 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Intel i7-950 with 2x4 GB DDR3-1333 memory, Win7 64-bit, Radeon 5770
video card. Price: $1235 (which is pretty darn close to the individual
components I priced out separately, so the place that built it either
does it almost at cost, or gets components a lot cheaper than street price).
Can play Portal at 1920x1200 with all settings maxed out no problem.
(That and Thief 3 are probably the only two games I have that the Radeon
won't giggle at me behind my back for using it to run...)
Now the not-so-off-topic stuff:
running a render in POV 3.5 (since I use Moray to build scenes), not
even a quarter done after four hours
get fed up, load the .pov file in POV 3.7 beta 39...it renders in 28
minutes.
!!
XDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
a bit washed-out, though. probably the gamma setting? really need to
learn how to use naked POV without going through Moray for purposes of
animation.
--
Tim Cook
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Can play Portal at 1920x1200 with all settings maxed out no problem.
> (That and Thief 3 are probably the only two games I have that the Radeon
> won't giggle at me behind my back for using it to run...)
Get Crysis and run it with maximum settings.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/10/2010 07:26 PM, Warp wrote:
> Get Crysis and run it with maximum settings.
I think "crysis" is an accurate description of what it does to your GPU,
yes. (Not to mention all your other hardware, of course...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Get Crysis and run it with maximum settings.
I see a couple of "demo" versions floating around. Are these legit, do you
think? Was there ever an official demo release?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2010-10-25 17:46, Darren New wrote:
> I see a couple of "demo" versions floating around. Are these legit, do
> you think? Was there ever an official demo release?
Yeah, I'd got it before and managed to max out at 4 fps with an average
of under 1 (that was when I didn't have any kind of decent graphics
card, and hadn't managed to getting around to trying it when I had one
for a while...). Am downloading it now, will report on how that goes.
--
Tim Cook
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:4cc50f54$1@news.povray.org...
> Intel i7-950 with 2x4 GB DDR3-1333 memory, Win7 64-bit, Radeon 5770 video
> card. Price: $1235 (which is pretty darn close to the individual
> components I priced out separately, so the place that built it either does
> it almost at cost, or gets components a lot cheaper than street price).
>
> Can play Portal at 1920x1200 with all settings maxed out no problem. (That
> and Thief 3 are probably the only two games I have that the Radeon won't
> giggle at me behind my back for using it to run...)
>
> Now the not-so-off-topic stuff:
>
> running a render in POV 3.5 (since I use Moray to build scenes), not even
> a quarter done after four hours
> get fed up, load the .pov file in POV 3.7 beta 39...it renders in 28
> minutes.
>
> !!
>
> XDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
>
> a bit washed-out, though. probably the gamma setting? really need to
> learn how to use naked POV without going through Moray for purposes of
> animation.
>
> --
> Tim Cook
I did a simlar thing about 6 months ago. Previous computer pov render took
5 hours, new computer bits do the same scene in 45 minutes, tidy.
Crysis? at 1080p and every single option turned on I get a minimum of
30fps+
Metro 2033 is what brings my PC back to reality and at 1080p with everything
maxed out, the fps can drop to 20 (which is still ok) in a couple of intense
battles. Otherwise, its totally fine.
Intel QX9770 quad core extreme, 1600mhz FSB
8GB 1600mhz ram
Nvidia GTX480 extreme
Cheers Dre
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/24/2010 10:02 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
> Intel i7-950 with 2x4 GB DDR3-1333 memory, Win7 64-bit, Radeon 5770
> video card. Price: $1235 (which is pretty darn close to the individual
> components I priced out separately, so the place that built it either
> does it almost at cost, or gets components a lot cheaper than street
> price).
>
> Tim Cook
Course.. Had you bought the components yourself, you would *know*, in
principle, what quality they where. Betting, no matter what the box
said, that your $1235 was probably $200 more than what the parts are
actually worth. Mainly due to the fact that they probably stuck in MB
that cost $50 more than needed, without the features you could have
gotten from someone else's, and/or adding in some "high name" product
for something else, which, it turns out, isn't as good as the cheap
version from someone else.
Someone today gave an example of that. Two Blueray players, one from
Sony, and one from Magnavox, where the former "high end" one took
several minutes to start up, and produced poor output, the later took 15
seconds, didn't have the splotchies in black areas, and cost half as
much. Same with computers. I don't trust anything someone *else* put in
to a box. If I buy something I regret, at least it was my mistake, not
some other ass lying to me about how great the thing was. lol But,
that's just me. ;)
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2010-10-26 18:01, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> If I buy something I regret, at least it was my mistake, not
> some other ass lying to me about how great the thing was. lol But,
> that's just me. ;)
That's my problem. It blows up on me, if I built it myself I'm out that
money (as I've had happen once before). Someone else builds it, it's
under their warranty so I get it replaced.
And $1200 just isn't something I can shrug off, with my finances the way
they are nowadays.
-
Tim Cook
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> That's my problem. It blows up on me, if I built it myself I'm out that
> money (as I've had happen once before). Someone else builds it, it's
> under their warranty so I get it replaced.
Individual components always have a warranty.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/27/2010 10:07 AM, Warp wrote:
> Tim Cook<z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> That's my problem. It blows up on me, if I built it myself I'm out that
>> money (as I've had happen once before). Someone else builds it, it's
>> under their warranty so I get it replaced.
>
> Individual components always have a warranty.
>
Yep. And, odds are, you will get better support on those, than what ever
run around you are likely to get with the whole machine (not to mention
stupid things they might do to it, or your data, in the process).
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> > Individual components always have a warranty.
> >
> Yep. And, odds are, you will get better support on those, than what ever
> run around you are likely to get with the whole machine (not to mention
> stupid things they might do to it, or your data, in the process).
It actually depends on the company. If it's a company which builds the
computer for you (rather than selling you a preassembled-in-the-factory
system), they often pass the warranties of the individual components
directly to the user (so you get eg. a 5-year warranty for a Corsair PSU
but only 2 years on the RAM chips, etc.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Individual components always have a warranty.
>>>
>> Yep. And, odds are, you will get better support on those, than what ever
>> run around you are likely to get with the whole machine (not to mention
>> stupid things they might do to it, or your data, in the process).
>
> It actually depends on the company. If it's a company which builds the
> computer for you (rather than selling you a preassembled-in-the-factory
> system), they often pass the warranties of the individual components
> directly to the user (so you get eg. a 5-year warranty for a Corsair PSU
> but only 2 years on the RAM chips, etc.)
For the love of God, just don't buy the PC from PC World! >_<
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/27/2010 2:14 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> Individual components always have a warranty.
>>>>
>>> Yep. And, odds are, you will get better support on those, than what ever
>>> run around you are likely to get with the whole machine (not to mention
>>> stupid things they might do to it, or your data, in the process).
>>
>> It actually depends on the company. If it's a company which builds the
>> computer for you (rather than selling you a preassembled-in-the-factory
>> system), they often pass the warranties of the individual components
>> directly to the user (so you get eg. a 5-year warranty for a Corsair PSU
>> but only 2 years on the RAM chips, etc.)
>
> For the love of God, just don't buy the PC from PC World! >_<
>
But, but, they are glorious and wonderful experts on computers.. Oh,
wait.. For a moment I had an 80s flashback, you know, when that was
*kind of* true. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> For the love of God, just don't buy the PC from PC World! >_<
>>
> But, but, they are glorious and wonderful experts on computers.. Oh,
> wait.. For a moment I had an 80s flashback, you know, when that was
> *kind of* true. lol
I'm just bitter that if my previous laptop had come from any other
retailer, it would have had a 3 year warranty backed by Sharp. But
because it came from PC World, same brand, same model, you get only 6
months warranty. And it's backed by PC World. (I.e., if it breaks, PC
World fix it themselves. Or rather, incompetently fail repeatedly to fix
it...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/28/2010 1:08 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> For the love of God, just don't buy the PC from PC World! >_<
>>>
>> But, but, they are glorious and wonderful experts on computers.. Oh,
>> wait.. For a moment I had an 80s flashback, you know, when that was
>> *kind of* true. lol
>
> I'm just bitter that if my previous laptop had come from any other
> retailer, it would have had a 3 year warranty backed by Sharp. But
> because it came from PC World, same brand, same model, you get only 6
> months warranty. And it's backed by PC World. (I.e., if it breaks, PC
> World fix it themselves. Or rather, incompetently fail repeatedly to fix
> it...)
Well. My point is that PC World magazine now sucks, and has since the
90s. But, other than Dr. Dobbs, which specializes in programming, but
still often has too much in "Windows only", nearly **all** general
computer magazines, unless its like a Linux mag, (and yes, I am
including Mac mags in this statement), are pretty much articles that
function as advertisement for their advertisements, mixed in with a few
things that might actually be semi-useful, if you are a) a near total
incompetents, b) don't care how or why anything works, or c) don't care
if the information you are getting is incomplete, bad, or shilling for
the company that made the product being "reviewed".
I vaguely remember when I bought some of these because they had code in
them, or real information, and did real reviews. You know, sort of like
how Wired was once edgy, and willing to point out how stupid products
where, not just mass producing articles on how great everything sent
them to review is.
Bugs the hell out of me that you can't get anything "useful" any more.
Though, bugs be even more than, in the case of things like Dr. Dobbs,
the "assumption" is always now that you have OpenGL, or DirectX, or
*something* available to do all the dirty work for you, so no one has to
explain how to do certain things, you know.. like, if you wanted to use
Catmull-Rom for something *other* than a) graphics, or b) without the
damn DirectX library, which apparently has it in there. Its like, now
that we have 3D libraries, everyone has forgotten how to even *do* shit
without them...
Websites are not much better though. Took me several tries to find one
that both explained that this was what I was looking for *and* that you
apply the equation to each part of the vector, instead of having to do
something complicated to it (examples being invariably in a language
that was hard to parse, or, in 99% of cases, showing only "one
dimension")... How hard is it for people to add on sentence, explaining
how to apply it to vectors with N parts? Seriously? Turned out, for
where I needed it, I already have matrix support, so could apply it to
the whole vector, instead of each part. Man it would have been annoying
otherwise, but, not as frustrating as the, "Dude, since you are looking
for this, you must already understand everything I am telling you, even
though I really don't clearly describe what is going on.", mentality you
get from some articles. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Its like, now
> that we have 3D libraries, everyone has forgotten how to even *do* shit
> without them...
Really?! You're on the povray new server complaining that nobody remembers
how to do graphics without a 3D card?!
> How hard is it for people to add on sentence, explaining
> how to apply it to vectors with N parts? Seriously?
About the same difficulty as writing documentation that explains how to use
their API instead of giving one example?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> How hard is it for people to add on sentence, explaining how to apply
>> it to vectors with N parts? Seriously?
>
> About the same difficulty as writing documentation that explains how to
> use their API instead of giving one example?
I think you're confusing "difficult" with "boring". ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/28/2010 3:21 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Its like, now that we have 3D libraries, everyone has forgotten how to
>> even *do* shit without them...
>
> Really?! You're on the povray new server complaining that nobody
> remembers how to do graphics without a 3D card?!
>
Nope, sorry, doesn't count. Its one product in like umpteenth billion,
and still counts, to a degree, as a "black box" library, from the
standpoint of the end user.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/29/2010 1:55 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> How hard is it for people to add on sentence, explaining how to apply
>>> it to vectors with N parts? Seriously?
>>
>> About the same difficulty as writing documentation that explains how to
>> use their API instead of giving one example?
>
> I think you're confusing "difficult" with "boring". ;-)
Which explains why, all too often, their "explanations" are vague,
highly limited, only references a single test case, which doesn't cover
anything people might actually use it for, and the example was built
around that test case. You know, like some moron talking about arrays,
and using a "one element" array as an example (well, not quite that bad,
but the example I am thinking of involved an API interface to controls,
which **would have** used a list/array of controls, but the example, and
explanation, gave no indication how the bloody heck to populate such a
thing, or use it with the API, never mind that this step was a) kind of
the point of the API interface being described, and b) non-trivial for
the specific use of controls being looked at).
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2010-10-28 15:43, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Man it would have been annoying
> otherwise, but, not as frustrating as the, "Dude, since you are looking
> for this, you must already understand everything I am telling you, even
> though I really don't clearly describe what is going on.", mentality you
> get from some articles. lol
It's because the articles don't go over stuff that was already in an
article back in the '80s. You're assumed to have had a subscription
since then and the ability to look up (if you haven't already memorised)
any arbitrary bit of information that's a prerequisite for a /current/
article.
That is to say, "you should have already learned the fundamentals of
this, here's the next step you can take".
Ditto all the 3D libraries and stuff. Either you already know all the
math behind it, or you don't, but either way, why should they waste
valuable magazine ad-space on material that's covered in your college
compsci course (I am supposing, here...I would have taken some
programming class or another when I went to NIU but they all had 50 math
prereqs...even for the BASIC 101 where the final exam code was 10 print
"hello world" 20 end. ugh)?
--
Tim Cook
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/29/2010 11:12 AM, Tim Cook wrote:
> On 2010-10-28 15:43, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Man it would have been annoying
>> otherwise, but, not as frustrating as the, "Dude, since you are looking
>> for this, you must already understand everything I am telling you, even
>> though I really don't clearly describe what is going on.", mentality you
>> get from some articles. lol
>
> It's because the articles don't go over stuff that was already in an
> article back in the '80s. You're assumed to have had a subscription
> since then and the ability to look up (if you haven't already memorised)
> any arbitrary bit of information that's a prerequisite for a /current/
> article.
>
> That is to say, "you should have already learned the fundamentals of
> this, here's the next step you can take".
>
> Ditto all the 3D libraries and stuff. Either you already know all the
> math behind it, or you don't, but either way, why should they waste
> valuable magazine ad-space on material that's covered in your college
> compsci course (I am supposing, here...I would have taken some
> programming class or another when I went to NIU but they all had 50 math
> prereqs...even for the BASIC 101 where the final exam code was 10 print
> "hello world" 20 end. ugh)?
>
Well, that is one way to look at it, sure. The problem, sadly, is that
not all compsci classes are the same. Mine spent 99% of its time on
business math and databases, and like 2 weeks on C++ (which was classed
as a "current concept", i.e., "we'll toss this at you a bit, so you know
the basics, but otherwise, we don't give a crap"). Still, its not just
magazines with these problems. The magazines often do a fair job of
explaining some stuff, when they are decent magazines.
Now.. the problem is often tech manuals. Back in the days of the Apple
IIgs, I have a book for C, which I couldn't run anyway, without a hard
drive, which wasn't too easy, or cheap, to get for the thing, which had
**different** flag values than those used in Pascal, for the *same* API.
If you used the wrong ones, you couldn't even get a standard mouse menu
to function properly. I ran into a similar issue with Windows APIs. Now,
its not as bad, but not long ago, the only way to get the headers, which
contained all the constant declarations in them, was to "buy" C++. To
use the API with "anything" else, like VB, you needed to know what those
where, they where no documented in the help, even when the help
specifically referenced the API, and not *one single book* out there on
the APIs included an index, or section, which showed what any of these
values where, so you could reference them. You where expected to
reference them *only* in C++, by name, *by* including the headers for
every single API, even if you only used one function from them.
Now, I don't know about you, but if I don't use something often, I may
not remember how to call it, I certainly won't know what the constants
where for those things, to do various stuff with them. Yet, the only
references you can find are for C++, and, again, only by "name", not
value... There was/is a third party API thing around, which tried to
provide examples, and values, for these things, cross referenced for
several languages, but.. I have kept wondering why tf MS never provided
anything remotely similar for their own bloody IDE? To me, as the guy
pulling my hair out trying to remember how many things I need to send to
a function, and what, so I can do something I *maybe* need once a year
for something, and, maybe not in the "approved" language, its a no
brainer. For MS, it seems to be not only meaningless, but so meaningless
that they can't even provide the original source for the applications
"in" their own books they sold on the subject, or a working example,
which does more than the equivalent of, "Here is how you insert a screw
in generic hole A, using a single generic screw S, from here, you should
be able to assemble the Empire State Building..." o.O
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
