Hows My Computer

[twisterX]

P4 W/HT 3.0 GHz

512 MB RAM

ATI Radeon 9200 128 MB

SONY LCD 17"

Optical Mouse

DVD +/- R/RW & CD-R/RW

DVD ROM

2.0 Speakers

160 GB 7200 RPM

Floopy 1.44

7 USB Ports

And Da DA Da DA dA A LAMP!!! :D

[kaiweiler]

nice! other then the GFX....
but if your not playin to many games that's quite a decent comp

[clocker]

"How's my computer?"

Excellent question.

Have her stick 'er tongue out.....

[twisterX]

Originally posted by kaiweiler@9 April 2004 - 22:26
nice! other then the GFX....
but if your not playin to many games that's quite a decent comp
Im gonna upgrade the GFX card in like a year when the prices go down. I could play the games like vice city and i am more than pleased.

The computer is for like school work and light gaming.

[peat moss]

Nice setup they still come with floppy's ? :D

[Virtualbody1234]

What do you mean by "Hows my computer"? Don't you already know?

[clocker]

Instead of starting a new topic I'll just piggyback this one:

"How's my computer?

It's black (mostly) and has a few buttons and stuff..."

[kaiweiler]

"how's my computer?"
shouldn't you of all people know?? ;)

[Mïcrösöül°V³]

i like it. mine is similar, only i have a radeon 9500 pro card, which is starting to piss me off, but thats another story.

[Peerzy]

Originally posted by Mïcrösöül°V³@10 April 2004 - 21:53
only i have a radeon 9500 pro card,
Arn't they discontinued?

Why's it pissing you off?

[Twist3r]

<_< he stole my name <_<

[kaiweiler]

Originally posted by Twister@10 April 2004 - 18:01
<_< he stole my name <_<
Beat him up....
and steal his half decent computer while your at it

[Mïcrösöül°V³]

Originally posted by peerzyboy+10 April 2004 - 15:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (peerzyboy &#064; 10 April 2004 - 15:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mïcrösöül°V³@10 April 2004 - 21:53
only i have a radeon 9500 pro card,
Arn&#39;t they discontinued?

Why&#39;s it pissing you off? [/b][/quote]
yes they are discontinued, and i think it is heating up because my board can OC from the bios, and it seems every time i do it, the damn card throws a fit. and by fit, i mean the VPU recovery keeps saying that the "card has stoppped responding to graphics commands and will be reset" :angry: IMO, this thing is a real POS&#33;

[angel_of_death57]

Is mine still most powerful

P4 with HT 3.2GHz
1.44 Floppy
512 MB DDR
200GB HDD 7200RPM
16x DVD/52x CD
4x DVD +/-RW and 24x CD-RW and 2.4x DVD-RAM
Geforce FX5200 256MB
Advent 17" LCD
4 2.0 USB&#39;s and 4 1.0 USB&#39;s
5.1 Surround Sound

but i don&#39;t have a optical mouse :(

[Mad Cat]

Since when was yours most powerful :P

Athlon FX51
2GB PC3200 RAM
9800XT GPU
8x DVD+&#092;-R
DVD ROM/CD RW Combo
19" LCD
2x 120GB HDD
1x 250GB HDD
About 6 USB 2.0, and 3 or so Firewire
7.1 Surround Sound
Creative Audigy 2 ZS
Logitech MX500 Optical Mouse
Logitech Internet Navigator Keyboard Special Edition

All in matching black :D

[angel_of_death57]

I forgot about my 4 firewires :P

Thats a nice PC but whats GHZ for it cos AMD usally sucks

Thats a nice pc though mine is about 6 months old

[delphin460]

mad cat your running 3200 ram with a fx - 51 ????why
and what mobo u usin

[RGX]

Originally posted by angel_of_death57@11 April 2004 - 11:41
Is mine still most powerful

P4 with HT 3.2GHz
1.44 Floppy
512 MB DDR
200GB HDD 7200RPM
16x DVD/52x CD
4x DVD +/-RW and 24x CD-RW and 2.4x DVD-ROM
Geforce FX5200 256MB
Advent 17" LCD
4 2.0 USB&#39;s and 4 1.0 USB&#39;s
5.1 Surround Sound

but i don&#39;t have a optical mouse :(
1) Your video card is terrible.

2) Ghz means fuck all, to put it bluntly. Mad Cats FX-51 is only ( :rolleyes: ) 2.2 Ghz but it is 64 bit, meaning it easily gives your pentium a run for its money.

[angel_of_death57]

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

[RGX]

Originally posted by angel_of_death57@11 April 2004 - 12:07
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
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Burns at 4x for DVD R + and - and 2.4 for RW + or -
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Burns at 24x for CD-R and RW at 16x
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Burns DVD-RAM at 2.4x

I am not sure what else it can burn
Lets see....its the lowest model of FX nVIDIA cards which underperform vastly in most games anyway.......its 128Mb of RAM may as well be made of tinfoil for the benefits it gives.......if you dont play any games then thats fine, but for an ultimate PC you could really do with something that gives more power.

Thats what i meant. ;)


Oh, and your knowledge of CPU&#39;s leaves a lot to be desired, ill find some benchmarks for you.

[angel_of_death57]

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

[RGX]

Time now for the gaming and 3D benchmarks. First off we&#39;ll start with 3DMark 2001SE. Despite the fact it&#39;s getting on a bit now, it still makes for a superb CPU benchmark as it&#39;s almost completely CPU limited.

Well the FX51 gets off to a great start here, bringing in a score of over 1500 points more than the Intel Pentium 4 3.2Ghz.

The CPU test of 3DMark 03 forces the vertex shaders to be rendered in software putting massive strain on the CPU. Here the extra bandwidth clearly shows as the FX51 gets oh so close to breaking the 1000 mark.

Quake 3 although a little old now is still a reasonable test for sheer CPU horsepower. Another victory for FX51 but at these kind of frame rates a difference of 40 is rather superficial&#33; Although it&#39;s nice to say you&#39;ve broken 400 fps ;)

Unreal Tournament now, and once again the FX51 steals the show. A 30 fps lead is nothing to be sniffed at here, almost breaking 350 fps.

Our latest addition to the benchmarking suite is Gun Metal. Certainly a graphically intense game and somewhat more graphics limited than the rest of the benchmarks the scores are certainly closer. Not that I need to point out which CPU won as it seems to be making a habit of it....

Finally, Aquamark 3. This is the latest system comparison benchmark to be released onto the internet and offers a superb list of settings and options to benchmark with. The Detonator 51 drivers certainly helped here with the overall scores but once again the FX51 comes out on top but quite a significant margin.


Direct comparison between the two


http://new.bit-tech.net/review/264/6


Image Resized
[img]http://new.bit-tech.net/images/review/264/results.gif' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'> ('http://new.bit-tech.net/images/review/264/results.gif')

As you can see, the FX-51 destroys the 3.2 Ghz pentium on almost every benchmark.


Please, prove me wrong. ;)

[RGX]

Originally posted by angel_of_death57@11 April 2004 - 12:35
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
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.

[angel_of_death57]

I am not trying ot prove you wrong.

I am saying with my experience of the 2 since i have tried both i am saying that Intel was better for my expeirence once Intel produce a 64 bit i will get that. The AMD i had burned out from having my PC for days on end playing games i had to get a enw one so i got a Intel instead. And never had a problem.

Its my opion on paper AMD might be better but i couldnt care i like my Intel 3.2 also cos i do alot of encoding of videos and Intel is faster for encoding.

[angel_of_death57]

Originally posted by RGX+11 April 2004 - 13:44--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RGX @ 11 April 2004 - 13:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-angel_of_death57@11 April 2004 - 12:35
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
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. [/b][/quote]
Nai didnt your right i just got it set on Quality instead of preformance. But i am happy my games run great i have space i am happy.

[RGX]

Fair enough, but dont say AMD sucks for no reason, without expecting someone to come along and test your theory. ;)

If you are happy with it, thats fine.

[angel_of_death57]

Originally posted by RGX@11 April 2004 - 13:53
Fair enough, but dont say AMD sucks for no reason, without expecting someone to come along and test your theory. ;)

If you are happy with it, thats fine.
I am not saying they suck, i just had a bad experiece with them. I admit they have alot of power and i know people love them compared to Intel.

I am off now to play Call of Duty Online.

[RGX]

Originally posted by angel_of_death57@11 April 2004 - 12:07

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

:rolleyes:

[Mad Cat]

Yes my burner does DVD RAM.

Anyway, the old "AMDs burn up" is bullshit. You can set, in the BIOS, a temperature cut off point on any good motherboard.

Ok, so in crappy 32 bit your Intel may encode a video 2 seconds faster. Wow.

Just wait till 64 bit encoding software comes, along with the release of 64 bit Windows.

I&#39;m not showing off, but your PC is in no way better than mine.

EDIT: I also don&#39;t give a crap how many add on ports my PC has. If I want more I&#39;ll go buy a powered USB hub.

[angel_of_death57]

Originally posted by Mad Cat@11 April 2004 - 14:15
Yes my burner does DVD RAM.

Anyway, the old "AMDs burn up" is bullshit. You can set, in the BIOS, a temperature cut off point on any good motherboard.

Ok, so in crappy 32 bit your Intel may encode a video 2 seconds faster. Wow.

Just wait till 64 bit encoding software comes, along with the release of 64 bit Windows.

I&#39;m not showing off, but your PC is in no way better than mine.

EDIT: I also don&#39;t give a crap how many add on ports my PC has. If I want more I&#39;ll go buy a powered USB hub.
I didn&#39;t say mine was better than yours. Get facts right bud.

Anyway i am sick of this argument i just haevnt seen anyone post their PC specs that were higher than mine in ages.

[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
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Burns at 4x for DVD R + and - and 2.4 for RW + or -
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Burns at 24x for CD-R and RW at 16x
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t say my Pentium i said my AMD. Anyway not bothered now this needs to be closed.
typo :frusty: