perhaps some calming of downs is in order. to be honest, at this point, who really cares about them 3+Ghz computers.
[addsig]
Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Wild Card on Sun Mar 14th at 10:59pm 2004
Wild Card
member
2321 posts
339 snarkmarks
Registered: May 20th 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Occupation: IT Consultant
Posted by Wild Card on Sun Mar 14th at 10:59pm 2004
Wild Card
member
2321 posts
339 snarkmarks
Registered: May 20th 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Occupation: IT Consultant
Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by scary_jeff on Sun Mar 14th at 11:07pm 2004
Posted by scary_jeff on Sun Mar 14th at 11:07pm 2004
If you saw the settings they used, as you say you did, then why did you post "quake III at times, don't go above 90fps or so, and I that chart says that my processor should allow somewhere around 219fps"? Why would yo say something like this if you were perfectly aware that the 219 listed was for completely different settings to the ones you use?
That isn't what you said. You said "they can't really make processors go faster then 3ghz" - this is an incorrect statement. Whether that is what you meant or not is irrelevant, that's what you said, so don't tell me to f**k off for pointing out that you were wrong.
There is no need to go rambling on about complicated harware issues that you are not very good at explaining every time somebody asks if they should go for the athlon 2000 or 2500, or if the radeon 9600 is better than the 5700, or whatever.
| ? quote: |
| most companies are clocking out at 3ghz and moving on to other, better, architectures |
That isn't what you said. You said "they can't really make processors go faster then 3ghz" - this is an incorrect statement. Whether that is what you meant or not is irrelevant, that's what you said, so don't tell me to f**k off for pointing out that you were wrong.
| ? quote: |
| there's no need to be a dick every time I say something |
There is no need to go rambling on about complicated harware issues that you are not very good at explaining every time somebody asks if they should go for the athlon 2000 or 2500, or if the radeon 9600 is better than the 5700, or whatever.
Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Crono on Sun Mar 14th at 11:17pm 2004
= f**k you.
I have used 640 x 480 at times to run games, and yes in quake 3 it does not equal anything near 219.
I didn't say I was pissed about you pointing out a mistake I made. I even claimed that I was mistaken. Thirdly, you are being a dick. Every time I say something you take half of what I say to be literal truths when most of them are generalizations on the architecture.(which I pointed out) I didn't go into a full blown explination of the interworkings for WC, I mainly did it to show that the processor isn't the most important part, And on my very first post I made my suggestion of what he should get, then people started questioning it. Thus all the explination. At this point it seems you are looking at my posts purly for something to bitch about. [addsig]
Posted by Crono on Sun Mar 14th at 11:17pm 2004
| ? quote: |
| I'm sorry but that post is idiotic. |
| ? quote: |
| I can't imagine you run quake3 at 640*480*16? |
I didn't say I was pissed about you pointing out a mistake I made. I even claimed that I was mistaken. Thirdly, you are being a dick. Every time I say something you take half of what I say to be literal truths when most of them are generalizations on the architecture.(which I pointed out) I didn't go into a full blown explination of the interworkings for WC, I mainly did it to show that the processor isn't the most important part, And on my very first post I made my suggestion of what he should get, then people started questioning it. Thus all the explination. At this point it seems you are looking at my posts purly for something to bitch about. [addsig]
Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by scary_jeff on Sun Mar 14th at 11:39pm 2004
Posted by scary_jeff on Sun Mar 14th at 11:39pm 2004
OK, so you are saying they lied on that link I posted? Either you accept it as being representative, or you don't. I posted a link which showed that the CPU makes a big diifference, and you made out like it was somehow not valid and not relevant for no reason, proceeding to make up a limit that doesn't exist, before inserting a load of irrelevant information about itanium? It doesn't make sense.
Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Wild Card on Sun Mar 14th at 11:43pm 2004
Wild Card
member
2321 posts
339 snarkmarks
Registered: May 20th 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Occupation: IT Consultant
Posted by Wild Card on Sun Mar 14th at 11:43pm 2004
"I'll take animal sounds for 200"
"This is the sound a doggy makes?"
"moo"
"incorect"
"Thats the sound your mother made last night"
"Please Sir, we didnt need you to say that. We would have accepted bow-wow, or ruff."
"Ah, ruff... Just like your mother likes it"
Wild Card
member
2321 posts
339 snarkmarks
Registered: May 20th 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Occupation: IT Consultant
Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Crono on Mon Mar 15th at 12:20am 2004
What in God's name are you talking about?? I'm serious here.
I didn't say they were lying or that the processor didn't improve performance, Jesus, I've said it in like 5 posts already. Either you're not fully understanding the words I'm putting on the screen or you're making a giant issue out of nothing. What I said was that their benchmarking isn't totally representative of total performance speeds because all it shows is frames per second. All that shows is how fast the processor can write out instructions (and the video card can write them to the screen). THATS IT! That's all I said, then I mentioned it would have been better if they mentioned a poly count with it so you could see how much work the video card was really doing. I don't understand how you're getting skewed perspectives of my posts, you're either not reading what I'm typing or you're assuming too much and glancing over my words. Either way, it's becoming really annoying.
Secondly, I mentioned Itanium as an example of what has been done to try to eliminate the bus's small bandwidth issue.
Anyway, WildCard I hope you got your question answered. No need posting anything else Jeff, if you want to call me an idiot some more you can PM me, but this is a pointless conversation now. You're no longer discussing these issue, but rather trying to find falisities in my wording so you can make me look like a complete dunce. Through this thread I've had to explain myself more then once (on the same point), not by a decent question, but in defense.
Get over it.
And the funny thing is, we're not really disagreeing. But I guess you don't see that.
[EDIT]
WC, man I miss those sketches. "I'll take the rapists for 400" "That's Therapists"
[/EDIT] [addsig]
Posted by Crono on Mon Mar 15th at 12:20am 2004
| ? quote: |
|
OK, so you are saying they lied on that link I posted? Either you accept it as being representative, or you don't. I posted a link which showed that the CPU makes a big diifference, and you made out like it was somehow not valid and not relevant for no reason, proceeding to make up a limit that doesn't exist, before inserting a load of irrelevant information about itanium? It doesn't make sense. |
What in God's name are you talking about?? I'm serious here.
I didn't say they were lying or that the processor didn't improve performance, Jesus, I've said it in like 5 posts already. Either you're not fully understanding the words I'm putting on the screen or you're making a giant issue out of nothing. What I said was that their benchmarking isn't totally representative of total performance speeds because all it shows is frames per second. All that shows is how fast the processor can write out instructions (and the video card can write them to the screen). THATS IT! That's all I said, then I mentioned it would have been better if they mentioned a poly count with it so you could see how much work the video card was really doing. I don't understand how you're getting skewed perspectives of my posts, you're either not reading what I'm typing or you're assuming too much and glancing over my words. Either way, it's becoming really annoying.
Secondly, I mentioned Itanium as an example of what has been done to try to eliminate the bus's small bandwidth issue.
Anyway, WildCard I hope you got your question answered. No need posting anything else Jeff, if you want to call me an idiot some more you can PM me, but this is a pointless conversation now. You're no longer discussing these issue, but rather trying to find falisities in my wording so you can make me look like a complete dunce. Through this thread I've had to explain myself more then once (on the same point), not by a decent question, but in defense.
Get over it.
And the funny thing is, we're not really disagreeing. But I guess you don't see that.
[EDIT]
WC, man I miss those sketches. "I'll take the rapists for 400" "That's Therapists"
[/EDIT] [addsig]
Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Gwil on Mon Mar 15th at 12:27am 2004
Gwil
super admin
2864 posts
293 snarkmarks
Registered: Oct 13th 2001
Location: Derbyshire, UK
Occupation: Student
Posted by Gwil on Mon Mar 15th at 12:27am 2004
Surely if that was clear in the first place then you wouldn't need to outline in such detail and "explictness" ? 
A lot of injured feet today...
[addsig]Gwil
super admin
2864 posts
293 snarkmarks
Registered: Oct 13th 2001
Location: Derbyshire, UK
Occupation: Student
Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Wild Card on Mon Mar 15th at 1:28am 2004
Wild Card
member
2321 posts
339 snarkmarks
Registered: May 20th 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Occupation: IT Consultant
Posted by Wild Card on Mon Mar 15th at 1:28am 2004
Seems I've created something for which I was not intendent on...
[addsig]
Wild Card
member
2321 posts
339 snarkmarks
Registered: May 20th 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Occupation: IT Consultant
Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by scary_jeff on Mon Mar 15th at 9:03am 2004
Posted by scary_jeff on Mon Mar 15th at 9:03am 2004
/me bows to master crono.
Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Crono on Tue Mar 16th at 7:22am 2004
Posted by Crono on Tue Mar 16th at 7:22am 2004
First off I'm no ones master, except maybe to my dog.
I must appologize about my last post. As my idea's still stand I think that my remarks came off a little harshly, even as I just read it I can't believe I wrote some of that in the way I wrote it, if that makes sense. I appologize to you, Jeff. I must say I can almost guarentee that you know more then I do on the overall harware performance issues, but I was merely going off of what I know. And into further researching I did, today actually, It looks as if the Athlon 64 FX is a nice addition to the x86 gaming world
The main addition being the pipeline and extrodanarily large L2 cache, seriously, 1 meg . . . . Jesus. I think that is my personal next upgrade, so I wont have to upgrade for some time as it would work with 32 and 64 applications (unlike the Itanium). By the way, I don't really support Itanium, I just think its a pretty cool way to go about getting around the bottleneck. However, it's a son of a bitch to program. But nothing close to IBM360 . . . That's a suicide machine.
Anyway, again, I apologize for my *ahem* behaivor.
[addsig]
I must appologize about my last post. As my idea's still stand I think that my remarks came off a little harshly, even as I just read it I can't believe I wrote some of that in the way I wrote it, if that makes sense. I appologize to you, Jeff. I must say I can almost guarentee that you know more then I do on the overall harware performance issues, but I was merely going off of what I know. And into further researching I did, today actually, It looks as if the Athlon 64 FX is a nice addition to the x86 gaming world
The main addition being the pipeline and extrodanarily large L2 cache, seriously, 1 meg . . . . Jesus. I think that is my personal next upgrade, so I wont have to upgrade for some time as it would work with 32 and 64 applications (unlike the Itanium). By the way, I don't really support Itanium, I just think its a pretty cool way to go about getting around the bottleneck. However, it's a son of a bitch to program. But nothing close to IBM360 . . . That's a suicide machine.
Anyway, again, I apologize for my *ahem* behaivor.
[addsig]
Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Orpheus on Tue Mar 16th at 7:54am 2004
Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
Posted by Orpheus on Tue Mar 16th at 7:54am 2004
| ? posted by Forceflow |
|
TomsHardware.com overclocked a processor to 5 Ghz, by cooling with liquid nitrogen: |
| ? posted by Wild Card |
| Yea I saw that, it was really cool. |
| ? posted by scary_jeff |
| pun intended? |
*incert cheezy drum sound to worse pun ever here*
[addsig]Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Tracer Bullet on Tue Mar 16th at 8:12am 2004
Tracer Bullet
member
2271 posts
367 snarkmarks
Registered: May 22nd 2003
Location: Seattle WA, USA
Occupation: Graduate Student (Ph.D)
Posted by Tracer Bullet on Tue Mar 16th at 8:12am 2004
| ? posted by Orpheus | ||||||
|
*incert cheezy drum sound to worse pun ever here* |
Bah... Liquid nitrogen is wussey. only about 72 degrees Kelvin. go for the liquid helium. ~4 K, much cooler.
[addsig]Tracer Bullet
member
2271 posts
367 snarkmarks
Registered: May 22nd 2003
Location: Seattle WA, USA
Occupation: Graduate Student (Ph.D)
Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by scary_jeff on Tue Mar 16th at 8:39am 2004
Posted by scary_jeff on Tue Mar 16th at 8:39am 2004
Yay! I'm not the only person who thinks up jokes that bad!
Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by fraggard on Tue Mar 16th at 9:06am 2004
fraggard
member
1110 posts
201 snarkmarks
Registered: Jul 8th 2002
Location: Bangalore, India
Occupation: Student
Posted by fraggard on Tue Mar 16th at 9:06am 2004
Would that even work? (The liquid Helium thing)... I thought semiconductors don't...er...semiconduct below a certain temperature. They just insulate. So unless you generate enough heat that it actually requires super-cooling, I think it won't work.
fraggard
member
1110 posts
201 snarkmarks
Registered: Jul 8th 2002
Location: Bangalore, India
Occupation: Student
Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by scary_jeff on Tue Mar 16th at 9:44am 2004
Posted by scary_jeff on Tue Mar 16th at 9:44am 2004
Normally a substances resistance decreases with decreasing temperature.
Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Leperous on Tue Mar 16th at 10:46am 2004
Leperous
member
3382 posts
788 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 21st 2001
Location: UK
Occupation: Lazy student
Posted by Leperous on Tue Mar 16th at 10:46am 2004
Heh, and turn your computer into a steaming pile of Bose-Einstein condensate or something and lose it up the walls. Good idea 
Leperous
member
3382 posts
788 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 21st 2001
Location: UK
Occupation: Lazy student
Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by fraggard on Tue Mar 16th at 11:54am 2004
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/band.html#c7
fraggard
member
1110 posts
201 snarkmarks
Registered: Jul 8th 2002
Location: Bangalore, India
Occupation: Student
Posted by fraggard on Tue Mar 16th at 11:54am 2004
| ? posted by scary_jeff |
| Normally a substances resistance decreases with decreasing temperature. |
Not for semiconductors. Low temp= not enough energy for electrons to cross into the conduction band from the valence band. Thereby reducing it to an insulator.
fraggard
member
1110 posts
201 snarkmarks
Registered: Jul 8th 2002
Location: Bangalore, India
Occupation: Student
Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by scary_jeff on Tue Mar 16th at 12:09pm 2004
Posted by scary_jeff on Tue Mar 16th at 12:09pm 2004
hmm, yes this doesn't make sense then does it. If a semiconductor is an insulator at 0K (or has very high resistance at near 0K), how do computers work if cooled to these levels, given that their functionality is based on semiconductors conducting some of the time?
Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by fraggard on Tue Mar 16th at 12:38pm 2004
fraggard
member
1110 posts
201 snarkmarks
Registered: Jul 8th 2002
Location: Bangalore, India
Occupation: Student
Posted by fraggard on Tue Mar 16th at 12:38pm 2004
I asked some guy at a fair who was supplying liquid nitrogen coolers for multi-processor systems or something, and he said the temperatures generated are high enough to require this kind of cooling. Still, it's pretty surprising :/ Maybe someone else has more authentic info?
fraggard
member
1110 posts
201 snarkmarks
Registered: Jul 8th 2002
Location: Bangalore, India
Occupation: Student
Re: Heh, I love harrasing you guys about this
Posted by Wild Card on Tue Mar 16th at 2:04pm 2004
Wild Card
member
2321 posts
339 snarkmarks
Registered: May 20th 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Occupation: IT Consultant
Posted by Wild Card on Tue Mar 16th at 2:04pm 2004
| ? posted by Orpheus | ||||||
|
*incert cheezy drum sound to worse pun ever here* |
damnit now I get it
Wow Im slow.
Wild Card
member
2321 posts
339 snarkmarks
Registered: May 20th 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Occupation: IT Consultant
© Snarkpit.net 2001 - 2023, about us, donate, contact
Snarkpit v6.1.0 created this page in 0.0103 seconds.
Snarkpit v6.1.0 created this page in 0.0103 seconds.