Forgot to mention—the plan is to have one PSU handling the motherboard, while the other takes care of the drives, optical drive, GPU... and, of course, that cooling pelt. Also need some beers. In this heat, you can't leave a beer sitting for five minutes without it turning lukewarm. 😁
I heard somewhere that you can link two separate power supplies together—basically just bridge the green wire (pin 14) on both to trick them into starting up as a single unit... Does anyone actually know if that works?
Look, my license expired too, so I decided to give McAfee Total Protection a shot.
It couldn't pass a single test. Viruses didn't just settle on my hard drive—one actually tried to execute, and it only stopped because I manually killed it. Scanning is pathetic—painfully slow and seemingly endless. I honestly thought it scanned bit by bit... man, was I wrong. It didn't even recognize a single header from the virus I intentionally ran just to test it.
It failed fast. Norton ended up finding three headers that McAfee totally missed, which were already sitting on my hard drive.
The reviews are garbage. It's a rule: if you pay enough, you get a "five-star rating"—and that's true all over the US. 🙄
Where are you getting that subscription price from? I'm paying $8.50!!!! By the way, that 2002 version isn't exactly "small" compared to McAfee... plus, 75 MB isn't nothing—at least in my book.
Sure, 8MB is tiny, but this thing is pretty beefy. It works great, though—it doesn't hog any resources, so like you said, you basically forget it's even there.😎
Yeah... over here, people tend to forget things more often—especially when it comes to renewing a license. They'll get ten different notifications, but Americans, well... let's just say they don't always notice. (And I think you know why)🤔 Then they act all surprised when the automatic updates stop working 😁 ...typical behavior around here.
It’s pretty obvious we’ve been spinning our wheels for a million years trying to explain what a "shell" actually is... most people using Internet Explorer couldn't tell you the difference between standard IE and IE with a shell if their lives depended on it.😁
There's no point in driftingnomad68 trying to educate folks like that... that's just how it goes. That's the way the world works.
So, regarding what Kevin said about it running better at 225 than at 235... well, obviously—it's because the motherboard changed the latency settings... I guess there’s some "magic" involved for people just stepping into electronics, but those of us messing with this stuff every day already know how it works...
Like I said, it's been a long time since he actually wrote that.. We should probably nudge him to weigh in on how to overclock a rig in today's era... because that time has passed. Different "players" are in the game now. Abit and Epox are relics that don't have much left to offer when you're trying to push things to the absolute limit—they're just poorly built, plain and simple (cheap components) Back then, that was the way to go, but with everything that's come out since, those old methods just look ridiculous by comparison.. Either you buy top-tier components or you stick with the Democratic Party... or you "burn it all down"
Look, Intel is one thing... but they don't even leverage the memory you set up in a Democratic Party build properly, let alone when you're actually tweaking timings to go lower
I’m sticking to my guns here—those benchmarks you see all over those sites? They're basically just glorified ads Whether it's Cl2, CL2.5, or CL3... you won't see much difference on AMD, and with Intel, there's practically zero impact
Look, I never said messing with timings doesn't yield improvements—it does. But the real question is when you're actually buying RAM: is it better to grab top-tier, low-latency memory at a lower frequency, or just pick up whatever is cheapest and push it to a higher clock? That was kind of the point of the discussion, wasn't it?... Take that A-data DDR500, for instance. It runs fine in both Intel and AMD builds, and it’s cheap. Sure, the latencies are absolute garbage, but since Intel doesn't really take full advantage of their high-speed dual Channel anyway, there’s no point overpaying for massive speed gains that barely show up. If someone actually wants to chase performance on an Intel build, they can go out and buy something like OCZ 4400 that absolutely shreds everything. For AMD, you don't need that overkill; OCZ3700 is plenty, where latency becomes the more important factor at those frequencies... It’s all well and good to squeeze out extra performance by tweaking settings, but honestly? It’s just too little gain to be worth the headache.
There’s one more thing people overlook: heat. We're talking about differences of a few hundred MB/s depending on the setup. If you tune your memory to run perfectly while it's cold, once things heat up, it starts acting up. It begins skipping cycles because it can't keep up with those aggressive low-latency settings, and suddenly your gaming performance drops right when you need it most. You should try running a benchmark before and after you've spent an hour torturing the sticks until they're hot...
Why would I bother overclocking a CPU to 2.5 GHz (on an AMD chip) when you get more bang for your buck just by bumping up the FSB synchronously?... Try raising the FSB while using looser timings instead. See if you get better results at the same CPU frequency—say 2.2 GHz—by running 222x10 versus 200x11 on a standard Barton...
I read that article ages ago—props to Kovi, really—but let’s not forget when it was actually written. DDR400 MHz was just starting to show its face back then, so this isn't exactly relevant anymore... not by a long shot.
Tweaking latencies and obsessing over them... hey, if that's your thing, go for it. But how much speed are you actually gaining? Speed is nothing without one thing: B A N D W I D T H. Let me say it again: B A N D W I D T H. It’s not about some weird chemistry or hyper-precise micro-adjustments. You can tune any RAM module and drop the latencies through the floor—for instance, OCZ 3700 has great timings at 466 MHz... but let's be real, as you saw with Cela during our little debate, 333 MHz won't do you any good if my rig outruns you at 500 Mb/s because it's running at a much higher clock. What people achieve with all that tinkering is a marginal improvement at best. On DDR333, that practically means you're "almost" hitting the maximum bandwidth for that frequency, which is 2700 Mb/s, and not a single millimeter more. All that tweaking is useless if your "pipe" is too narrow... get what I'm saying? Now, decent low-latency memory costs money. We also have motherboards that handle Intel setups just fine at a 500 MHz FSB, along with memory that (aside from the overpriced stuff) runs at perfectly reasonable latencies at that 500 MHz. At those frequencies, B A N D W I D T H is way more important than having the lowest latencies, and they'll certainly work in SPD mode. It seems a bit silly to buy something like OCZ 4400 and then throttle the FSB (to run synchronously—on Intel) just to chase 1-2-2-5 timings or other "for me" nonsense values that don't actually matter. At this point, it just comes down to whether the motherboard is high-quality enough to stay stable at a 250 MHz (500) FSB... and very few can actually pull that off. That's why this whole "science" of overclocking exists—it doesn't serve any real purpose other than letting kids argue over whose RAM has lower latencies, while the end result remains irrelevant to them. If anyone wants to try and tell me my DFI board with OCZ 3700 has worse "who-knows-what" because it runs at 250 FSB instead of 333 MHz with "ultra-low" latencies, they can take their results and shove them. I'm done explaining myself. When they actually manage to hit read speeds over 3500 Mb/s, they can shoot me a PM... maybe then I'll give them a nudge to crank the memory to 400 VDC to actually get some speed.😁
What’s the max at 333MHz versus what you get at 500MHz!? Don't just claim that running with 0-0-0-0 latencies at 333MHz somehow beats 3-4-4-10 at 500MHz.
That's just not how it works—on an Intel system, even in dual Channel at 333MHz, you're looking at a pathetic 2700 Mb/s at best regardless of your latencies. If you drop to 200 MHz (maxing out at 3200 throughput), the bandwidth is still higher even with the worst possible settings... What kind of measurements are you pulling out of thin air? Mathematically speaking, if it's running at a higher clock, it's faster.
Can we please stop talking about women for five minutes... This belongs in the blooper reel, but it's more like...
A buddy of mine works as a field technician for some massive IT firm out of Chicago... after chatting with him, I realized he has absolutely no clue that you can actually repair Windows if the boot sector gets trashed. Up until now, his big solution was just "format C: and start over"!!!! It’s a total joke—he’s been doing this job for nine years. Nine years! And they actually pay him for it. He doesn't have the slightest clue how to use MS-DOS commands either. I'd love to take a look at his rig, though—he casually mentioned that antivirus software "just slows down the machine," so he doesn't bother with it (mind you, he's surfing on a 56k modem!!!).
Honestly, I didn't know how to react. I had to go grab a drink just to keep from losing it. Nine years... what a joke.