whoa, i didnt know that....Prescott 2.8E is pretty cheap!

[johnnymk]

Every article I read about the Prescott chip shows extreme disappointment. I think that's the reason they are so cheap, considering how new they are.

[Cantacuzene]

Like DF said, Prescotts are garbage.

[Cantacuzene]

Well, then I'll say it: they suck. They are too hot and are outperformed by the C-class.

[CynJon]

Don't forget about the $210 Athlon 64 3000+...lotta "bang for the buck" there. Even more if you got in on yesterday's BuyXtremeGear price glitch and got it for $155!

I'm loving mine--smoking fast and solid as a rock. Not so much as a hiccup so far...:)

If you've got $200 to spend on a processor, I think you'd be hard-pressed to beat it with an Intel product, and I was seriously considering going Intel this time...:shrug:

[Showtime]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Like DF said, Prescotts are garbage.

Amen Brother, Amen.

-jel:halo:

[Showtime]

Some thoughts/info on those E' chips. They oc to 3.5 but they run hot (60+ C'). Longevity is a big question here since they're relatively new. They don't start to outshine C' chips til about 3.6 - 3.7ghz.
I think early batches did have ht enable cuz theres no way a non HT chip will compete with a C' HT enabled chip even at 3.6ghz IMO.

Newegg had some on the cheap but I passed cuz I didn't see me getting 3.6+ ghz out of a 2.8e. Paying for extreme cooling and investing all that effort wasnt worth it. Grab a 2.8c instead or do yourself a favor and go AMD. :)

-jel:halo:

[Bires]

423 PGA Pentium 4, DF?

Anyway, new chips always look slow to begin with. After a little while, when ASUS and ABIT have had a few months to tweak their BIOSes for the Prescotts, (they should be in the 3.2-3.6GHz range) the mobo's will begin to take advantage of the 1MB cache and added instructions. Until then, it's slow because its underutilized.

[bachviet]

I ran test and my P4 3.0E performs about the same as the P4 3.0C. :shrug:

[ribitch]

i like my IBM 970. It runs fairly cool in a near silent case. (Damn HD's are too loud). When are they going to make a truely silent HD?

[Showtime]

Aren't those "RAM Drives" coming out? No moving parts would make for silence I would think.

-jel:halo:

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by bachviet
I ran test and my P4 3.0E performs about the same as the P4 3.0C. :shrug:

YEs, but about 15 degrees hotter.

[ribitch]

Originally posted by the jello is jigglin
Aren't those "RAM Drives" coming out? No moving parts would make for silence I would think.

-jel:halo:

speaking of ram drives, i played UT2k4 off of a ram disk the other day and it was awesome. Its about 420MB for the program, so i made a 640MB ram disk. it played extremely well.

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by ribitch


speaking of ram drives, i played UT2k4 off of a ram disk the other day and it was awesome. Its about 420MB for the program, so i made a 640MB ram disk. it played extremely well.


The only differences you should have seen were in loading maps, unless your computer sucks so much that it can't keep up with loading textures once they are needed. Back in the day, this was called threshing. I guess your poor ole' mac can't keep up with PC's, since I have no problems with disc access once I load the game.


LK

[Showtime]

Originally posted by LegendKiller



The only differences you should have seen were in loading maps, unless your computer sucks so much that it can't keep up with loading textures once they are needed. Back in the day, this was called threshing. I guess your poor ole' mac can't keep up with PC's, since I have no problems with disc access once I load the game.


LK

Never miss an opportunity.... That's whay I like about you LK.

-jel:)

[Devhux]

The only Prescott CPU that doesn't have HT is the 2.4A -- everything else has the "E" designation and is HT-enabled (as far as I'm aware).

[ribitch]

Originally posted by LegendKiller



The only differences you should have seen were in loading maps, unless your computer sucks so much that it can't keep up with loading textures once they are needed. Back in the day, this was called threshing. I guess your poor ole' mac can't keep up with PC's, since I have no problems with disc access once I load the game.


LK

it plays great off the harddisk, but since i had so much ram, i decided i would see how it played off a ram disk. I have said in previous posts that it plays great as is. I know it would give you some extra satisfaction to hear that the performance just sucked ass, but that is not the case.

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by ribitch


it plays great off the harddisk, but since i had so much ram, i decided i would see how it played off a ram disk. I have said in previous posts that it plays great as is. I know it would give you some extra satisfaction to hear that the performance just sucked ass, but that is not the case.



If it played so great, and the buses, HDD's, and other comps on the mac were so awesome, then there should be almost NO difference between with and without ramdisk. As I said, the only difference should be when loading maps in the beginning.

LK


Originally posted by the jello is jigglin


Never miss an opportunity.... That's whay I like about you LK.

-jel:)

Hey, I call it like I see it!:D

[bachviet]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


YEs, but about 15 degrees hotter.
If it lasts more than 3 years, I'm happy since by that time my computer becomes obsolete anyway. :shrug:

[ribitch]

Originally posted by LegendKiller




If it played so great, and the buses, HDD's, and other comps on the mac were so awesome, then there should be almost NO difference between with and without ramdisk. As I said, the only difference should be when loading maps in the beginning.

LK



Hey, I call it like I see it!:D

well, trhe drives are on a SATA Stripe, so the drive performance will be comprable to a PC with the same config. The graphics card is a Nvidia FX 5200 (Need to upgrade, bought system preconfigured. to save 20%) running off AGP Pro 8x, and again comprable to a windows box.

You are looking too hard to try to discredit it. SO I ran UT2k4 off a ram disk. The performance of that game is great on my mac. Get over it. Reading maps from ram will be faster than reading maps off a SATA drive. So there will be a difference on map load. On gameplay, the map should be in ram, so the gameplay should be similar.

[Devhux]

The 2.4A Prescott was quietly launched by Intel -- you can buy one HERE (http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=19-116-178&depa=1). It only uses a 533MHz FSB. There is also a 2.8GHz chip coming out that uses the 533MHz bus and has no HT. That might be called the 2.8A.

Any 800MHz FSB Prescott CPU appears to support Hyperthreading.

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by ribitch

Reading maps from ram will be faster than reading maps off a SATA drive. So there will be a difference on map load. On gameplay, the map should be in ram, so the gameplay should be similar.


Isn't that statement EXACTLY what I have been saying? You came on here boasting that your superior Mac was running the game awesomely over the ram drive, somewhat implying that the ram drive made this massive difference.

1. This isn't a thread about Ramdrives, Mac's, or anything else other than the PressHot CPU. Thus, you attempted to threadjack by making it into yet another "Mac is cool" thread.

2. I simply stated that if you noticed ANY gameplay difference between straight HDD load and Ramdrive, then you had serious problems with your system and that your mac isn't nearly as beastly as you continually make it out to be. If you did notice a speedup during normal gameply (NOT map load), then the mac subsystem was obviously faultly, showing a massive weakness compared to PC, where I took the opportunity to bash Mac as much as you boast.

3. I always get a kick out of people who sit on these types of boards saying they need this or that for their high-end systems, such as 400GB of storage or more than 1GB of ram. Most of the time these individuals are simply compensating for a small ego.

My work notebook has a 60GB drive and 1 GB of ram. I usually have 4-5 20k+ row, 20 column spreadsheets, Outlook, 2 or 3 windows of IE, plus the Corp trash they have, AND 3 Brio 60k+ row multi-calculation 40-50 column quieries going at the same time, at most I had 700MB of phys mem usage, and ~1.2GB at peak, even with my CPU churning at 100%.

Massive mem capacity is pointless unless you're doing huge database manipulation, even video editing doesn't use over a gig usually (since only cur vid is loaded into ram while rest is on drive). CPU power is much more important, which is why I am getting a 2nd computer at work to handle my Brio queries.

As far as disc space goes, NOBODY will ever LEGALLY use 400GB of data unless you are doing massive coding or database work.
More or less, quit stroking yourself.


LK

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by DarkFury

Although I agree with most of what you said above, "video capture" and storage can eat up 400 GBs of hard drive space in no time, depending on quality of the video being captured.

DVD quality video really eats up the hard drive space as I have already filled a 200GB drive and have a second half full in my main box that has HTPC functions (I don't put all those drives in my HTPC box on my TV because those drives would generate a bunch of unwanted heat... and I don't wanna add more fans to it for obvious reasons).

Just giving you an example of a "legal" way to save that much data. :D


But at that point it is more logical to back up your data onto DVD-R, since it is a much less volitile medium than a disc. Storing 400GB of movies, even home made ones, on your disc is just storing them to seem bigger. Unless of course you are using the 400GB as a file repository on a RAID5 hot swap, but then Ribitch is using it on a stripe, thus it is more of a "swinging the big one" than anything.


LK

[johnnymk]

I believe the reason that most people don't use recordable DVD is that they don't know which program to use and the other stuff which goes along with it to make a quality product. So they just put everything onto a large hard drive.

I am just learning all of this information. It's not as simple as one would think. There are lots and lots of variables.

In addition, the encoding process can take forever, and if you screw up, you've ruined a $1.00 or more disc.
DVDRW media is just starting to come down in price. But many places charge $3.00 for rewritable DVDs. At that price, the price for a large hard drive is competitive.

The reason I mention rewritable DVD is that if you screw up, you can do the operation again. But who wants to store movies on a rewritable DVD? Besides some players will not read DVDRWs.

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by johnnymk
I believe that most people don't use recordable DVD is that they don't know which program to use and the other stuff which goes along with it to make a quality product. So they just put everything onto a large hard drive.

I am just learning all of this information. It's not as simple as one would think. There are lots and lots of variables.


I got my 59 year old mom using a DVD+/- RW on her computer. She's burning movies and picture archives left and right. She thinks RAID is bug spray and that upgrading ram is something better left up to me if I am home, or one of my good friends in MN. You can't tell me that a guy who knows how to stripe his drives, upgrade his ram to these levels, create and load a ram disk (something I have never done and I dont know how to do off hand), doesn't know how to burn and archive DVD's. The sheer notion of that is insane.

The people who are buying 2-3 200GB drives and creating these things ARE people who know how to archive. The only reason why they are doing what they are is because of the cool factor.


LK

[johnnymk]

To LK

Different strokes for different folks.

The world consists of practical boring engineer types and geeks and interesting "cool" types who care less about efficiency.

Guess you'll never be one of the latter.

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by johnnymk
To LK

Different strokes for different folks.

The world consists of practical boring engineer types and geeks and interesting "cool" types who care less about efficiency.

Guess you'll never be one of the latter.


I certainly am one of the latter, I do actually review some of the stuff on here, and my system has a 15k 73gig boot drive.

I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to catch Ribitch in his statement, since the Mac is superior and ram drive=better performance aren't exactly contiquous. If mac was superior then ramdrive wouldn't make a difference, if it did, then it would point out that mac isn't superior.

The 400gb was more tangental.

LK

[ribitch]

talk about a thread jack.

I simply made a comment about a freaking ram disk because someone else did. LK kinda did the thread jack, then turned it into big ordeal.

my 400gb was cheap (less than $175.00). i also use FCP and DVD studio pro, both of which eat up tons of storage for their clips and renderings. Add on my replaytv MPEGS that I edit and create multi show dvd's, my original 80GB internal and 160GB firewire drives didnt hold up. I am currently at about 100GB capacity on my new array. I also burn projects that i work on on DVD's, but these are only finished projects or clips. Its pointless to throw out your clips because you are done with the video. Video can be reused at later times.

While you may not need 400GB of diskspace or 1GB of ram, other do, simply because they use their computers for different reasons. Do I make use of all 400GB's right now? No, and i probably wont for some time, but a few years ago, many of use didnt think we could use 40GB of storage.

Sure its in a stripe, but i also plan on eventually using it as 2 drives, because of the increased chance of failure on a stripe. I openly admit this. I wanted to do the stripe just because the sheer fact that its a massive 400GB array. Is it bragging, you can say that. Does it mean I have a small ego? I dont think so.

Is this not the hardware forum? Isnt a non intel/amd computer considered hardware? I think it is, therefore i post it here. This reminds me of a george carlin skit about people so uptight that they bitch about what they see and hear on the airwaves. Carlin says to turn the channel if you dont like it. My suggestion to you is if you dont want to read about apple, then dont click the link to view threads i posted. Its as simple as that. just because you dont find it worthwhile, interesting, or worth reading, doesnt mean all others shouldnt be able to view it.

I use apple, Darkfury uses intel, others use amd. We post our opinions. Thats part of teh reason boards like this exsist.

[Showtime]

Originally posted by ribitch
talk about a thread jack.

I simply made a comment about a freaking ram disk because someone else did.

:) That would be me!

-jel:halo: