Gah... It's so difficult for me to tell.
I'm fifteen with a little Software Knowledge,
But I know next to nothing about hardware,
except the rudimentary basics.
However, 80 GB is quite small, at one point I actually had 80GB of data.
careful how you manage that Space.
Not the greatest, but I should be getting a desktop with a much better processor and GPU before long.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." - Karl Marx
My comp lags ONLY under these circumstances:
horde of say about 20 zombies(l4d2)
smoke effects(garrysmod,DOD:S,Counter strike source,pretty much every source game)
and millions of npcs(garrysmod(obviously))
My comp lags ONLY under these circumstances:
horde of say about 20 zombies(l4d2)
smoke effects(garrysmod,DOD:S,Counter strike source,pretty much every source game)
and millions of npcs(garrysmod(obviously))
Lagging at JUST 20 zombies, wow. You really should get something that can play it at full speed. A laggy play just doesn't do it justice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." - Karl Marx
AMD Phenom II x4 955
8 GB of RAM (which I'm pretty sure is DDR3, but I put that in back in January, so I can't actually remember what it is exactly)
600 GB + 250 GB internal HD
500 GB external HD
1 TB drive in my Ubuntu machine which is shared over the network, so I also count it as space for my main desktop.
Windows 7 Home Premium
NVidia 250GTS 1 GB
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
6GB DDR2 RAM,
2.8GHz dual core processor
750GB HD
G33/G31 Intel intergradted express chipset (I think it has a PCI-e slot, so I could probably change)
Vista OS
Sound card, I don't know.
alienware laptop (lol, glows ON THE MOVE) but i built my own desktop.
Specs from my memory to follow, im away from home atm, might get some wrong:
i7 920, 2.67ghz
6gb ddr3 corsair domi ram
850 corsair psu
1tb 7200 western digital sata
285 gtx from evga
asus p6t v2 deluxe mobo
windows 7 ultimate x64
integrated sound
sorry for the lack of caps and proper naming/numbers, im tired :sad.gif:
TL;DR: Better than yours.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from TurtleeyMC »
Matt, seriously, stop trolling. So can you please shut the **** up and go troll the infdev forums about how much you want to get 10 bucks from your hobo house?
Mine's pretty decent. I upgraded it rather recently for the princely sum of $330. Specs:
CPU: AMD PhenomII X4 2.8Ghz
Mobo: Asus M4A77TD
RAM: 4GB Kingston DDR3 1066
Video: Nvidia 8800GT (acquired for free when my 7900GT died, thank you, eVGA!)
Sound: Onboard Via HD Audio chipset
HDDs:
80GB WD Caviar SATA (OS/Page file)
420GB Hitachi SATA (Storage)
32GB OCZ Vertex Turbo (Games)
PSU: Corsair 750W (My beloved modular Antec burned out not too long ago after 4 years of faithful service ;_:wink.gif:
I will say that I love my SSD. People buy fast mechanical drives and put them into RAID 0 configurations, but they're chumps. They're chumps not only because that doubles the chances of data loss, but because an SSD is around twice as fast as their array. I have noticed a huge difference in loading times of the things on that drive. It's incredibly quick.
operating systems: windows XP home edition (5.1, build 2600)
BIOS: Phoenix awardBIOS v6.00PG
Processor: Intel Celeron CPU 3.20GHz
Memory: 446MB RAM
Page file: 464MB used, 587MB available
DX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
ATI Radeon Xpress 200 Series
ATI Radeon Xpress Series (0x5A61)
DAC Type: Internal DAC (400MHZ)
---------------------------------------------
and my display is 1024 x 768 (32 bit) (60Hz) and a: Plug and Play Monitor.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from sunboy128 »
Quote from Fatalis »
FIRE A LAZOR BEAM FROM YOUR PENIS!!!!!!!
.......ಠ_ಠ...
yes i took 2 hours in ms paint to make the below image, have fun dieing.
Intel [email protected] Quad
12Gigabytes Kingston DDR3
850Watt XFX modular PSU
Dual GTX280's in SLI, with one 9600GT for PhysX
EVGA X58 Classified
Win7Ultumate 64bit
IbetehWinver?
Sorry, you can't be the winner using Nvidia graphics cards. Unfortunately for them, they've been making long strings of failures in the high-performance graphics department. Their cards are better for floating point calculations, though that doesn't mean much for graphics. ATI has been on top ever since Nvidia came out with the 9xxx series.
Intel core i7 950 @ 4GHZ (8 cpu's)
Ati Radeon HD4350 <--- (This sucks i'll buy a HD 5870)
4GB RAM DDR3
4.5 Terrabytes HDD
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
Direct-X 10
You must have two separate processors, because there is no i7 with 8 cores. They only come in quad-core and hex-core varieties. Why on earth you'd waste money buying two of them and a motherboard with two sockets (which would inevitably be classified as a server motherboard; I don't even know of a motherboard with a compatible socket type that has two sockets) while stopping with a paltry 4GB of RAM is beyond me. You must also have overclocked the i7's, since there aren't any with a 4GHz clock speed out of the box.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
i thought it had 4 physical processors and 4 virtual processors amirite?
No, the number of virtual processors (and it's hard for me to pin down exactly what those are considered to be; it depends on who you ask) is related to the number of physical processors (in this case 4). In any case, you don't add them together and get a bigger number. You have 4 physical cores, that's all. Technically with hyper-threading you have 8 virtual processors since the HT technology is set up to allow each physical core to operate efficiently on two threads. This can show up as 8 logical cores on the operating system (so the operating system makes it look like there are 8 cores when there are really 4). Each core can still only perform one operation at any given time, but HT allows each core to handle multiple threads more efficiently so less processor time is actually wasted switching or waiting on one thread. You can think of it as instructions from multiple threads being interleaved as they pass through the processor rather than chunks of instructions from particular threads passing through.
tl;dr when reporting processor type, you report the number of physical cores and nothing else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
No, yourself, if you're going to post, do some research buddy!
All i7's, apart from the new Hexacores, have 4 cores. In addition to that, they have two threads, per core. Which means, they have 8 virtual cores. Virtual, literally translates to how many threads the CPU has. :smile.gif:
EDIT: Also, not all dual CPU motherboards are classified as server motherboards. Go take a look at the skulltrail :smile.gif:
Dell Inspiron 530s
Intel Core2 Duo CPU E7200 @ 2.53GHz (2 CPUs), ~2.5GHz
3326MB (3 GB) RAM
ATI Radeon HD 3450
Windows Vista
Works fine for everything I do (even runs Dwarf Fortress with 100 dwarves at 70 FPS).
I'm fifteen with a little Software Knowledge,
But I know next to nothing about hardware,
except the rudimentary basics.
However, 80 GB is quite small, at one point I actually had 80GB of data.
careful how you manage that Space.
Also, I have a nice sizable 3GB of RAM.
4069 MB DDR2 RAM
Intel Centrino dual core 1.83 Ghz
2 200 GB Hard Drives
ATI Mobility Radeon GPU - 256 MB
Not the greatest, but I should be getting a desktop with a much better processor and GPU before long.
"What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." - Karl Marx
horde of say about 20 zombies(l4d2)
smoke effects(garrysmod,DOD:S,Counter strike source,pretty much every source game)
and millions of npcs(garrysmod(obviously))
Lagging at JUST 20 zombies, wow. You really should get something that can play it at full speed. A laggy play just doesn't do it justice.
"What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." - Karl Marx
8 GB of RAM (which I'm pretty sure is DDR3, but I put that in back in January, so I can't actually remember what it is exactly)
600 GB + 250 GB internal HD
500 GB external HD
1 TB drive in my Ubuntu machine which is shared over the network, so I also count it as space for my main desktop.
Windows 7 Home Premium
NVidia 250GTS 1 GB
2.8GHz dual core processor
750GB HD
G33/G31 Intel intergradted express chipset (I think it has a PCI-e slot, so I could probably change)
Vista OS
Sound card, I don't know.
Specs from my memory to follow, im away from home atm, might get some wrong:
i7 920, 2.67ghz
6gb ddr3 corsair domi ram
850 corsair psu
1tb 7200 western digital sata
285 gtx from evga
asus p6t v2 deluxe mobo
windows 7 ultimate x64
integrated sound
sorry for the lack of caps and proper naming/numbers, im tired :sad.gif:
TL;DR: Better than yours.
2005? Lol, Mine is from 2001 or 2000 that is atleast how old all my parts are D:
CPU: AMD PhenomII X4 2.8Ghz
Mobo: Asus M4A77TD
RAM: 4GB Kingston DDR3 1066
Video: Nvidia 8800GT (acquired for free when my 7900GT died, thank you, eVGA!)
Sound: Onboard Via HD Audio chipset
HDDs:
80GB WD Caviar SATA (OS/Page file)
420GB Hitachi SATA (Storage)
32GB OCZ Vertex Turbo (Games)
PSU: Corsair 750W (My beloved modular Antec burned out not too long ago after 4 years of faithful service ;_:wink.gif:
I will say that I love my SSD. People buy fast mechanical drives and put them into RAID 0 configurations, but they're chumps. They're chumps not only because that doubles the chances of data loss, but because an SSD is around twice as fast as their array. I have noticed a huge difference in loading times of the things on that drive. It's incredibly quick.
12Gigabytes Kingston DDR3
850Watt XFX modular PSU
Dual GTX280's in SLI, with one 9600GT for PhysX
EVGA X58 Classified
Win7Ultumate 64bit
IbetehWinver?
BIOS: Phoenix awardBIOS v6.00PG
Processor: Intel Celeron CPU 3.20GHz
Memory: 446MB RAM
Page file: 464MB used, 587MB available
DX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
ATI Radeon Xpress 200 Series
ATI Radeon Xpress Series (0x5A61)
DAC Type: Internal DAC (400MHZ)
---------------------------------------------
and my display is 1024 x 768 (32 bit) (60Hz) and a: Plug and Play Monitor.
yes i took 2 hours in ms paint to make the below image, have fun dieing.
Sorry, you can't be the winner using Nvidia graphics cards. Unfortunately for them, they've been making long strings of failures in the high-performance graphics department. Their cards are better for floating point calculations, though that doesn't mean much for graphics. ATI has been on top ever since Nvidia came out with the 9xxx series.
Also, needs more SSD.
Oh, then use Nvidia graphics cards. They're calculating machines, especially those from their Tesla platform.
You must have two separate processors, because there is no i7 with 8 cores. They only come in quad-core and hex-core varieties. Why on earth you'd waste money buying two of them and a motherboard with two sockets (which would inevitably be classified as a server motherboard; I don't even know of a motherboard with a compatible socket type that has two sockets) while stopping with a paltry 4GB of RAM is beyond me. You must also have overclocked the i7's, since there aren't any with a 4GHz clock speed out of the box.
No, the number of virtual processors (and it's hard for me to pin down exactly what those are considered to be; it depends on who you ask) is related to the number of physical processors (in this case 4). In any case, you don't add them together and get a bigger number. You have 4 physical cores, that's all. Technically with hyper-threading you have 8 virtual processors since the HT technology is set up to allow each physical core to operate efficiently on two threads. This can show up as 8 logical cores on the operating system (so the operating system makes it look like there are 8 cores when there are really 4). Each core can still only perform one operation at any given time, but HT allows each core to handle multiple threads more efficiently so less processor time is actually wasted switching or waiting on one thread. You can think of it as instructions from multiple threads being interleaved as they pass through the processor rather than chunks of instructions from particular threads passing through.
tl;dr when reporting processor type, you report the number of physical cores and nothing else.
All i7's, apart from the new Hexacores, have 4 cores. In addition to that, they have two threads, per core. Which means, they have 8 virtual cores. Virtual, literally translates to how many threads the CPU has. :smile.gif:
EDIT: Also, not all dual CPU motherboards are classified as server motherboards. Go take a look at the skulltrail :smile.gif:
Wow, good idea, it's almost like I did. If you're going to post, try actually reading what others have written.