The Official Xbox 360 In Your Base Killing Your Dudes Thread

[Desert_Fox_Rommel]

First off with the multi core processors they usually have little to offer unless you are doing some sort of intense programming or editing or something. With multi core processors you do have essentially multiple processors all sharing the load. The thing is that from my understanding these cores can share work loads, but they can't share a process. For those of you who are not familiar with task manager or processes each process is the program running. Internet Explorer is iexplore.exe, Fire Fox is firefox.exe, Resident Evil 4 is game.exe, and so on and so forth. Each of these .exe processes can only work on one core at a time. So if you are using a game with a minimum system requirement of 3.0 ghz and you have a dual core with 2.3ghz per core you might think "gee I have 4.6ghz" but the game process can still only work on that one core so you're still trying to run a game that needs 3.0ghz on a 2.3 ghz processor.



That's my understanding of it anyway.  

[Krilliad]

Desert_Fox_Rommel

First off with the multi core processors they usually have little to offer unless you are doing some sort of intense programming or editing or something. With multi core processors you do have essentially multiple processors all sharing the load. The thing is that from my understanding these cores can share work loads, but they can't share a process. For those of you who are not familiar with task manager or processes each process is the program running. Internet Explorer is iexplore.exe, Fire Fox is firefox.exe, Resident Evil 4 is game.exe, and so on and so forth. Each of these .exe processes can only work on one core at a time. So if you are using a game with a minimum system requirement of 3.0 ghz and you have a dual core with 2.3ghz per core you might think "gee I have 4.6ghz" but the game process can still only work on that one core so you're still trying to run a game that needs 3.0ghz on a 2.3 ghz processor.



That's my understanding of it anyway.

Well, with a dual core processor they share the load, unless of course you have a quad core... then the problem is most apps can only use 1 core because of some odd programming/hardware problem. If you are doing intense 3D modeling then a quad core might be good, but unless you want that, get dual core I'd say.  

[Freak_090]

Desert_Fox_Rommel

First off with the multi core processors they usually have little to offer unless you are doing some sort of intense programming or editing or something. With multi core processors you do have essentially multiple processors all sharing the load. The thing is that from my understanding these cores can share work loads, but they can't share a process. For those of you who are not familiar with task manager or processes each process is the program running. Internet Explorer is iexplore.exe, Fire Fox is firefox.exe, Resident Evil 4 is game.exe, and so on and so forth. Each of these .exe processes can only work on one core at a time. So if you are using a game with a minimum system requirement of 3.0 ghz and you have a dual core with 2.3ghz per core you might think "gee I have 4.6ghz" but the game process can still only work on that one core so you're still trying to run a game that needs 3.0ghz on a 2.3 ghz processor.



That's my understanding of it anyway.

This is true, but a game is never just one file. You have the maps, the charactures, the sounds, the saves, etc... For Starcraft has over 10 .exe files inside of it not to mention dozens of other random processes that it needs to start, load, and save the game.  

[Fresnel]

Desert_Fox_Rommel

First off with the multi core processors they usually have little to offer unless you are doing some sort of intense programming or editing or something. With multi core processors you do have essentially multiple processors all sharing the load. The thing is that from my understanding these cores can share work loads, but they can't share a process. For those of you who are not familiar with task manager or processes each process is the program running. Internet Explorer is iexplore.exe, Fire Fox is firefox.exe, Resident Evil 4 is game.exe, and so on and so forth. Each of these .exe processes can only work on one core at a time. So if you are using a game with a minimum system requirement of 3.0 ghz and you have a dual core with 2.3ghz per core you might think "gee I have 4.6ghz" but the game process can still only work on that one core so you're still trying to run a game that needs 3.0ghz on a 2.3 ghz processor.



That's my understanding of it anyway.

That's true, but there are exceptions. With the new dual-core and dual-processor revolution, new high-demand programs have begun being dual-savvy. The program knows how to best split itself among multiple processors at any given time. There are even Mac games that know how to deal with an octo-core machine.  

[Fresnel]

OberFeldwebel

Fresnel

Barru

Fresnel

Desert_Fox_Rommel

my "new" computer will only have a 2.2 ghz processor.

Haha, you say 'only'. Sometimes I wonder why Mac hasn't hit the ~4GHz range with PC processors yet. There HAS to be a good reason, I just don't know it. The only one anywhere near that range is the Mac Pro, which has an option to put in two quad-core processors, and STILL tops out at 3.2GHz. You'd think an octo-core machine would be better than that...

Even with the slower processor that's... I guess, 8 processors that are sharing the load.
That is if all of them are being used.

I know there's a reason why Macs don't use good processors, and it's probably beyond that of, 'Macs suck, PCs ftw'.
They're by tradition, non-gamer?

See, even if that was true though, they'd still use at LEAST a 3ghz processor, simply because there's no reason to go smaller. I think it has something to do with the physical building of the Mac processor that gigahertz are measured differently or something. I really just don't know, and I don't think I'd understand if someone told me unless I had a degree in EE-micro.

I don't believe it's because of how it's measured.

The only big difference that was between Macs and PCs was that the one read Little-Endian and the other Big-Endian.
Which for a while made software and OSs incompatible with the two.
But now that they're conforming and using, well, a more established system, you're able to find Macs with Windows XP or Vista.


I just don't see a whole lot of gamers using Macs and that may partly be why they're not giving out Macs with high end processors.

I honestly think there's a difference, because high-end PCs haven't had 2Ghz processors for almost a decade now, and Macs just got them in the last couple years. There's no REASON to make them that slow. It's probably pretty damn close to the same cost to make a more modern mid-range processor. If the technology exists and it's what many people have come to expect, then why use four-generation-old s**t just because you can't think of a reason anyone NEEDS anything better? There's always Boot Camp.

Think of it this way: why put a carburetor in a new-model car?  

[Desert_Fox_Rommel]

Freak_090

Desert_Fox_Rommel

First off with the multi core processors they usually have little to offer unless you are doing some sort of intense programming or editing or something. With multi core processors you do have essentially multiple processors all sharing the load. The thing is that from my understanding these cores can share work loads, but they can't share a process. For those of you who are not familiar with task manager or processes each process is the program running. Internet Explorer is iexplore.exe, Fire Fox is firefox.exe, Resident Evil 4 is game.exe, and so on and so forth. Each of these .exe processes can only work on one core at a time. So if you are using a game with a minimum system requirement of 3.0 ghz and you have a dual core with 2.3ghz per core you might think "gee I have 4.6ghz" but the game process can still only work on that one core so you're still trying to run a game that needs 3.0ghz on a 2.3 ghz processor.



That's my understanding of it anyway.

This is true, but a game is never just one file. You have the maps, the charactures, the sounds, the saves, etc... For Starcraft has over 10 .exe files inside of it not to mention dozens of other random processes that it needs to start, load, and save the game.

With all the games I have played they have had the whole game in just one exe process on task manager.  

[Barru]

They haven't had 2ghz processors because they're faster, and by definition, high end computers are the fastest or close to it.


For modeling and what not you need more memory than you really do need a high processor, although nothing below 2.4ghz or less than a dual core is what I would use.


Also, for the Mac, they still have the one piece construction right?
All the s**t is in the monitor correct?
Cooling is a major issue with those as well as upgrading.
When the instructor for the Computer Forensics class had to retrieve the hard drive out of a Mac for cloning, he had to bring it to a Mac store to have them disassemble it because he wasn't Mac certified and the bits were much smaller than what he had.
They had to remove the screen to get at the hard drive.

Sure, you could probably put a 572 in a Camaro, but I don't think your standard radiator is going to cool it.


I'm not sure of the specifics on how they divvy up the data on dual cores but it's up to how the program is designed for it to be compatible with dual cores.
It was only through a patch or a quick fix that STALKER: ShoC used my second core.  

[Requiem ex Inferni]

Well, I have to go without my Failbox for the rest of the school year. The disc drive's busted. Can't send it in because a.) it was originally my friend's, so he'd have to send it in, b.) it's not under warranty anymore (it RRoD'd on him in the past, but he only got a two-year warranty), and c.) even if I could send it in, I have no money to cover the repair cost. So I'm gonna wait until I graduate, buy an Arcade package and slap my hard drive into it. Then I can finally finish CoD: WaW's multiplayer and possibly start Prestige.

Also, it produces less heat and takes less power than my original one.  

[Fresnel]

Requiem6661

Well, I have to go without my Failbox for the rest of the school year. The disc drive's busted. Can't send it in because a.) it was originally my friend's, so he'd have to send it in, b.) it's not under warranty anymore (it RRoD'd on him in the past, but he only got a two-year warranty), and c.) even if I could send it in, I have no money to cover the repair cost. So I'm gonna wait until I graduate, buy an Arcade package and slap my hard drive into it. Then I can finally finish CoD: WaW's multiplayer and possibly start Prestige.

Also, it produces less heat and takes less power than my original one.

You have a friend with a 360? I have a devious idea.  

[Fresnel]

Barru

They haven't had 2ghz processors because they're faster, and by definition, high end computers are the fastest or close to it.


For modeling and what not you need more memory than you really do need a high processor, although nothing below 2.4ghz or less than a dual core is what I would use.


Also, for the Mac, they still have the one piece construction right?
All the s**t is in the monitor correct?
Cooling is a major issue with those as well as upgrading.
When the instructor for the Computer Forensics class had to retrieve the hard drive out of a Mac for cloning, he had to bring it to a Mac store to have them disassemble it because he wasn't Mac certified and the bits were much smaller than what he had.
They had to remove the screen to get at the hard drive.

Sure, you could probably put a 572 in a Camaro, but I don't think your standard radiator is going to cool it.


I'm not sure of the specifics on how they divvy up the data on dual cores but it's up to how the program is designed for it to be compatible with dual cores.
It was only through a patch or a quick fix that STALKER: ShoC used my second core.

Macs are just as multi-purpose as PCs. I've seen high-end CADs for Mac, X-Plane has a Mac version, as does Spore, Halo, and a few more of today's newer games. You can use a Mac to do anything you want to, and with the Apple-written Boot Camp program, you could, if you so chose, wipe MacOS from the drive and run a purely Windows machine. Here's the kicker though. Even though Macs have notably lower speed ratings, they seem to be pretty on par with more recent machines, speed-wise. If you buy a decent Mac and a decent PC, they'll run roughly the same speed, even though the Mac is a full 1 Ghz lower.

Cooling has never been an issue with a Mac. The all-in-one flatscreen iMacs probably don't even have a fan in them. The old bubble iMacs didn't have a fan, they just had holes in the top of the computer and convection alone cooled it to reasonable levels. The flatscreen and bubble iMacs are the only all-in-one units they've sold though, as far as I know (excluding laptops). The MacMini has no monitor at all, the Mac Pro has no monitor and is internally very similar to a PC, even the old G5 PowerMacs had PC-like towers. There's no reason they can't put something powerful in a tower and sell it at a premium, but they don't even do that. They don't even give the option of a faster processor.

Yeah, Apple is a b***h like that. They use smaller-than-average screws on many of their computers (though a cheap set of jeweler's screwdrivers will work perfectly), and if they can prove someone else opened it, they'll void the warranty. That's probably why he did that. I opened my own bubble iMac once, using nothing but my hands and a standard screwdriver, and once you get it open it's not too different from a PC. It's just really cool how easy they make it to change the RAM. You could literally add RAM or an AirPort wireless card in under ten seconds with nothing but a coin.  

[Barru]

The only reason why they can run Windows is because they switched from Endian sides.

I haven't seen any of the comparison charts of the Macs specs and the PCs specs so I couldn't really make a decision.
But I'm sure if they compared a good Mac and a Gaming PC, the Mac will be blown out of the water.

Since Macs were usually done for srs business for the less than businessman, it does make sense kind of.

Since the format switch it's a matter of time before they start getting into making Gaming Macs.
Microsoft will have a fit and it'll take a while for them to have a Mac version of the software if at all.
But with this ******** Windows Live s**t, who wants those games?

When I installed GTA IV Windows Live gave me problems running the game and just pissed me off.
It is just like STEAM when it first came out;
Buggy, retarded, useless and only ******** over the people who actually bought the game.

Before I purchased GTA IV I downloaded a copy, to see if it was worth the money, it is, and Windows Live didn't do d**k to stop me from playing it.

However, when Windows Live couldn't connect due to some problem, I couldn't save!
This was when I actually bought the game.  

[Fresnel]

Barru

The only reason why they can run Windows is because they switched from Endian sides.

Actually, it's because whoever was making their old processors shipped all their work overseas, and Apple was determined to buy American, or so I hear. Anyway, I don't remember if you ever saw their old G4 ads, but the content was technically true. The computers were so fast that they were legally supercomputers, and illegal for export. The G4 was the first Mac to break 1Ghz. The current models are more than twice as fast.

Quote:

I haven't seen any of the comparison charts of the Macs specs and the PCs specs so I couldn't really make a decision.
But I'm sure if they compared a good Mac and a Gaming PC, the Mac will be blown out of the water.

Since Macs were usually done for srs business for the less than businessman, it does make sense kind of.

Since the format switch it's a matter of time before they start getting into making Gaming Macs.
Microsoft will have a fit and it'll take a while for them to have a Mac version of the software if at all.

Well, to be honest, it's probably a toss-up between the lack of demanding games for Mac (because Macs can't handle demanding games. Vicious circle) and the fact that the only true way to create a gaming PC requires removable parts (or buying a new computer every year). Keeping all the parts integrated means Apple makes more money on computers, replacements, and repairs.

Quote:

But with this ******** Windows Live s**t, who wants those games?

When I installed GTA IV Windows Live gave me problems running the game and just pissed me off.
It is just like STEAM when it first came out;
Buggy, retarded, useless and only ******** over the people who actually bought the game.

Before I purchased GTA IV I downloaded a copy, to see if it was worth the money, it is, and Windows Live didn't do d**k to stop me from playing it.

However, when Windows Live couldn't connect due to some problem, I couldn't save!
This was when I actually bought the game.

I was gifted a physical copy of Portal once. The box was big enough to hold 10 DVDs, had one DVD and a slip of paper in it, and that DVD only installed Steam. I had to DOWNLOAD Portal. And after all that, it won't work with an Intel graphics card.  

[OberFeldwebel]

Fresnel

Barru

The only reason why they can run Windows is because they switched from Endian sides.

Actually, it's because whoever was making their old processors shipped all their work overseas, and Apple was determined to buy American, or so I hear. Anyway, I don't remember if you ever saw their old G4 ads, but the content was technically true. The computers were so fast that they were legally supercomputers, and illegal for export. The G4 was the first Mac to break 1Ghz. The current models are more than twice as fast.

Quote:

I haven't seen any of the comparison charts of the Macs specs and the PCs specs so I couldn't really make a decision.
But I'm sure if they compared a good Mac and a Gaming PC, the Mac will be blown out of the water.

Since Macs were usually done for srs business for the less than businessman, it does make sense kind of.

Since the format switch it's a matter of time before they start getting into making Gaming Macs.
Microsoft will have a fit and it'll take a while for them to have a Mac version of the software if at all.

Well, to be honest, it's probably a toss-up between the lack of demanding games for Mac (because Macs can't handle demanding games. Vicious circle) and the fact that the only true way to create a gaming PC requires removable parts (or buying a new computer every year). Keeping all the parts integrated means Apple makes more money on computers, replacements, and repairs.

Quote:

But with this ******** Windows Live s**t, who wants those games?

When I installed GTA IV Windows Live gave me problems running the game and just pissed me off.
It is just like STEAM when it first came out;
Buggy, retarded, useless and only ******** over the people who actually bought the game.

Before I purchased GTA IV I downloaded a copy, to see if it was worth the money, it is, and Windows Live didn't do d**k to stop me from playing it.

However, when Windows Live couldn't connect due to some problem, I couldn't save!
This was when I actually bought the game.

I was gifted a physical copy of Portal once. The box was big enough to hold 10 DVDs, had one DVD and a slip of paper in it, and that DVD only installed Steam. I had to DOWNLOAD Portal. And after all that, it won't work with an Intel graphics card.

Agh!
emotion_facepalm
Wow, that's pretty shitty about Portal.

Supercomputers = illegal to export?
LoL, what kind of Dictatorial bullshit is that?


It's only a matter of time before Macs start doing games, it'll probably be a while but you know.
Now that they're doing PC processors you can probably upgrade them yourself and put in a higher end processor. Just be sure that it can stay cool.
Oh, check the specs on the motherboard to see what it supports, try and get the documentation from the supplier or manufacturer.  

[Fresnel]

OberFeldwebel

Fresnel

Barru

The only reason why they can run Windows is because they switched from Endian sides.

Actually, it's because whoever was making their old processors shipped all their work overseas, and Apple was determined to buy American, or so I hear. Anyway, I don't remember if you ever saw their old G4 ads, but the content was technically true. The computers were so fast that they were legally supercomputers, and illegal for export. The G4 was the first Mac to break 1Ghz. The current models are more than twice as fast.

Quote:

I haven't seen any of the comparison charts of the Macs specs and the PCs specs so I couldn't really make a decision.
But I'm sure if they compared a good Mac and a Gaming PC, the Mac will be blown out of the water.

Since Macs were usually done for srs business for the less than businessman, it does make sense kind of.

Since the format switch it's a matter of time before they start getting into making Gaming Macs.
Microsoft will have a fit and it'll take a while for them to have a Mac version of the software if at all.

Well, to be honest, it's probably a toss-up between the lack of demanding games for Mac (because Macs can't handle demanding games. Vicious circle) and the fact that the only true way to create a gaming PC requires removable parts (or buying a new computer every year). Keeping all the parts integrated means Apple makes more money on computers, replacements, and repairs.

Quote:

But with this ******** Windows Live s**t, who wants those games?

When I installed GTA IV Windows Live gave me problems running the game and just pissed me off.
It is just like STEAM when it first came out;
Buggy, retarded, useless and only ******** over the people who actually bought the game.

Before I purchased GTA IV I downloaded a copy, to see if it was worth the money, it is, and Windows Live didn't do d**k to stop me from playing it.

However, when Windows Live couldn't connect due to some problem, I couldn't save!
This was when I actually bought the game.

I was gifted a physical copy of Portal once. The box was big enough to hold 10 DVDs, had one DVD and a slip of paper in it, and that DVD only installed Steam. I had to DOWNLOAD Portal. And after all that, it won't work with an Intel graphics card.

Agh!
emotion_facepalm
Wow, that's pretty shitty about Portal.

Supercomputers = illegal to export?
LoL, what kind of Dictatorial bullshit is that?


It's only a matter of time before Macs start doing games, it'll probably be a while but you know.
Now that they're doing PC processors you can probably upgrade them yourself and put in a higher end processor. Just be sure that it can stay cool.
Oh, check the specs on the motherboard to see what it supports, try and get the documentation from the supplier or manufacturer.

Actually, there are a few high-end games for Mac. Pretty much anything made by EA hits the Mac (through Aspyr), so we've got Battlefield 2142 (if you can find a Mac Pro to run it, elitist ********) and Guitar Hero and such, but we don't have anything, like, say, CRYSIS.

You might be able to change it yourself, but you'd have to un-solder the processor and solder a new one in, and you'd NEVER get the board specs from Apple. I don't think cool is an issue though. Firefox 3 beta for Mac has some ******** thing going on with Gaia, and it revs one core of my processor to max ALL THE TIME. So my computer runs about 50°F hotter than it should, just because I don't like Safari. But yeah, I think the current fan could handle it.  

[Buki_Actual]

Just picked up Tom Clancy's HAWX mrgreen