 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I finally decided to retire my trusty old Pentium4. It has served me well
for almost too long, but it was time to let it go. (I was having difficulty
running most modern games, even with a severely upgraded display card.)
The new PC is an Intel Core i5 (four cores at 3.3 GHz) with 16GB of RAM.
When running a computation-heavy program, even one single core seems to
be a bit over 3 times as fast as my old P4. Povray's benchmark gives these
results:
Render Time:
Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 1 seconds (1.851 seconds)
using 7 thread(s) with 2.133 CPU-seconds total
Radiosity Time: No radiosity
Trace Time: 0 hours 3 minutes 34 seconds (214.869 seconds)
using 4 thread(s) with 848.523 CPU-seconds total
which I suppose are ok.
(Unfortunately, I don't remember what the result was with the P4, but I think
it was over 15 minutes.)
To top it all, I also decided to put my old trustworthy 19-inch CRT to rest
and bought a new 23-inch widescreen LCD monitor (full HD resolution, of
course). The larger screen area and the widescreen aspect ratio really makes
a huge difference when gaming.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 28.07.2012 08:13, schrieb Warp:
> To top it all, I also decided to put my old trustworthy 19-inch CRT to rest
> and bought a new 23-inch widescreen LCD monitor (full HD resolution, of
> course). The larger screen area and the widescreen aspect ratio really makes
> a huge difference when gaming.
I prefer 16:10 aspect ratio. While 4:3 gives me a feeling of "horizontal
claustrophobia", the HD 16:9 ratio instead gives me a kind of "vertical
claustrophobia" instead.
(Interestingly, the 16:10 aspect ratio is the closest you get to the
golden ratio.)
Then again, I kind of have 32:10 here :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
well, welcome to HD gaming and multicore computation. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> well, welcome to HD gaming and multicore computation. :)
Thanks. Although... I kind of was already there, in a way, depending on
your definition.
I regularly used a 1600x1200 resolution on my old CRT, which approaches
full HD (it's only about 7.5% smaller if we count pixels), and the P4 is
kind of "multicore" in that it has hyperthreading (which the system shows
as two cores).
But yeah, a blurry 19-inch 4:3 1600x1200 image does certainly not have
the same "HD feeling" as a sharp 23-inch 16:9 1920x1080, and a single
hyperthreaded core is quit a half-assed "multicore" compared to an actual
quadrupe-core CPU... :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 28/07/2012 10:38, clipka a écrit :
> Am 28.07.2012 08:13, schrieb Warp:
>
>> To top it all, I also decided to put my old trustworthy 19-inch CRT to
>> rest
>> and bought a new 23-inch widescreen LCD monitor (full HD resolution, of
>> course). The larger screen area and the widescreen aspect ratio really
>> makes
>> a huge difference when gaming.
>
> I prefer 16:10 aspect ratio. While 4:3 gives me a feeling of "horizontal
> claustrophobia", the HD 16:9 ratio instead gives me a kind of "vertical
> claustrophobia" instead.
>
> (Interestingly, the 16:10 aspect ratio is the closest you get to the
> golden ratio.)
>
> Then again, I kind of have 32:10 here :-)
>
Me too, at home. But finding 1920x1200 is becoming more and more difficult.
Double screen is really a great thing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> I prefer 16:10 aspect ratio. While 4:3 gives me a feeling of "horizontal
> claustrophobia", the HD 16:9 ratio instead gives me a kind of "vertical
> claustrophobia" instead.
Yes, a 16:10 (1920x1200) would have been cooler (especially since I
wouldn't have to trade my previous vertical resolution (1600x1200) for
a smaller one (1080), making my desktop basically 120 pixels shorter;
it doesn't sound much when said, but you can really feel it after having
been using the 1600x1200 resolution for so long), but it's really a
question of budget. There are really high-quality LCD monitors out there
with that resolution, but they cost at least 5 times as much as this one,
and I have been quite lucky with this one otherwise, because it's really
good for its price. (It has its problems of course, especially limited
vertical viewing angle, but for its cost it has otherwise been really good.)
For gaming purposes the 16:9 aspect ratio and large screen (23 inches)
is excellent. Likewise for watching movies. I have been quite happy with it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
