Intel P4 vs AMD

I tried setting up the screen shot you hosted at ImageShack. Just a couple of questions. First, did you use the link at the bottom of the long list that links directly to the saved image?
___________________________________



___________________________________

Are you following the examples as I posted them in that rather large example I supplied? Hoping I didn't waste my time.

 

That part was almost right but there can be no spaces between the bracket and your first and last letter and there can be no quotation marks.

 

Sophocles, even with the syntax corrected, that link won't open. I suspect the wrong link is being used. Here is the corrected version I tried. The last figure in the image is just the cursor following the last bracket ].

_______________________________________

 

Hmm! brobear must be aging.LOL

 

Hmmm... LOL Nope. I wouldn't touch those bloomers with a stick. LOL

 

He'd best hope that bomb doesn't blow and spew nitrogen over everything. It should be in a lead encasement.

 

Happiness is where you find it, even in the Valee

 

i was using the wrong link,sorry soph didnt understand,the way brobear put it,an idiot like myself could do it...lmfao...thanks again





yeah man thx,never waste you time with the bloodraven43,thx mates this is awesome

btw:love that lave lamp...lol

 

I think I said that a couple of posts back. LOL

Now can you get your screen shots here before the thread is so scattered that no one will appreciate them. LMAO

Glad you figured it out. If it doesn't work you can click you your link to see where it takes you.

 

Brobear,

The drives in raid are 2 sata 80gig Seagate 7200.7 Ncq drives. The little brothers to Sophocles 250 I believe.
They benched at a flat 50 individually on the same Sisoft test.

Morph416

You can always make a raid 0 outperform any single drive by a substantial margin. A single drive is limited by its rpm and platter density. It can only go so fast.
A raid 0 setup can increase in transfer rate with each drive added. You may notice the 4 drive array getting 147MB/s on Sisoft.
An SCSI raid 0 can add more.

The data is broken up and spread accross the drives so you can use the transfer speed of both the drives, getting data from one while waiting for the other to spit it out. Very effective. Similar to memory interleaving or dual channel memory.
It's just problematic for newbies to setup and keep safe.

 

Sophocles

Reminiscing of the Vallee... another of those frigid climes. Now where's the stick.

http://www.emailasmile.com/upcardme.php?step=1&cat=General_Humor&lang=&pic_id=kt1c4e631d09

Glad rugripper finally got what we were talking about. I mentioned the link at the bottom, direct to the image on a number of occasions. Guess people prefer to ignore working examples.

rugripper,
Sophocles said it, now we can see those benches and get back on topic. Do them up right and put the Processor in the Item window when you do the capture. That way we can see the Current CPU as well as the ones you use as examples. I was starting to think this was the screen capture help thread.

Donald thanks for the info and getting us back on track. I think some of those guys that write for those mags don't try to do much as far as objective study. They start with an idea and configure their tests accordingly. Often they get skewed. I like the way you refuted the unknown author. I'd like to have seen the actual article. Somebody needs to go back to school on RAID.

 

lmfao@ a little smile card......thx brobear...peace

 

At least it was only a disgusting cartoon:0

 

Hey Brobear

Which version of Sandra are you using currently and does it really matter for personal use...

Sandra Lite
Sandra Advanced
Sandra Professional
Sandra Engineer
Sandra Enterprise
Sandra Legacy

I'd like to make some comparisons of my systems since I do have a Northwood 3.4 O/C'd 10% and running at 3.74 for over a year now on an Asus P4P800 Deluxe. I also have a 2.8 Northwood on a Soyo Dragon2 board, got it for $5 after rebate from Newegg.com a while back. Both chips go to 15% without any real hiccups or heat issues.

 

Are you ScubaPetes younger brotherScubabud.

 

6402

You have a good memory Donald. I remember earlier discussions that we had about NCQ. It was the Seagate NCQ drives performance that affected my final choice in purchasing one. I was looking at Raptors', but as you know I decided to go frugal and just get really good performance instead of great. I wish I'd gone for 2 smaller drives in a RAID as you did, maybe with one more. But since I'd factored in not having a paging file (swap file for some) by adding two gigs of memory, I'm doing ok.

 

why dont you have a paging file?just wondering,thought that gave you better speed.....peace

 

ScubaBud
http://www.jaggedonline.com/indexbuy.html?langx=us¤cy=us&a=site&location=buy

There's a link to comparisons. Note no support for 64 bit with the free Lite; that affects the users of the newer 64 bit CPU systems. I'm using the Pro, but for most of what I'm doing the Lite would do just as well.

 

@ Brobear

Thanks for the link and info.



@ 64026402

I believe I'm a tad bit younger at 54 and both ScubaPete and myself like to dive, but no relation. Just to make sure that there was no confusion, I placed my name, Ted, in my sig to help minimize that possibility.

 

It forces Windows to use main memory more effectively. Memory "loosed" without the need to consider physical drives for assistance is faster. When You have smaller amounts of physical memory your system has nothing else to become reliant upon but physical memory, a swapping between main memory and virtual memory. Because virtual memory is affected by rotational speeds and the recording heads of the hard disk, it becomes trapped by Newton's physical laws and is therefore slower.