Has anybody seen 3guys1hammer? This is the sickest thing that I decided not to fully view. Definitely appears to be the worst thing on the internet I could have potentially watched.
I heard about it first today looking up "chechclear", an old gore/shock video that I had seen for the first time years ago (very disturbing/graphic), and saw a note mentioning 3guys1hammer. I looked it up, and watched maybe 30 seconds of it and decided I didn't need to view it.
I actually watched that. You tricked me! Why would you do such a thing? That was the worst thing I've ever seen. You're heartless. How dare you!
I saw Salt recently too. Another "meh" movie. It was reasonably entertaining overall, I suppose. Scrawny Angelina kicking guys asses is a tough one for me to buy. Worth seeing I suppose, but only if it's free.
coulda been quad ssg too.. since you're talking about the DM server..
if you survive the hit, it'll throw you pretty well.
In this scenario, if I had to take a wild guess, I'd guess it would throw you about FOUR times as far as normal. Don't ask me where I come up with these crazy figures.
Reservoir Dogs... had never seen it. Eh, hmm... maybe a 6.5/10? I know its one of the more acclaimed movies out there, but I wasn't all that impressed. The acting was pretty good overall, but I guess the story, for me, wasn't that amazing. Had some cool scenes (EAR, OUCH!), but wasn't the amazing movie-watching experience I thought it might be.
getting a dedicated graphics card would really be the safer and better solution
I agree =)
I was agreeing with you that for Alpha's situation, his top priority would be to ditch the onboard graphics for a real GPU. My other comments are addressing overclocking in general, and a commonly held, but in my opinion naive attitude about how all overclocking is viewed as THE DEVIL
its not viewed as the devil, but at the current time with current hardware on the market it isnt needed
im running a 3ghz quad core that will burn through anything i throw at it easily... why would i need to make it a 3.6 quad core that would burn through everything i throw at it equally as good... at stock clocks i get to keep a low voltage, low temps, and have a longer life of my processor
If you're just using your computer for entertainment purposes (like myself and a lot of other people) then OC'ng isn't really all that necessary nowadays, like you said. Especially if you have a 3+ GHz quad-core. Some encoding/decoding, photoshop, or other programs still require a huge hunk of processing power, so a ~25% boost in performance could definitely make a noticeable difference, especially if the encoding you're doing is already taking many minutes or over an hour to complete. If you're already running 60+ FPS in a game though, you're unlikely to really see the difference another 15 FPS would make.
Alpha's words are a little confusing. He states he wants more performance, but Quake 2 runs fine, but his machine won't play new games, but he only plays Quake 2 anyway. So why is he upgrading? I'm assuming he would like to toy around with some of these newer games that don't run so well.
Where do you live Alpha?
This would be a GREAT deal, but I think you're in the UK or something?
getting a dedicated graphics card would really be the safer and better solution
I agree =)
I was agreeing with you that for Alpha's situation, his top priority would be to ditch the onboard graphics for a real GPU. My other comments are addressing overclocking in general, and a commonly held, but in my opinion naive attitude about how all overclocking is viewed as THE DEVIL
Going a ways back here... Back in '98 or '99, I bought a Celeron 300A (300 MHz) for probably somewhere in the ~$50 range. I honestly can't remember. Anyway, the top of the line Intel CPU at that time was the Pentium II 450 MHz. The Celeron 300A had nearly a 100% success rate to overclock to 450 MHz (50% increased clock speed) and actually outperformed the $400-500 (mostly pulling that number out of my ass, I don't recall exactly) PII 450. For a fraction of the cost, you got a CPU with performance that surpassed the best CPU you could buy at that time. That is what overclocking is about.
Recently (came out in late '08), the Pentium i7 920 (default speed 2.66 GHz) commonly overclocked to 4 GHz (a ~50% overclock) without much fuss. Again, a HUGE performance gain, and to this day, when overclocked, is faster than anything released by Intel nearly 2 years later.
I imagine there are other CPU's that have come out since that time that offer great value when overclocking is factored in, but I've been out of the loop for a little while now.
like vae said & i said (and you said we're wrong, but you just stated the same thing), not worth it. Nothing to do with lazyness.
I was implying that if someone makes the decision to overclock a CPU, but is too lazy to do the little bit of research necessary to do things properly/safely, then it's likely things will go awry. I'm not saying everyone should overclock their CPU just because they can. I mentioned earlier that I could probably push my current CPU more, but I haven't encountered a situation where it's necessary.
Quote
Has to do with not putting a v10 in your taurus just because you CAN.
This is more akin to reprogramming the onboard computer on your Taurus for free and getting a noticeable boost in performance from the same engine.
Quote
"mild to medium overclocking" isn't worth it ....... Wait six months @ buy something 5x faster then what you got for 1/2 the price it was when you wanted to OC & you'll get 25fps more in D3 & an hour off that render. and you wouldn't of wasted days "tweaking" something that had nothing wrong in the first place.
Lots of major exaggeration going on here. First off, I think of mild to medium overclocking as a ~25% overclock. 25% improved performance can easily equal or surpass a full generation change for CPU's. CPU's don't come anywhere close to 5x, or even 2x the performance of a 6 month old chip. Not even +50%, and if it's +25% that's a rare scenario.
Quote
If you're doing "serious" overclocking then, odds are, it's not worth it either: buy that extra customizable MB for $300, the high speed ram for $300, the easily overclocked CPU for $1000. Or buy the plain jane MB for $80. Buy the normal speed ram for $125. Buy the faster but not OC-able CPU for $500.
More gross exaggerations. Sure, you can buy the bleeding edge highest end products for a ridiculous amount of money, but that in many ways defeats one of the main advantages/purposes of overclocking: value. I spent approx $120 on my motherboard, $180 on my CPU, and maybe $50 on my RAM. They all overclock quite well, but none of these items are considered on the elite end of the OC'ng spectrum. I actually SAVED money by overclocking. That's the whole point. FREE performance. Buy cheap, overclock it because manufacturers have to sell things at speeds that are GUARANTEED to work over the entire product spectrum, and reap the rewards at no additional cost.
It sounds like you're rehashing a lot of misinformation, or have just read the wrong doomsday articles on why overclocking is bad. Perhaps memos by Intel, who of course doesn't want you to get comparable performance out of their $100 CPU, by overclocking, as you would from their $500 CPU.
just imagine a motherboard where the value of your fsb is linked to the value of your pcie bus, you could fry a 500$ video card with just like a 10mhz increase...
I imagine that any motherboard made that allows the user to manually adjust the FSB speed would not have the PCIe speed directly linked to this adjustment. Nothing made currently anyway.
Successful overclocking is about following a set of guidelines. One of those guidelines would be to not touch the PCIe bus speed, since if there is any benefit to it at all, it would be incredibly marginal and not worth the risk. So, your hypothetical situation is not a "risk" it's just something you don't do. I never said to just blindly go into your BIOS (it would have to be a motherboard geared for overclocking anyway for you to be capable of manually changing a value that could damage your system) and start increasing values.
Overclocking your FSB speed alone will not fry your RAM. If you have overclocked significantly past the RAM's threshold, your computer will fail to boot. The only surefire way to fry your RAM is if you unsafely over-volt it. Then again, this goes back to following guidelines. A little research and you'll know what you should and shouldn't do.
Temps can be monitored. Don't just "set it and forget it". Set things how you would like them, monitor temps with software, etc., and if things are looking out-of-spec (guidelines again) back things down a notch.
I stand by what I said earlier... With a small bit of research, there is very little risk to mild to medium overclocking. If you're too lazy to do the little bit of research required, then you deserve the results of your efforts, or lack thereof =)
Show Posts
