This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Top 10 most expensive CPUs. This makes me want to punch my monitor.

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
This topic contains spoilers - you can click, tap, or highlight to reveal them
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. Top 10 most expensive CPUs. This makes me want to punch my monitor.

User Info: Marikhen

3 years ago#31
schadow posted...
Steamster posted...
That's a pitiful thing to rage at. If you want to rage, read this and pretend it can't possibly be a joke:


That’s where an Underclocker is heading, they aren’t just becoming a better gamer, they are evolving. Our synthetic realities are becoming more and more closely aligned to the real, physics engines mimicking more and more detail of our existence. By reducing all this to uncertainty, you are creating a training exercise, a simulation for precognition.

I can't tell if the author is actually serious, or if it's a joke article disguised as a novel.

I'm guessing it's probably meant entirely as a joke, but the novelty of the article wears off after reading a couple of lines. Yes, it's a slow computer. I know what lag looks like. Har har.

Honestly, while I don't doubt it's a "joke post" type arrangement it does bring to light an interesting idea. Older games would run faster or slower based on the hardware if it was outside of the intended specs. If you play games like Ultima IV on a new enough system (that supported DOS without DOSBox) the game would run so fast it would be unplayable. Likewise I imagine that if you used an old enough PC it would run so slowly as to be the equivalent of watching paint dry or mountains turn into molehills.

Most if not all modern games don't have that "feature" anymore so the only real effect of "underclocking" is indeed control latency/lag and low frame rates with all the cognitive dissonance that goes along with it. However, what if games didn't do that? What if they instead rendered at 30 FPS regardless of how fast or slow your system was and instead sped up the action in accordance with your system's capabilities? On the one hand you'd have faster systems that would maximize twitch reflexes, and on the other hand you'd have systems that emphasize forethought and planning, both while playing the same exact game.

It's an interesting idea really, that when playing a game where the pacing slows down to a crawl on older machines it gives you more time to plan out your moves and look ahead to the next step. Being able to plan out your actions three to five steps in advance can make for a much different experience than ones where don't realize that you've reacted to something until a second later.

While that's not what the person who created that article intended to discuss it's still an interesting idea, at least to me. /shrugs.

That said I really wouldn't want to play a 60 FPS game slowly enough for that sort of thing to matter. I first played Mass Effect on a system running a 2 GHz Athlon XP 2200+ CPU with a Radeon x1650 graphics card, and while frame rates first started in the 20-25 FPS range (with everything on minimum) my frame rate was down to something like 30 SPF by the final boss fight. That's not a typo, I do mean 60 Seconds Per Frame. Seriously, my game hung for a couple minutes before animating half a dozen frames of combat and repeating the process all over again. Sure, it gave me an okay bit of time to plan around Saren's actions, but oi... Annoying.
Stop complaining. I could have done this more painfully. - Dryad from Sacred 2.

User Info: Slayn

3 years ago#32

LOL this site is great.
You can buy a $500 console and a $500 computer and have two crap machines, or you can spend $1000 building your own computer and have the best of both worlds.

User Info: SnipeStar

3 years ago#33
schadow posted...
It has. ONE. Gigabyte. Of RAM.

welcome to apple, where you pay more for less!
i7 3820 / Corsair H80i | Asus Sabertooth X79 | 2x GTX 680 4GB | 16GB Corsair Vengeance LP | 2x 600GB Raptor / 2x 1TB WD RE3 | Corsair HX1000w | Silverstone RV01

User Info: Kevin_OS

3 years ago#34
That guy is trolling up a storm lol.
3570k / HD 7870 / GA-Z77X-D3H / 500R / 1TB HDD / 8GB DDR3 / TX 650

User Info: DRAGON07891230

3 years ago#35
So, uhh, what happened to those $8000 Intel Xeon E7's or whatever their called that are actually CPU's? And more expensive.
[__]//P[__]======^^^^^^-------------------***** ( '_') > Uh Oh! (Unofficial Godhead of ESV boards)

User Info: schadow

3 years ago#36
peteyboo posted...
schadow posted...

for teh trullz

That one is pretty much accurate though.

Both iridium and osmium are listed as second densest.
Gold is listed as reactive metal.
The element technetium is apparently composed of other elements.
Rhodium can in fact be found as a naturally occurring compound.

If you're going to copy Wikipedia, at least do it properly.

That's still 60% accuracy, I guess. And 60% is, in fat, enough to pass a subject.
MageofBlood391 posted...
GameFAQs: Because if all else fails, you can always argue semantics.

User Info: AlleRacing

3 years ago#37
Eh, I don't think that would get 60% for any chemistry assignment, even in middle school.

User Info: WyzeGye

3 years ago#38
Slayn posted...

LOL this site is great.

I read that one too... it's what prompted me to go back to the CPU list and post this topic.

There's nothing good about that site.... at all. Trust me I looked
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. Top 10 most expensive CPUs. This makes me want to punch my monitor.

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived