4,767 Forum Posts by "Rage"
New window. If I truly want to view another website "at the same time", it's the only good way. Plus, if you're going to have a huge resolution, you might as well use it for web browsing too.
I still use tabs, but more windows than not.
Another one of these threads. Has it been a whole 24 hours already?
At 8/15/10 09:57 PM, razorbladesigh wrote: Congratulations. Your computer has less space than an iPod.
Yes, because Solid State Drives and iPod hard drives are totally on the same playing field, right? I'd rather have the SSD (Although I'd probably rather have gone with the 80gb x25-m, myself).
I wouldn't bother with the external hard drive either, because it looks like that laptop has an additional 2.5" storage bay. You could get a 2.5" 640gb internal HDD for $80-90. Even the 1TB ones are around $130 last time I checked.
At 8/13/10 10:29 PM, Afro-wolf wrote: Overclocking will ALWAYS lower your hardware's life expectancy.
If you are planning on upgrading in the near future, go for it.
But if you want it to last longer, or pass it on to someone else, keep it at factory settings....
A carefully overclocked (decently-cooled) CPU could easily last a decade. Who the hell uses a CPU for that long? I have a 6-year-old heavily overclocked Pentium 4 that's doing nothing but wasting space right now, heh.
Of course you should!
The 920 is an awesome overclocker, and overclocking your CPU is safe as long as you don't increase the voltage too much and make sure it's cooled enough. Intel considers 1.45V to be safe for long term usage. The stock voltage on your 920 is considerably lower than that. When you're stress testing it, I'd make sure its temperature doesn't go too much above 70c. A good third party heatsink would help you greatly.
I had an i7 920 for a little while and ran it at 3.6GHz, which was a little conservative because many people go up to 3.8-4.0GHz on air cooling. That's history now, though. I now have a water-cooled 980x running at 4.23GHz. It was at 4.4 for a while, but I want this processor to have a long life so I toned it down a little.
This video does a much, much better job at the whole size of the universe thing. It's a classic. It even does the opposite and goes really, really small. Completely with daunting music.
At 8/2/10 09:58 PM, Mendou wrote:At 8/2/10 06:30 PM, RageVI wrote:What's wrong with Corsair?
I also wouldn't trust that power supply. If I were ignorant about the latest components, I'd just get a Corsair.
Okay, maybe I could have worded that a little better.
What I meant to say is Corsair PSUs are always a safe bet in the midst of uncertainty (Or if you just don't want to bother researching which PSUs are quality).
You're never going to be able to help too much without knowing someone's exact budget and what they want to use the computer for.
I also wouldn't trust that power supply. If I were ignorant about the latest components, I'd just get a Corsair.
At 7/29/10 03:48 PM, XxRobJohnsonxX wrote:
Wait, you said I'M nerd-raging?
No, Rage knows that shit is unnecessary.
Any 1 of the 8 reasons I listed in my prior post is a valid reason to have as much RAM as I do. You're obviously a lost cause when it comes to explaining even the basics of it. I hate to imagine the anger that would seethe forth on your beet-colored visage when you realize that many people who do the same activities have twice as much RAM as I do. I'm also not a fan of spending large sums of money on things I don't need.
By his logic...
The next two paragraphs you typed here completely ignore 7 of the 8 things I listed. You also attack the fallacy that I just use my RAM for data storage until the amount that I have is justified, when I never actually stated that. (they call that a straw man, by the way). Apparently you lied when you said you're more than familiar with RAMDisks, because all the data disappears when you turn off/restart your computer, and you're obviously not going to be using it as a storage device when you run out of other space (Which is impossible without leaving your computer on 24/7).
I only use RAMDisks when I need high file I/O performance in conjunction with other software (VMs, etc). Using RAMDisks in the manner which you stated is extremely cumbersome. Also, using a high-capacity RAMDisk stored on a HDD when the system is off adds prohibitive amounts of time to system startup and shutdown.
I made the mistake of arguing with somebody who has little to no knowledge about workstations. I mean, the work I do on it is my living, but ... nah, nevermind.
I also happened to be working on a complex 3D scene for an animated short when I started typing this. I tried to open After Effects to some test composites with some frames that I've rendered, but it crashed because I ran out of memory, lol.
At 7/28/10 03:13 PM, XxRobJohnsonxX wrote:
unnecessary
You know how I can tell that you don't actually do any of the things I've listed above?
At 7/28/10 11:19 AM, XxRobJohnsonxX wrote:
completely unnecessary/retarded.
(Unless of course you are decoding strands of DNA while playing 7 copies of fallout 3.)
Here comes a pet-peeve-related rant.
Usually, I try to avoid calling people retarded, but you are. What is it about RAM that brings out the derp in people? You could have 3 LCD monitors, 3 graphics cards, or a dual socket motherboard/cpus (all of which are usually more expensive) and nobody gives a shit. As soon as you mention that you have X amount of memory, however, people suddenly become armchair computer experts and call you out on it because they ran Crysis once and it never used more than 3gb.
Did you know that your computer usage patterns (Apparently games, since you think those take SO much memory) don't dictate the resource requirements of other people? It's okay to be naive about what things require a lot of memory, because most people are. You immediately broadcast yourself as an idiot when you start telling strangers how much memory they need, though.
So to humor you, here are some things off the top of my head that I frequently max out my memory while doing.
-RAMDisks (Temporary high-speed storage of files in memory)
-Hosting multiple virtual machines
-Multicore video rendering (After Effects. 12 logical cores * 1.5gb memory per core = 18gb memory usage)
-RAM Preview/Video playback buffer (Primarily After Effects but in some other programs too)
-Assigning a RAMDisk as a scratch disk (Photoshop et al)
-High-res images in Photoshop (64bit), ESPECIALLY when applying a filter
-High-res 3D rendering (Sometimes can require a HUGE data buffer. Often intended for large-format printing)
-High-polycount 3D models
Although none of these are directly related to video games, I have installed entire games in to memory on a few occasions just for the fun of it.
Ahh, that was medicinal.
At 7/28/10 10:42 AM, lolwtfmudkips wrote:
How in holy fuck do you have 24gb?!?!
Im guessing your computer prolly breaks the $13,000 Boundary.
About half that. Maybe if I built it 1.5 years ago it would.
4GB DDR3 modules have dropped plenty in price lately. When I got it, it felt filthy cheap (Relatively speaking)
At 7/28/10 10:51 AM, BananaBreadMuffin wrote: why the fuck would anyone need more than like 6GB?
I used to answer this question, but it comes up so often that I just don't anymore =) ... It's not hard to find yourself using a crapload of memory if you're doing certain tasks.
24GB DDR3 in my main desktop
6GB DDR2 in my main laptop
RAM is awesome.
At 7/25/10 02:35 AM, Reptiore wrote:At 7/24/10 08:00 PM, joshhunsaker wrote: dang, man where do you guys get money for this stuff??! 12 gb of DDR ain't cheap!!When are any of the people on this board going to need more than 6GB of RAM?
Are you seriously so naïve about computers that you're asking people on a media production forum why they'd ever need more than 6gb of RAM? Have you ever thought that maybe your computer usage patterns aren't the de facto standard in resource requirements? I'm guessing not.
It's not news that Apple treats developers like shit, too. Yeah, they jumped the shark a while ago.
At 7/23/10 09:45 PM, Chumbawamba wrote:At 7/23/10 09:09 PM, RageVI wrote: Once IPv6 is rolled out, we'll probably never run out. Ever.The whole "never again" mentality gets us every time.
It usually does. The progression that computers have gone through in the past several decades have been amazing, and it would've been hard to see how anyone would need X amount of RAM or Y amount of CPUs Z amount of years in to the future. The "never again" mentality has been torn down chiefly because of Moore's law, which has been going strong ever since its conception (At least to this point).
This doesn't seem like your average jump, though.
Think about this. IPv4 to IPv6 is moving from 32 bits per address to 128 bits.
Number of IPv4 addresses: 4,294,967,296
Number of IPv6 addresses: 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,
768,211,456
If you want to compare this to the "never again" people getting screwed by Moore's law, consider the past 30 years. In 1979, the Intel 8088 had 29,000 transistors. Moore's law says the transistor count should approximately double every two years. If you take that 29,000 figure and go 30 years in to the future, you'd expect to have around 950,272,000. The AMD 2400 series, released in 2009, has 904,000,000 transistors. That's an amazingly accurate prediction!
Now, if you tried to take that same, crazy progression and try to apply it to IPv4 (Even though that makes no sense, but this is just for discussion), then here are some numbers. IPv4 was defined in 1981. If its initial amount of addresses (4,294,967,296) were to be subjected to the same growth as Moore's law, you'd have 140,737,488,355,328 addresses in 30 years (Around now). This is 2^81 times less than the amount of addresses IPv6 will actually have, but we'll be upgrading to it soon anyway! There would be enough addresses for each person on earth, right now, to have 2^95 of their own.
So yeah. I don't think it's a question of us running out at some point, but more of if whether or not the IPv6 would be replaced by something else in the unforseeable future.
Not looking forward to manually typing in IPv6 addresses
Intel Core i7 980x 6-Core, overclocked @ 4.4GHz, water cooled
24GB DDR3 RAM (G.Skill Ripjaws), overclocked (1470)
2 x NVidia GTX 480s, overclocked (875/1750/2101), water cooled
3 x Intel X25-M 80GB SSDs in RAID 0 (For OS/Programs/Games)
2 x 2TB WD Drives in RAID 1 (Media/Video/Render/Project file storage)
EVGA x58 3xSLI mobo
Corsair HX1000 PSU
Dell 3007WFP-HC 30" Monitor @ 2560x1600
Yeah, I don't use my computer for dicking around
At 7/23/10 09:04 PM, kanon1 wrote: I callbullshit on that
The internet. I don't think you understand how it works.
Once IPv6 is rolled out, we'll probably never run out. Ever.
For computers to continue on its current trends, there will have to be some significant paradigm changes. Today's latest processors are manufactured on a 32nm process. Both Intel and NVidia claim to be on track for 11nm by 2015. At this point, shit starts to get too small and you're going to have problems with quantum tunneling (i.e. electrons jumping all over the place). Give that several more years for the fabrication process to become mainstream and inexpensive and it'll continue to grow in the way as we know it, but for how long?
Maybe silicon will yield to a different material in that timeframe as well (Graphene?). Mechanical hard drives will probably concede to solid state storage, but probably remain a cheap alternative for mass storage.
It's hard to say how computers will be in that time, because I'm sure there will be plenty of limitations. There's probably a point where having more screen size/resolution becomes pointless (Either from being inviably big or having a density too large to be noticeable by the naked eye), which may, at some time, start limiting the size of media (Videos might not grow as much in resolution, game textures might not be as big, etc).
They'll still be crazy in terms of what we know computers to be today. That's for sure.
So, monthly prize for the top movie only? None for the top game? Just wanting to clarify.
People aren't going to be able to help you a whole lot without knowing your budget and what you intend to use the computer for. You could also post in the "computer construction crew" thread that you were linked to, but it seems dead. That PSU is also garbage. You're usually better off buying one separately from a reputable manufacturer (Corsair is one PSU manufacturer that you can't go wrong with. Find out how a good a certain model is by looking for reviews on it).
"Street legal planes" aren't really new. This is the flying car people really want.
At 6/29/10 09:05 PM, BoshansStudios wrote: Hello Newgrounds,
I need help figuring out if this RAM will be compatible with this Motherboard .
I'm going to have 8 GB of RAM total and want to know if it would be better to have 2 sticks of 4 Gb or 4 sticks of 2 GB.
Thanks in advance.
The memory modules you linked to are registered ECC modules and intended for use in servers, which isn't quite what you're looking for. You want something like this or this (They look cooler anyway).
There is no difference in performance between using 2 sticks and 4 sticks in this case. USUALLY you will find yourself paying a premium for higher density modules (4gb sticks), and, unless you plan on 16gb of memory later, you would buy 4 x 2gb just to save some money. That's not applicable here, though, as you'll see the 2 x 4gb kit is slightly cheaper for some weird reason. This is because the prices of DDR3 memory have gone up INSANELY in the past while (About where they were a year and a half ago when it was still new-ish) and the high density sticks haven't budged much because they're not purchased as often. If you're not in a hurry, I'd expect the price to go down noticeably in the next few months. Make sure you shop around. Just get whatever is cheaper between the 4 x 2gb and 2 x 4gb kits you find.
Reached level 50 a couple days ago, but that's small beans compared to this. Never thought it'd happen!
