Check

[Kash]

and it wasn't an accident with the opterons.  I recieved the first 4 to get the server started (supplier only had 4).  I wanted all 8 matched.  so I'm selling the first 4 opterons and keeping the matched 8.

514882[/snapback]

 

Oh I know, which is why I put accident in quotes. I was just emphasizing the fact that his system sucks in comparison to what you have at the farm and how he has no reason to brag about his system, especially when you have every right to but choose not to. Talk about maturity and being the better human being......

[Verran]

I'm kinda torn on how to respond to this thread at this point.

 

On one hand, this is an obvious "look how much I spent" thread. Those never impress me. I would much rather read about someone's $600 budget duron box just so long as it has some creativity to it. Some mods... you know, paint, WC, Phase Change, maybe just some blue fans! Oh how about some OC numbers!?! I've never really cared for a list of expensive parts, especially one containing not one but two overkill (and overpriced) GTX's. All a list like that says to me is "Hey look, I'm that guy with too much money. I just bought two of everything. Wheeee!" And simply dumping a few rediculously unattainable Futuremark scores on us doesn't really disprove that assumption. Maybe you don't care, or maybe you really do and you just didn't mean your post to sound that way, but I'd be willing to bet most of this site's population took it that way....

 

We've got a few guys around here like red and nuc that seem to have "larger than normal" cashflows, and always seem to be playing with toys that I'll probably never see in my entire life, but the difference is that they don't just cut a check and start installing games. They're in there tearing their hardware down, cooling it BELOW FREEZING, milking every last drop of performance out of what they have... even if it is just to make our jaws drop a little further when we see their bench scores Not only are they on par with us, I concider those two to be at the top of the knowledge tree around here. They use their expensive parts to learn everything they can. And most importantly they share everything they learn (except red with his NDA that's STILL NOT CLOSED YET ) What I'm saying is that most people around here don't seem to be too impressed by big budgets. What they ARE impressed by is knowledge, or thirst for knowledge, and above all, an attempt to be creative and show understanding. I've heard all about red's 57 and plenty of 55's below zero, but the most impressive OCs on this board in my mind are still people like nerm who are rockin' old school 2500 bartons at 2.7 or 2.8. The barton's maybe a $100 chip, the fx's are more like a grand... but it's SO not about the money.

 

Now on the other hand... If we just tear apart every new guy who shows up here eager to learn about his brand new PC (no matter how overpriced, underpowered, etc), then we're really no better. That's why I've chosen to go into detail about what I don't like here, in hopes that we don't drive a potential addition to the OCC community, but rather help him to fit in here, since this board rocks. There, that's my sappy speech....

 

As far as the cost... I doubt anyone here has the right to comment on that. I doubt anyone here knows what the markup is like in the Ukraine on super high end parts. I know I have no clue, but I'd be willing to bet that stuff's a lot harder to come by over there, which would certainly explain the higher prices. I think with the tone of the first post most of us would like to assume he just overpayed (you know, cut the big check), but who knows. I wouldn't criticize too much in that department without taking a look at the prices over there.

[Puck]

As far as the cost...  I doubt anyone here has the right to comment on that.  I doubt anyone here knows what the markup is like in the Ukraine on super high end parts.  I know I have no clue, but I'd be willing to bet that stuff's a lot harder to come by over there, which would certainly explain the higher prices.  I think with the tone of the first post most of us would like to assume he just overpayed (you know, cut the big check), but who knows.  I wouldn't criticize too much in that department without taking a look at the prices over there.

514930[/snapback]

You cant directly compare it to prices in the US unless you have a good understanding about the Ukrainian currency. Which I do not, nor claim to have. Its a great rig - dont let anyone tell you otherwise - you just would have been "better off" with an fx. I put quotes on that becuase with that much power, just playing games there is no way in hell you would notice a difference...but with benching an fx rig would have much more potential.

[Silverfox]

i think saying that someone makes "a mistake" by purchasing a P4 is a bit strong (waaay back up top), but a little research may have shown that the AMD could have been a more suitable purchase. But at the same time - if this chap in his clan gets what he needs from his games and the benches are real, then it's an alright rig i guess. i think a lot of people hop on the bandwagon of "intel sucks" and so on...but i own one and dont think they suck. for playing games it does the job fine as i dont really o/c much. however, i am well aware of the fact that my next purchase will be an amd

 

the ukranian currency is a darn sight different to that of here in the UK or the us for that matter. some of the folks ought to check gdp/gnp etc etc compared to more economically "sound" countries, then the prices would be understood a little more.

[napmaster383]

For some reason, AMD processors give me so many problems. With Intel, my pc is stable 100% of the time. Both processors are good, but I would buy another Pentium just because I don't have any stability issues that AMD has with their processors, for me to say the least. My P4 works fine for me when playing BF2, so I don't know why everyone is jumping on the AMD bandwagon and saying Intel sucks because they don't.

[Silverfox]

no they dont suck.

 

however, price vs performance, 90% of people are finding AMD to work out more beneficial.

 

i'm going to give amd a try next time simply because i can then argue from both sides of the fence

[napmaster383]

no they dont suck.

 

however, price vs performance, 90% of people are finding AMD to work out more beneficial.

 

i'm going to give amd a try next time simply because i can then argue from both sides of the fence

514941[/snapback]

 

For me, it's price vs. stability......I prefer stability

[Silverfox]

well, each to their own: the same happens to car drivers: a bad experience puts them off. aalthough i've not seen many an unstable athlon/64 tbh. same can be said about any processor actually....only when oc'd are they unstable (from my experience)

 

that said, it happens with all brands really. my IBM hd's died 3 times in a row. THAT is a reason to not like them any more. however, on Maxtor dieing is not a reason to give up on maxtor, eh?

[Verran]

For some reason, AMD processors give me so many problems. With Intel, my pc is stable 100% of the time. Both processors are good, but I would buy another Pentium just because I don't have any stability issues that AMD has with their processors, for me to say the least. My P4 works fine for me when playing BF2, so I don't know why everyone is jumping on the AMD bandwagon and saying Intel sucks because they don't.

514939[/snapback]

 

Bah, you can't really believe that your instability comes solely from it being an AMD chip. I mean to just assume intel is stable and amd is not? That's a little silly don't you think? I mean I really don't care for intel, but I still would never assume that they're all unstable. As far as P4's being "bad", no one is saying that. Well, maybe they are, but they don't really MEAN it The whole arch-rival thing gets heated a lot, but most people who don't like Intel just think AMD makes better chips for the money.

 

Me personally, I have disliked intel ever since AMD started surfacing as a real competitor. To me, their numbers just seem very inflated. When my 2.0 beats a 3.2 hands down, somebody's numbers don't jive. That's not to say that I "hate" intel, or that they suck. If they had a chip out in the same price range as the AMD I was looking at, and the performance was justifiably better, I would consider it. However, the way I look at it these days is that the burden of proof is on intel for me, not AMD. I've loved every AMD I've had, and they've always seemed to provide better performance for considerably less money. Intel just seems to sit back and rest on their good name, instead of actually stepping up and using their market share to make a better chip. But that's just my somewhat biased opinion... and you never know, maybe their next chip will be great, but I'm not counting on it

[napmaster383]

Bah, you can't really believe that your instability comes solely from it being an AMD chip.  I mean to just assume intel is stable and amd is not?  That's a little silly don't you think?  I mean I really don't care for intel, but I still would never assume that they're all unstable.  As far as P4's being "bad", no one is saying that.  Well, maybe they are, but they don't really MEAN it   The whole arch-rival thing gets heated a lot, but most people who don't like Intel just think AMD makes better chips for the money.

 

Me personally, I have disliked intel ever since AMD started surfacing as a real competitor.  To me, their numbers just seem very inflated.  When my 2.0 beats a 3.2 hands down, somebody's numbers don't jive.  That's not to say that I "hate" intel, or that they suck.  If they had a chip out in the same price range as the AMD I was looking at, and the performance was justifiably better, I would consider it.  However, the way I look at it these days is that the burden of proof is on intel for me, not AMD.  I've loved every AMD I've had, and they've always seemed to provide better performance for considerably less money.  Intel just seems to sit back and rest on their good name, instead of actually stepping up and using their market share to make a better chip.  But that's just my somewhat biased opinion... and you never know, maybe their next chip will be great, but I'm not counting on it

514945[/snapback]

 

I've had 3 AMD processors and they all cause problems for me. From a Thunderbird to an Athlon XP, to an Athlon 64, they have given me problems, so I switched to P4 and it has been a very pleasant experience thus far.

[bigred]

what chipset was used with them?

 

I find the use of lower end chipsets like ALI's certain VIA ones and even the Nforce 1 caused problems.

 

intel avoids this by producing most of thier own chipsets too.

Edited July 23, 2005 by bigred

[Verran]

I've had 3 AMD processors and they all cause problems for me. From a Thunderbird to an Athlon XP, to an Athlon 64, they have given me problems, so I switched to P4 and it has been a very pleasant experience thus far.

514949[/snapback]

 

So you honestly believe that you had these problems simply because "Intel is stable and AMD isn't"?!?! Seriously, just because you've had problems with three chips in one fashion or another doesn't mean that all AMD chips are unstable. I have three running right now that are in perfect working condition. There are billions of chips out there. Do you really think that AMD would still be around if they made unstable chips?

 

You would think that people on a tech site like this would be a little more insightful....