| nnodley said: Just curious. How much was your custom PC? This is an honest question because it sounds expensive as hell. Mine was around $1500-$1600 |
I've probably spent about $5,000 AUD all told on just this system and the AUD is worth just a little more than the USD, but prices are generally higher here too.
If I was *only* playing games on my PC, then I would have stuck with my old AMD FX 8120, 8gb of ram and Dual-Radeon 6950's unlocked into 6970's which cost me a fraction of the price.
| ethomaz said: 1) Again your are wrong about memory bandwidth or you don't know what you are talking. 2) No. The CPU have a limit in bus width for memory... so you did overclock to reach there bandwidth... if you put a DDR3 2800Mhz in a Sandy Bridge-EP it will run in 51.2GB/s until you did over in the base clock in CPU. And quad-channel only exist in this processor in Desktop market... SIGLE and DUAL-CHANNEL are the default and used for more than 99% or the Desktops PCs... quad-channel is just userful in Servers. 3) Cell can do a lot of things... it is not a CPU... it is powerful in FLOPS than any other CPU in the market... so it is good for graphics tasks even better than a lot of low GPU. |
1) No it's clear you have no idea about hardware or how software interfaces with hardware.
2) Intel specifies DDR3 1600mhz to be the recommended maximum memory speeds, however the PC isn't that static, motherboard manufacturers can have profiles and multipliers and support things like XMP for higher default supported speeds without actually overclocking, my board just happens to support DDR3 1866mhz out of the box, any higher would involve overclocking. (Which I haven't done on the memory.)
4) The Cell is a CPU.
CPU's are good for processing instructions that are serial in nature, the Cell exceeds at that, given it's transister budget.
However, graphics is incredibly parallel in it's work load, which the cell is incredibly bad at, you would need hundreds of more cores.
However, frame-buffer effects are relatively simple and even low-end CPU's can do it these days, the "graphics processing" that the Cell does are this kind, the Cell isn't going to be doing advanced forms of lighting or shadowing or shader effects, it simply doesn't have the amount of parallel processing needed to pull it off.
How you can't understand this little piece of logic escapes me, Sony Marketing at it's best I suppose, they did claim that their consoles could do some ludicrous things in the past even with the PS1 and PS2 and people actually fall for it.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
