Computer related announcement
Allen626
18-10-2005 19:08:43
64bit CPU is a marketing ploy and does not really matter
AMD 3000+ runs at 1.8ghz but is faster then a Pentium 4 3.0ghz. The 3000 should be translated into mhz if compared to intel CPU.
AMD is better for gaming, Intel is better for multitasking
DDR400 runs at 200mhz and is not running at 400mhz. They say this because DDR does calculations on the rising and falling edges of the clock. So it does 2 times more calcs then a normal RAM so they like to say it runs at 400mhz although it does not.
ATI and Nvidia graphics cards perform differantly from game to game, sometimes ATI wins sometimes nVidia.
CPU does not affect application speed the vast majority of the time, that is RAM
Microsoft Xbox 360 is as fast as PS3 even though PS3 has better CPU power x360 has a better graphics card. The ps3 needs the better CPU for its graphics cards downfall
Hmm is there any more myths I need to clear up? Well there you have it you are now more informed if you did not hear the above before. Check it if you want to it is right.
One last thing... 64-Bit CPUs ONLY refer to the address bus. As of this writing, 64-bit CPUs only work with a 44bit address bus (your average PC has 32, so you are only get 12 bits of extra address bus to work with) and practically NO PROGRAM out on the market takes advantage of this. The OS (Linux, WinXP 64) does.. but no programs that I know of actually take advantage of this.
Intel's 64 bit CPU (Itanium) is NOT backwards compatible, so you are screwed if you decide to go with Intel for 64bit, whereas AMD's Opteron is backward compatible.
Matt8789
18-10-2005 19:38:27
Im building my comp around some of the things Allens told me so i hope it comes out good ) What do you think about the Dual CPU that Intel recently put out? As good as AMD? Better?
CrazyMan123
18-10-2005 19:44:45
Alright just for clarification you did these tests right? And when you did them you used the exact sma ecomputer except for the processor, correct? And you have some prrof of everything you are saying, correct?
[quote9402a2d840="Allen626"]CPU does not affect application speed the vast majority of the time, that is RAM
[/quote9402a2d840]
Bull shit take some computer courses and get back to me. RAM does affect it a lot but CPU is very important there too
[quote9402a2d840="Allen626"]Microsoft is a bad company, windows xp is a good desktop operating system
[/quote9402a2d840]
How can you say this is clearing up a myth. It is your shitty opinion.
So the question you should have posed is
Hmm is there any more bullshit I need to write in this post?
CrazyMan123
18-10-2005 19:46:31
By the way matt a dual cpu is inhariently faster because it can process more than one job at a time as opposed to a single cpu where it can only process one job at a time.
Matt8789
18-10-2005 19:49:09
[quote1b3e6ed297="CrazyMan123"]By the way matt a dual cpu is inhariently faster because it can process more than one job at a time as opposed to a single cpu where it can only process one job at a time.[/quote1b3e6ed297]
I wasnt asking what is was haha and isnt that HT? Or am i wrong.. Plus the average person wouldnt come close to using their computer that much to put to work BOTH of the CPUs..i think its just one
Admin
18-10-2005 19:49:33
But the vast majority of programs, especially those used day to day, are not multithread capable and therefore will not take advantage of a second cpu.
CrazyMan123
18-10-2005 19:51:58
It isn't a question of working it ENOUGH. Regular usage will work both CPUs. This is because of the way the CPU works. A CPU can only process one command at a time. Such as open a program or stop this one. The way we operate multiple programs is based on the CPU splitting up the jobs into tiny jobs. Well with 2 cpus you can process 2 jobs at once (literally instead of figuratively like with 1 processor)
Wolfeman
18-10-2005 19:55:02
64 bit isn't a marketing ploy. At some point everything will be 64 bit. A long time ago we had to switch from 16 bit to 32 bit. This change will happen slowly but over the next 3-4 years we will all switch to 64 bit. You should really learn before you talk...
Allen626
18-10-2005 19:58:56
When you program you use threads to make multiple things work at the same time. Dual CPU needs special programming, nothing right now uses it that I know of. Actually I think FEAR uses mutli super threads or whatever they are called. Dual CPU core right now is a waste of money, but it will soon become better when prices go down and things start using it. I would go with a single core CPU that costs around 150-200$ instead of a monster x2 that is slower then a single core that costs 450$to 800$.
CPU affects application speed to a very small degree. CPUs are so fast that for most applications you do not need a fast CPU, and a nice pair of RAM chips will benefit you a lot more. I am not saying you will not see a differance between a P1 and a P4, because you will. I am saying you will not see a differance between a A64 Sempron and a A64, even though there is a price differance of double or more. RAM matters a lot more then CPU in application speed.
And you are right that is a opinion about windows XP I will edit it out. It was more of a statement about how people blame windows for there own errors, but it did not show that.
CrazyMan123
18-10-2005 20:00:56
Just remember no matter how bad of a company you think Microsoft is without the company the computer would not be what it is today.
Allen626
18-10-2005 20:02:36
[quote12ff2e0573="CrazyMan123"]Just remember no matter how bad of a company you think Microsoft is without the company the computer would not be what it is today.[/quote12ff2e0573]
Uhhh... without Microsoft it would be better. You are correct in that statement.
We hit a cap when we went to 32bit processing. We do not need 64bit processing and probaly wont for a very long time. Long enough for current CPUs that have it to be phased out.
CrazyMan123
18-10-2005 20:03:41
lol...just lol...that statement alone proves how worthless your first post in this thread is.
Allen626
18-10-2005 20:07:29
[quotef26dbd322b="CrazyMan123"]lol...just lol...that statement alone proves how worthless your first post in this thread is.[/quotef26dbd322b]
You think we need someone in the business to push other creative ideas out? Or push competition out? Without Microsoft we would still be sitting here on our computers just with a differant operating system. Maybe it would be made by Apple. Apple made OSs too in competition with Microsoft.
Wolfeman
18-10-2005 20:10:50
Microsoft did do some good but they have also done a lot bad. They overpower and steal smaller companies ideas then call them their own. They obviously are a monopoly which isn't good in a market based economy. It stifles competition and cause prices to go up...
What is PROVEN is that 64bit CPUs currently use only 44bits as its address bus. Read a book and you will see..
[quote26b9373989]None of these first-generation 64-bit CPUs use an actual 64-bit address bus. The Intel Itanium, for example, only has a 44-bit address bus for a maximum address space of 2(44) or 17,592,186,044,416 bytes. Why would a 64-bit CPU only have a 44-bit address bus? Simple - the chances of anyone needing that much RAM in the next few years is slim. Later CPUs will add to their address buses as the needs increase. Do you remember the register that keeps track of where the CPU is looking in memory? On these 64-bit processors, that register stays 64-bit, even if it can't use 20 of the 64 bits![/quote26b9373989]
tracemhunter
18-10-2005 20:12:55
microsoft is a good company that makes a shitty os. eventually everything will use 64-bit but it wont be for awhile. you are right about nvidia and ati though, but nvidia does do better in about 80% of the benchmarks from what i have seen. especially comparing the 7800gtx and x1800xt.
Also, when it comes to the two video card makers.. NVIDIA is Linux-Friendly, where as ATI loves to dickride Windows XP.
Allen626
18-10-2005 20:17:19
[quotee616eebbc6="tracemhunter"]microsoft is a good company that makes a shitty os. eventually everything will use 64-bit but it wont be for awhile. you are right about nvidia and ati though, but nvidia does do better in about 80% of the benchmarks from what i have seen. especially comparing the 7800gtx and x1800xt.[/quotee616eebbc6]
Unfortunately that is true (, but ATi is still not a bad graphics card. A lot of people bad mouth them when ATI still has a good graphics card not to overlook in some cases. Like I traded in my 6600GT to get the x850 XT PE because I got it for 265$.
tracemhunter
18-10-2005 20:45:59
yea i loved my 9800 pro but when i upgraded to pcie i ended up with a 6800gt.
EatChex89
18-10-2005 22:00:18
lmao..
this is all because of me isn't it?
64 bit is [b07b92692a5]not[/b07b92692a5] a marketing ploy.. CPU speed does very well matter when running applications. as does ram, bus speed, etc. etc.
i'd like to see you run Half Life 2 on a Pentium 133 with 1GB of RAM and tell me cpu speed doesn't matter.. lol
FreeOffersNow
18-10-2005 22:25:10
[quotef31a80b664="Allen626"]I am saying you will not see a [bf31a80b664]differance[/bf31a80b664] between a A64 Sempron and a A64, even though there is a price differance of double or more. RAM matters a lot more then CPU in application speed.[/quotef31a80b664]
<---- Not taking computer advice from someone who spells "difference" with an "a".
tsanghan
18-10-2005 22:50:26
[quote39b896481a="FreeOffersNow"][quote39b896481a="Allen626"]I am saying you will not see a [b39b896481a]differance[/b39b896481a] between a A64 Sempron and a A64, even though there is a price differance of double or more. RAM matters a lot more then CPU in application speed.[/quote39b896481a]
<---- Not taking computer advice from someone who spells "difference" with an "a".[/quote39b896481a]
haha lol i agree
Allen626
18-10-2005 22:51:47
[quote65bf3a45d2="EatChex89"]lmao..
this is all because of me isn't it?
64 bit is [b65bf3a45d2]not[/b65bf3a45d2] a marketing ploy.. CPU speed does very well matter when running applications. as does ram, bus speed, etc. etc.
i'd like to see you run Half Life 2 on a Pentium 133 with 1GB of RAM and tell me cpu speed doesn't matter.. lol[/quote65bf3a45d2]
I said application not game, and you are not reading the whole thread before you post
[quote65bf3a45d2] I am not saying you will not see a differance between a P1 and a P4, because you will. I am saying you will not see a differance between a A64 Sempron and a A64, even though there is a price differance of double or more.[/quote65bf3a45d2]
Actually games run about the same on a A64 3000+ as they do on a A64 4000+. Maybe like 2-3 FPS faster.
And...
Oh noes I spelt difference wrong
Wolfeman
18-10-2005 22:59:07
So you can buy a SL-55 or a Honda Civic. The difference 0-60 is only a few seconds but those cars are a world apart.
Comparing 2 CPUs that are so close, you aren't going to see much of a difference but look at the mid-range CPU 1 1/2 years ago and now and they're plenty faster.
Allen626
18-10-2005 23:04:36
[quotebe4e153a6f="Wolfeman"]So you can buy a SL-55 or a Honda Civic. The difference 0-60 is only a few seconds but those cars are a world apart.
Comparing 2 CPUs that are so close, you aren't going to see much of a difference but look at the mid-range CPU 1 1/2 years ago and now and they're plenty faster.[/quotebe4e153a6f]
Thoose are 1/4 faster, and costs 3 or 4 times more. Some cost 5 times more. And what do you get for it nothing. With a new graphics card if you pay 2x more you get a shit load faster, not just 2-3 more FPS.
Wolfeman
18-10-2005 23:08:54
Thats not true. A lot of times you pay 2 times as much and don't get that many more FPS. High-end newer technology is always going to be really expensive, with mid-level being best mix of value and performance, and low-end for the cheapskates...
Allen626
19-10-2005 04:17:04
[quote71d5d16aa5="Wolfeman"]Thats not true. A lot of times you pay 2 times as much and don't get that many more FPS. High-end newer technology is always going to be really expensive, with mid-level being best mix of value and performance, and low-end for the cheapskates...[/quote71d5d16aa5]
I never said 2 times as much. You do not get that much but you will see a significant increase in something 2 times more expensive, usually at least 40-50% more, and often times 60-70%.
Wolfeman
19-10-2005 11:44:54
I really just don't get the point of this thread. You continue your fight against upgrading CPUs...
dudeextrem2000
19-10-2005 13:24:22
intel, im not much 1 for change
EatChex89
19-10-2005 14:08:12
[quotef062288752="Wolfeman"]I really just don't get the point of this thread. You continue your fight against upgrading CPUs...[/quotef062288752]
haha i know, huh
[quotef062288752="Allen626"]I said application not game, and you are not reading the whole thread before you post [/quotef062288752]
okay, then I'll still give you a Pentium 133 with 1GB of RAM, but instead of Half-Life 2, I'll let you run Photoshop CS2 on it (thats an application) ... then you can tell me that CPU speed doesn't matter..
Allen626
19-10-2005 14:42:03
[quote3e6e4ffe25="EatChex89"][quote3e6e4ffe25="Wolfeman"]I really just don't get the point of this thread. You continue your fight against upgrading CPUs...[/quote3e6e4ffe25]
haha i know, huh
[quote3e6e4ffe25="Allen626"]I said application not game, and you are not reading the whole thread before you post [/quote3e6e4ffe25]
okay, then I'll still give you a Pentium 133 with 1GB of RAM, but instead of Half-Life 2, I'll let you run Photoshop CS2 on it (thats an application) ... then you can tell me that CPU speed doesn't matter..[/quote3e6e4ffe25]
DO YOU LIKE IGNORING THE REST OF MY POSTS? BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE IT.
Wolfeman
19-10-2005 14:44:00
Your posts are dumb. Its hard to read them without getting ill...
CoMpFrEaK
19-10-2005 14:59:13
I would disagree with you on several accounts
CPU wise 64 bit does show a substantial improvement, its been shown in benchmarking
Microsoft isnt as bad as everyone says it is, we just love bashing on them cause they are the largest.
You cant say intel is better at multitasking, though they are better at encoding.
ATI is better in terms of AA/AF, though Nvidia is better with DirectX, while ATI is better at openGL. (If im not mistaken)
EatChex89
19-10-2005 16:25:11
[quote0200bd9a26="Allen626"][quote0200bd9a26="EatChex89"][quote0200bd9a26="Wolfeman"]I really just don't get the point of this thread. You continue your fight against upgrading CPUs...[/quote0200bd9a26]
haha i know, huh
[quote0200bd9a26="Allen626"]I said application not game, and you are not reading the whole thread before you post [/quote0200bd9a26]
okay, then I'll still give you a Pentium 133 with 1GB of RAM, but instead of Half-Life 2, I'll let you run Photoshop CS2 on it (thats an application) ... then you can tell me that CPU speed doesn't matter..[/quote0200bd9a26]
[b0200bd9a26]DO YOU LIKE IGNORING THE REST OF MY POSTS? BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE IT.[/b0200bd9a26][/quote0200bd9a26]
I probably do like ignoring your posts.. got a problem with it? P
Allen626
19-10-2005 16:44:41
[quote7fa4367153="CoMpFrEaK"]I would disagree with you on several accounts
CPU wise 64 bit does show a substantial improvement, its been shown in benchmarking
Microsoft isnt as bad as everyone says it is, we just love bashing on them cause they are the largest.
You cant say intel is better at multitasking, though they are better at encoding.
ATI is better in terms of AA/AF, though Nvidia is better with DirectX, while ATI is better at openGL. (If im not mistaken)[/quote7fa4367153]
Show me a benchmark where 64bit improves performance. On all game benchmarks it is the same or slower when upgraded to 64bit. And the farcry expansion was a marketing ploy if there ever was one for 64bit.
Microsoft is pretty bad man. They take the standards and twist them so it barely fits. They booted out wordperfect (. They are also a monopoly and encorporate IE and a media player with all there products when there is better ones out there.
RocLaFamilia
19-10-2005 16:47:03
[quote7c610f4757="Allen626"]
AMD is better for gaming, Intel is better for multitasking
[/quote7c610f4757]
i do not agree with that... i got a HP laptop with AMD 64 3200+ processor and my friend got the exact same pc but he got the Pent 4...His computer is the one that is always slow when we are working on our music programs together....thats jus my expierences....also i got a Desktop pc with the AMD FX 5300+ and my friend has the Pent Xeon in his pc and mine is still the better one when we are producing music and stuff....
Wolfeman
19-10-2005 16:48:09
64-bit isn't working at its full potential because its running on 32-bit OS.
![]("a3b90512aa)
http//www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050627/images/image024.gif[" alt=""/imga3b90512aa]
Seems to me 64-bit is the fastest...
RocLaFamilia
19-10-2005 16:52:58
[quote4fc8949b1e="Wolfeman"]64-bit isn't working at its full potential because its running on 32-bit OS.
![]("4fc8949b1e)
http//www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050627/images/image024.gif[" alt=""/img4fc8949b1e]
Seems to me 64-bit is the fastest...[/quote4fc8949b1e]
Window x64?...Mac Tiger Os?...i kno i have a modified verison that works on AMD....Linux also works good on AMD....
Allen626
19-10-2005 16:54:19
[quotecd88c3d47f="Wolfeman"]64-bit isn't working at its full potential because its running on 32-bit OS.
![]("cd88c3d47f)
http//www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050627/images/image024.gif[" alt=""/imgcd88c3d47f]
Seems to me 64-bit is the fastest...[/quotecd88c3d47f]
The benchies I have seen in a 64bit os are the same or worse, that is not on a 64bit os so you can not even start to compare.
Wolfeman
19-10-2005 16:57:27
Allen626
19-10-2005 16:57:43
Looks like you guys lose at games.
http//www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=1961&p=4
and win at benchmarks for numbers
http//www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=1961&p=3
Wolfeman
19-10-2005 16:58:29
So you admit 64-bit is faster but not on 64-bit OSes? You make no sense...
Wolfeman
19-10-2005 17:00:14
You are talking about Windows XP 64-bit which no one uses. When they come out with a real 64-bit OS and all the hardware support is there, it will blow 32-bit away.
Wolfeman
19-10-2005 17:02:21
AND that article is from Feb. 2004 over a year and a half ago. That was beta of the 64-bit OS. You need to quit before you really make a fool of yourself...
Allen626
19-10-2005 17:14:53
[quote6f7045914a="Wolfeman"]AND that article is from Feb. 2004 over a year and a half ago. That was beta of the 64-bit OS. You need to quit before you really make a fool of yourself...[/quote6f7045914a]
Way to make 3 posts. It is still running 64bit nativaley. It is out of beta now and noone uses it because even with driver support there is no increase in speed. 64bit is not faster on anything except on 64bit oses else it runs in 32bit. At least that is what the AMD CPU does. AMD 64 bit is a marketing ploy like I said before, and it will not blow you away.
I am not going to reply to any more retarded posts. So please do not post your comments, kthnxbai.
Wolfeman
19-10-2005 19:47:12
So you say that 64-bit isn't faster on a 64-bit OS but in your next thought you say 64-bit is only faster on 64-bit OSes? I think I know who is making the retarded posts...
You obviously don't know much about computers except what you hear in passing or see on a pretty picture. 64-bit [ica83f0b7c4][bca83f0b7c4]is[/ica83f0b7c4][/bca83f0b7c4] faster and [ica83f0b7c4][bca83f0b7c4]will be[/ica83f0b7c4][/bca83f0b7c4] the processors of the future. There is no arguing this, its a fact. Just because you think the 1st generations of 64-bit aren't way faster than 32-bit, you are somewhat right but at some point we have to make a move to the next generation. Its like the move from analog TV to digital HDTV. Some people just don't see the difference but it is going to happen and HD is better. At some point we'll move past 64-bit to 128-bit and everyone will bitch...
CoMpFrEaK
19-10-2005 19:53:43
[quoteaed5230233="Allen626"]Looks like you guys lose at games.
http//www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=1961&p=4
and win at benchmarks for numbers
http//www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=1961&p=3[/quoteaed5230233]
"It is far too early to reach any conclusions in this area,"
quoted from anandtech
Also thats an FX-51, which is pretty old
Aurelius
20-10-2005 00:37:12
the main thing about computer is that it's not all about the numbers here... amd's do more work per cycle then intels so amd's perform better for the price and also dual core does improve performance drastically when you're doing lots of stuff at once. if you're thinking of building your own gaming comp for fps games i suggest you jsut go with a single core build to reduce costs since single cores tend to overclock pretty well... ram is reallyr eally important (maybe same level as cpu) on intel computers but excess ram meaning 2+ gb will actually slow your computer down whether or not it's clocked faster. if you're goign with an amd computer (assuming it's a 64 bit one) then you mainly have to worry about the speed of the cpu because memory matters less with amd comps. just remember that you can overclock a 250 dollar chip to a 1000 dollar chip speed if you know what you're doing so just do your research and save a whoel bunch of money like i did.
Wolfeman
20-10-2005 01:12:28
I agree with Allen. Everyone sell your computers and go back to i486s and Windows 3.11 with Workgroups. Life was prefect then, no more advancement allowed...
CoMpFrEaK
20-10-2005 07:05:57
[quotee45b67ecba="Aurelius"]the main thing about computer is that it's not all about the numbers here... amd's do more work per cycle then intels so amd's perform better for the price and also dual core does improve performance drastically when you're doing lots of stuff at once. if you're thinking of building your own gaming comp for fps games i suggest you jsut go with a single core build to reduce costs since single cores tend to overclock pretty well... ram is reallyr eally important (maybe same level as cpu) on intel computers but excess ram meaning 2+ gb will actually slow your computer down whether or not it's clocked faster. if you're goign with an amd computer (assuming it's a 64 bit one) then you mainly have to worry about the speed of the cpu because memory matters less with amd comps. just remember that you can overclock a 250 dollar chip to a 1000 dollar chip speed if you know what you're doing so just do your research and save a whoel bunch of money like i did.[/quotee45b67ecba]
.....dual core isnt as bad as you think it is.
One of the primary reasons for dual core is due to the excess heat the cpu produces. As some may know the prescott processors were insane. So they have now split it down to two processor cores but also clocked down the fsb in which each core produces less heat. Kinda cool actually P
Allen626
20-10-2005 09:14:03
I think I need to clarify this. 32 to 64bit is NOT 2 times more. It is 4 294 967 296 times bigger.
nofxowl
20-10-2005 10:02:08
hey does anyone know the difference between the iBook and the power iBook? besides like $400 in price...
tracemhunter
20-10-2005 10:35:13
the 12" ibook and 12" powerbook are basically the same except everything in the powerbook is a bit better. but i wouldnt recommend the 12" powerbook or ibook. the screen isnt that great and it doesnt have the backlit keyboard.
Aurelius
20-10-2005 16:45:53
heh excess heat? unheard of with amd comps. anyone else go crazy with overclocking like me and use watercooling for their comp? and i'm thinking for going to a dual core computer as soon as i get some money together to set it up. i doubt i need it as i mainly play fps games with nothing else and source is mainly just one thread but hey... i'll get dual core just so i'm prepared on those days when i feel like playing several games at the same time while defraging the hard drive 8)
Wolfeman
20-10-2005 16:50:20
Dual-core is just a conspiracy, i486 was the peak of all computing...
CoMpFrEaK
20-10-2005 17:09:36
[quotedd7cbdc506="Aurelius"]heh excess heat? unheard of with amd comps. anyone else go crazy with overclocking like me and use watercooling for their comp? and i'm thinking for going to a dual core computer as soon as i get some money together to set it up. i doubt i need it as i mainly play fps games with nothing else and source is mainly just one thread but hey... i'll get dual core just so i'm prepared on those days when i feel like playing several games at the same time while defraging the hard drive 8)[/quotedd7cbdc506]
Remind me how many people actually use water cooling? You can consider water cooling wanna be overclockers. If you were really hardcore you'd be phase change material wink
Allen626
20-10-2005 17:12:48
[quotea52655b44d="CoMpFrEaK"][quotea52655b44d="Aurelius"]heh excess heat? unheard of with amd comps. anyone else go crazy with overclocking like me and use watercooling for their comp? and i'm thinking for going to a dual core computer as soon as i get some money together to set it up. i doubt i need it as i mainly play fps games with nothing else and source is mainly just one thread but hey... i'll get dual core just so i'm prepared on those days when i feel like playing several games at the same time while defraging the hard drive 8)[/quotea52655b44d]
Remind me how many people actually use water cooling? You can consider water cooling wanna be overclockers. If you were really hardcore you'd be phase change material wink[/quotea52655b44d]
The real cheap overclockers use stock HSF like myself. Push it to the limits out of the box without paying for anymore cooling. You can have as much fun overclocking something 50% on stock HSF with burn in.
CoMpFrEaK
20-10-2005 17:14:29
[quote6952f9e148="Allen626"][quote6952f9e148="CoMpFrEaK"][quote6952f9e148="Aurelius"]heh excess heat? unheard of with amd comps. anyone else go crazy with overclocking like me and use watercooling for their comp? and i'm thinking for going to a dual core computer as soon as i get some money together to set it up. i doubt i need it as i mainly play fps games with nothing else and source is mainly just one thread but hey... i'll get dual core just so i'm prepared on those days when i feel like playing several games at the same time while defraging the hard drive 8)[/quote6952f9e148]
Remind me how many people actually use water cooling? You can consider water cooling wanna be overclockers. If you were really hardcore you'd be phase change material wink[/quote6952f9e148]
The real cheap overclockers use stock HSF like myself. Push it to the limits out of the box without paying for anymore cooling. You can have as much fun overclocking something 50% on stock HSF with burn in.[/quote6952f9e148]
Only reason i dont use stock HSF is cause i want a quiet computer. You can barely hear any sounds comming out of my computer, with exception to the hd.
Allen626
20-10-2005 17:54:44
Ahh. I have my case open now since I got my x850 to let it cool better. But I have a CPU Fan, System Fan, RAM Fan, and 4 HDDs. And 2 silent fans on my PSU. My computer is not as loud as you would expect but it is not quiet. All fit in a mid tower too. I should get a digital camera so I can get a pic of it.
EatChex89
20-10-2005 18:10:17
[quote937476a496="nofxowl"]hey does anyone know the difference between the iBook and the power iBook? besides like $400 in price...[/quote937476a496]
yes the iBooks aren't as powerful as the powerbooks... look at the specs on www.apple.com