PDA

View Full Version : Squeezing every last point out of 3DMark2001SE


Kai Robinson
February 13th 04, 07:54 AM
I write this at 7:42am - and i still havent gone to sleep yet. I've been
spending hours tweaking this system in hopes of getting just that little bit
more out of my system. After changing my Ram timings to 2-2-5-2, enabling
4-way bank interleaving and upping the pulse width to 8. Clocking the card
to 240/490 (and bearing in mind this is 5ns stuff - thats 400Mhz top speed)
and running the processor at 1604Mhz (153 x 10.5 Multiplier) - i finally got
the result i was after. Now it may not be much - but to me this is a huge
amount - especially for a 'budget' GeForce 3 Ti200.

Previously - the best score i got at the same settings (except the Ram
timings), was 8158. With the ram timings enabled, i'm getting 8767 - with
most of the difference being made in the Game benches, Single Texturing Fill
rate (766.5 vs 746.4 MTexels/sec) and 1 light High Polygon count (29.0 vs
27.9 MTriangles/sec)

Every other score was virtually identical.

Thing is though - can i do better? :D

Anyone else managed to get a score this high with one of these cards? :)

Kai

Clock´n Roll
February 13th 04, 09:28 AM
"Kai Robinson" > skrev i en meddelelse
...
> I write this at 7:42am - and i still havent gone to sleep yet. I've been
> spending hours tweaking this system in hopes of getting just that little
bit
> more out of my system. After changing my Ram timings to 2-2-5-2, enabling
> 4-way bank interleaving and upping the pulse width to 8. Clocking the card
> to 240/490 (and bearing in mind this is 5ns stuff - thats 400Mhz top
speed)
> and running the processor at 1604Mhz (153 x 10.5 Multiplier) - i finally
got
> the result i was after. Now it may not be much - but to me this is a huge
> amount - especially for a 'budget' GeForce 3 Ti200.
>
> Previously - the best score i got at the same settings (except the Ram
> timings), was 8158. With the ram timings enabled, i'm getting 8767 - with
> most of the difference being made in the Game benches, Single Texturing
Fill
> rate (766.5 vs 746.4 MTexels/sec) and 1 light High Polygon count (29.0 vs
> 27.9 MTriangles/sec)
>
> Every other score was virtually identical.
>
> Thing is though - can i do better? :D
>
> Anyone else managed to get a score this high with one of these cards? :)

You should ask:"Anyone else managed to get a score this high with a 1.6Ghz
CPU?"
3Dmark2001 in my oppinion is more a CPU test than a GPU test.

Darthy
February 13th 04, 09:31 AM
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:54:13 +0100, "Kai Robinson"
> wrote:

>I write this at 7:42am - and i still havent gone to sleep yet. I've been
>spending hours tweaking this system in hopes of getting just that little bit
>more out of my system. After changing my Ram timings to 2-2-5-2, enabling
>4-way bank interleaving and upping the pulse width to 8. Clocking the card
>to 240/490 (and bearing in mind this is 5ns stuff - thats 400Mhz top speed)
>and running the processor at 1604Mhz (153 x 10.5 Multiplier) - i finally got
>the result i was after. Now it may not be much - but to me this is a huge
>amount - especially for a 'budget' GeForce 3 Ti200.
>
>Previously - the best score i got at the same settings (except the Ram
>timings), was 8158. With the ram timings enabled, i'm getting 8767 - with
>most of the difference being made in the Game benches, Single Texturing Fill
>rate (766.5 vs 746.4 MTexels/sec) and 1 light High Polygon count (29.0 vs
>27.9 MTriangles/sec)
>
>Every other score was virtually identical.
>
>Thing is though - can i do better? :D
>
>Anyone else managed to get a score this high with one of these cards? :)


Easier to pop in a new card... ;)

With out major OC... I think the fastest 3DMark01 is over 20,000 -
AMD64-FX51 + ATI9800XT


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

~misfit~
February 13th 04, 12:57 PM
Clock´n Roll wrote:
> "Kai Robinson" > skrev i en meddelelse
> ...
>> I write this at 7:42am - and i still havent gone to sleep yet. I've
>> been spending hours tweaking this system in hopes of getting just
>> that little bit more out of my system. After changing my Ram timings
>> to 2-2-5-2, enabling 4-way bank interleaving and upping the pulse
>> width to 8. Clocking the card to 240/490 (and bearing in mind this
>> is 5ns stuff - thats 400Mhz top speed) and running the processor at
>> 1604Mhz (153 x 10.5 Multiplier) - i finally got the result i was
>> after. Now it may not be much - but to me this is a huge amount -
>> especially for a 'budget' GeForce 3 Ti200.
>>
>> Previously - the best score i got at the same settings (except the
>> Ram timings), was 8158. With the ram timings enabled, i'm getting
>> 8767 - with most of the difference being made in the Game benches,
>> Single Texturing Fill rate (766.5 vs 746.4 MTexels/sec) and 1 light
>> High Polygon count (29.0 vs
>> 27.9 MTriangles/sec)
>>
>> Every other score was virtually identical.
>>
>> Thing is though - can i do better? :D
>>
>> Anyone else managed to get a score this high with one of these
>> cards? :)
>
> You should ask:"Anyone else managed to get a score this high with a
> 1.6Ghz CPU?"
> 3Dmark2001 in my oppinion is more a CPU test than a GPU test.

My GF4 ti4200 with a CPU running at 2.1 GHz gets 12,000.

My g/f's FX5200 with a CPU at 2.2 GHz and twice the L2 of mine gets 2,500.

While the CPU does have an influence on the 3DMark score it isn't anywhere
near as significant as the GPU.
--
~misfit~

Gordieee
February 13th 04, 01:10 PM
You're an extremely sad individual... - shouldn't you maybe get a life son?
I mean there's better things in life to do; as it stands you just sound like
a bit of a loser....

Get it sorted, aye?

"Kai Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> I write this at 7:42am - and i still havent gone to sleep yet. I've been
> spending hours tweaking this system in hopes of getting just that little
bit
> more out of my system. After changing my Ram timings to 2-2-5-2, enabling
> 4-way bank interleaving and upping the pulse width to 8. Clocking the card
> to 240/490 (and bearing in mind this is 5ns stuff - thats 400Mhz top
speed)
> and running the processor at 1604Mhz (153 x 10.5 Multiplier) - i finally
got
> the result i was after. Now it may not be much - but to me this is a huge
> amount - especially for a 'budget' GeForce 3 Ti200.
>
> Previously - the best score i got at the same settings (except the Ram
> timings), was 8158. With the ram timings enabled, i'm getting 8767 - with
> most of the difference being made in the Game benches, Single Texturing
Fill
> rate (766.5 vs 746.4 MTexels/sec) and 1 light High Polygon count (29.0 vs
> 27.9 MTriangles/sec)
>
> Every other score was virtually identical.
>
> Thing is though - can i do better? :D
>
> Anyone else managed to get a score this high with one of these cards? :)
>
> Kai
>
>
>

Kai Robinson
February 13th 04, 05:39 PM
Dont you have a bridge to go and live under?

By replying to my post with an insult - it just proves that you're a ******.


"Gordieee" > wrote in message
...
> You're an extremely sad individual... - shouldn't you maybe get a life
son?
> I mean there's better things in life to do; as it stands you just sound
like
> a bit of a loser....
>
> Get it sorted, aye?
>
> "Kai Robinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I write this at 7:42am - and i still havent gone to sleep yet. I've been
> > spending hours tweaking this system in hopes of getting just that little
> bit
> > more out of my system. After changing my Ram timings to 2-2-5-2,
enabling
> > 4-way bank interleaving and upping the pulse width to 8. Clocking the
card
> > to 240/490 (and bearing in mind this is 5ns stuff - thats 400Mhz top
> speed)
> > and running the processor at 1604Mhz (153 x 10.5 Multiplier) - i finally
> got
> > the result i was after. Now it may not be much - but to me this is a
huge
> > amount - especially for a 'budget' GeForce 3 Ti200.
> >
> > Previously - the best score i got at the same settings (except the Ram
> > timings), was 8158. With the ram timings enabled, i'm getting 8767 -
with
> > most of the difference being made in the Game benches, Single Texturing
> Fill
> > rate (766.5 vs 746.4 MTexels/sec) and 1 light High Polygon count (29.0
vs
> > 27.9 MTriangles/sec)
> >
> > Every other score was virtually identical.
> >
> > Thing is though - can i do better? :D
> >
> > Anyone else managed to get a score this high with one of these cards? :)
> >
> > Kai
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Kai Robinson
February 13th 04, 05:42 PM
"Darthy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:54:13 +0100, "Kai Robinson"
> > wrote:
>
> >I write this at 7:42am - and i still havent gone to sleep yet. I've been
> >spending hours tweaking this system in hopes of getting just that little
bit
> >more out of my system. After changing my Ram timings to 2-2-5-2, enabling
> >4-way bank interleaving and upping the pulse width to 8. Clocking the
card
> >to 240/490 (and bearing in mind this is 5ns stuff - thats 400Mhz top
speed)
> >and running the processor at 1604Mhz (153 x 10.5 Multiplier) - i finally
got
> >the result i was after. Now it may not be much - but to me this is a huge
> >amount - especially for a 'budget' GeForce 3 Ti200.
> >
> >Previously - the best score i got at the same settings (except the Ram
> >timings), was 8158. With the ram timings enabled, i'm getting 8767 - with
> >most of the difference being made in the Game benches, Single Texturing
Fill
> >rate (766.5 vs 746.4 MTexels/sec) and 1 light High Polygon count (29.0 vs
> >27.9 MTriangles/sec)
> >
> >Every other score was virtually identical.
> >
> >Thing is though - can i do better? :D
> >
> >Anyone else managed to get a score this high with one of these cards? :)
>
>
> Easier to pop in a new card... ;)
>
> With out major OC... I think the fastest 3DMark01 is over 20,000 -
> AMD64-FX51 + ATI9800XT
>
>
> --
> Remember when real men used Real computers!?
> When 512K of video RAM was a lot!
>
> Death to Palladium & WPA!!

Oh I will be popping in a Radeon 9500 when it arrives & i was asking if
anyone else with a GeForce 3 managed to get such a high score as that.

And although 600 odd 3d marks might not look like much - i can certainly
feel the difference in Unreal II, everything plays so much more fluidly.
Although whether thats to do with the Ram timings or the card - i dont know.

cowboyz
February 13th 04, 08:05 PM
"~misfit~" > wrote in message
...

>
> My GF4 ti4200 with a CPU running at 2.1 GHz gets 12,000.
>
> My g/f's FX5200 with a CPU at 2.2 GHz and twice the L2 of mine gets 2,500.
>
> While the CPU does have an influence on the 3DMark score it isn't anywhere
> near as significant as the GPU.
> --
> ~misfit~
>
>

surely these figures are a typo. 2500? or is that 12500?

Clock´n Roll
February 13th 04, 09:53 PM
"cowboyz" > skrev i en meddelelse
...
>
> "~misfit~" > wrote in message
> ...
> > My g/f's FX5200 with a CPU at 2.2 GHz and twice the L2 of mine gets
2,500.

Right.... :-D

chris
February 13th 04, 10:29 PM
"Kai Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> Dont you have a bridge to go and live under?
>
> By replying to my post with an insult - it just proves that you're a
******.

just send the header to with a complaint

if you feel like it

Kai Robinson
February 13th 04, 10:57 PM
"chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kai Robinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dont you have a bridge to go and live under?
> >
> > By replying to my post with an insult - it just proves that you're a
> ******.
>
> just send the header to with a complaint
>
> if you feel like it
>
>
>

Nah - dealing with ******* like that isnt worth it - waste of time really. I
shouldnt have even graced that ****er with a response, but i was bored....

Kai

~misfit~
February 14th 04, 12:35 AM
cowboyz wrote:
> "~misfit~" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> My GF4 ti4200 with a CPU running at 2.1 GHz gets 12,000.
>>
>> My g/f's FX5200 with a CPU at 2.2 GHz and twice the L2 of mine gets
>> 2,500.
>>
>> While the CPU does have an influence on the 3DMark score it isn't
>> anywhere near as significant as the GPU.
>> --
>> ~misfit~
>>
>>
>
> surely these figures are a typo. 2500? or is that 12500?

Sorry, it was a mistake. The 2,500 (2,433 actually) was what she got with
her old GF2MX400/64. With the FX5200/128 she still only gets 5,585 though. I
must read my records more carefully. :-). That's on a 2500+ Barton clocked
to 3200+ speed (200MHz FSB) with 512MB RAM.

(I'm a bit 'anal' I guess the Americans would say, I rigorously benchmark
and record every build or change I make for future reference).

The FX5200/128 (non-ultra, Gigabyte) sucks quite a bit but it was only
around $NZ120. Anything half-way decent was around $NZ300 (I bought it for
her christmas present and didn't/don't have that sort of money). Although it
benchmarks quite badly it seems to run better than the benchmark indicates.
All our games are playable on it. It even plays the Far Cry demo with only
slight hesitation (Thanks BTW) *Far* better than the GF2 that is now in our
mp3 machine (and gets 1,937 marks on a celly 600 at 900MHz, 256MB SD-RAM).

All using XP Pro.
--
~misfit~

~misfit~
February 14th 04, 12:36 AM
Clock´n Roll wrote:
> "cowboyz" > skrev i en meddelelse
> ...
>>
>> "~misfit~" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> My g/f's FX5200 with a CPU at 2.2 GHz and twice the L2 of mine gets
>>> 2,500.
>
> Right.... :-D

Sorry, made a mistake on that figure, see my reply to cowboyz.
--
~misfit~

Darthy
February 14th 04, 02:43 AM
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:28:38 +0100, "Clock´n Roll" >
wrote:

>> Anyone else managed to get a score this high with one of these cards? :)
>
>You should ask:"Anyone else managed to get a score this high with a 1.6Ghz
>CPU?"
>3Dmark2001 in my oppinion is more a CPU test than a GPU test.


Nope. While CPU does effect performance, its the GPU the matters.

But like a race car, every part can effect performance. The shocks,
tires, suspension, engine, transmission, motor oil... oh, driver.

If your CPU is SLOW, the GPU will not get as fast as IT could go...
but the faster the CPU is, the faster it can feed data into the GPU.

Hence, with today's CPUs around 2600~3200, the performance difference
is very minmal... a top end GPU matters.

People buy 3000Mhz P4 CPUs to open email... ;(


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

Darthy
February 14th 04, 02:45 AM
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:57:15 +1300, "~misfit~" >
wrote:

>> You should ask:"Anyone else managed to get a score this high with a
>> 1.6Ghz CPU?"
>> 3Dmark2001 in my oppinion is more a CPU test than a GPU test.
>
>My GF4 ti4200 with a CPU running at 2.1 GHz gets 12,000.
>
>My g/f's FX5200 with a CPU at 2.2 GHz and twice the L2 of mine gets 2,500.
>
>While the CPU does have an influence on the 3DMark score it isn't anywhere
>near as significant as the GPU.

That is WAY horrible for a 5200... there should be MORE issues than
just the crappy 5200... thats SLOWER than the GF3... about the same as
a GF2mx400 ... which on paper is what a 64bit 5200 can perform at...
roughly.

A $75 Ti4200 would get her up to at least 9000.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

Darthy
February 14th 04, 05:52 AM
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:35:19 +1300, "~misfit~" >
wrote:

>cowboyz wrote:
>> "~misfit~" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> My GF4 ti4200 with a CPU running at 2.1 GHz gets 12,000.
>>>
>>> My g/f's FX5200 with a CPU at 2.2 GHz and twice the L2 of mine gets
>>> 2,500.
>>>
>>> While the CPU does have an influence on the 3DMark score it isn't
>>> anywhere near as significant as the GPU.
>>> --
>>> ~misfit~
>>>
>>>
>>
>> surely these figures are a typo. 2500? or is that 12500?
>
>Sorry, it was a mistake. The 2,500 (2,433 actually) was what she got with
>her old GF2MX400/64. With the FX5200/128 she still only gets 5,585 though. I
>must read my records more carefully. :-). That's on a 2500+ Barton clocked
>to 3200+ speed (200MHz FSB) with 512MB RAM.

Thats about right... ;)

GF2s are in the 2500 range... GF3s are in the 5000~7000s...

>(I'm a bit 'anal' I guess the Americans would say, I rigorously benchmark
>and record every build or change I make for future reference).

Many of us do and should... so we know what were getting.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

raj
February 14th 04, 08:32 AM
i get 11600 defult everything on my geforce 4 ti 4200 :) using omega
drivers
"Darthy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:35:19 +1300, "~misfit~" >
> wrote:
>
> >cowboyz wrote:
> >> "~misfit~" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >>>
> >>> My GF4 ti4200 with a CPU running at 2.1 GHz gets 12,000.
> >>>
> >>> My g/f's FX5200 with a CPU at 2.2 GHz and twice the L2 of mine gets
> >>> 2,500.
> >>>
> >>> While the CPU does have an influence on the 3DMark score it isn't
> >>> anywhere near as significant as the GPU.
> >>> --
> >>> ~misfit~
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> surely these figures are a typo. 2500? or is that 12500?
> >
> >Sorry, it was a mistake. The 2,500 (2,433 actually) was what she got with
> >her old GF2MX400/64. With the FX5200/128 she still only gets 5,585
though. I
> >must read my records more carefully. :-). That's on a 2500+ Barton
clocked
> >to 3200+ speed (200MHz FSB) with 512MB RAM.
>
> Thats about right... ;)
>
> GF2s are in the 2500 range... GF3s are in the 5000~7000s...
>
> >(I'm a bit 'anal' I guess the Americans would say, I rigorously benchmark
> >and record every build or change I make for future reference).
>
> Many of us do and should... so we know what were getting.
>
>
> --
> Remember when real men used Real computers!?
> When 512K of video RAM was a lot!
>
> Death to Palladium & WPA!!

~misfit~
February 14th 04, 10:00 AM
Darthy wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:57:15 +1300, "~misfit~" >
> wrote:
>
>>> You should ask:"Anyone else managed to get a score this high with a
>>> 1.6Ghz CPU?"
>>> 3Dmark2001 in my oppinion is more a CPU test than a GPU test.
>>
>> My GF4 ti4200 with a CPU running at 2.1 GHz gets 12,000.
>>
>> My g/f's FX5200 with a CPU at 2.2 GHz and twice the L2 of mine gets
>> 2,500.
>>
>> While the CPU does have an influence on the 3DMark score it isn't
>> anywhere near as significant as the GPU.
>
> That is WAY horrible for a 5200... there should be MORE issues than
> just the crappy 5200... thats SLOWER than the GF3... about the same as
> a GF2mx400 ... which on paper is what a 64bit 5200 can perform at...
> roughly.
>
> A $75 Ti4200 would get her up to at least 9000.

Except I can't buy one new here in NZ. Tried for a week.
--
~misfit~

Darthy
February 14th 04, 11:16 AM
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:00:01 +1300, "~misfit~" >
wrote:

>Darthy wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:57:15 +1300, "~misfit~" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> You should ask:"Anyone else managed to get a score this high with a
>>>> 1.6Ghz CPU?"
>>>> 3Dmark2001 in my oppinion is more a CPU test than a GPU test.
>>>
>>> My GF4 ti4200 with a CPU running at 2.1 GHz gets 12,000.
>>>
>>> My g/f's FX5200 with a CPU at 2.2 GHz and twice the L2 of mine gets
>>> 2,500.
>>>
>>> While the CPU does have an influence on the 3DMark score it isn't
>>> anywhere near as significant as the GPU.
>>
>> That is WAY horrible for a 5200... there should be MORE issues than
>> just the crappy 5200... thats SLOWER than the GF3... about the same as
>> a GF2mx400 ... which on paper is what a 64bit 5200 can perform at...
>> roughly.
>>
>> A $75 Ti4200 would get her up to at least 9000.
>
>Except I can't buy one new here in NZ. Tried for a week.


then a 5600Ultra is the lowest end- but usable video card.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

Clock´n Roll
February 14th 04, 11:27 AM
In my oppinion 3Dmark2003 is the way better test, as 3Dmark2001 is more
dependeable on your CPU.
All I wanted to say. ;-)

Sith Lord
February 14th 04, 12:26 PM
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 01:43:33 GMT in
alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia, Darthy
> wrote:

>People buy 3000Mhz P4 CPUs to open email... ;(

Works both ways.
Tell that to my clients who want to run a big database on a PII 450.

Years ago I was sharing some office space with a company in London,
their CAD people had IBM model 80s (386 20MHz with 387 co-pro), the
secetaries using Word had 486 50-66MHz machines.

~misfit~
February 14th 04, 12:42 PM
Darthy wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:00:01 +1300, "~misfit~" >
> wrote:
>
>> Darthy wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:57:15 +1300, "~misfit~"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You should ask:"Anyone else managed to get a score this high with
>>>>> a
>>>>> 1.6Ghz CPU?"
>>>>> 3Dmark2001 in my oppinion is more a CPU test than a GPU test.
>>>>
>>>> My GF4 ti4200 with a CPU running at 2.1 GHz gets 12,000.
>>>>
>>>> My g/f's FX5200 with a CPU at 2.2 GHz and twice the L2 of mine gets
>>>> 2,500.
>>>>
>>>> While the CPU does have an influence on the 3DMark score it isn't
>>>> anywhere near as significant as the GPU.
>>>
>>> That is WAY horrible for a 5200... there should be MORE issues than
>>> just the crappy 5200... thats SLOWER than the GF3... about the same
>>> as a GF2mx400 ... which on paper is what a 64bit 5200 can perform
>>> at... roughly.
>>>
>>> A $75 Ti4200 would get her up to at least 9000.
>>
>> Except I can't buy one new here in NZ. Tried for a week.
>
> then a 5600Ultra is the lowest end- but usable video card.

I couldn't afford one though when I bought the 5200 for the missus. The 5600
ultra was nearly three times the price. I'm on a *very* limited income as
I'm an invalid.
--
~misfit~

DreamMaker
February 14th 04, 06:11 PM
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 01:45:50 GMT, Darthy
> wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:57:15 +1300, "~misfit~" >
>wrote:
>
>>> You should ask:"Anyone else managed to get a score this high with a
>>> 1.6Ghz CPU?"
>>> 3Dmark2001 in my oppinion is more a CPU test than a GPU test.
>>
>>My GF4 ti4200 with a CPU running at 2.1 GHz gets 12,000.
>>
>>My g/f's FX5200 with a CPU at 2.2 GHz and twice the L2 of mine gets 2,500.
>>
>>While the CPU does have an influence on the 3DMark score it isn't anywhere
>>near as significant as the GPU.
>
>That is WAY horrible for a 5200... there should be MORE issues than
>just the crappy 5200...
try the nvidia detonator driver 5.3.0.3
and the nForce_3.13_WinXP2K_WHQL_international nforce driver.
a got a a7n8x-x + 2600barton cpu + an asus fx5200td

with that a get aound 7000 point in 3dmark01 ....


>thats SLOWER than the GF3... about the same as
>a GF2mx400 ... which on paper is what a 64bit 5200 can perform at...
>roughly.
>
>A $75 Ti4200 would get her up to at least 9000.

Darthy
February 16th 04, 12:02 PM
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:42:35 +1300, "~misfit~" >
wrote:

>Darthy wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:00:01 +1300, "~misfit~" >
>> wrote:

>>> Except I can't buy one new here in NZ. Tried for a week.
>>
>> then a 5600Ultra is the lowest end- but usable video card.
>
>I couldn't afford one though when I bought the 5200 for the missus. The 5600
>ultra was nearly three times the price. I'm on a *very* limited income as
>I'm an invalid.

??? In the USA - the 5600Ultra is cheap... $120~150... but I think
that is more than its worth. 5200s sell for $65~130.

Well... you can take care of your money problems... put the wife to
work... ;)



--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

Darthy
February 16th 04, 12:09 PM
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:26:07 +0000, Sith Lord <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 01:43:33 GMT in
>alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia, Darthy
> wrote:
>
>>People buy 3000Mhz P4 CPUs to open email... ;(
>
>Works both ways.
>Tell that to my clients who want to run a big database on a PII 450.
>
>Years ago I was sharing some office space with a company in London,
>their CAD people had IBM model 80s (386 20MHz with 387 co-pro), the
>secetaries using Word had 486 50-66MHz machines.

LOL... funny ****. Did the CAD people notice? If they had half a
brain - they would have swapped the computers.

When I was taking my CAD classes - we used XT-8086-12mhz systems with
a full 640K of RAM... POS computers.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

Darthy
February 16th 04, 12:10 PM
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:26:07 +0000, Sith Lord <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 01:43:33 GMT in
>alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia, Darthy
> wrote:
>
>>People buy 3000Mhz P4 CPUs to open email... ;(
>
>Works both ways.
>Tell that to my clients who want to run a big database on a PII 450.
>
>Years ago I was sharing some office space with a company in London,
>their CAD people had IBM model 80s (386 20MHz with 387 co-pro), the
>secetaries using Word had 486 50-66MHz machines.


whoops

PS:

The reason I guess people need 3Ghz computers for email and surfing
porn is to have BRUTE power to use the PC after all the spam and
spyware is installed on their computers!

Many people DO BUY PCs when they get full of crap from the net...



--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

~misfit~
February 17th 04, 02:20 AM
Darthy wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:42:35 +1300, "~misfit~" >
> wrote:
>
>> Darthy wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:00:01 +1300, "~misfit~"
>>> > wrote:
>
>>>> Except I can't buy one new here in NZ. Tried for a week.
>>>
>>> then a 5600Ultra is the lowest end- but usable video card.
>>
>> I couldn't afford one though when I bought the 5200 for the missus.
>> The 5600 ultra was nearly three times the price. I'm on a *very*
>> limited income as I'm an invalid.
>
> ??? In the USA - the 5600Ultra is cheap... $120~150... but I think
> that is more than its worth. 5200s sell for $65~130.

You lucky people.

> Well... you can take care of your money problems... put the wife to
> work... ;)

There's a problem there, she's in a full-time course.
--
~misfit~

Darthy
February 18th 04, 09:40 AM
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:20:20 +1300, "~misfit~" >
wrote:

>Darthy wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:42:35 +1300, "~misfit~" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Darthy wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:00:01 +1300, "~misfit~"
>>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>> Except I can't buy one new here in NZ. Tried for a week.
>>>>
>>>> then a 5600Ultra is the lowest end- but usable video card.
>>>
>>> I couldn't afford one though when I bought the 5200 for the missus.
>>> The 5600 ultra was nearly three times the price. I'm on a *very*
>>> limited income as I'm an invalid.
>>
>> ??? In the USA - the 5600Ultra is cheap... $120~150... but I think
>> that is more than its worth. 5200s sell for $65~130.
>
>You lucky people.
>
>> Well... you can take care of your money problems... put the wife to
>> work... ;)
>
>There's a problem there, she's in a full-time course.

I was being "mean"... in a joking way....

For example, in my clan - one of our girl members wanted a new system
and video card - I told her she could work the streets, $25 per job -
she could make $200~300 a night.... She said her kneepads are worn
out a long time ago... I sent her a link with a site that sells them
;)


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

raj
February 18th 04, 07:04 PM
lol
"Darthy" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:20:20 +1300, "~misfit~" >
> wrote:
>
> >Darthy wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:42:35 +1300, "~misfit~" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Darthy wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:00:01 +1300, "~misfit~"
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Except I can't buy one new here in NZ. Tried for a week.
> >>>>
> >>>> then a 5600Ultra is the lowest end- but usable video card.
> >>>
> >>> I couldn't afford one though when I bought the 5200 for the missus.
> >>> The 5600 ultra was nearly three times the price. I'm on a *very*
> >>> limited income as I'm an invalid.
> >>
> >> ??? In the USA - the 5600Ultra is cheap... $120~150... but I think
> >> that is more than its worth. 5200s sell for $65~130.
> >
> >You lucky people.
> >
> >> Well... you can take care of your money problems... put the wife to
> >> work... ;)
> >
> >There's a problem there, she's in a full-time course.
>
> I was being "mean"... in a joking way....
>
> For example, in my clan - one of our girl members wanted a new system
> and video card - I told her she could work the streets, $25 per job -
> she could make $200~300 a night.... She said her kneepads are worn
> out a long time ago... I sent her a link with a site that sells them
> ;)
>
>
> --
> Remember when real men used Real computers!?
> When 512K of video RAM was a lot!
>
> Death to Palladium & WPA!!