At 7/11/09 10:41 PM, Tehpivot wrote: Three dollars.

vonderful

very very interesting

At 7/12/09 04:32 PM, PolishMatt wrote: How are you suppose to compare a CPU to a (What's a phenom II, derp) and two SSDs?

My bad. These are the drives I would be RAIDing. Though, i7 is really good for multi-gpu. If you only had the money for one or the other, which would you choose? Keep in mind either way I'd have a 1TB drive for storage.

At 7/12/09 12:19 PM, Tehpivot wrote: Another shot of the Radeon. WTF is it?

A graphics card? Or am I not reading between the lines?

It's from a pci slot, so my only guess is, it's OLD.

At 7/12/09 04:48 PM, ThoseSneakyFrench wrote: It's from a pci slot, so my only guess is, it's OLD.

It's a 9600LE... So I can play the most graphically intensive games...

...from 2001...

At 7/12/09 09:27 PM, Tehpivot wrote:
It's a 9600LE... So I can play the most graphically intensive games...

...from 2001...

lol
thats better than the pc im using!
on-board graphics suck..
:(

At 7/12/09 10:05 PM, Ecliptic wrote: on-board graphics suck..

(

What are you using?! A Compaq? Or one of those 6-inch square P4 motherboards?

At 7/12/09 11:35 PM, Tehpivot wrote:
What are you using?! A Compaq? Or one of those 6-inch square P4 motherboards?

even worse, an HP... that was overly priced!
dam circuit city!

So realized tonight that Prototype plays a hell lot better than on my beloved Windows 7. It's a very strange mystery how the game decides to cooperate with my machine. On Windows 7, typically, I will play on 1920x1200 with everything set to low and get my messily 15~25 frames, depending on the scenario in the game. But on XP, I will put everything to high and play anywhere from 30 - 50 frames. Resolution doesn't seem to affect the game either; I get the same frame rates at a 640x800 res. Do I blame Microsoft? Nvidia? Intel!?

At 7/13/09 01:41 AM, PolishMatt wrote: So realized tonight that Prototype plays a hell lot better than on my beloved Windows 7. On Windows 7, typically, I will play on 1920x1200 with everything set to low and get my messily 15~25 frames, depending on the scenario in the game. But on XP, I will put everything to high and play anywhere from 30 - 50 frames. Resolution doesn't seem to affect the game either; I get the same frame rates at a 640x800 res. Do I blame Microsoft? Nvidia? Intel!?

Windows 7 is a beta OS, so no matter how great, it has flaws.

Also, proposed new build, minus the DX11 CF.

At 7/13/09 10:36 AM, ThoseSneakyFrench wrote: Windows 7 is a beta OS, so no matter how great, it has flaws.

Don't be so quick to judge. They had already performed tests among XP, Vista and 7 and they did show that 7 was ahead of XP in more than half the tests while Vista stuck out at last place. They also had done these tests when 7 was at build 7100 which at the time of testing; seemed like a reasonable mile stone to do tests at. With a build 7232 resting at the first sectors on my HDD, I would come to expect a bit more. I hope MS manages to fix the few dozen of small issues that remain with 7 at this time of writing before the release.

Also, proposed new build

For 200$ more, I could (And will in the coming months) build a system that would be running circles around what you have purposed above. If you're so extremely serious about your Hard drive bottle neck, raid 8 500GB WD7.21Ks for 400$ But I'm going for just a RAID0 between two 1TBs. That will more than suffice for my needs.

At 7/13/09 06:19 PM, PolishMatt wrote: For 200$ more, I could (And will in the coming months) build a system that would be running circles around what you have purposed above.

I assume you mean i7. While I'd love to get my hands on i7 could I ever afford it, here are my thoughts on it. Most of Intel's new processors are going to be on the "mainstream" 1156 socket. This worries me that socket 1366 could get phased out, and thus, I'd need to ditch the motherboard when I need to upgrade my CPU. Honestly though, if the Lynnfield benchmarks can sway me, and beat the phenom IIs in Price/performance, I'd have to go there.

AMD's next lineup of CPU's are still going to be AM3, just they will have a DDR3 only memory controller. By getting a DDR3 AM3 board, I ensure that my next upgrade would surely be drop-in.

Which reminds me, with all the confusion about i7/i5/i3, I should check on Intel's current time line.

If you're so extremely serious about your Hard drive bottle neck, raid 8 500GB WD7.21Ks for 400$

Actually, dumping drive after drive into a RAID 0 config sees degrading performance gains with each drive. This is heavily attributed to onboard RAID controllers, but an add-in RAID card is a useless expense; the good ones around $300+. Also, SSDs have a nonexistent access time, meaning loading up programs and the OS is much faster. Not to mention the absurd waste of space and power 8 hard drives would consume.

Even though this is sort of meaningless to speak of seeing as everyone here doesn't have such top notch hardware but rather just benchmark numbers to go off; I will still attempt to prove my point. I'm only with you up to a certain point in this debate and that's the buck:performance ratio and the performance to expect from an SSD after use.

At 7/13/09 07:38 PM, ThoseSneakyFrench wrote: Actually, dumping drive after drive into a RAID 0 config sees degrading performance gains with each drive. This is heavily attributed to onboard RAID controllers, but an add-in RAID card is a useless expense; the good ones around $300+

Not useless if it manages to fullfill the purpose it was made for.

Lets assume that every hard drive gives us only 40mb at reads and 30mb at writes to make the math easier and as a lowered rough estimate to your claim that it degrades in performance with every addition. That's 320/240 while Patriot Torqx's SSD suggests speeds of 220/135 which bumps up to 440 and 270 when multiplied by two; respectively.

Because SSDs are still quite new to the world, they have an issue with the block rewrite penalty associated with flash memory. As a mini lecture for those who don't know; In an SSD, flash memory is split between 4KB pages organized into 128-page, 512KB blocks. Empty pages can be written to directly. However, occupied pages can only be written on a block-by-block basis, which involves reading the contents of the block, modifying the necessary pages, and rewriting the block as a whole. These extra steps take time, resulting in a performance penalty.

Now, after a typical usage period of two or four weeks, all the pages will have the chance to written to (depending on the usage, user, etc) and that's when performance penalty can struck the SSD at almost a 50% lose.

So is 400$(HHDs)+300$(RAID card) (700$) worth the consistent speeds of 320/240 along with 4TB of space and a additional 2$ a month in electricity bills (that your parents will pay off anyways) worth it In comparison to speeds of (440/270 / 2) 220/135 and 0.128TB of space for 446$?

My suggestion is to stay away from SSDs for at least another year or two.

Make sure to update us how fast those SSDs are after a month of use when you managed to use up all your clean pages. The benchmarks shall be very interesting.

And about the i7 story; even though everything you said is true, I'm still aiming for it i7 despite its Socket continuing with next year's processors or not. The i7 920 for 300$ is still raping the 1500$ Core2 Extreme QX9775 which means that I will be quite up to date with specs regardless what they release. If probability is true; I'm most likely going to have a great job next year and those 600$ for another mobo and processor will be not too large of a concern. Long live 1366; that beast of a socket.

That's all for now.

Hey, I'm trying to make a Gaming computer with a budget from anywhere around $500-$800. I was told you guys could help me out, since I have no prior knowledge of computers or anything pertaining to the subject. I don't plan to keep any of the original hardware, but rather, replace them with much more recent hardware. I was hoping you guys could give me suggestions as to what kind of hardware to get, how to install it and such.

Your help would be much appreciated guys.

~Freedman

At 7/13/09 11:22 PM, TheFreedMan wrote: Hey, I'm trying to make a Gaming computer with a budget from anywhere around $500-$800.

*Laughs Hysterically*
Guys, Did you hear this?

The cheapest I've done is about $950... And wasn't the best computer.

At 7/13/09 11:30 PM, Tehpivot wrote: Guys, Did you hear this?

lmao
yeah! but if i can do it, so can he!

At 7/13/09 11:30 PM, Tehpivot wrote: Hey, I'm trying to make a Gaming computer with a budget from anywhere around $500-$800.

I actually just suggested someone a 500$ build 16 posts ago. Just click on Posts beside my username and go to post #16 and there will be a nice build though it won't be "HOLY FUCK SHIT AMAZING" due to the nature of the build being for only 500 but it will be good/great. Though, you could screw the graphics card (GPU) I recommended and get yourself a NVidia 275 for around 300$ which will be amazing and a good investment for a solid year or two.

As for figuring out how to install it. Wikipedia and Youtube will be able to explain and even visually show you how it's done. I would also suggest getting a book on computers (basic one) and learning at least the fundamentals and common acronyms, terms, etc because likewise; you will be a blind man trying to steer a car. The learning is up to you.

At 7/13/09 11:22 PM, TheFreedMan wrote:

*Laughs Hysterically*

He's asking for help; not childish remarks.

The cheapest I've done is about $950... And wasn't the best computer.

I could build a behemoth of a computer for half a grand, let alone an entire grand. You're obviously inexperienced and not opening your eyes to all the sites available out there.

wowz.. epic post up there!

i ran out of funds so im stuck and had to put a halt on my custom pc under $450...

Last post.

Going back on the i7 part of my 3rd last post - I could potentially be able to exchange the parts (Mobo+i7) for the newer models, if I buy them at a store. It will most likely be some time in September so if these guys come out in February, I could still be able bring them back and do business. I could always sell them on Craigslist after if that doesn't work out. I'm sure someone will give me at least 70% back of what I paid for it.

Interesting info about the SSDs, I wasn't aware of any of that. Apparently, WD makes drivesspecifically made for RAID. They're more expensive than the regular ones, so I wonder if that difference is actually worth it.

Lol, you guys, I just ordered my friend a computer with a 4870 and phenom II dual under 600 bucks. Hardware is super cheap right now as a whole, it's easy.

Terribly embarrassed. I overlooked that the motherboard I picked is DDR3. Replace the OCZ flex in your hypothetical cart with this and you'll be on your way. It comes out to $645 total.

At 7/14/09 07:22 AM, ThoseSneakyFrench wrote: Terribly embarrassed. I overlooked that the motherboard I picked is DDR3. Replace the OCZ flex in your hypothetical cart with this and you'll be on your way. It comes out to $645 total.

couldnt you just go with 2gig ram?

Does anyone know if there exists a product that's a laptop alternative but runs like a desktop computer? Thinking something along the line of the skinny macbook (macbook lite?) that has nothing in it except things that actually make the screen and keyboard work (which I'm assuming that's exactly what that macbook is) and you plug it into a briefcase which is your actual computer. You're usually sitting with your laptop anyway and you pack it in a bag when you're done right? why not just make it work like a desktop then? Basically a giant adapter.

This just came in mind because I had two laptops whose screens broke so now I just got the desktop that I mostly built from scratch not long ago. I went with AMD, quad core, built in video and sound card, 2 gig ram and a 250 gig external hardrive that I owned already. Cost around $300 because everything besides the barebone I got from a store that gives away some old stuff and a few other things from my brother. Runs all the important games perfectly (tf2+css) and runs stalker without that many problems (occasionally lags). Tried running Splinter Cell DA, but it never launches, probably because my graphics card isn't good enough (don't know what it is atm).

@ fleshlight: I don't quite understand what you're trying to say

At 7/15/09 03:05 PM, Fleshlight wrote: Does anyone know if there exists a product that's a laptop alternative but runs like a desktop computer?

Do you mean a Mini-Computer? A bare-bone system that is tiny, compact, has no display, supports many ports and is small enough to carry around and be able to use in conduction of a separate stand-alone monitor. If the that description fits the bill; look no further.

Mini-Computers @ Newegg.

screen and keyboard work (which I'm assuming that's exactly what that macbook

That's quite the opposite. Macbooks are laptops that love to eat all the money in your wallet in return for crummy looks.

and you plug it into a briefcase which is your actual computer. You're usually sitting with your laptop anyway and you pack it in a bag when you're done right?

Now I'm confused.
- Briefcases have power supplies and power outlets? Plug what in what?
- This is for someone who carries both the small system and a laptop?
- What bag? IF anything, portal electronics would be carried in a sturdier packaging than a bag.

why not just make it work like a desktop then? Basically a giant adapter.

Back to #1.

This just came in mind because I had two laptops whose screens broke so now

You are aware that you can order replacement LCD displays for nearly any brand and model of laptops out there. It will be anywhere from 100~300$ depending on the LCD type and size but there are companies on the web that have warehouses with just individual (commonly broken) parts for laptops.

graphics card isn't good enough (don't know what it is atm).

What's causing the game not to boot or what a graphics card is? Because a graphics card is simply a piece of hardware responsible for processing of graphic data. As for the game launching problem: It's typically the fault of the graphics card not being good enough as you stated already, but there is always a small chance that you might of simply not updated your DirectX or some other piece of software in relation to the gpu.

Do you mean a Mini-Computer? A bare-bone system that is tiny, compact, has no display, supports many ports and is small enough to carry around and be able to use in conduction of a separate stand-alone monitor. If the that description fits the bill; look no further.

Not exactly what I had in mind but sounds better since it would be even smaller

Mini-Computers @ Newegg.

broken link? I'd really like to see what you're talking about

That's quite the opposite. Macbooks are laptops that love to eat all the money in your wallet in return for crummy looks.

we I do hear they're pretty bad, but it was just an example. Wacom is thinking about making an affordable touchpad screen, and I thought maybe it would be possible to have a keyboard on it as well. Then you could just plug it into your computer and sit on your couch with it.

Now I'm confused.
- Briefcases have power supplies and power outlets? Plug what in what?
- This is for someone who carries both the small system and a laptop?
- What bag? IF anything, portal electronics would be carried in a sturdier packaging than a bag.

Meant like an actual computer in the bag/packaging/briefcase/whatever which you plug into an outlet (or have it run on a battery, but that would probably use up too much power). Then plug in something along the lines of a wacom cintiq and browse the web or whatever.

You are aware that you can order replacement LCD displays for nearly any brand and model of laptops out there. It will be anywhere from 100~300$ depending on the LCD type and size but there are companies on the web that have warehouses with just individual (commonly broken) parts for laptops.

yeah replacements, but if I mess up while installing it, that's 100-300$ down the crapper. First laptop broke on my fault. I dropped it from about 3 feet and it just completely fucked up the screen, although they really should've tested that shit so it can stand a little more. Second one just kept giving me a black screen after I turned it on and it started loading the OS. It happened the day I went on vacation (which is why I can't really give a lot of info about specifics) so there wasn't much time to figure out what was going on.

graphics card isn't good enough (don't know what it is atm).

What's causing the game not to boot or what a graphics card is? Because a graphics card is simply a piece of hardware responsible for processing of graphic data. As for the game launching problem: It's typically the fault of the graphics card not being good enough as you stated already, but there is always a small chance that you might of simply not updated your DirectX or some other piece of software in relation to the gpu.

I don't even get any errors when the game fails to launch. I went to the "can i run it" site and I passed the recommended requirements, except under the video/sound cards it said it shouldn't really matter. I checked the requirements for that game and it showed a bunch of video cards that are supported. The one I had didn't match any of them so I'm assuming that's the reason I can't play it. Splinter cell always had problems with requirements. Either some textures are missing or it doesn't work on certain OSs or in this case, the video card isn't good enough. The game launched on my laptop (albeit it lagged a shit load) so I thought it would easily work on a desktop.

At 7/15/09 05:31 PM, Fleshlight wrote: broken link? I'd really like to see what you're talking about

Yeah... I hate Newgrounds for how over complicate they made the forum tags. Here's just the straight up link. http://www.newegg.ca/Store/Category.aspx ?Category=3&name=Barebone-Mini-Computers

I do hear they're pretty bad, but it was just an example. Wacom is thinking about making an affordable touchpad screen, and I thought maybe it would be possible to have a keyboard on it as well.

I think you might be leaning to the wrong side. Those touchpads are purely made for animators and graphic designers that would need such features as pressure sensitivity, high colour reproduction and tilt sensing which makes their touch pad 1000$ at the cheapest and it would be only 10.3" big. Also, the whole point of touchscreens is that you don't need a keyboard. If you're getting a product that has a touch sensitive screen but don't like to use it; why would you be getting it in the first place.

Meant like an actual computer in the bag/packaging/briefcase/whatever which you plug into an outlet (or have it run on a battery, but that would probably use up too much power). Then plug in something along the lines of a wacom cintiq and browse the web or whatever.

I think I know what you're talking about now and to be honest, this is probably going to be the next big thing to come into mainstream popularity in the up coming years if not months. To my knowledge, a portable touch screen that receives processed data from a stand alone miniature computer hub; doesn't exist aside from the Wacom stuff which would only account for half the equation (LCD screen part is there, but no computer).

I think you would have to do some intermediate level soldering and hacking to a common day LCD monitor to achieve something like that... which wouldn't be easy or too fun if you're not into computer engineering. Sort of inspires me to do it but I don't have the funds or complete knowledge (I got ideas) on how to do it.

There's always plan B; get an iTouch. Good browser, good battery, touch screen, acceptable virtual keyboard, digestible price tag.

yeah replacements, but if I mess up while installing it, that's 100-300$ down the crapper.

If you're intellectually capable of using a screw driver, common sense and following a simple 5-step manual, than the chances of you screwing up are very slim. I at least managed to do it.

. I went to the "can i run it" site and I passed the recommended requirements,

That site told me that I wouldn't be able to Halo 1 with a 9800GTX+ when in fact Crysis seems to be running just fine at 40+fps.

The one I had didn't match any of them so I'm assuming that's the reason I can't play it.

Some numbers and models name would help a lot here.

Yeah... I hate Newgrounds for how over complicate they made the forum tags. Here's just the straight up link. http://www.newegg.ca/Store/Category.aspx ?Category=3&name=Barebone-Mini-Computers

Looks interesting, but I'd have to do more research to figure out how they're used and what they do.

I think you might be leaning to the wrong side. Those touchpads are purely made for animators and graphic designers that would need such features as pressure sensitivity, high colour reproduction and tilt sensing which makes their touch pad 1000$ at the cheapest and it would be only 10.3" big. Also, the whole point of touchscreens is that you don't need a keyboard. If you're getting a product that has a touch sensitive screen but don't like to use it; why would you be getting it in the first place.

Wacom said they're making this product which will be available for a lower cost and isn't directed towards animators and graphic designers. I'm actually considering to buy a cintiq anyway because I am going into the fine and applied arts. I can't really find any details about it though because the internet here is crap. I only heard about this from some show and they said it might not even be released. As for the keyboard, I meant to say that the keyboard is actually an app in the touch pad screen, not external. None of the wacom products have this option, to my knowledge. All you can do is actually write with the pen, but that's too slow and it doesn't always recognize the things you write.

I think I know what you're talking about now and to be honest, this is probably going to be the next big thing to come into mainstream popularity in the up coming years if not months. To my knowledge, a portable touch screen that receives processed data from a stand alone miniature computer hub; doesn't exist aside from the Wacom stuff which would only account for half the equation (LCD screen part is there, but no computer).

Yeah I'm pretty surprised there's nothing out there yet. People usually have bags to carry the laptops anyway, why not just put everything you need IN the bag and plug in a screen?

There's always plan B; get an iTouch. Good browser, good battery, touch screen, acceptable virtual keyboard, digestible price tag.

I used the laptop to work on my flash game. It's pretty uncomfortable sitting on a desk and drawing for hours and because I've been using laptops for nearly everything for a couple years now, it feels awkward to draw in a different position and having the screen far away.

If you're intellectually capable of using a screw driver, common sense and following a simple 5-step manual, than the chances of you screwing up are very slim. I at least managed to do it.

I'll think about it. Really sucks to have 2 useless laptops in the house. Of course my house has like 5 or 6 more that I know of, but I'm starting to think I just have bad luck with technology and I'll just end up breaking all of them.

Some numbers and models name would help a lot here.

No idea. Not with my computer right now and I can't find the right one I ordered online. Once I get back home, I'll repost it

Evga Loaner Program<3

I was selected to write a review on the Killer Xeno Pro. I've heard it's no where near worth it's asking price for what it does, but I'm going to run it through it's paces for the 2 weeks I have it. Should be interesting.

At 7/16/09 02:29 PM, ThoseSneakyFrench wrote: Evga Loaner Program<3

I was selected to write a review on the Killer Xeno Pro.

Good work. Too bad it's the single most useless card ever made for a PCI slot. If you find any actual real life gains from it, I will be astounded. Too bad you gotta pay shipping to the next dude getting it. Lets hope he doesn't live somewhere in like Japan or Australia.

At 7/16/09 05:05 PM, PolishMatt wrote:

If you find any actual real life gains from it, I will be astounded. Too bad you gotta pay shipping to the next dude getting it. Lets hope he doesn't live somewhere in like Japan or Australia.

The shipping weight is only 3 lbs, and according to EVGA it'll be to someone in my "region".

Good work. Too bad it's the single most useless card ever made for a PCI slot.

Afraid I can beat you on that one ;)

At 7/16/09 05:31 PM, ThoseSneakyFrench wrote: Afraid I can beat you on that one ;)

Wow, that's hideous to even think anyone would consider putting that into production. You beat me indeed.