1  |   Order by default

Sep 29, 2003, 5:24pm

I buy Intel processors and ATI chips, and I used to buy AMD processors and
Nvidia cards. I'm thinking of reverting back to AMD chips now, but the
3.2GHz P4 is slightly faster than the Athlon 64 FX in terms of 32 bit. AMD
chips are definately better in terms of price versus power.
--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2003, 5:26pm

Someone who know what they're talking about, YaY!

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2003, 6:24pm

Nah, I buy things once the price goes down. ROFL

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2003, 6:29pm

Oh yeah, and I don't remembr where the article is (I'll have to find it, it
might have been in a magazine though) that shows that current P4s have
higher performance at 3.2GHz.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2003, 6:35pm

Umm... well there isn't actually a clear winner:
http://www.legitreviews.com/Reviews/64fx_5.shtml

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2003, 6:42pm

well, I guess that the athlon 64 winsout afterall

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2003, 9:24pm

Fanboy >:-P

Anyway, that's what I said, though most of the tests proved me wrong.
Anyway, the point isn't its speed at 32 bits, but the fact that it is
compatible with 64-bit applications

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2003, 9:25pm

you mean $60 tops?

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2003, 9:37pm

Sorry for that one liner.

> Can you think? 2x2 is 4 and not 2. Hence why 200x 4 gives you 800 and
> not 200.

The real FSB is 200MHz though.

> I'm sorry I don't have $2000 to blow on goldheatsinkshitfuck(tm)
technology.

See my other post.

> It's the width of a bus. If you have a wider bus, no matter what the
> base frequency is it's going to work faster. 200x4 = 800 yes, but
> that's still much faster than a 200x2 = 400. More room, more
> information, faster speeds. No matter how fast the processor can
> "think" if your bus is 400 MHz you're going to fall short of a processor
> that has 800.

The bus is the same length technically, it basically just cheats itself into
being larger.

> Think of it this way: 1200 clock cycles can fit into a 200 mhz bus, but
> then become easily congested by a backflow of 6. Now, let's put it on a
> 600 mhz bus... then it's only 3. You've halved it. Even if you waste
> clock cycles here and there the bus speed makes up for it.

Ok.

> Now, the faux pas of not being able to compare any two chips produced by
> different companies is a non-sequitor. You can only use that if you're
> comparing two seperate types of processors, ie Alpha and x86,
> Apple(Motorola) and x86, so on. As for comparing like processors, it's
> actually very good. (especially in the FSB)

True.

> I suggest you learn how to think about why the analogy is exactly the
> way it is. I guess he called forth his friends from his city to help
> him, yo.

Where did that come from? lol >:-P

> I digress, I guess I'm don't know what I'm talking about when a fanboy
> hobbies who build their r0x0ring WindowsXP athalon XP ATI Radeon
> Probuttfucker 40234560840698 series, and then waste $1000 because they
> mismatch types like agp 8x cards on an agp 2x system 4 gigs of ram when
> the motherboard only supports 1 gig. I've seen it happen... and then
> they only check their email.

I myself haven't built a computer with an Athlon chip in a loooooooooong
time. I like Intel's motherboards, they are nice and reliable. True lol, but
I wouldn't apply that to everyone. I know someone who just reads their
e-mail who just bought this computer:

Pentium 4c 3.2GHz
4096MB of RAM
4x DVD-R/RW+R/RW
DVD-RAM drive
Two 300GB hard drives
Dual boot:
Windows XP Professional
Red Hat Linux
Radeon 9800 PRO AIW Power Color (I think) 256MB
Audigy 2
$300 custom case
5 extra fans: $200
and it doesn't end there...

Ludicrous, isn't it?

> --
> --Bowen--
> http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
> Yeah, it's that good.
> (Maybe an AW section in the near future?)
>

Sep 29, 2003, 9:39pm

The main thing this processor is going to do is drive intel to make their
own processor of the same kind and programmers to code 64 bit. Its basically
going to push the evolution of computers.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2003, 9:41pm

Right, 30 punds is something just above $50. I gave a high estimate> You
know, if you wanted a fancy heatsink or something.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2003, 9:46pm

My latest computers are 2.4GHz P4c's with 512MB-1GB of RAM, and a
120GB-160GB hard drive. I didn't really chose a specifc optical drive,
though I'd have to say I used 52x/24x/52x CD-RWs the most. I didn't use any
fancy sound or video cards. I have a liscence for XP Pro, so that's what I
used.

--
-.Duo. (342836)

Sep 29, 2003, 10:00pm

> I never refuted the fact that the real FSB is 200 MHz, but the actual
> speed is 800 due to it being quadruple channeled. 200 x 2 is still not
> anywhere near 800. Sure, the bell curve takes effect for Bus speeds,
> but it's still going to be just that much more better. And for those of
> us who use the video and audio that intel has the lead in... and that's
> basically everyone except for those who write e-mails, then intel is the
> chipset you want.

Yup.

> It was sarcasm. ;)

So?

> Go 80 on a rural road and get stuck behind cars going 30. This is the
> same theory that applies to data transfer. When RAM goes 400 MHz and
> the video card goes 503.246 then you need a wider bus (even if it is 4
> sets of 200) to accomidate for varying speeds. Thus, the 4 lane highway
> is going to work better than the 2 lane highway.

Yup.

> Everyone who builds in SWCity usually comes to defend them when they do
> things.

So that's what you meant then.

> I don't like AMD chips anymore.

I wouldn't recomend a celeron over an Athlon XP though, for sure. Not only
is Athlon XP faster, but its cheaper.

> Doesn't surprise me. I'd guess 99% of the people on AW use AW,
> respective modeler programs, and just check their e-mail. Which AMD is
> perfect for. Hell my 233 system is perfect for checking e-mail.

I play games on high quality. Its wierd how my 384MB of SD-RAM, 700MHz
processor, and geforce 2 can handle it

Sep 30, 2003, 10:03pm

> Your ignorance is your problem. You think Linux is some sort of strange,
> scary weird thing that only freaks know how to use. That is *not* the
case!
> You can play games, chat with your friends over IM networks, browse the
> web, do whatever you want in Linux as well.

Umm... no? I know how to use Linux. It just doesn't have a majority of the
games I play, or software I use. WIth the exception of Wordperfect (if they
still make it for Linux).

> The problem is that this product *seems* to improve their quality of life,
> but in reality, the problems with it *deteriorate* their life quality!

Right, but making me lazy and gain weight. >:-P

> You really are clueless about Linux, aren't you? It doesn't have any
> compatibility problems with most new hardware, and even if you can't find
> any official driver doesn't mean an unofficial won't do, generic drivers
> aren't all too bad either. The important thing is OpenGL support really (a
> gfx card without can not be called "high end"). A lot of the game engines
> most new games are built on are available on Linux, including the Quake
and
> Unreal engines , though not all developpers prioritize porting their games
> to Linux. For those cases, WineX is your friend.

Umm... no? I know someone first hand who couldn't use a Radeon 9700 PRO with
Linux. Recently. No drivers, or anything. Anywhere. WineX? A Windows
emulator? Is that slow? I know the Mac OS one is hella slow.That would be
enough to get me to switch though.

> Actually, to begin with Linux had a dev team of one. Today, it has
hundreds
> (I think hundreds would be closer to the truth than thousands) of
> contributors, but that can't be the sole reason it's better; the MS
> programmers are after all payed for their work, the Linux contributors are
> not.

Thousands of different developers.

> Yes, SCO is having fun sueing some people, but I doubt they'll get very
> far.

True.

> Have you actually checked if there are any known problems with the Radeon
> 9700 Pro? I doubt it.

I know someone who couldn't get it to work with Linux.

> There is some hardware designed more or less specifically for Windows (for
> example "WinModems") that Linux will have a hard time with, or is
> completely incompatible with. But the majority of hardware will work fine,
> without having to scratch your head very much either (the big distros now
> all have nice user friendly tools that will assist you with the
> installation). Unless you have some very exotic hardware, I expect your
> current system would be Linux-compatible.

I have some very exotic hardware.

> Do you mean official drivers, or just any old driver? I'm aware that a
> number of manufacturers are bad at writing Linux drivers, but nothing
stops
> users of that hardware to write their own drivers and releasing it to
other
> users. Then you can always use generic drivers (which you praise in XP),
it
> doesn't really matter that much.

Right, the ATI drivers for Windows are superb. I don't want bootleg drivers
that don't work well. The person I know who couldn't get the Radeon to work
couldn't really find great drivers.

> Your new hardware is what's most likely to work well, and hardware from
the
> last few years. If you have old hardware (I mean old), you might struggle
a
> bit.

All my hardware is ancient. I was going to put a new motherboard and video
card in though.

> A firewall isn't always enough, but I guess it's a start. Already, you
> won't have to buy Linux, you can just download the distro you think will
> correspond the most to your needs/skills (you could always buy a CD kit,
or
> if you're on 56k). Second, you won't have to stop enjoying your computer,
> you'll just be enjoying it more securely.

Of course it isn't. Ok.

> After clearing up your bad knownledge of Linux, I really don't see what
> functionality you want from Windows that Linux doesn't have. Why would you
> buy Microsoft Windows if you didn't want to expose yourself to security
> problems?

Windows has excellent plug-and-play support for one. It has some other great
features too. I'm also not sure all of my programs would work with Linux.

> I never said you were insecure in the sense you seem to mean. I meant your
> system was insecure, in other words exposed to attacks by malicious third
> parties.

Yes.

> I don't see what standarized tests have got to do with this, but nice for
> you. I have a basis for my argument, you just don't know very much about
it
> and won't accept having someone rectify you. That's a bit too much self-
> esteem.

Umm... no? Read my above posts.

> You're MS's customer, not the Internet's or general community's customer.
> You can demand them to improve their products, but they'll just respond by
> obfuscating even more. You can play games on a safe platform such as
Linux,
> and then you'll really be contributing to keeping the Internet secure.

I wish I wasn't MS's customer. I personally like the features of XP Pro and
the generally small amount of compatibility issues. I like how Linux is more
stable, reliable, and secure. Maybe I'll do a dual boot or something.

> A firewall is a good step, I guess I may've misjudged you a bit, but you
> could still move away from Windows completely at no loss.

Some loss.

> Riding bikes in the woods destroys the ground, bad example.

No, but it does wear it down and create trails. Anyway, reverse the analogy
and my point still stands.

> If you don't choose what you like to do, then who does, or was it just a
> typo lol?

I am not a believer in free will. I am a believer in genetics and
environment.

> I'm not saying you're responsible for getting the problems there in the
> first place, that's mostly MS's fault, *but* you can do something to fight
> these problems. You are responsible for that.

Maybe.

> You won't have to spend any money on Linux, it's free. That's one of the
> really nice things about it (not to mention the source-code itself is free
> and that you can do whatever you want with it, more or less), besides that
> it's got less bugs. Sure, you fall victim if you suffer damage from an
> attack of whatever kind, but it's partially your fault. The problem is
that
> between the time you get the virus, to you realise that and have unplug
it,
> it might already have spread.

Which versions are free? Links please. I want it, lol.

Sep 30, 2003, 11:51pm

thank you

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Sep 30, 2003, 11:51pm

I do have a ton of odd parts in my computer though >_<

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Sep 30, 2003, 11:52pm

Except people actually buy ATI cards...

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Oct 1, 2003, 12:22am

Right, but Macs are only 3% of the computer market. ATI is a much larger
share of the video card market, in fact, probably most of it.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Oct 1, 2003, 9:26am

heh. Anyway, to finish my statement, 90% of all computers are Windows
based... which is a lot, heh.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Oct 1, 2003, 9:44pm

No, I'm taking my statistics directly from a site. 90% of all computers are
Windows based.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Oct 1, 2003, 9:43pm

WoW. I want your bot lol

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Oct 1, 2003, 9:46pm

This is general discussion. Nothing is unneccasery. Anyone can say anything
(apropriate).

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Oct 1, 2003, 9:44pm

Yeah, but Virtual PC (the free one) is slow.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Oct 1, 2003, 9:43pm

WoW. I want your bot lol

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Oct 1, 2003, 9:44pm

Yeah, but Virtual PC (the free one) is slow.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Oct 1, 2003, 11:33pm

GAH, where do you get that money? lol

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

1  |   Order by default