You've totally misconstrued what I said..... and btw you'd be surprised to know that my 2800 Barton with XP boots up faster than my 955 with Windows 7. LOL omg....this is not even worth a reply..... But pictures speak volumes...
So you paid $134 for 8GB of 1600? I paid $67 for 12GB of 1600. It may have something to do with being different countries, but thats quite a price gap. How much is 12GB there? $250? Just cuz its more expensive somewhere else doesnt make it the going price. Thats your own problem. I have had a +2000 Athlon XP back in 2001 and it was slow as crap. My 970 boots up 10000x faster. Granted its on an SSD, but only a SATA 2 SSD so the transfer rate is about half that of a SATA3. Im not sure why you would even think that a 2800 Barton would be faster than a 955.
If I say something costs X amount of dollars, then that is exactly what it costs. Tbh I don't believe that...you talk way too much bs imho, so you won't get much credit from me sorry - harsh maybe, but true......
Yea. And you have an Athlon XP thats faster than a Phenom 2. And Im the one talking BS. :stewpid: Funny stuff man.
Yup. Just trying to inform people that an Athlon XP is in no way faster than a Phenom 2. And that Pill Monster appears to have no idea what hes talking about. Complaining that technology moves forward. He can defend older hardware all he wants, thats fine. Theres nothing wrong with old hardware. But he cannot compare a processor from 10 years ago to a current one. Its just not possible. They are 2 completely different architectures and are AUs apart.
COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. WAIT. That means I have to spend more money. I just upgraded to DDR3 last year...
Most games are 32bit and are restricted to 2GB unless flagged as LAA.... The only 64bit games that I'm aware of are Farcry and World of Warcraft....both of which require patches. I'm sure there's others though. Haswell will be DDR3....and as such, the 14nm refresh of Haswell will also be DDR3 unless Intel decides to use 3 different sockets in 3 years. Haswell comes in 2013 with it's 14nm refresh coming in 2014. From Intel, you're unlikely to see DDR4 until 2015 at the earliest. From AMD....I wouldn't expect it until 2016-2018 at their current rate of advancement. He said it booted faster.....didn't say it actually performed better.
And why would he say that if he was not trying to imply that it was a fast processor? Its in no way a fast processor by todays standards.
My old XT based Packard Bell booted faster than a PhenomII X4 955....fact is, the processor only handles PART of the booting process. The more technologies that are supported by the Bios, the longer the boot process gets. Consider that the Bios used for the AthlonXP only supported ISA8, 16 and 32bit, PCI, AGP, Serial ports, Parallel ports, IDE33-133, SDRAM, DDR-SDRAM.....yes, that's a compacted list. Compare to what the PhenomII Bios has to support....ISA8, 16 and 32bit, PCI, AGP, Serial ports, Parallel ports, IDE33-133, SDRAM, DDR-SDRAM, DDR2-SDRAM, DDR3-SDRAM, PCIe 1.0, PCIe 1.1, PCIe 2.0, PCIe 2.1, PCIx, SATA, SATAII.... Every time a new technology is added, the boot time increases. This is where your age really shows through. Some of us have watched computers advance for longer than you've been alive.... Most of us have learned that boot speed and processor performance aren't related. My XT based Packard Bell was "ready to use" faster than my current i5 2400 based system gets to the Windows loading screen......but, we're talking more than 20 years difference in age. In fact, it's been roughly 24years since that XT based system was purchased.
Oh really now? I wonder then why my P4 with windows XP booted about 30mins faster than my Pentium 75MHz with Windows 95. Obviously it should be alot slower since theres alot more to load. And it obviously had nothing to with the processor. So what could it be... I swear. Some of the "logic" used in this forum should stay in this forum. I also did not state that my 8800 did anything faster than say a 480 or a 570.
Lol now I'm going to throw a hissy fit.... Yeah I have no idea what I'm talking about...dude you don't want to go down that road with me.....I was overclocking CPU's before you were even born so get your head out of the clouds, and I'm not even gonna talk about my job... Besides, anyone who's ever read your posts would know that when it comes to computers you couldn't tell the difference between a CPU a PSU and a VRM, so stop with all the "back in the day:" bullshlt......it didn't happen. You even argued for 4 pages that Windows 7 could not fit on a partition smaller than 30GB or some crap....lol You also disputed that the 8800's didn't have a high fail rate and didn't believe me when I told you about the solder joint problem with them.... Hell I could go on like this all day... You're an idiot. I said it BOOTS faster - replying to your comment about my Athlon taking an hour to boot up. You completely twisted what I said lol... Anyway I think you get the point....stop trying to be a smart ass know-all and listen to the guys here on this forum... they have a lot to offer..
You know what your absolutely right. Technology should just stop advancing. I mean, that is originally what started this argument right? You thinking that technology has not advanced until just today.
So I should listen to you then? Yea. Thats going to happen. If its written on Guru3D then it must be true! Come on. Iv seen so much bull**** posted in this forum I dont take half of it seriously. But I do try and keep some FACTS in the forum for new comers. Although, it gets hard to stop all the bull**** people like you spread around with your super fast Athlon XPs. If you were really "overclocking CPUs before I was born" then you wouldnt be spreading such nonsense and complaining about technology advancing. Your original statement about hardware being built to last or future proof? That shows YOUR age. Cuz they never existed.
^That's not what I was saying ffs..... And btw I was being totally sarcastic in my earlier post about having lots of RAM. You must be the only one who didn't get it. Did you not see my spoiler tag with the facepalm pic? Grrrr.....:bang:
Now there is some sound reasoning.. :eyes: Always great to see progress.. but who says its going to be "widely adopted"? I mean, I'm sure it will, but not for a while.. considering how much DDR3 is only NOW being widely adopted, I'd wajor that DDR4 is a ways from being standard amongst PC users. Naturally making judgments based on enthusiasts such as users here and on other technology boards is not going to yield a realistic figure.
PS: Anyone who has used 4gb of ram and then upgraded to 8gb of ram will see the difference. Maybe if you don't use ram demanding applications you can get away with 4gb ram nowadays, but for those that game or prefer to no longer use a pagefile, 8gb is ideal. I certainly don't understand those that take it up to 12GB plus. I mean that to me is purely epeen material unless they are using it with design or engineering apps. In many cases, loading up the motherboard with 4 dimms or memory can cause other issues that one wouldn't get with only 2 dimms for example.. though this is becoming less of an issue with newer motherboards/ram and updated bios. Anyway, it doesn't matter one bit what people's preferences are.. if it works for you, then have at 'er
I went with 12GB cuz it was so cheap I figured why not? And with 12GB, hoping to make it more future proof when hopefully we see more 64-bit games that can utilize the available RAM.