computers in the year 2004

nexus

Hoodrat
32
0
0
god thats good, were did you find it?

thats a very good question </rant>, anyone have any ideas what you think the wheel might do?
 

tzedek

Original Member
2,515
4
38
im guessing its similar to a mouse. see how there are really 2 wheels. one does up and down and the other does side to side like on a microscope.
 

Spooky

One Way In, No Way Out
9
0
1
Nah, those wheels are for driving games, they predicted it all that time ago! ;)

PS. I'm guessing it's not fake.
 

VenomHowell

Cynical Piece of Shit
305
0
0
I'm wondering what kind of Videocard you could put in that thing. Something with the power of a Radeon X800 PE, but freaking huge. Hmm...
 

VenomHowell

Cynical Piece of Shit
305
0
0
GASP! You is right. Fucking full 360 degree Half Life 2 or Doom 3... Or better yet, UT2K4. Have fun modifying the game to be compatible with that many monitors, hehe.

It could also help if you are multitasker extraordinaire. Play Neverwinter Nights on that baby and photoshop your heart out at the same time. Woo!
 

Descent

Hella Constipated
7,685
149
157
For that you would need about 10 or so AXP 2800's, as well as a ClusterFuck Processing mobo.
 

VenomHowell

Cynical Piece of Shit
305
0
0
Perfect. But let's just go ahead and upgrade the mobo to socket 939, and stick a bunch of A 64 3500+ in there to futureproof it instead. Then you'd have one bitching computer.

But I dare say, if you took it that far, you'd need to build the damn thing it's own power plant.

My other computer is a beowulf cluster... Hehehe. I wish <<
 

VenomHowell

Cynical Piece of Shit
305
0
0
I must disagree with you there... AMD's are godly gaming processors. Pentiums are decent all around processors... And, well, if you like multimedia/graphics editing, Macs are the way to go for you, my friend.

It all depends on interests, though currently, overall, the AMD Athlon 64s are the perfect balance between functionality and price right now. the 64 3500+ is affordable and one of the best processors out there.
 

Jung

???
Premium
14,202
2,465
637
tzedek said:
AMD is lame
You have no clue, do you?

AMDs are a perfect balance between price and performance. They excel in gaming and some multimedia applications. Intel’s excel in things like encoding media and compression. AMD will always win in cases where money is a deciding factor. Actually, given unlimited amount of money, I’d still choose AMD over Intel, for almost everything. We’ve even taken to replacing our Xeon based server at work, with Opterons, upon the request of myself and a co-worker.
VenomHowell said:
And, well, if you like multimedia/graphics editing, Macs are the way to go for you, my friend.
I agree, but only to an extent. The RISC architecture is amazing, I’ve been thoroughly impressed from my experiences with Sun workstations and Sparc servers. I do a lot of graphic design (it’s a hobby of mine) and music production, recording and editing and I’ve never felt limited with the x86 architecture. I’ve always hated Mac, at least until the release of osX; I’m purchasing a 12” 1.5GHz Power Book for my girlfriend and I this Christmas, but It’ll mostly be a toy. I love the idea of a BSD based os, with such duality as osX has.
VenomHowell said:
It all depends on interests, though currently, overall, the AMD Athlon 64s are the perfect balance between functionality and price right now. the 64 3500+ is affordable and one of the best processors out there.
Any performance gains you’re seeing with the 64bit cpu is solely based on their high clock and bus speeds. Even if you’re running a 64bit OS(XP is available in a 64bit version), hardly any applications, and even fewer games are written to utilize a 64 bit architecture. You’d be better off, at least for now and the near future, saving the money by getting a comparable 32bit cpu.
 

VenomHowell

Cynical Piece of Shit
305
0
0
Granted, but there ARE those odd games out there that DO indeed take advantage of the 64 bit processor... and I'm sure photoshop benefits in some way... And really, the best part about buying a 939 socket mobo and a 64 bit processor is the fact that it's futureproofed. That's an important aspect for me now, because I won't be getting a new computer for quite some time, and if it's futureproofed I may be able to afford small upgrades in the future without having to buy a whole new set of parts.
 

tzedek

Original Member
2,515
4
38
junglizm said:
You have no clue, do you?

AMDs are a perfect balance between price and performance. They excel in gaming and some multimedia applications. Intel’s excel in things like encoding media and compression. AMD will always win in cases where money is a deciding factor. Actually, given unlimited amount of money, I’d still choose AMD over Intel, for almost everything. We’ve even taken to replacing our Xeon based server at work, with Opterons, upon the request of myself and a co-worker.

i wasnt talk about performance. Sorry i will clear it up. I just think it is lame that they put some bigger numbers on their processors. For instance, if a car compnay produced a sports car with 250 HP, but labeled it as "350+" HP performance, everybody would be like wtf? well that is what AMD is doing with their processors, and I think that is lame.
 

VenomHowell

Cynical Piece of Shit
305
0
0
tzedek said:
i wasnt talk about performance. Sorry i will clear it up. I just think it is lame that they put some bigger numbers on their processors. For instance, if a car compnay produced a sports car with 250 HP, but labeled it as "350+" HP performance, everybody would be like wtf? well that is what AMD is doing with their processors, and I think that is lame.
You don't understand why they do this, obviously. The reasoning behind the high numbers for the lower clock speeds, is that AMD processors are capable of carrying more than one instruction per cycle, about 1.5 if you were to take an average. Therefor, they rate their processors compared to what it would be as their old Thunderbird line, which could carry 1 instruction per cycle, though most people nowadays just take it as how fast it would be as a pentium, which is no less accurate. Therefor, my 2.20 GHZ AMD 64 3500+ is every bit as powerful as a 3.5 GHZ Pentium.

For a rough example based on what you said, it would be like having a 250 HP car that was constantly on NO2, therefor the equivalent of a 350+ HP car.
 

tzedek

Original Member
2,515
4
38
VenomHowell said:
You don't understand why they do this, obviously. The reasoning behind the high numbers for the lower clock speeds, is blah blah blah
obviously you dont understand why they do this. Its called marketing. look it up. What do consumers want to see? higher numbers. so AMD makes up numbers to give consumers higher numbers.