NarfwakJoin Date: 2002-11-02Member: 5258Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Gold, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow, Subnautica PT Lead, NS2 Community Developer
<!--QuoteBegin-Narfwak+Oct 20 2004, 09:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Narfwak @ Oct 20 2004, 09:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> SP2 can (insert phallic expression here) me. I hate it, and I won't touch it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh snap. Apparently CompUSA only carries XP Pro w/ SP2, so please excuse me while I remove my foot from my mouth.
. . . mmmthhhpmmm . . .
. . . Okay. At least Norton Antivirus 2005 makes SP2's retarded security center stuff shut up.
Well, I had some major problem with my memory (i.e., that three hundred dollar stick of Corsair XMS is DOA, and I don't mean "DOA" in the "breasts playing volleyball" way) so I had to go pick up a new 512 MB DIMM of generic DDR400 at CompUSA just to get the system set up before I left town. Now <i>that</i> DIMM is only showing up as 256 MB of DDR333. Oy vey.
Other than the RAM troubles, the computer works just fine (I'm writing this post on it). I get my precious X800 XT PE tommorrow, and I should have just enough time to get it installed before I fly down to Iowa City. I'm tempted to try to get games to run, but I doubt anything I want to test (Doom 3, CS:S, and, um . . . Doom 3) is going to work well on 256 MB of RAM.
I don't want to make you feel bad but <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-The-Frostmourne+Oct 20 2004, 11:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The-Frostmourne @ Oct 20 2004, 11:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't want to make you feel bad but <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041019/athlon64_4000-04.html' target='_blank'>http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041019/a...64_4000-04.html</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Doesn't that artical say it's practically exactly the same chip just clocked higher? I fail to see the overwhelming advantage...
NarfwakJoin Date: 2002-11-02Member: 5258Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Gold, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow, Subnautica PT Lead, NS2 Community Developer
edited October 2004
Indeed. If I do get a new heatsink and CPU fan (like I was originally planning to), I could just overclock my FX-53 and easily meet the performance of the FX-55.
U probably dont need RAm with ECC, and cooler master makes higher quality cases than thermaltake in my opinion. If ur gonna spend all that money, you mind as well get an good overclocking mobo, and get a promethia mach 2 with a lian-li case. All the other stuff looks great. This is what I got 4 months ago, or so.
Intel 875p (if i remember correctly) motherboard Intel Prescott 2.8ghz 800mhz fsb Corsair Value select DDR pc3200 RAM ATI Radeon 9800pro 128mb WesternDigital 7200rpm 80GB SATA HDD Asus Dvd-rom Asus Cd-Rw CHenbro gaming bomb caser Vantec 410W ION power supply Creative Labs Audigy 2 ZS Creative Labs INspire T7700 7.1 Speakers 2-96mm vantec stealth fans NEC 991SB Monitor
Everything is absolutely fantastic except for the Creative Labs Audigy 2 ZS sound card. I still cant get any sound input from my mic.
NarfwakJoin Date: 2002-11-02Member: 5258Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Gold, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow, Subnautica PT Lead, NS2 Community Developer
edited October 2004
That's nice and all, Dr 1337, but if you would actually read the thread you would see that I already own this computer, and I'm not going to dismantle it and return all the parts on a whim.
I was originally planning on getting that Thermaltake heatsink, but my pappy declined to order it because he thought I didn't realize that my CPU was packaged with a heatsink and fan. This is probably a good thing, as I read some rather negative reviews of it recently (the heatsink surface is not taken to a mirror finish, and the more expensive, all-copper system is actually inferior to the cheaper, part-copper/part-aluminum model Thermaltake makes). If I do get a new heatsink, it will be a different model, or even a different manufacturer.
NarfwakJoin Date: 2002-11-02Member: 5258Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Gold, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow, Subnautica PT Lead, NS2 Community Developer
Just got my X800 XT PE, the thing (at least) doubled my performance over my temporary 9700 Pro - and this is still with only 256 MB of functioning RAM.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 21 2004, 12:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 21 2004, 12:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-The-Frostmourne+Oct 20 2004, 11:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The-Frostmourne @ Oct 20 2004, 11:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't want to make you feel bad but <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041019/athlon64_4000-04.html' target='_blank'>http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041019/a...64_4000-04.html</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Doesn't that artical say it's practically exactly the same chip just clocked higher? I fail to see the overwhelming advantage... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> See you fail to see the big picture.
Athlon 64 FX-53 is in all cases within the article, if you took time to read the whole thing, the new Athlon 64 4000+ which will probably be less expensive because it does not carry the flagship FX suffix, yes the Athlon 64 FX-55 looks like it's just a overclocked FX-53 but it will make the FX-53 look like a waist of money since you will be able to pick up the 4000+ for a lower price.
<!--QuoteBegin-Narfwak+Oct 21 2004, 09:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Narfwak @ Oct 21 2004, 09:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That's nice and all, Dr 1337, but if you would actually read the thread you would see that I already own this computer, and I'm not going to dismantle it and return all the parts on a whim.
I was originally planning on getting that Thermaltake heatsink, but my pappy declined to order it because he thought I didn't realize that my CPU was packaged with a heatsink and fan. This is probably a good thing, as I read some rather negative reviews of it recently (the heatsink surface is not taken to a mirror finish, and the more expensive, all-copper system is actually inferior to the cheaper, part-copper/part-aluminum model Thermaltake makes). If I do get a new heatsink, it will be a different model, or even a different manufacturer. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You mirror it yourself with hyper fine sandpaper. You have to sand most copper HS anyways because they form a layer of oxidization from just sitting around that really should be removed before you let thermal paste contact them.
<!--QuoteBegin-The-Frostmourne+Oct 21 2004, 04:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The-Frostmourne @ Oct 21 2004, 04:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 21 2004, 12:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 21 2004, 12:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-The-Frostmourne+Oct 20 2004, 11:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The-Frostmourne @ Oct 20 2004, 11:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't want to make you feel bad but <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041019/athlon64_4000-04.html' target='_blank'>http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041019/a...64_4000-04.html</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Doesn't that artical say it's practically exactly the same chip just clocked higher? I fail to see the overwhelming advantage... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> See you fail to see the big picture.
Athlon 64 FX-53 is in all cases within the article, if you took time to read the whole thing, the new Athlon 64 4000+ which will probably be less expensive because it does not carry the flagship FX suffix, yes the Athlon 64 FX-55 looks like it's just a overclocked FX-53 but it will make the FX-53 look like a waist of money since you will be able to pick up the 4000+ for a lower price.
That was the point of posting that article. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> [edit] never mind, he's right, thier fazing the FX-53 into 4000+ anyways, and the 4000+ has a lower average price... <a href='http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041019/athlon64_4000-03.html' target='_blank'>link</a>
Why didn't you link that artical in the first place?
Comments
Oh snap. Apparently CompUSA only carries XP Pro w/ SP2, so please excuse me while I remove my foot from my mouth.
. . . mmmthhhpmmm . . .
. . . Okay. At least Norton Antivirus 2005 makes SP2's retarded security center stuff shut up.
Well, I had some major problem with my memory (i.e., that three hundred dollar stick of Corsair XMS is DOA, and I don't mean "DOA" in the "breasts playing volleyball" way) so I had to go pick up a new 512 MB DIMM of generic DDR400 at CompUSA just to get the system set up before I left town. Now <i>that</i> DIMM is only showing up as 256 MB of DDR333. Oy vey.
Other than the RAM troubles, the computer works just fine (I'm writing this post on it). I get my precious X800 XT PE tommorrow, and I should have just enough time to get it installed before I fly down to Iowa City. I'm tempted to try to get games to run, but I doubt anything I want to test (Doom 3, CS:S, and, um . . . Doom 3) is going to work well on 256 MB of RAM.
<a href='http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041019/athlon64_4000-04.html' target='_blank'>http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041019/a...64_4000-04.html</a>
<a href='http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041019/athlon64_4000-04.html' target='_blank'>http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041019/a...64_4000-04.html</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doesn't that artical say it's practically exactly the same chip just clocked higher? I fail to see the overwhelming advantage...
<a href='http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=35-106-044&depa=0' target='_blank'>*COUGH*</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which you can turn off anyway <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
All the other stuff looks great. This is what I got 4 months ago, or so.
Intel 875p (if i remember correctly) motherboard
Intel Prescott 2.8ghz 800mhz fsb
Corsair Value select DDR pc3200 RAM
ATI Radeon 9800pro 128mb
WesternDigital 7200rpm 80GB SATA HDD
Asus Dvd-rom
Asus Cd-Rw
CHenbro gaming bomb caser
Vantec 410W ION power supply
Creative Labs Audigy 2 ZS
Creative Labs INspire T7700 7.1 Speakers
2-96mm vantec stealth fans
NEC 991SB Monitor
Everything is absolutely fantastic except for the Creative Labs Audigy 2 ZS sound card. I still cant get any sound input from my mic.
I was originally planning on getting that Thermaltake heatsink, but my pappy declined to order it because he thought I didn't realize that my CPU was packaged with a heatsink and fan. This is probably a good thing, as I read some rather negative reviews of it recently (the heatsink surface is not taken to a mirror finish, and the more expensive, all-copper system is actually inferior to the cheaper, part-copper/part-aluminum model Thermaltake makes). If I do get a new heatsink, it will be a different model, or even a different manufacturer.
<a href='http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041019/athlon64_4000-04.html' target='_blank'>http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041019/a...64_4000-04.html</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doesn't that artical say it's practically exactly the same chip just clocked higher? I fail to see the overwhelming advantage... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
See you fail to see the big picture.
Athlon 64 FX-53 is in all cases within the article, if you took time to read the whole thing, the new Athlon 64 4000+ which will probably be less expensive because it does not carry the flagship FX suffix, yes the Athlon 64 FX-55 looks like it's just a overclocked FX-53 but it will make the FX-53 look like a waist of money since you will be able to pick up the 4000+ for a lower price.
That was the point of posting that article.
I was originally planning on getting that Thermaltake heatsink, but my pappy declined to order it because he thought I didn't realize that my CPU was packaged with a heatsink and fan. This is probably a good thing, as I read some rather negative reviews of it recently (the heatsink surface is not taken to a mirror finish, and the more expensive, all-copper system is actually inferior to the cheaper, part-copper/part-aluminum model Thermaltake makes). If I do get a new heatsink, it will be a different model, or even a different manufacturer. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You mirror it yourself with hyper fine sandpaper. You have to sand most copper HS anyways because they form a layer of oxidization from just sitting around that really should be removed before you let thermal paste contact them.
<a href='http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041019/athlon64_4000-04.html' target='_blank'>http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041019/a...64_4000-04.html</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doesn't that artical say it's practically exactly the same chip just clocked higher? I fail to see the overwhelming advantage... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See you fail to see the big picture.
Athlon 64 FX-53 is in all cases within the article, if you took time to read the whole thing, the new Athlon 64 4000+ which will probably be less expensive because it does not carry the flagship FX suffix, yes the Athlon 64 FX-55 looks like it's just a overclocked FX-53 but it will make the FX-53 look like a waist of money since you will be able to pick up the 4000+ for a lower price.
That was the point of posting that article. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[edit] never mind, he's right, thier fazing the FX-53 into 4000+ anyways, and the 4000+ has a lower average price... <a href='http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041019/athlon64_4000-03.html' target='_blank'>link</a>
Why didn't you link that artical in the first place?
Don't assume people are going to surf a site just because you linked one of its pages.