Yep, same here, I dont even try to play games on my pc anymore. I mainly use my Xbox 360 for that. Yeah, I tried to play crysis as well on this pc and it sucked eggs unless I turned all the settings to low. I can pay $500 bucks (just for the video card) to play a pc game half assed, or spend it on a 360 or PS3 that looks and plays better... easy choice.

ASUS p5k-c

That's a good one! The P35 chipset is a mad ass overclocker.

You tried for the raging OC yet?

Post the screenies man.

EDIT: Ok I gotta hit it now. Work in the morning. Hope this thread is still alive tomorrow.

Night.

US_Kopfjaeger wrote:

ASUS p5k-c

That's a good one! The P35 chipset is a mad ass overclocker.

You tried for the raging OC yet?

Post the screenies man.

To be honest I dont need to OC yet. I can run all kinds of stuff and she still blazes. I can play 1080p on two screens and still only use 24% of the cpu's power.

Maybe you guys can help me, I need to get more power out of my laptop, the NVidia 8400GS is not enough and I'd like to know if something can be done (overclocking or else) to play the latests games.



The rest is OK.

You bragging about what? A car, property, your wife, your salary?

...a 2k computer that even a person on minimum wage could afford. That's funny shit.

I'm not bragging for crying out loud, I just want to play Crysis with a resolution higher than 32x24 and more than 0.02 fps in black and white.
It's a mainstream laptop: Dell XPS 1330 with a lousy 4.1 windows whatsit inUrface score.

Minitel doesn't exist anymore but it allowed french to create online secure business, to chat, to sell stuffs in auction rooms, etc, at a time when you were struggling to send an email in text mode.

Billions of trades were made here during the 80's.

So let me get this right, we are in 2008, you are bragging about buying a quad core unit which was most likely a very crappy choice as the immense majority of applications cannot take advantage of it, leaving you to wank over running multiple applications under Windows, something it should have been able to handle just fine on a single core had dynamic multi-tasking been implemented properly, and you're comparing that to french minitels from over 25 years ago, minitels that you correctly referred as terminals while entirely failing to understand the meaning and implication of that (z80 powered heh ?).

I am *not* impressed.

I'm not bragging for crying out loud, I just want to play Crysis with a resolution higher than 32x24 and more than 0.02 fps in black and white.
It's a mainstream laptop: Dell XPS 1330 with a lousy 4.1 windows whatsit inUrface score.

Can you upgrade the video card on that xps?

I am *not* impressed.

Is it that time of the month? Not that it matters. You're always in a bad mood.

"you are bragging about buying a quad core unit which was most likely a very crappy choice as the immense majority of applications cannot take advantage of it"



Under Windows Millenium... No comment.

i have a turtle named "speedy"

This thread shows just how low FF's American Conservatives self esteem is.

They make claims of national supremacy over a lousy home PC. A PC that is still not as good as my livingroom unit that is nearly 2 years old.

Dude, get some balls, get a girlfriend and get out some will ya.

lovemore,

A forum poster ( www.ideastorm.com . . . ) says that the 1330's power supply doesn't have enough juice for more powerful graphics cards.

I guess your choices are to live with it, buy a cheap game system or trade/sell the laptop.

Gaming rig...

q9450 yorkfield... (quad core)

790i ultra sli (evga)

9800 gx2 (bfg)

I've never hit anything that requires over clocking...

I don't recommend the 9800 gx2...nice card but bad design...heat blows onto the memory with the board layout...

nvidia also needs to fix their drivers for ntune and the fan settings...fuckers revert to off as default, some revert to 100% fan...coming out of standby won't trip the fan...

So, must people revert to using rivatuner...

/One day sometime in the far future, developers will actually start coding for multiple cores (I get to say that, it's my field )

Fuck y'all....nobody can touch my shizzle....



CPU: MOS 6510, 1MHz
Sound: SID 6581, 3 channels of sound
RAM: 64K
Display: 25 X 40 text
320 X 200, 16 colors max
Ports: TV, RGB & composite video
2 joysticks, cartridge port
serial peripheral port
Peripherals: cassette recorder
printer, modem
external 170K floppy drive
OS: ROM BASIC

Fuck y'all....nobody can touch my shizzle....

*lol* I'm an Amiga fanboy....com64 was nice...

You know in the late 80's it cost me like 1300 bucks to buy 2 megs of expansion RAM and a 50 meg harddrive for my Amiga 2000...

Anyone remember when US robotics came out with their 9600 baud modem list price around 700/800 bucks...

Ya, we were masturbating to it...

I actually had an Amiga 2000. Everyon else had a 500 I had the 2000! Back then code was tight and efficient. SImple hardware could do amazing things... sigh

Crysis is wank anyway, the end of game monster is the size of a battleship but all it does is fire droplets of a jism like substance at you whilst you run around frantically looking for weapons and ammo.

And the company which produced it is headed by 3 muzzies.

I played it on a £200 HP dx 2250 .. an entry level desktop pc albeit one with a mid range graphics card and beefed up power supply. I couldn't get anywhere near the highest graphics quality though. Call of Duty 4 looks better.

Was still using an Amiga 4000/40 circa year 2000, many years after Commodore went bankrupt, had netbsd & a macintosh emulator (~Quadra, same CPU, so mostly native) installed plus the native OS, and it was just fine for most purposes. Bloody clock battery leaked over the motherboard and killed it sadly. There was still a small user base at the time and third party manufacturers tried to keep it alive, it was even possible to upgrade to PowerPC CPUs for more horse power (Motorola had discontinued the 68x00 line), though being different CPUs, only specific applications were available that could take advantage of it.

Shame they made all the wrong business decisions at Commodore, they had quite a head start on the competition in the mid 80's.

I need no fucking overpowered computer to surf ff.com.

Uh. Probably not.

I use to work on a linux workstation and on a MacBook pro laptop.

This beast I just built became a Linux workstation last night. Just logged into Windows to get the framebuffer docs and check ff.com.

You should see xorg-server build from source in 20 minutes.

I need no quad core main UC since I'm using some UNIXes instead of a draft of an OS. I still wonder how people on Vista have to get more than 2Go of RAM to run Xcel on their quad core to reach the same perfomance level than my old debian based desktop I assembled six years ago.

While I agree Vista pretty much sucks, there is no way my quad is running Excel like your 6 year old computer Korbach. When I hit things now, they just appear! Excel included.

Maybe you guys can help me, I need to get more power out of my laptop, the NVidia 8400GS is not enough and I'd like to know if something can be done (overclocking or else) to play the latests games.

Ehhh.. Laptop might not be the best idea to tinker with. Heat is an issue when doing OC.

Anyway, what's the BIOS/Specs etc... Can you modify the FSB and voltages?

EDIT:

I'm not bragging for crying out loud, I just want to play Crysis with a resolution higher than 32x24 and more than 0.02 fps in black and white.
It's a mainstream laptop: Dell XPS 1330 with a lousy 4.1 windows whatsit inUrface score.

I think he was trying to (very lame like) flame me Lovemore. But I hear ya. I was really pissed off when I brought Crysis home after waiting a year, switching to Vista to get DirectX 10, and dropping 4 bills on a GPU to get 20 fps in low rez.

This weekend I will work the GPU overclock and see what's up with that.

Minitel doesn't exist anymore but it allowed french to create online secure business, to chat, to sell stuffs in auction rooms, etc, at a time when you were struggling to send an email in text mode.

Billions of trades were made here during the 80's.

I get the picture Parigot. But please do be honest. The birth of the Internet was earlier, and of course kicked the State owned Minitel's ass(ets).

At the IPTO, Licklider recruited Lawrence Roberts to head a project to implement a network, and Roberts based the technology on the work of Paul Baran,[citation needed] who had written an exhaustive study for the U.S. Air Force that recommended packet switching (as opposed to circuit switching) to make a network highly robust and survivable. After much work, the first two nodes of what would become the ARPANET were interconnected between UCLA and SRI International in Menlo Park, California, on October 29, 1969. The ARPANET was one of the "eve" networks of today's Internet. Following on from the demonstration that packet switching worked on the ARPANET, the British Post Office, Telenet, DATAPAC and TRANSPAC collaborated to create the first international packet-switched network service. In the UK, this was referred to as the International Packet Stream Service (IPSS), in 1978. The collection of X.25-based networks grew from Europe and the US to cover Canada, Hong Kong and Australia by 1981. The X.25 packet switching standard was developed in the CCITT (now called ITU-T) around 1976. X.25 was independent of the TCP/IP protocols that arose from the experimental work of DARPA on the ARPANET, Packet Radio Net and Packet Satellite Net during the same time period. Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn developed the first description of the TCP protocols during 1973 and published a paper on the subject in May 1974. Use of the term "Internet" to describe a single global TCP/IP network originated in December 1974 with the publication of RFC 675, the first full specification of TCP that was written by Vinton Cerf, Yogen Dalal and Carl Sunshine, then at Stanford University. During the next nine years, work proceeded to refine the protocols and to implement them on a wide range of operating systems.

en.wikipedia.org . . .

The work of these men allow you the privilege of being on ff.com today.

So let me get this right, we are in 2008, you are bragging about buying a quad core unit which was most likely a very crappy choice as the immense majority of applications cannot take advantage of it, leaving you to wank over running multiple applications under Windows, something it should have been able to handle just fine on a single core had dynamic multi-tasking been implemented properly, and you're comparing that to french minitels from over 25 years ago, minitels that you correctly referred as terminals while entirely failing to understand the meaning and implication of that (z80 powered heh ?).

Lily, since I posted this thread in good faith, asked for opinions from all, including Stinks, and have generally been nice to everyone, I am going to refrain from calling you a shrieking well worn battle ho or any other pejorative that comes to mind when ones hears such rude comments...

For the record.

1.) I ain't bragging.
2.) I ain't wanking.
3.) I ain't comparing American processor technology to an artifact on history's shit heap.

I was poking a little fun, since such a bold title was sure to tweak up some Stinks. See: Your reply.

With that said.

Why buy a quad over a single core?

1.) Intel doesn't even make a single core processor in 45nm. In my 65nm processor, they make a few, but they suck. In the 2.4GHz range the difference between a quad core and a dual core is $25.00.

2.) I work with Linux, alot. Wanna bet nothing there can use it? Especially with encoding?

3.) Crysis, the game I want to play, is at least trying to optimize for multi-core processing, so why not spend $25.00 more to see what happens.

I am *not* impressed.

Well, keep waiting. I am sure some European company will make a single core chip that rivals the performance of an 8086 in the next 5 or 10 years. Perhaps that will impress you.