well, even after passing your A+ you still call "bus width" as "bitrate". Can you tell the difference?

dadge, for heavens sake, stop saying bitrate! this is NOT bitrate! bitrate is something else. you are talking about bus width!

dadge, it is "bus width" not "bit rate". Those two are not really related.

bit rate is measured in amount of data per unit of time. Kbps, Mbps, etc.

the memory bus width for data is not "bit rate".

besides, knowing the bus width is only half the story. how many data transfers are done per clock? 1? 2? 4? a quadpumped 128bit-wide beats a singlepumped 256bit one if you consider same clocking.

as for cock slamming, is that when you take your favourite rooster and bang it against a door or something?

you learn more online but you don't learn the same things.
You won't be given the chance to learn good car control when racing online and i am pretty certain most would not consider it really nice to have someone toy around with the controls while the rest want to race.

think of it as something that teaches you the very very basic ablities one needs to start going round a circuit. for you who can race easily it might not seem important but for someone who just now starts with lfs (not talking about the OP, necessarily) they are great help.

well, then, why do you characterize the 6200 as running lfs 'crap' ? i am more than certain it can run at 1024x768 without effects and medium detail. is that 'crap' ?

bad skin / mipmap bias / low gpu mem (not likely)

"bit rate"? hahahahah! i rest my case.

for the most part i agree with SRC, i have a question though.

you said that specs are there to advertise stuff (generaly).

what do you think about those few who know what specs to look for and what would make a difference? For example, consider that we have two cards with same core and similar frequencies. One is 512MB gddr2 the other is 256MB gddr3. Can you not say which one is faster?

i hated it in the first 5 minutes.

thank god we can try this crap before we buy them.

i'll go play stalker

i think one of you is content with his graphics card being enough to run the game at 1024x768 and medium detail while others don't consider the graphics card to be any good unless it can get triple digit fps at 1920x1200 with 8xAA and 16xAF.

can't beat TN for gaming...

getting colder...

if i told you where it came from you would kill me so i will just say go on with your game... someone else suggest something...

Quote from Jakg :

You really can't compare GFX cards on specs

if you actually have the specs (clocks, stream processors, bus width, memory type and clocks, some examples off the top of my head) and not just a bunch of not really significant numbers (memory size) the you can generally (not always) compare cards

in the end, a benchmark is what you need tho, yeah.

well

completely unrelated to LFS

but it's the hardest i could think of.

so... go.

Quote from mcintyrej :

A HDRI Photo is generally different from HDR in a game. HDR in a game is just fancy lighting and it makes it look more realistic (some disagree). HDR in a photo combines multiple exposures to create a picture without dark shadows or bright highlights creating a usually unrealistic arty look.

what all these techniques try to achieve is make photographs of subjects, like one would see with his own eyes. Eyes are much much more capable at extreme brightness deviation. Cameras, not so much.

tl;dr: hdr tries to imitate your eyes

Quote from pb32000 :

Lol yer whoever though glass covered displays would be good for designers needs to be shot. I guess they're aiming more at the 'about-campus-student' these days, and less at the professional market. I don't know the facts of the MBP but I expect it's TN, Apple like to skimp out on their displays.

professional designers set up the lighting conditions of their workspace very carefully.

under those conditions, glossy screens are significantly superior to matte ones.

the fact that in a photograph of the screen you see your reflection in it, doesn't mean shit about the monitor's image quality.

well, i dunno 'bout you guys.

i like a girl with a big butt.

(my girl is sitting in the passenger's seat, in the avatar... though i'm not the guy wearing the helmet... but it is my helment and my car.)

Last edited by george_tsiros, Sun 26 Oct 2008, 09:03.

Quote from SamH :

I can't vote while Rush isn't in the list

thread over, go home folks

Quote from spiderbait90 :

Favorite Rush song Sam?

Mine would have to be be Xanadu, both to listen too, and play.

well, since you didn't ask... 'natural science' ...

i am a physicist after all

ok, get the tech, give him money...

and what will you get? I mean, for the money that you will give him?

how about... instead of giving money to overclock an already fast enough cpu... you use the extra money to get a faster graphics card, which is just what your machine needs...

Quote from grip Driver :

does Re-volt Count?

**** Yeah

Quote from G!NhO :

and the best thing is......................Jeeps!!! there are 2 Jeeps in it Wrangler and Cherokee/Liberty.
the editor is really cool, i am now making an offroading map.

How is the tyre physics?
...

...

sorry, got carried away for a moment there...

My turn!

Dirac's δ function is not actually a function and it is not actually Dirac's

fact ruined due to differences in semantics between how we are taught math in greece

Quote from hrtburnout :

No it's not. He said Pentium IV 3.2 ghz will get better framerates than this.
Know why? Because LFS don't support multi-cores. He simply thinks an old P4 is faster, because the quad core can't benefit from its 4 cores in LFS.

he suggested overclocking an already very fast processor, way faster than what is needed for LFS, even at high graphical settings (Where the problem is the gpu, not the cpu anyway).
It is completely pointless.

plus, the 3.2 p4 is not faster than a 2.4 core2. even the 3.6GHz Extreme Editio ... the 1.8GHz, 'slow' core2, in every game. let's not talk about a simple 3.2 p4 being faster than a 2.4Ghz Q6600... that is ridiculous... the q6600 is about twice as fast as the 3.6GHz EE p4...

Quote from Shadowww :

Pentium IV 3.2 ghz will get better framerates than this.
Know why? Because LFS don't support multi-cores.

so, a quadcore 2.4 core2 is not enough for lfs? is that what you are saying?

for games, almost any modern cpu is enough. remember when they used to get smooth fps out of a p3 with a 6800GT in doom3? And they were saying you needed a fastass machine...

your cpu is more than enough. MORE than enough. you need to get rather high on resolution etc to reach a point where your cpu can't keep up. And even if you get a graphics card SO fast that your cpu can't keep up, you will be getting ridiculous fps, which means that even if you got a faster cpu to keep up with your graphics card, it wouldn't make much difference. look at benchmarks online. takes a little getting used to, that's all.

don't worry, i don't bite. ask jakg if you wanna know what kind of pre-built PCs they sell at shops...

did i drink too much coffee or something? anyway, goodnight all!