Hows My Computer

[Mad Cat]

Oh, so the AMD sucks remark was for nothing?

[Mad Cat]

Originally posted by delphin460@11 April 2004 - 11:57
mad cat your running 3200 ram with a fx - 51 ????why
and what mobo u usin

Have you seen the cost on high end registered ECC RAM, nevermind how hard it is to get hold of.

[tesco]

Originally posted by angel_of_death57@11 April 2004 - 07:07
Can u explain to me how it is terriable come on explain.

And AMD sucks it burns out and everything Petium may be more expensive but a reason for that.

Anyway i am not getting into a argument about AMD and Pentium i had a AMD and never liked it.

6 months ago my pc was one of the tops thats all i am saying i do live in UK

also does he have a DVD-RAM burner

also bit confusing iwth my burner and other drive

1st Drive - Plays all formats from what NEro check says and reads DVD at 16x and CD at 52x

2nd drive - Plays all formats at dvd 16x and reads cd at 48x
                Burns at 4x for DVD R + and - and 2.4 for RW + or -
                Burns at 24x for CD-R and RW at 16x
                Burns DVD-RAM at 2.4x

I am not sure what else it can burn

actually your pc wasnt top of the line 6 months ago, there were still a few better cpus, many people had much more ram, and that video card was crap.

and the reason your amd burnt out was because you didnt have proper cooling your computer. you cant expet any great cpu to be cooled sufficiently with just a heatsync-fan and powersupply to exhaust the air.

I have a 256MB grpahic card not 128MB, i looked at performaces it is bad but i use UT2004 and Call of duty and they look amazing and run at full graphics correctly fast and smooth

the 256mb version is crappier than the 128mb. it may have more ram, but the ram is usually running at a slower speed, thus your loosing performance. this performance is being lost for no reason because no games coming out for atleast a few years will need a full 128mb of video memory nevermind 256mb...

UT2004 is highly optimized for lower end graphics cards, it also runs fine on an MX440 64Mb. Call of Duty is based on the Quake 3 engine, a 3 year old design. Also, did you use Anti Alisaing or antrioscopic filtering? I bet not.

yes this is correct, its more cpu demanding than graphics card. with my mx440 i could run UT2004 with full anti aliasing and antrioscopic filtering and have full quality settings in the game plus running at 1024*768 and it still runs around 30frames per second, which is the lowest framerate that will still look good when your playing, but atleast its that much with a 2 year old card. posssibly older.

[angel_of_death57]

U penis i didn't say my Pentium i said my AMD. Anyway not bothered now this needs to be closed.

[lynx]

Originally posted by angel_of_death57@11 April 2004 - 19:22
U penis i didn't say my Pentium i said my AMD. Anyway not bothered now this needs to be closed.

Why should you decide it needs to be closed? It's not your thread.

[angel_of_death57]

Its getting flammy. and why u having a go at me now. Its a suggesting not a order. Why dosent people all take a chill pill even me, before i send you to the moon.

[tesco]

Originally posted by angel_of_death57@11 April 2004 - 14:22
U penis i didn't say my Pentium i said my AMD. Anyway not bothered now this needs to be closed.

typo