PotshotPolka Posted September 16, 2009 Content Count: 6084 Joined: 03/31/08 Status: Offline Share Posted September 16, 2009 Why don't they just make one screen that big? Avoids there being gapes in the picture and the complications. Because when you gleefully turn it on one day and a crack or hot pixel appears in your 70" screen, you'll simply hang yourself. Link to comment
Akaru Posted September 16, 2009 Content Count: 1000 Joined: 06/12/09 Status: Offline Share Posted September 16, 2009 Because when you gleefully turn it on one day and a crack or hot pixel appears in your 70" screen, you'll simply hang yourself. Lol'd. And btw, it does work like how i described, the images gets cut at up for every monitor shifted to the left/right/up/down. Looks nasty. And AMD making 12 cores is the stupidest idea ever. Like 5 games out of a trillion in existence can utilize 4 cores. Why 12 cores? That's just 8 cores forever idling. Again, more useless crap features to get people to buy them. Unless you know something about computers, the consumer will not know that games don't utilize 12 cores. Yay. Crappy features just to attract people ftw. Link to comment
ReGIONALS Posted September 17, 2009 Content Count: 1844 Joined: 07/27/08 Status: Offline Share Posted September 17, 2009 Lol'd. And btw, it does work like how i described, the images gets cut at up for every monitor shifted to the left/right/up/down. Looks nasty. And AMD making 12 cores is the stupidest idea ever. Like 5 games out of a trillion in existence can utilize 4 cores. Why 12 cores? That's just 8 cores forever idling. Again, more useless crap features to get people to buy them. Unless you know something about computers, the consumer will not know that games don't utilize 12 cores. Yay. Crappy features just to attract people ftw. dude you obviously have your head so far up your ass that you dont realize that the extra cores will run in the background and you can be running a 40 slot gmod server off your own computer while you play on it, while your also downloading pixelated porn. also you and your fellow fan trans ultimate intel has a 6 core cpu out for about 2.4k most of the price comes from a 30mg cache. Link to comment
Akaru Posted September 17, 2009 Content Count: 1000 Joined: 06/12/09 Status: Offline Share Posted September 17, 2009 dude you obviously have your head so far up your ass that you dont realize that the extra cores will run in the background and you can be running a 40 slot gmod server off your own computer while you play on it, while your also downloading pixelated porn. also you and your fellow fan trans ultimate intel has a 6 core cpu out for about 2.4k most of the price comes from a 30mg cache. Let's see my accomplishments with my computer: Run 40 slot Gmod server off my computer [Check] Play on it simultaneously [Check] Download porn simultaneously [Check] Dual core only [Check] My head is up my ass, but at least I have one and the insides are not empty. Link to comment
Wrathek Posted September 17, 2009 Content Count: 1839 Joined: 09/28/08 Status: Offline Share Posted September 17, 2009 Let's see my accomplishments with my computer: Run 40 slot Gmod server off my computer [Check] Play on it simultaneously [Check] Download porn simultaneously [Check] Dual core only [Check] My head is up my ass, but at least I have one and the insides are not empty. im not stepping in on this debate, but that final comment meant the EXACT opposite of what you wanted it to. you effectively said "yeah, i'm full of shit" Link to comment
ReGIONALS Posted September 17, 2009 Content Count: 1844 Joined: 07/27/08 Status: Offline Share Posted September 17, 2009 im saying all of that can be done at the same time Link to comment
Shadowex3 Posted September 17, 2009 Content Count: 2959 Joined: 02/27/08 Status: Offline Share Posted September 17, 2009 (edited) No it can't because throwing more cores on doesn't do shit for you when the problem isn't the number of cores but the ability to move data around those cores and the computer. Sata and DDR3 aren't fast enough for that kind of manycore multitasking on a computer and if you're in the US you probably don't have nearly the bandwidth to host that sort of thing. [edit] Also threading isn't the all singing all dancing magic solutions to computer problems. Some things can't be split into any more threads than they already are. Edited September 17, 2009 by Shadowex3 Link to comment
Akaru Posted September 17, 2009 Content Count: 1000 Joined: 06/12/09 Status: Offline Share Posted September 17, 2009 (edited) No it can't because throwing more cores on doesn't do shit for you when the problem isn't the number of cores but the ability to move data around those cores and the computer. Sata and DDR3 aren't fast enough for that kind of manycore multitasking on a computer and if you're in the US you probably don't have nearly the bandwidth to host that sort of thing. [edit] Also threading isn't the all singing all dancing magic solutions to computer problems. Some things can't be split into any more threads than they already are. Totally waiting for you to come and back up the TRUTH. And yea. Even with 12 cores, the motherboard itself will bottleneck the crap out of those 12 cores. Same thing as having 4 cores. And then the connections will bottleneck you, too. Drives, graphics cards, RAM, etc. They are all connected to the motherboard and the connection between those components won't even be able to send as much information as the 12 cores are processing. US's average internet bandwidth isn't even ranked because it sucks so much. im saying all of that can be done at the same time And please, L2READ. If you read my posts, you would see that I said SIMULTANEOUSLY, which does mean at the same time in the English language. All of that can be done on my computer at the same time, too. Edited September 17, 2009 by Akaru Link to comment
ReGIONALS Posted September 18, 2009 Content Count: 1844 Joined: 07/27/08 Status: Offline Share Posted September 18, 2009 (edited) Totally waiting for you to come and back up the TRUTH. And yea. Even with 12 cores, the motherboard itself will bottleneck the crap out of those 12 cores. Same thing as having 4 cores. And then the connections will bottleneck you, too. Drives, graphics cards, RAM, etc. They are all connected to the motherboard and the connection between those components won't even be able to send as much information as the 12 cores are processing. US's average internet bandwidth isn't even ranked because it sucks so much. And please, L2READ. If you read my posts, you would see that I said SIMULTANEOUSLY, which does mean at the same time in the English language. All of that can be done on my computer at the same time, too. special steve i was reading at a college level when i was in 3rd grade i may not show it on here since this is the interwebz and i dont care how my grammar looks as long as it readable.... and AMD also has a 6 core out may go with that instead of a 12 core since i expect the 12 core to cost more than my computer and all the other things i have combined.. and i just saw this AMD's 12-core chip will contain two 6-core processors on individual chips in a single processor package, McCarron said. That is a more reasonable goal than including 12 cores on a single chip, which can be expensive to manufacture. Edited September 18, 2009 by ReGIONALS Link to comment
Shadowex3 Posted September 18, 2009 Content Count: 2959 Joined: 02/27/08 Status: Offline Share Posted September 18, 2009 So in other words it's got even MORE bandwidth issues? two 6 core packages in current architecture PCs is like trying to fuck the most beautiful pinhole in the world. It doesn't matter how nutbustingly hot she is you're still trying to thread a sausage through a keyhole. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Reply to Thread
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now