1  ...  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  44  |   Order by default

May 26, 2003, 8:39pm

Try copy and pasting the url into your browser's address bar. *shrug* at if
that doesn't work. Tripod doesn't work for my friend in Scotland even if
it's a legit image though...

[View Quote]

May 27, 2003, 4:38am

>_< see what I mean?

www.themexp.org


[View Quote]

Jun 3, 2003, 9:28pm

Yea but I think they have a bunch of t-shirts ;D

[View Quote]

Jun 5, 2003, 5:31pm

Oh jeeze those things are so freakin' loud and run hot. Just get an ATI
Radeon 9700 card; they have much better image quality and they're less
expensive anyway.

The FX 5600 was a failure. Nvidia's CEO even admitted to that.

- SW Comit

[View Quote]

Jun 5, 2003, 8:25pm

I'd pick ATI solely on image quality. ATI bends nvidia over the table when
it comes to eye candy like Anisotropic Filtering and Anti-Aliasing which is
very nice in AW. Also because AW is *very* CPU dependant, so any difference
between the cards would have to be very significant to really matter.

[View Quote]

Jun 9, 2003, 4:31am

If ATI is better for gaming, then why are you getting the 5600 for? 2d
work? Even nvidia fanboys will admit that ATI has better image quality tha
nvidia, everyone knows that; and that's what it boils down to. And I heard
about those 7 dba cards. It sounds like marketing exaggeration to me. The
human heart makes 10 dba for crying out loud. And this card uses fans? Not
to mention that an openGL screensaver like 3d pipes will fry the card, lol.

I'd personally never buy an nvidia product cause Nvidia is so untrustworthy.
I followed the graphic market everyday now and nvidia has lied so much, and
they cheat in their drivers with clipping pains and custom pixel shading
programs to increase performance at the cost of image quality. They were
caught red handed with solid proof, and the next day they lie about it
saying it's a "bug". Riightt, bugs don't do that. And then as damage
control they pay off the major press sites to re-word it in a way that makes
them look ok. The truth on all this out is there, just go look at an
enthusiast forum. Actually I made a whole post about this stuff right here,
take a look:
http://swcity.skywalkeronline.net/yabbse/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=792

But whatever, you probably don't care about that stuff. Bottom line is that
ATI 0wnz in image quality, drivers (as of late), and I dunno what you mean
by installation. It's the same as any other graphic card. I've installed
dozens of graphic cards of various brands. Just pop it in your computer and
install the drivers, period.

[View Quote]

Jun 9, 2003, 4:52pm

> The second word in this line totoally destroyed your point.

What? 0wnz? lol, whatever

> How can you produce a better image quality when all it's doing is aligning
electrons
> on a screen? Unless it's using some damn sophisticated design that
> allows it to take images in and beautify it, you're going to get the
> _same_ picture from both.

I assume your talking about simple 2d display like pictures and stuff. Yes
that would be the same as far as I know. In 3d graphics, there's far far
more than just raw data going to your monitor. The card has to read the
pixel and vertex shading code for every pixel to apply an affect to it (such
as reflection, refraction, etc) and process it. Then there are dynamically
generated graphics, such particles and special effects. And image enhancing
like Truform, Anisotropic Filtering, and Anti-Aliasing. Different card
arcitecture does that differently, and that's where you see the difference.
I'll just post some examples...

http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/06/IMG0006345.jpg vs
http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/06/IMG0006345.jpg

http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/06/IMG0006347_1.jpg vs
http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/06/IMG0006348_1.jpg

and http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/06/IMG0006349_1.jpg

As for the frying cards, take a look for yourself. Granted they probably
already fixed it, but it really kills my trust in driver controlled fans X_X
and it only applies to the FX 5800.
http://www.pcekspert.com/articles/127-1.html


[View Quote]

Jun 9, 2003, 5:03pm

Oh I assure you I'm not a blind "fanboy", as they call em' in the
enthusiasts forum. Those people get flamed lol. But nooo, ATI and AMD are
not "just as much" in the least bit. The dominating companies have made far
more, at least 4x more, offenses than the other companies.


[View Quote]

Jun 9, 2003, 6:30pm

Bah I knew I shoulda made my post a little longer =P

Just saying don't put ATI on nvidia's level. Anyone who's following the
Futuremark vs Nvidia soap opera would have a hissy fit if you did, lol. All
ATI has ever done is cheat in a Quake benchmark over a year ago. Since then
they've revolutionized their way of business and been on a clean record
since. Nvidia on the other hand is just digging their hole deeper everyday.
Key difference being ATI corrected themselves and apologized, whereas Nvidia
is lieing about their offenses and trying to weasel outa it. It's a long
story, I doubt anyone here cares what's going on.

As for the CPU companies...Intel's done some naughty stuff, so has AMD.
Nothing really big though like Nvidia X_X. I just like AMD's bang for the
buck ;D


>as long as their
> list of offenses is shorter than nVidia/Intel's, that somehow makes
> their cards/processors superior. :P

Nope, nvidia makes good cards. Personally I just wouldn't give nvidia any
of my money though. Too upset with them hurting the industry for their
benefit. That's just me though.

Jun 9, 2003, 9:29pm

> Actually, I *do* know what's going on with nVidia vs. Futuremark, and I
still think you're wrong. Nvidia is a *huge* company with holdings in
various markets. Its 3D graphics card market share alone dwarfs ATi's and it
and a good reputation to back it. Because of this, nVidia can *afford* to
take a few beatings to their reputation and not lose much customer-faith.
Whereas ATi, who is just now securing a firm hold in the 3D accelerator
market, has a rather dirty past and can't stand any further tarnishes to
their reputation. The same goes with AMD - who until the K7 made comparably
crappy processors to Intel.
>

You still think I'm wrong of what exactly? I totally agree with what you
said there. I own a nforce2 chipset motherboard and I'm pretty happy with
it.

The earlier days of ATI I don't really know about though, except that they
had sucky drivers which really hurt them even to this day (reputation wise),
and didn't have very good customer support. But like you said in another
post, things change. ATI's drivers are as good if not better than Nvidia's
drivers, which haven't got WHQL certification in a long time. And I'm
pretty happy with their customer support to. My R7500 died (cause I
accidentally hit it with a screwdriver, lol), so I sent it to ATI and they
sent a replacement without any hassle ^_^

But yea, I doubt nvidia's latest bad deeds won't do anything except dent
them in the enthusiast market where people actually care. And that's less
than 5% of the market, woop-dedoo. And their stocks are unaffected by all
this too (actually it went up, lol). There's not enough media covering this
stuff to inform people. And the ones that are funded by Nvidia and they
won't bite the hand that feeds them, or risk not being picked to recieve a
review card from them. Good example would be The Screen Savers on Tech TV.
They showed nvidia's cheats on TV, but they didnt say it was nvidia. And
then started talking about ATI, and made it sound like it was actaully ATI
doing it. Very clever word play, I dunno =O

Jun 12, 2003, 4:29pm

> However it looks like the general consensus around the AW community is
that
> everything is fine, everyone is generally happy with the way things are,
the
> way things are being run and the majority feel that the activity levels
are
> adequate.

What? I see the exact opposite and not just in activity levels. Just look
at the awnews poll. Tourist rights...Alphaworld neglected, the GK dilemma
at Gate. Not to mention...prices *everyone gasps* ;D

Jul 1, 2003, 8:46pm

Phew you musta been having a bad time in AW then. I been here for over 4
years and for the most part AW cits are fine and normal people. Don't
forget that the bad apples can and will make a lotta noise.

[View Quote]

Jul 3, 2003, 9:31pm

I believe Goober even tried the almighty letter last time though. Can't
beat that =P

[View Quote]

Jul 2, 2003, 4:14pm

Since when was prick a bad word? I assume you'd also get ejected for saying
twit, moron, and idiot? =P

[View Quote]

Jul 3, 2003, 1:28am

Maybe he does it for the thrill and publicity, like he's getting in this
post and in the news =P

[View Quote]

Jul 3, 2003, 9:28pm

That's our mayor =P

P.S. - `,' at you mentioning me. I wasn't there.

Jul 12, 2003, 12:31am

SETI? Bah, it's all about medical research now. More pratical use of spare
cycles IMO ;D

Go team SR ^_^ http://folding.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/teampage?q=11309

[View Quote]

Jul 22, 2003, 5:30am

Shhhhh caps are considered yelling =X


[View Quote]

Jul 31, 2003, 1:26am

Ugh...prdo has been harrassing a number of people. Once again, a 3rd party
police force turns corrupt =P

If they wanna go after hackers, fine, but stop there and give your findings
to the proper authorities -_-

[View Quote]

Aug 31, 2003, 6:18am

Kol and some of those associated with him spread lots of rumors =\ I
wouldn't believe it...

[View Quote]

Sep 25, 2003, 5:17pm

MS is just doing it for money, but they tag the blame on a public enemy
(spammers and pervs), so it's like a win win situation on the surface. As
if it'll really stop anything bad. There's a zillion free chat rooms
throughout the internet left =P

Sep 26, 2003, 5:43pm

Yea, it's pretty sweet. I read a bunch of reviews. As well as being future
proof for 64 bit stuff, it's top dog in 32 bit programs as of now, killling
current pentium products (but not so much the P4 3.2 ghz EE, which isn't out
yet though 'till a couple more months).


[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2003, 3:10am

uhhh lol? First of all you can't compare mhz between the two CPUs. Intel,
like AMD, are both 200 mhz FSB. AMD is doing DDR (200x2 = 400), but intel
is doing quad pumped (800mhz). They're both very close the same
performance-wise. Not to mention AMD does much much more work per tick,
which helps keeps the two neck and neck.

Regarding your other post down the line, what in the world are you talking
about? AMD didn't "die" when it wasn't overclocked. What review did you
look at? intelworld.com? =P
I suggest you look at a few sources. Personally I never rely on only one
review. Do 3 or 4 if you really wanna see what it's like all around.

Lastly AMD is like made for overclocking...well not literally, but about any
overclocking forum you go to and it's just AMD this and AMD that. I own two
AMD systems. a 1.2 ghz OC'd to 1.5, and a 1.7 ghz to 2.3 ghz. And guess
what? It's quiet enough to sleep with it on (unlike those 40-50+ dBa deltas
or vantecs lol), and rock solid. 1 CPU fan, no case fans. *shrug*
The whole AMD being hot thing is just a big urban myth. Yes they are "hot",
but so is Intel, and in many cases hotter. Intel just has a thermal
dispersion system on the CPU level, I'll give em' that.


[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2003, 3:12am

> Yeah AMD's r0x0r. How about the time when using the OGL pipes screen
> saver caused it to overheat like icarus' wings? What fan would've
> stopped that?

lol your thinking of a an early Geforce FX there buddy. That logically
couldn't cause the CPU to overheat. It'd be the GPU =P

Sep 29, 2003, 4:23pm

> Where the hell have you been? 200 MHz FSB is 1999 buddy. Even AMD is
> beyond the 200 range, as you can see if you double something it's not
> the same. If I put two two-lane highways next to each other it's not a
> 2 lane high way anymore, is it? Smoking the cheebas again, aren't you
> canuck? Oot and aboot, agayn and agayn with the newfies, eh? ;)

I could ask you the same question. As I state again, the true frequency is
200 mhz now. However it's called 400 because it's in DDR mode (200x2=400),
and intel is 200x4=800 cause they quad-pump it. Before, it was 166x2=333,
and 133x2=266, and 100x2=200 mhz. Don't believe me? Ask *any* computer
forum go'er, like www.rage3d.com, general hardware forums.


> I certainly hope you don't spend your time investing in overclocking an
> AMD. AMD is made for cheap people, thus cheap components, thus not very
> high quality. I own 2 AMD systems, what's your point? My AMD sounds
> like a 747 with a Seagull stuck in it's exhaust. The single Intel
> Celeron? Quiet as the Ionicbreeze.

Overclocking is a hobby I enjoy so yea I gladly spend time at it. And if
you don't know anything about marketing, FYI they're able to build those
things for a few dollars. They *have* to do extreme markup in order to not
look cheap. Cheap components, low quality? Come back when you got
something to back that up with bud, considering both companies get their
parts from IBM. And your AMD sounding loud is meaningless, more likely
poorly assembled. My XP 2600 (1700 not overclocked), is very quiet, and my
mom's 2500 down the hall is totally inaudible, and runs at very acceptable
temps.

Sep 29, 2003, 4:32pm

> They're all the same. I've heard from some sources that running it
> burns up the AMD too. But hey, people who buy AMD's will probably buy
> GeForces too... you know, because of the price differentials between ATI
> and GeForce, just like with Intel and AMD. So yeah, if you light a fire
> in a box and try to put it out with more wood what do you think is going
> to happen?

lol care to share these "sources"? Believe me I look all around the net at
computer news three times a day, and I saw the opengl horror story all over.
It was the old faulty geforce FX's fan, because their fan was controlled by
the card's drivers (FlowFX), and the drivers didn't understand that the
screensaver was 3d, so it kept the fan running at 2d speeds, overheating the
card. It's impossible that a screensaver alone could overheat the processor
only because any 3d application, even AW, puts the processor at 100% useage,
and 100% = 100% no matter what program is doing it. The key difference is
that AMD's fan is simple always-on-always-going, whereas Geforce had that
funky software-controlled fan, able to be errored.

And just to nit-pik, AMD people usually go with ATI. At least thats what I
notice when I look around computer forums (as people there usually keep
their computer specs in their sig). And...ATI and nvidia are the same
prices, actaully ATI is a bit more. Poke around pricewatch.com, have a
look.

Sep 29, 2003, 4:41pm

Well I'd hope so, you can't really compare those two cards together, lol.
Back in the day nvidia was the king easily (like the cards you mentioned
being 2 generations old), but now ATI is winning =X


[View Quote]

Sep 29, 2003, 4:42pm

>
> I could ask you the same question. As I state again, the true frequency
is
> 200 mhz now. However it's called 400 because it's in DDR mode
(200x2=400),
> and intel is 200x4=800 cause they quad-pump it. Before, it was 166x2=333,
> and 133x2=266, and 100x2=200 mhz. Don't believe me? Ask *any* computer
> forum go'er, like www.rage3d.com, general hardware forums.


Actaully even easier, just look in your BIOS for the DRAM or host clock.
It'll be 200 or less, unless those funky intel BIOS's don't state the true
frequency lol, but I doubt that'll happen.

Sep 29, 2003, 5:29pm

Only the 3.2 ghz p4 EE (extreme edition) is faster which isn't available for
a coupe months earliest `,'

But, intel is good in some areas, and AMD is good in some areas. Intel may
of had AMD in a couple areas, if I recall they were audio and video related
stuff, but only by a little....

But dang dude you must have deep pockets. The FX alone is like $700, and
knowing Intel, their's will prolly be at least $900 when it arrives.

[View Quote]

Sep 30, 2003, 4:55am

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

Nope, the true freqency is the main influence because of the
northbridge-DIMM interface. DDR and Quad-pumping will never get you exactly
2x or 4x the performance increase, or anywhere close to it for that matter.
They're merely bonuses to squeeze in more instructions when it can. The
proof is in the reviews. If quad pumping was really doing that much work,
AMD and Intel would no way in hell be neck and neck like they've been for
years. Another example similar is dual channel RAM. It's double the bus,
but you're lucky if you get even 25% bonuses.

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

Pfftt my mom's 2500 was a hair over inaudible with the stock cooling, and
dead quiet with a $20 zalman. You just got a bad experience and got shafted
with a crummy heatsink that they did to save money, or they're just stupid
or something *shrug*.

> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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)

*sigh* see previous paragraph. It's simply not relevant enough, it's all
about the base frequency, because only the base frequency effects the many
many other latency timings throughout the system (CL, CMD, RP, RCD, and RAS
to name a few big ones), which play a whole roll in a computer's
performance. And, once again, AMD and Intel can't be compared by mhz. As
we all know AMD can compete with an Intel even though it's roughly a ghz
faster now. It's just the way the two companies designed their
architecture, and both are good and work. Intel has to have a higher
bandwidth (and higher clock rate for that matter) because it needs to call
on information a lot more than AMD has too. Look at the CPU white sheets
one day, and you can see how and where AMD gets more work done per cycle,
lessening the chance that it'll have to call for more information.

> 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.
>
> 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.

lol I don't need "help". I operate a PC repair service, major in computer
engineering, been an über computer enthusiast for years, pretty much
spending a big chunk of my free time every day doing personal research on
whatever there is to know about computer hardware. I know what I'm talking
about, unlike you who apparently didn't even know about the meaning of DDR
in the host clock ("Where the hell have you been? 200 MHz FSB is 1999
buddy. "), thought that an opengl screensaver fried a CPU, and your zanely
bus theory. I just called CMM in for a laugh =P

And anyone who screws up on a system that you mentioned there shouldn't be
building computers. I've never seen so much exaggeration in a long time
lmao. 4 gigs of RAM? A "$1000" AGP card paired with a mobo that only
supports 2x? lol you know how old that mobo would be? Anyone that dumb
deserves it LOL. All those problems are easily avoided by simply looking at
the mobo specs. And who you calling a fanboy? CMM and I have no problem
with Intel. A fanboy is someone who loves one company and hates the over
false or ignorant reasons...hmm sounds like someone I know =P

The only reason I'm even posting all this is because I hate seeing people
that don't know what they're talking about critizing/bashing hardware that a
company has worked on for years in a public newsgroup spreading false
impressions upon people. It's not fair to the company or people that take
what you're saying seriously.

Bottom line: AMD and Intel's performance have been about neck and neck for a
long time, regardless of any technical babble you can dream up, the proof is
in the numbers. AMD has a small lead now, and I expect Intel to come ahead
later, and then AMD later, etc, like what always happens. Let the price
determine what's right for you.

1  ...  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  44  |   Order by default