half of the anti-aliasing on a single frame, and the other card to handle the other half.
This works, because Anti-aliasing is the most intensive work the GPU does; involving oversampling each polygon as many as 64 times in as many as 8 locations per vertex. By enabling this mode, you can have one card anti-alias half the locations per vertex, and the other, the other half. This lets you maintain frame rates that you got from 8x anti-aliasing on a single card, all the way up to 32x anti-aliasing (Nvidia just announced a 3 way SLI implementation that enables 64x anti-aliasing); and produces slightly better image quality even at the same level as with single card AA.
Of course the human eye can’t see the difference between 8x and 32x at most resolutions on most sized screens; and in reality none of those scenes could be rendered that highly anyway, because in a real game, the CPU would be too busy with AI and physics information to keep the pipeline full at those resolutions.
At lower resolutions, as I said before, even low end cards can render acceptably, and midrange cards render just as well as the high end ones. There’s really no benefit to SLI at lower resolutions at all.
As you can see, SLI is really just bragging points right now; because the GPU is no longer a limiting factor in any modern game, at any reasonable resolution, level of detail, or level of filtering.
For the last few years, programmers have been focused on improving the physics engines, AIs, and element simulation in their games. This has all put massive strain on the CPU, while graphics have been relatively static (and has also resulted in the development of a physics accelerator card).
Now that DX10 games are coming out, we’re getting a little more demand on the video cards. Games like Crysis for example really do need a high end card to keep up; but still, the limiting factor on games is mostly the CPU; and likely will be until games are programmed to offload physics tasks onto multiple cores or dedicated sub processors (which is starting to happen, slowly).
There are two other things that together make SLI kind of pointless; the 4GB memory barrier, and MMIO.
On 32 bit operating systems, the maximum physical memory addressing space is 4GB. That means that no matter how much memory is in a box, a 32 bit OS will only see 4GB of it, unless you do some weird tricks with memory allocation (which many dedicated servers can do for example).
Now, for most applications and with most hardware, that isn’t an issue; because the maximum memory space that can be assigned to a single application is 3GB anyway (with 1GB allocated to the Operating System Kernel). Unfortunately for us, memory requirements have really been going up on games the last few years, and so now, some games can easily use all 3GB available to them (and all your swap space too).
Ok, again, still not a problem because you’ve got 4gb right?
Well… no.
When the 32 bit memory space was first opened up to personal computers, with the introduction of the Intel 80386 processor in 1986 (Macs had 32 bit processors beginning with the mac plus in 1986; but only got a full 32 bit address space with System 7 in 1991) ; the idea of 4GB in a home computer was thought preposterous. The few people who thought we may eventually see such memory usage, all assumed we would have transitioned to 64 bit systems by then.
In fact, every other platform HAS transitioned to 64 bit; most of them within 10 years of the 386’s introduction (though most still operate in both modes depending on circumstances).
Every platform except Windows.
Even more irritating, is that for about 3 years now, every new processor and chipset has also been 64bit; but the operating system isn’t using that capability.
At any rate, no-one thought we would ever use 4GB of RAM, for as long as 4GB of RAM was a limitation; so they decided to use that “extra” addressing space”.
What they came up with, was called “Memory Mapped Input and Output” or MMIO.
Actually MMIO had been used before; it was used in the 640k days as well, and there were several different workarounds and memory managers that moved the MMIO space into the HMA (high memory areas). This gave you most of your memory below 640k back, and put the device maps into the area above 640k, so that the low memory area was usable by programs.
Well, an identical situation exists today. Every physical device in a computer needs to have a dedicated address space so that software can talk to it. The way MMIO works, is that rather than create a separate addressing space for every device (which would have been a nightmare); programmers simply wrote the BIOS and OS to write to an address in main memory that was mapped to the IO of that device; thus Memory Mapped IO.
When the 32 bit address space became available, it was a natural to use MMIO again. S0 for all these new devices, they allocated addresses starting with the very last byte of the 4GB space, and counted down from there.
Initially this wasn’t a big deal. The MMIO space used by devices on a system was typically less than 64k. Then AGP and USB came along, and devices started requesting a lot more address space. Sometimes as much as 256MB; because the video card needed to map every bit of it’s onboard memory into the main memory addressing space.
Again, not a problem; because no-one could afford more than 2GB of RAM, and no non-server chipsets (which handle the problem by extending their mapping space through mutliple 32bit address tables, and remapping MMIO to a virtual space counting down from 32GB) supported 4GB anyway.
In 2004, four things happened pretty much all at once to make this 4GB issue a potential problem: Graphics cards started regularly coming with 512MB of memory or more (there are now cards with two GPUs on one card, and 1.5GB of memory), Nvidia introduced their new SLI system to work with these higher end cards, Intel and Nvidia both introduced new chipsets and reference motherboards that supported 4GB (or even 8GB) of RAM, and RAM prices crashed through the floor.
At this point, you could put 4GB of RAM in a system for a relatively reasonable amount of money; but when you put that 768MB graphics card in, all of a sudden your operating system could only see and address 3.2GB. Put two of them into a box, and you’re down to 2.5GB.
So you’ve paid for 4GB, and installed 4GB; but you’re only actually able to use 2.5GB?
That’s a problem… but at least there weren’t very any games that needed more than 2GB of ram…
...Until Supreme Commander came out, and it wanted every bit of memory you could give it. In fact, it wanted MORE than you could give it, and tried to steal memory from the OS, thus causing many many crashes.
In Supreme Commander, you are the strategic commander of an armored mech army, which can vary in size from a few units, up to several thousand. Each individual unit is fully rendered and textured, and has it’s own AI. All terrain is also fully rendered. There can be several hundred fully rendered units on screen at any given time.
There is no system today that can handle supreme commander at… really any resolution. 3ghz quad core with 3.2gb of RAM (down from 4gb), and a 768mb 8800GTX is the best you can do, and even then it slows down to under 30fps quite frequently.
Given the amount of 3D work required, one would think an SLI configuration would be perfect for Supreme commander. The problem is the memory hole created by the cards memory.
If you run supreme commander on an SLI system all you’re doing is taking away memory that the CPU needs to handle all the units on the screen.
Today, you have the capability to put 3 gigs worth of video ram into a system; but if you did that in a system with 4GB of RAM, you'd end up with just 1GB usable system memory. Because of the 4gb memory barrier on 32 bit operating systems, you can't add more RAM to compensate. All you can do is decided whether you need more video RAM, or more system RAM; and choose your video memory accordingly.
Honestly, my personal recommendation is to skip the SLI, and cards with more than 512mb of video memory; and keep that system memory available.
It's only very rarely can a single card effectively use more than 512 megs of RAM. In theory, there are some situations where running two 512 meg cards in an SLI configuration; which cuts you down to under 3gb of RAM usable, will give you enough graphical performance increase to justify losing that gig. Most of the time however, you aren't going to see that kind of performance boost.
My personal recommendation is to buy one very good card with 512 megs of video ram (or if you must, up to 768); and pay for the full 4 gigs of system RAM.
Well, I hope this was helpful. I realize theres a lot of obscure detail here, but if you're trying to make an informed decision, this is the absolute minimum of what you need to know. We haven't even gone in to things like chipset differences, sound cards, or processor architecture issues; and those would be another 10,000 words easy. Don't even get me started on Vista vs. XP, or 32bit vs. 64 bit.
Any questions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)