Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:00, 8 September 2008

Physics Processing Unit

Sorry I am not going to release about MAJC Graphic Card with PPU or the design architecture IBM Cell based, because Intel can copy it to Larrabee for improvements and it is not illegal, since they are both base on the same model.

I have also decide to cancel the release for SLI/Crossfire vs QuadroFX/FireStream and QuadroFX SLI/FireStream Crossfire. --Ramu50 (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(Target finishing dat: Wed, June 25, 2008)--Maybe
Traditional Implanmentation
So a lot of you might ask, well from what we seen in Ageia PhysX, most people would describe it as a processor or a sub unit that is very good at processing algorithm. But the actuall PPU design belongs to Toshiba SpursEngine & IBM Cell processors (used in Playstation 3).

Novodex (physics API)
ALU (NPU + FPU = the variable you input for a physics formula)
SIMD array: ALU (NPU + FPU)
MIMD array: ALU system manager, Vector Processor

Simple forumula like velocity, can be solved by = NPU + FPU
Complex forumula, the NPU and/or FPU will require ALU assistance, things like Square Root,
Trignometry, Statiscal Math, Probability...etc.
e.g. the process that is required to solve, √3, is guided by ALU.
--The ALU would guided by, what range of numbers do you start guessing.
--In Trignometry, the ALU would guide it by, if input is Sin 25 degree, then you either retrieve it from the database in RAM (loaded from HDD) or you try to formulate it from the unit circle

• In the graphic card you will have 1 ALU for each vertical SIMD set as the co-processor.
  
• In physics processing the main ALU system manger would systematically manage (or use any type
  of method, depending on the instructions implanted) all the formula together, and form it into a flow chart, so an algorithm diagram is created, before the logic processing (or choosing) is performed.
  

---The logic processing is the actual part of choosing, which follows a very similar scheme in many of web programming script, like if sth....happens....then sth must happen, or for sth....happen...then sth will result.

Vector processor
--(Vector (spatial)), itself is bounded by the 3 laws of physics: Asscoation, Distribution, Commutativity

• Association {order of operation doesn't matter, so long you don't change the operand}
  
• Distribution {a way of classifying each operands into a group}
  
• Commutativity {the ability to generate function & using algebra + operators to perform a proof

or a self-check / error-check}
function (multiplication)---branches down into Calculs (analytically)
algebra (addition)----------branches down into Linear Algebra (analytically)

Distribution can be use in matrix, where one vector contain a set of number, and you can sore it in SRAM (caches) or GDDR RAM as a mini-database. Commutativity can perform, error check / self-check, and generate a function. So when an action is generated, it can be stored, if the action appears again but in different transformations (rotation), the ALU can turn it very quickly.

Copyright (c) 2008 by ramu50

There will be another type of implementation incldued. This is only the basics

This is the message that I post on TigerDirectBlog
GTX 280SLI will be equally the same as 9800GX2, because no additional technology is added.

Overall performance :
(Single Core GPU Graphic Card)
When you have 1 single core GPU, you put them in SLI, you get Parallel computing stability.
Technology is mainly dependant on Driver Management system.

Note: ONLY work for regular SLI (2 graphic card) & Quad SLI (because GPU is compose of 2 sub unit: FPU + NPU) so you HAVE TO have 2:2 or 2:4 ratio.

2:2 (2 GPU on 2 graphic card)
---each GPU usage = 50%
2:4 (4 GPU on 4 graphic card)
---each GPU usage = 25%

Driver Management System
(nForce SLI)---for Nvidia

---method: (SFR, AFR, SLI Antialias)
(GART Crossfire)---for ATI

(Dual GPU Graphic Card)
When you have 2 GPU (or dual core) on a single graphic card, your stability depend on ILP, instruction level parallelism. Which means, "EVERY" single level of code has to be symmetrically parallel.

Code (programming parallelism)
-Nvidia ForceWare (GPU interface)
-ATI Catalyst (GPU interface)
-HLSL (shader)---for DirectX
-GLSL (shader)---for OpenGL
---(WHQL, Window OS certified)

suggested overclock software:
--Nvidia nTune
--ATI OverDrive

Platform / Barebone certifications
(barely any company use it)
Nvidia ESA architecture
AMD GAME

The Driver DOES NOT optimize DirectX and OpenGL. ONLY the shader language of HLSL & GLSL would. THE MESSAGE AFTER THIS  IS ADDITIONAL INFO ONLY.

Coming Soon...
　　　　Physics acceleration: SLI, Crossfire, Quadro FX, FireGL and other high-end graphic card

ONLY in Misplaced Pages

Adobe Creative Suite Editions

Below is a matrix of the applications that are bundled in each of the software suites (for version 3.3).

Note: As of version 3.3, Fireworks CS3 is included in CS 3 Design Premium and all editions that included Acrobat 8 Pro, now include Acrobat 9 Pro.

	Design		Web		Production Premium	Master Collection
	Standard	Premium	Standard	Premium
Photoshop CS3
Photoshop CS3 Extended
Illustrator CS3
InDesign CS3
Acrobat 9 Pro
Flash CS3 Professional
Dreamweaver CS3
Fireworks CS3
Contribute CS3
After Effects CS3 Professional
Premiere Pro CS3
Soundbooth CS3
Encore CS3
Shared features, services, and applications
Bridge CS3
Version Cue CS3
Device Central CS3
Stock Photos
Acrobat Connect
Dynamic Link
OnLocation CS3 (Windows only)
Ultra CS3 (Windows only)

HCI edit

In response to your comment about my defintion for HCI TLA, I don't understand why you think it was advertising anything (advertising what?). It was a very neutral definition for the abbreviation and, while lacking completeness, I think it was more accurate than the current definition you added. Bluetooth and USB are not a ports, they are busses. The definitions says something about storage -- storing of what?? It should also make it clear what it's talking about (e.g. electronics or computers) as it's completely out of context, please fix it, thank you. Balrog-kun (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

AT Attachment talk page

Greetings,

jeh here. I'm afraid another monkey wrench has been thrown into the works.

There was a previous comment by an anon editor strongly disapproving of the new organization of the talk page. I didn't think much of that at the time, but ...

Yesterday a couple of people in the rename review discussion commented very strongly that "organizing" it had made it very disorganized, and worse, was continuing to further disorganization as new threads were being created in various places throughout the page, instead of just at the end.

One of the objectors pointed out that the talk page guidelines (see WP:TALK and WP:REFACTOR) state that if anyone objects to the "refactoring" it should be reverted. And there have been three objections.

So, I have removed the upper level organization and put the bulk of the page (other than the "requrested move", "archives", and "references" sections) back to chronological order by the first entry in each thread.

(There's a whole template system for archives which I intend to put to use soon, but not tonight.)

I have checked twice to be sure I didn't drop anything.

Due to your having archived portions of the SSD, ATA/ATAPI, etc. threads some of the sections on those topics that remain, are left starting with statements by you that are referring to things no longer on the page. But that was due to your archiving, not this "un-refactoring" (i.e. those sections already started with such statements).

The SSD, ATA/ATAPI, etc., criticisms sections actually fared pretty well (at least I don't think they look more disorganized) and this way the flow of the threads really does reflect the sequence of the discussion.

Due to the objections received I think that reverting back to the "organized" form is currently not allowable, even though I think we both think the "organized" form is better.

( I have to admit though that after the first archiving of a lot of the stale topics, that left a lot fewer topics... so it's not as in need of an upper-level structure as it first appeared. )

btw, based on things I've seen on other pages, it seems that if you want the talk page to serve as a work list or schedule for improving the page, the usual thing is to just add a new section with that as a topic, rather than rearrange the existing sections.

So, this heads-up... I didn't want you to look at the page and think "oh no, what has he done NOW!" I hope you take this in the spirit (WP:AGF) in which it's intended.

btw, I agree with your sentiments expressed on your user page re religion. Heinlein: "Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help." More here. --Jeh (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Larrabee (GPU)

Hi - The new material that you've added to the article would be better placed in a section of it's own. E_dog95' 20:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Br

It's not a question of not allowed, it's deprecated. WP:AWB has reasonably smart rule for taking these out, and replacing certain HTML entities with wikimarkup, as well as lot of other minor changes. Rich Farmbrough, 16:21 9 August 2008 (GMT).

You asked why </br> wasn't allowed.Rich Farmbrough, 11:20 10 August 2008 (GMT).

{{Linux Distributions}} move

Hi,

When you moved this template, you broke the talk archive link on the talk page. When moving an article, please check to see if there are talk sub-pages which also need to be fixed. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternative version of {{Linux distributions}}

Hi again,

Rather than edit warring about this, I have created a copy of your version of the template in your user space, at User:Ramu50/Linux distributions. This will allow you to continue refining it without the continual back-and-forth argument on the {{Linux distributions}} page. When you've finished working on it, it may be an idea to pick an alternative name, such as {{Linux distributions expanded}}, and move the template to there - then we will have a choice of templates to use in different situations. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You can delete that article, I already created a draft article for myself. --Ramu50 (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ultra-Mobile PC

Hi, I am also putting this message on User talk:Diego Moya.Because of your interest in Ultra-Mobile PC, you might like to also look at Location-based service and Automotive navigation system. My involvement with them has been just to keep these pages free of link spam. However, all the pages require a fundamental rewrite which I don't have the expertise to do. If either of you felt like having a crack then it would be much appreciated. :-) TerriersFan (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Your contributions to Function_(mathematics)

Your edits have been reverted twice by a well-known mathematician. Please refrain from adding tangential material to that article. You most certainly think your additions are appropriate, but mathematics is considerably more vast than you think. The functions that you listed are covered, at a different level, in articles about different branches of mathematics. If you insist on making those additions, I suggest you discuss them on the article's talk page. Sincerely, VasileGaburici (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ramu, so far no other person on the talk page has supported discussing GPGPU or CUDA in the article on functions. I have to say I also find it very tangential to the topic of that article. Please discuss the issue on the talk page rather than just re-inserting the material into the article, especially when the same material has been removed by two different editors. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The material you are inserting was removed by Arthur Rubin and by Jitse Nelson (diff). I have avoided removing it myself so far only to leave time for discussion on the talk page, where I left my opinion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ramu,you have now reverted three times on that article. I encourage you to read the three revert limit policy. If you revert again, there is a high chance you will be blocked. Misplaced Pages has a policy on edit warring that you are on the verge of violating. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

1. http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200806/060208AdobeCS3.3.html