[MatthewPapa]

Heh,
GO AMD 2500+!!!!!
I spent less than 100$ on this baby and am OCing it to 2.4 GHz right now and its working great. It outperforms my friends p4 3.2 ghz that he spent 220$ on (thats what it cost at the time he bought it).
My system:

2500+ @ 2.4 GHz and 400 FSB ($98)
785 mb of RAM (PC3200, (3 x 256, dual channel) ($100)
256 mb GeForce 5700LE ($120)
120 gig hdd ($80)
Asus Mobo ($80)
DVD-RW ($50)
Volcano 7+ ($20)
Scavenged floppy drive, CD drive, case, fans

All said and done I spent less than $600 on this comp and it doesnt lag up on any games. I can turn all of the options on in Freespace 2 (scp) and C&C generals and safely run without any slowdowns or crashes. Cobra, you got big time ripped off, dont ever buy anything from staples again. Build your own computer  if you want good deals. If you dont know how, LEARN because its not that hard. There are pleanty of good internet resources that you can use to help you.

Good parts store (mostly because its near my house) is www.directron.com . I bought everything you see above there.

[ChronoReverse]

Originally posted by Raa
My Athlon XP 2800+ performs better than my parents P4 2.24Ghz Northwood chip. Granted, they don't have hyperthreading, but my chip is much quicker than theirs.

No duh?  Compare a 2.8GHz Northwood with the AthlonXP 2800+ and you'll note that even though the price is fairly close (back when they were released) the 2.8GHz Northwood beats the 2800+ Thoroughbred/Barton.

[Taristin]

The 2.8 Northwoods were significantly more than the 2800+

[ChronoReverse]

Not by the time the 2800+ was released.  You have to remember that AMD was playing the catch up game at that point.  When the 2.8C was released, the 2.53GHz P4 (performance-wise similar to 2600+) had the price drop that made it competitive with the the 2600+.  By the time the 2800+ came out, it happened again.

Also factored into my assertion that the P4 Northwood era was the time when the Pentium 4 actually looked good was how much the Northwoods overclocked.  It was only until MUCH later when the 2500+ Mobiles came out that AMD had a part with similar overclocking potential.

Furthermore, after the 2800+, AMD's PR rating no longer overstated their potential, but rather understated it (leading to the good, but not as good as Pentium 4 3.0GHz, AthlonXP 3000+).

Luckily that's no longer the case with the Athlon64s but it still remains that the Pentium 4 Northwoods were really good performers that AMD never had an answer to when they were released.

[WeatherOp]

My Cpu isn't as fast as you guys, but it runs good enough for me.

P4 2.2 GHZ
768 Mb of ram
Radeon 9200, 128 MB of Ram


not the fastest by far, but will run FS2 scp all the way up with no lags, and will run IL-2 FB great, just not Lo-mac. whitch you would need a 5 GHZ machine to run right:(

[Cobra]

Holy ****, a RADEON!?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Raa
My Athlon XP 2800+ performs better than my parents P4 2.24Ghz Northwood chip. Granted, they don't have hyperthreading, but my chip is much quicker than theirs.

Hyperthreading is ****ing pointless anyways, unless you write code specifically for it.... if not, you're just as likely to lose performance  (deadlocking / desynchronized threading being a primary reason IIRC; you need to write code to balance the work evenly between threads or you end up waiting on the slowest one anyways).

I think it's as likely that Intel wanted to try and force code lock-in to their processors, somewhat like with this attempted introduction of BTX.

http://www.spec.org/ is a good site for proper processor benchmarking, BTW (albeit a bit confusing to naviagte); IIRC Athlon XPs have better integer but worse floating point performance than P4s of the same 'rating' (i.e. Athlon 2800 vs 2.8GHz P4); when you factor in the price differences AMD comes out on top, and even if you try and base it upon 'performance per MHz' (useless a measure as it may be) AMD is probably still better.

EDIT; and on the subject of HT;
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2003q4/cpu2000-20030922-02524.html
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2003q2/cpu2000-20030422-02134.html

Former is a P4 at 3.06GHz
Latter is a same speed, non-HT p4 with half the RAM, same motherboard, HD, etc.

P4 3.06GHz (HT) 512MB RAM;  
SPECint2000 = 1098, SPECint_base2000 = 1088

P4 3.06GHz, (non-HT) 256MB RAM;
SPECint2000 =1210, SPECint_base2000 = 1167

NB: this is just 1 benchmark, natch.

[Cobra]

People, this is Grimloq's thread. Let's get back to his Hecate thingy.

[SadisticSid]

Grim, I like your latest update but the two octagons as engine 'intakes' (although why you'd need to draw anything into a space engine is perplexing) need scrapping in favour of your earlier design where they were big and recessed, and looked integrated into the design rather than added as an afterthought.

(i.e. like on this one)


And don't pay too much heed to the canon-whores.

[Cobra]

Who are you calling canon-whores?

[TopAce]

Those people who stick to follow canon info. For example, adding more turrets or an additional wing would make it non-canon. Canon-whores consider this a bad thing to do. As far as I can imagine this term.

[karajorma]

Nope.

The term is being used to describe those who want to make sure that nothing changes about the shape of the HTL ships.  For instance people complaining about the octagons etc.

People complaining about the turrets are not being Canon-whores. They're simply trying to prevent a ship appearing which would break existing missions. There is a huge difference as the first is mostly aesthetic whereas the second affects game balance.

Anyway I'm not going to say whether I agree with the so-called Canon whores or not.

[Grimloq]

the octagons are being experimented with...

[ChronoReverse]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Hyperthreading is ****ing pointless anyways, unless you write code specifically for it.... if not, you're just as likely to lose performance  (deadlocking / desynchronized threading being a primary reason IIRC; you need to write code to balance the work evenly between threads or you end up waiting on the slowest one anyways).

EDIT; and on the subject of HT;
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2003q4/cpu2000-20030922-02524.html
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2003q2/cpu2000-20030422-02134.html

Former is a P4 at 3.06GHz
Latter is a same speed, non-HT p4 with half the RAM, same motherboard, HD, etc.

P4 3.06GHz (HT) 512MB RAM;  
SPECint2000 = 1098, SPECint_base2000 = 1088

P4 3.06GHz, (non-HT) 256MB RAM;
SPECint2000 =1210, SPECint_base2000 = 1167

NB: this is just 1 benchmark, natch.

Actually Simutaneous Multi-Threading (SMT) is a technology that is in fact quite useful.  It's just not nearly as useful on a desktop where response time is the most important.  However, it does give a different feel when you're using a SMT-capable cpu.

Frankly, the only reason why I write-off HT is because of the way Intel tries to hype it up.

[FireCrack]

Be sure to have a nameplate.

[Grimloq]

of course!

[WeatherOp]

Any updates?

[Cobra]

Yeah, we want pics to drool over!

[Grimloq]

fraid not. sry,

[Cobra]