I NEED TO FIND THE ** ATI X1800 XT ** RIGHT AWAY, SHIPPED FEDEX NEXT DAY! AT ANY COST!

[Regs]

Is this another Rollo account clone? Either way, this guy is a troll and should be ignored.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: videoclone
This is funniest post I?ve ever seen in my life ?Dude I would say AMD IS THE BEST CPU maker in the world even if I had a Zillion Sharp Razor tipped Needles ready to impale my dead corps after being shot in the head a billion times?.. Have you seriously been under a rock for the last 2 years?

rofllll :laugh:

OK, put it this way. Anyone who says you need a fast CPU for playing back uncompressed AVIs is WRONG. It is not their opinion and my opinion. They are DEAD WRONG.

Anyhow there is no way you are going to get 225MB/sec easily with more than 20 seconds like that other guy said assuming his arithmetic was correct...why not compress the video with a lossless codec? Your hard drive will read off much less and your CPU will be doing a little work. In that case you might need a fast CPU, yes, I said that.

 

[xMax]

there is always a number 1 and a number 2 people. its always like that on a general basis.

(general!)
PC 1 mac 2
INTEL 1 amd 2
ATI 1 nvidia 2
EIZO 1 (some other company 2) (high end displays)
GRETAGMACBETH x-rite 2

This is just for computers. It applies to everything. And sometimes the table turns. But very rarely.

And many times, number 1 will actually help number 2 so that it doesnt remain as the only one who dominates since that leads to a monopoly and then a dismanteling of the company. This is exactly the case with Intel and AMD. intel could have completely wiped out AMD. Had this been their focus. But they didnt, because if they had, then they would occupy practrically 100% of the market and then be taken apart because of their monopolization. In fact, intel is like saying to amd "here little one, eat. You can have that too if you like. but im not giving you more and i will always eat more than you"

Market share Intel 80% amd 18%, others 2%.

no more comments.

maybe you guys hate me now. but i didnt come here to argue. i came here to ask where i can find an ati x1800 xt. and some gave links, and now i must check them out. but i dont think its possible to find the true ati x1800 xt.

and i know, i probably dont even need it. but im getting the best of everything.
and i know, amd is better. whatever.

Max

the rich get richer the poor get poorer. But the rich cannot let the poor reach bottom or else they will have no one to serve them as they sit back.

 

[IfReborn]

did you find your mark yet?

 

[xMax]

why would anyone want to be a number 2.

you know i chose to buy an EIZO CG210 LCD with the GretagMacbeth EyeOne Pro spectrophotometer based mostly on forum discussions.

But to ask me to go all the way in the intel direction just makes no sense to me. No matter what, the reference company for motherboards is intel, and to start off with an AMD chip and then take in intel board makes no sense. And to go with asus or all those other non reference companies makes no sense.

anyways...im tired of arguing.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: xMax
there is always a number 1 and a number 2 people. its always like that on a general basis.

(general!)
PC 1 mac 2 (Agreed)
INTEL 1 amd 2 (Not a chance in heaven or hell right now)
ATI 1 nvidia 2 (Both companies offer incredible products right now)
EIZO 1 (some other company 2) (high end displays) (meh)
GRETAGMACBETH x-rite 2 (meh again)

This is just for computers. It applies to everything. And sometimes the table turns. But very rarely. (This is just for computers, yet it applies to everything? Make up your twisted little mind. )

And many times, number 1 will actually help number 2 so that it doesnt remain as the only one who dominates since that leads to a monopoly and then a dismanteling of the company. This is exactly the case with Intel and AMD. intel could have completely wiped out AMD. Had this been their focus. But they didnt, because if they had, then they would occupy practrically 100% of the market and then be taken apart because of their monopolization. In fact, intel is like saying to amd "here little one, eat. You can have that too if you like. but im not giving you more and i will always eat more than you" (The amount of what you eat really has no bearing on who has better computer products now does it. Stop being so weird and start making sense.)

Market share Intel 80% amd 18%, others 2%. (Market share does not reflect performance of any product.)

no more comments. (Thanks)

maybe you guys hate me now. but i didnt come here to argue. i came here to ask where i can find an ati x1800 xt. and some gave links, and now i must check them out. but i dont think its possible to find the true ati x1800 xt. (Maybe we will never really know why you came here, which is exactly the feeling I experienced reading your ravings.)

and i know, i probably dont even need it. but im getting the best of everything.
and i know, amd is better. whatever.

Max

the rich get richer the poor get poorer. But the rich cannot let the poor reach bottom or else they will have no one to serve them as they sit back.

The rich do indeed need the poor, but don't think the rich don't try to keep that gap between them as large as humanly possible.

 

[DrZoidberg]

haha this thread is funny.
Why bother coming here for advice when u dont listen to the VAST MAJORITY here who say AMD is better than Intel right now.

I think in the last 3 pages only 1 person has recommended intel over like 20+ amd recommendations. Market share doesn't always mean that company makes the best product, there are many reasons y intel has a higher market share and not AMD, one reason is Intel spends alot on marketing and AMD are marketing noobs, another reason is AMD only had the superior CPU recently in last few years, before that Intel had the betterCPU to anyone else.

Toyota has a higher market share than Ferrari, does that mean Toyota makes the best car?

 

[xMax]

How could AMD make better processors than intel when AMD says themselves that they "make the best processor in the world for GAMING". That means its all about 3D, and i completely 100% am not using anything for 3D. If they made the best processor in the world for non-3D, then why wouldnt they state that?

Yes toyota has a higher market share than ferrari. But thats different. EIZO has a lower market share in LCDs than samsung, but if you looked for the company that has the highest market share for high end LCDs, then EIZO is the king. So its a different market share.

Kingston has a higher market share, but im going with Corsair because i listened to you guys.

With chips its difficult. I guess i will see what my buddy, the computer guy, has to say. I actually havent asked him yet. Im really curious to see what he says.

 

[Eureka]

Anyone else just LOL at this thread?

Norm

 

[xMax]

laugh all you want. i personally think you AMD enthusiasts are screwed in the head. Its like how this one guy put in one of his articles. he says the, AMD enthusiasts, get all excited when AMD increases its market share by 1.5%"

however, i cant say anything more right now. the bottom line is that im going to ask my computer friend. he seriously knows everything. So far i told him i want the P4 and there is no discussion. So he agreed. But thus far, his motherboard reccomendation, which is easy since its the only ATX form factor with a 1066 bus speed, has been right on. the ram he sugested, the corsai 5400ul seems right. the ati x1800 xt is right. He also reccomended the wd raptor 10k over the 15k seagate because it makes no difference when im running my anim from a ramdisk. but that having a nice fast one doesnt hurt. however, im going to go with the scsi 15k from seagate in case the cpu still has to use the hard disk. because he isnt sure about that.

so he has reccomended everything properly so far. which means im going to ask him about the chip, intel or amd. and dying to hear what he says. if he says all the way with AMD, then i will switch.

well just have to see.

so far im using windows xp home. he reccomended this because he said that pro has nothing that i need and that being more bulky would only possibly degrade performance because of the loading of features i dont need.

 

[videoclone]

look buddy we dont make this stuff up ... its all reviewed and tested by hardware websites and hardware mags and they all say AMD IS BETER

A 2.7ghz AthlonFX57 is 30% faster then a Intel P4 3.73ghz (1066mhz) CPU in not just games but every computer related tast known to humen kind... you must be from a place where intel is faster because in this world AMD is king! ....

 

[videoclone]

1. Athlon 64 X2 4800+ <-- Worlds fastest desktop consumer CPU

2. Nvidia 7800GTX512mb <-- Worlds fastest desktop consumer videocard

3. xMax <-- Worlds most misinformed person.

 

[xMax]

look at this XP 64-bit review from cnet people.

CNET editors' review
Editors' rating
Average
5.8
out of 10
Reviewed by:
Ken Feinstein
Review date: 4/25/05
Release date: 4/25/05
Average user rating: 6.0
See all user ratings

The good: Supports 128GB of physical memory; offers the promise of speed boosts when coupled with matching 64-bit processors and software.

The bad: Included apps Outlook Express and Windows Media Player remain 32-bit; even Windows Update service must be accessed using 32-bit Internet Explorer.

The bottom line: Only software developers and high-end workstation users will see real benefits from Windows XP Professional x64 Edition; everyone else should stick with 32-bit Windows XP instead.

For the average user, though, 64-bit Windows is, for now, little more than a curiosity. Compatibility issues far outweigh any potential speed boosts, making it an inadvisable upgrade for all but the most die-hard hobbyists.

If you already have one of the millions of 64-bit-capable desktops or laptops running 32-bit Windows and want to switch, be prepared for headaches.

The main advantage of a 64-bit operating system comes in its ability to handle huge amounts of memory. Thirty-two-bit Windows is limited to 4GB of physical RAM, with only 2GB available to an application, though there is a workaround that lets some applications access up to 3GB. Sixty-four-bit Windows blows away this limitation, supporting up to 128GB of physical RAM and 16 terabytes of virtual memory.

Of course, most systems don't have close to 2GB of RAM, and even if yours did, the extra memory wouldn't come in handy when balancing your checkbook or downloading MP3s. Microsoft designed Windows XP Professional x64 Edition for workstation applications such as CAD/CAM, 3D modeling, and scientific simulations, where extra memory support promises a big boost in performance. For example, instead of storing data on the hard drive, active applications will be able to store everything in much-faster RAM instead.

Dr. Divx 1.06 Build 105 (in seconds)
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)
32-bit
251
64-bit
254

Cinebench 2003
(Longer bars indicate better performance)
32-bit
117.8
64-bit
117.6

Apple iTunes 4.7.1.30 (in seconds)
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)
32-bit
297
64-bit
299

Sorensen Squeeze 4 (in seconds)
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)
32-bit
351
64-bit
362

quotes done.

xp64 with amd 64 is just not yet mature.

its kind of like how DDR2 came out and was actually slower than DDR1 for quite some time. but now, after maturing, its beginning to take the lead. i dont see xp64 with amd 64 being rational right now. it doesnt make sense to me.

i dont want to hear from anybody anymore.

and no, im not basing my entire decisions on one review done 5 months ago, but on the sum of all arguments.

im just not one of you AMD people. i think your all deranged. i think you just hate the one on top. its always like that. when you reach the top, then you get those who want you to fall.

i wish anadtech could just end this thread.

for my application, im right, your all wrong.

MAX

 

[videoclone]

AMD Athlon 64 FX-57: The Fastest Single Core

[quote from the review]
Final Words
Clearly the FX-57 is the fastest single core processor money can buy right now

 

[Duvie]

You live in Canada and you cannot find of these supposedly "readily available" cards???? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!

MOney no object then try to buy the better card...The Nvidia GTX 512mb card....why settle for 2nd best!!!

 

[Cooler]

Originally posted by: videoclone
AMD Athlon 64 FX-57: The Fastest Single Core

[quote from the review]
Final Words
Clearly the FX-57 is the fastest single core processor money can buy right now

QFT

 

[Eureka]

Originally posted by: videoclone
AMD Athlon 64 FX-57: The Fastest Single Core

[quote from the review]
Final Words
Clearly the FX-57 is the fastest single core processor money can buy right now

It is, but isn't it just an overclocked 3700+ San Deigo?

Is it just me, or is this guy not actually caring?

Norm

 

[phreaqe]

Originally posted by: xMax
look at this XP 64-bit review from cnet people.

CNET editors' review
Editors' rating
Average
5.8
out of 10
Reviewed by:
Ken Feinstein
Review date: 4/25/05
Release date: 4/25/05
Average user rating: 6.0
See all user ratings

The good: Supports 128GB of physical memory; offers the promise of speed boosts when coupled with matching 64-bit processors and software.

The bad: Included apps Outlook Express and Windows Media Player remain 32-bit; even Windows Update service must be accessed using 32-bit Internet Explorer.

The bottom line: Only software developers and high-end workstation users will see real benefits from Windows XP Professional x64 Edition; everyone else should stick with 32-bit Windows XP instead.

For the average user, though, 64-bit Windows is, for now, little more than a curiosity. Compatibility issues far outweigh any potential speed boosts, making it an inadvisable upgrade for all but the most die-hard hobbyists.

If you already have one of the millions of 64-bit-capable desktops or laptops running 32-bit Windows and want to switch, be prepared for headaches.

The main advantage of a 64-bit operating system comes in its ability to handle huge amounts of memory. Thirty-two-bit Windows is limited to 4GB of physical RAM, with only 2GB available to an application, though there is a workaround that lets some applications access up to 3GB. Sixty-four-bit Windows blows away this limitation, supporting up to 128GB of physical RAM and 16 terabytes of virtual memory.

Of course, most systems don't have close to 2GB of RAM, and even if yours did, the extra memory wouldn't come in handy when balancing your checkbook or downloading MP3s. Microsoft designed Windows XP Professional x64 Edition for workstation applications such as CAD/CAM, 3D modeling, and scientific simulations, where extra memory support promises a big boost in performance. For example, instead of storing data on the hard drive, active applications will be able to store everything in much-faster RAM instead.

Dr. Divx 1.06 Build 105 (in seconds)
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)
32-bit
251
64-bit
254

Cinebench 2003
(Longer bars indicate better performance)
32-bit
117.8
64-bit
117.6

Apple iTunes 4.7.1.30 (in seconds)
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)
32-bit
297
64-bit
299

Sorensen Squeeze 4 (in seconds)
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)
32-bit
351
64-bit
362

quotes done.

xp64 with amd 64 is just not yet mature.

its kind of like how DDR2 came out and was actually slower than DDR1 for quite some time. but now, after maturing, its beginning to take the lead. i dont see xp64 with amd 64 being rational right now. it doesnt make sense to me.

i dont want to hear from anybody anymore.

and no, im not basing my entire decisions on one review done 5 months ago, but on the sum of all arguments.

im just not one of you AMD people. i think your all deranged. i think you just hate the one on top. its always like that. when you reach the top, then you get those who want you to fall.

i wish anadtech could just end this thread.

for my application, im right, your all wrong.

MAX

you do not have to use xp64 bit. you can use 32bit because the processor can run them both.

so yah...you are wrong, we are all right

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: xMax
look at this XP 64-bit review from cnet people.

CNET editors' review
Editors' rating
Average
5.8
out of 10
Reviewed by:
Ken Feinstein
Review date: 4/25/05
Release date: 4/25/05
Average user rating: 6.0
See all user ratings

The good: Supports 128GB of physical memory; offers the promise of speed boosts when coupled with matching 64-bit processors and software.

The bad: Included apps Outlook Express and Windows Media Player remain 32-bit; even Windows Update service must be accessed using 32-bit Internet Explorer.

The bottom line: Only software developers and high-end workstation users will see real benefits from Windows XP Professional x64 Edition; everyone else should stick with 32-bit Windows XP instead.

For the average user, though, 64-bit Windows is, for now, little more than a curiosity. Compatibility issues far outweigh any potential speed boosts, making it an inadvisable upgrade for all but the most die-hard hobbyists.

If you already have one of the millions of 64-bit-capable desktops or laptops running 32-bit Windows and want to switch, be prepared for headaches.

The main advantage of a 64-bit operating system comes in its ability to handle huge amounts of memory. Thirty-two-bit Windows is limited to 4GB of physical RAM, with only 2GB available to an application, though there is a workaround that lets some applications access up to 3GB. Sixty-four-bit Windows blows away this limitation, supporting up to 128GB of physical RAM and 16 terabytes of virtual memory.

Of course, most systems don't have close to 2GB of RAM, and even if yours did, the extra memory wouldn't come in handy when balancing your checkbook or downloading MP3s. Microsoft designed Windows XP Professional x64 Edition for workstation applications such as CAD/CAM, 3D modeling, and scientific simulations, where extra memory support promises a big boost in performance. For example, instead of storing data on the hard drive, active applications will be able to store everything in much-faster RAM instead.

Dr. Divx 1.06 Build 105 (in seconds)
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)
32-bit
251
64-bit
254

Cinebench 2003
(Longer bars indicate better performance)
32-bit
117.8
64-bit
117.6

Apple iTunes 4.7.1.30 (in seconds)
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)
32-bit
297
64-bit
299

Sorensen Squeeze 4 (in seconds)
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)
32-bit
351
64-bit
362

quotes done.

xp64 with amd 64 is just not yet mature.

its kind of like how DDR2 came out and was actually slower than DDR1 for quite some time. but now, after maturing, its beginning to take the lead. i dont see xp64 with amd 64 being rational right now. it doesnt make sense to me.

i dont want to hear from anybody anymore.

and no, im not basing my entire decisions on one review done 5 months ago, but on the sum of all arguments.

im just not one of you AMD people. i think your all deranged. i think you just hate the one on top. its always like that. when you reach the top, then you get those who want you to fall.

i wish anadtech could just end this thread.

for my application, im right, your all wrong.

MAX

someone needs to improve their reading skills. XP64 with AMD64 means ythe pairing of both. xp64 is inherently not mature, even on intel 6xx series and 8xx seires processors. i wish yuo would end this thread. you long decided you dont want our advice. stop posting and it'll die away instead of posting things that are untrue and sure to inflame.
1. amd is superior to intel. lower price/higher performance
2. ATi and nvidia have been trading blows, but Nvidia has had the top hand for a while now. The lost if for a couple weeks when the x1800xt was released but the 512mb gtx got them the lead back. Nvidia was superior during Geforce 1 through 4. Ati was superior during 9700/9800 times. Then both leveled out during the x800/6800 generaton amnd now nvidia has gained it's lead back. they trade blows but as of now nvidia is faster. There are no definites in hardware.

 

[xtknight]

I have used a Pentium 4 2.6 (OC'd to 3.4) GHz and an Athlon 64 3500+. The Athlon 64 3500+ is a lot faster for EVERYTHING. Why would I lie to you? Nobody hates you, we just wish you would listen to our advice...

The Athlon 64 line of processors are 32-bit with 64-bit extensions. You can still run Windows XP 32 on them. XP 64 invokes the extra instructions and registers. It is just very frustrating to us that you won't listen to our factual advice. In the end only you will suffer and you can't blame that on us because we have desperately tried to convince you otherwise.

 

[n7]

ROFL! :laugh:

OP, you are so sadly misinformed i almost feel sorry for you.
But i don't, because like so many stupid consumers, you actually enjoy being misinformed, & don't actually want to know the truth.

Good luck with your system, cause you are gonna need it!

 

[SergeC]

Originally posted by: cevilgenius
Anyone else just LOL at this thread?

Norm

Heartily.

 

[MiranoPoncho]

Give a nerd a pentium and he will preach for a week about how he pwns people with his massive 4ghz rig.
Give him an athlon and he will laugh at those whom his opteron is helping to frag while being a full ghz, if not more slower.

 

[ddogg]

lol...no use arguing with this fool!! why the fck did you post here if you are not willing to listen to ppl!!

 

[Zebo]

P4 3.73ghz 1066ghz.

This is the fastest single core chip on the market right now.

LOL! According to whom?

And you're an idiot for buying a single core CPU anyway since DV editing or encoding Software - almost all are multitreaded- designed to take advantage of two cores!

searching over and over through online resellers is really starting to take a toll on me.

I understand everything better now... Obviously reading a processor review is out of the question. I got one for $999 USD shipped to Canada cashiers check only.. LMK.