Quake3World

I have a 64-bit computer and OS

Grudge wrote:

rep wrote:Don't trust websites more than you trust magazines. I know for a fact that the top 20 PC related websites are totally paid off.

holy totally outrageous and unsupported claim, Batman!

Don't you mean:

Anandtech wrote: holy totally outrageous and unsupported claim, Batman!

OR

HardOCP wrote: holy totally outrageous and unsupported claim, Spider-Man!

rep, that does nothing to support your claims

Dave wrote:I have a 64-bit computer and OS

so true... but can you play solitaire? huh!!!

Yeah actually

Dave wrote:I have a 64-bit computer and OS

and I don't :sad:

But Tiger isn't completely 64 bit? Or was it that G5 wasn't completely 64 bit.......hmmm

Who cares? Because the point is, 64-bit doesnt mean shit at the moment

The same people who back in the day were saying "64 bit is worthless" are some of the same people who are saying "64BIT OMFG L33t KEWLLL" now

Moral of the story, I'm on Turb's side

I dunno, I didn't read it

I read the title as "Yet another Rep is wrong and ignorant about things thread" :icon16:

saturn wrote:I dunno, I didn't read it

so'k.. the ending was predictable

rep wrote:2.4GHz times two = 4800+ Performance Rating.

As someone who's been using dual processor machines and 64-bit operating systems for a good year longer than you PC weenies: that is a crock of shit.

rep wrote:AMD CPUs (as clearly proven by this test) typically perform the same as Intel systems that are clocked twice as fast.

When Opteron was still in prototype, an 800MHz (frequency locked) Opteron beat a 1.6GHz Pentium 4. :lol:

That was when intel was well known to be cooking the books.

saturn wrote:

Dave wrote:I have a 64-bit computer and OS

and I don't :sad:

But Tiger isn't completely 64 bit? Or was it that G5 wasn't completely 64 bit.......hmmm

G5 is, Tiger kinda is kinda isn't. Fact is, it doesn't make any difference to performance unless the application actually needs to access more than a couple of gigabytes of RAM and has been specifically coded to take advantage of it. And even then it doesn't make much difference.

What's much more useful in the G5 system is that it's got tons of internal bandwidth.

Plus, I can encode video and audio on one processor in the background without any loss in system responsiveness. Which is nice.

I belive that the 64 DOES make a difference.

For things ike rendering and running multiple programs i have noticed a hell of a speed difference between my 3000+ 64 and the 3200 barton we have here. The time it took to convert a avi to MP4 on the 3200 was so much slower its silly. Like 3 - 4 mins difference !!!

I dunno, is that four minutes out of a couple of hours or four minutes out of five minutes?

took 23 mins to do a conversion on the 3200 and 19 on the 3000

Oh right. I asked because the last thing I converted was LOTR - two towers to H.264 (interesting test because there's so much movement in many of the scenes..... and a hell of a lot of rain), and with double pass encoding it took 24 hours....

your getting far too complicated for me there son

I converted Bubba Ho-Tep from a 700meg xvid to a 567meg MP4 for my PSP

Geebs wrote:

saturn wrote:

Dave wrote:I have a 64-bit computer and OS

and I don't :sad:

But Tiger isn't completely 64 bit? Or was it that G5 wasn't completely 64 bit.......hmmm

G5 is, Tiger kinda is kinda isn't. Fact is, it doesn't make any difference to performance unless the application actually needs to access more than a couple of gigabytes of RAM and has been specifically coded to take advantage of it. And even then it doesn't make much difference.

What's much more useful in the G5 system is that it's got tons of internal bandwidth.

Plus, I can encode video and audio on one processor in the background without any loss in system responsiveness. Which is nice.

that's it, i'm gonna get a dual G5 with 30" cinema display when i have money (i.e. over 5 years)

lol, any encoding i want todo i take to work and do it on a dual 2.7 with 2.5gb's of ram

gonna add a 30" cine display to that setup soon.

Turbanator wrote:lol, any encoding i want todo i take to work and do it on a dual 2.7 with 2.5gb's of ram

gonna add a 30" cine display to that setup soon.

Posh git

one thing apple need to work on is their hard drives, the memory and cpu architecture is fast and powerful with plenty of bandwidth, but is bottlenecked by the hard drives and other data input sources. They don't even need to do something flashy like RAID, just use some high end 10,000rpm hds or some high density maxline 3's.

Exactly

HD's on the PC are being pushed alot again now and they are coming up with some really fast fuckers. my SATA 200 gig is fast, so in RAID it must be stupidly quick

i use raid 0 dual 10k raptors... the fuckers are so fast they max out my pci bus, I've never had a chance to actually see their true performance yet. I'm going to upgrade my mobo and cpu soon so when I do I'm gonna get something with RAID integrated into the southbridge, by passing the pci bus altogether and tapping directly into the memory channels.

Intel or AMD ?

U in work now? MSN?