"Pen" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:7I6dnYyOAabkzWffRVn-sA@adelphia.com...
> Get real. I've told you 3 times it's complex with a
> resistive component.
> It is NOT purely resistive, which is what made all your
> conclusions erroneous. You are clearly in over your head
> with this entire project.
I barely have my toes, wet all materials have a resistance
a capacitance and an inductance. Or are you denying this too???
>
>
> "Donald McTrevor" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:gKrKe.2703$6i5.2699@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Pen" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:2fadnZifEZsFo2ffRVn-sA@adelphia.com...
> >> No I suggest you go back an learn some AC circuit theory.
> >> There
> >> may be a resistive component to the impedance, but the
> >> impedance is
> >> mainly reactive. If it were resistive then current drain
> >> would remain
> >> constant with frequency, which it clearly does not.
> >
> > Thats becayse V and I are out of phase, obviously silicon
> > is a material which has resistance. Do you deny that? (yes
> > or no).
> >
> >>
> >> "Donald McTrevor" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> >> news:gwpKe.2224$9b6.2163@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> >> >
> >> > "Pen" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:2aydnWSA7NGehmffRVn-1g@adelphia.com...
> >> >> The chip doesn't have a resistance, but rather an
> >> >> Impedance
> >> >> which will vary with frequency. Ohms law only really
> >> >> applies
> >> >> to static conditions. You're leaping to conclusions to
> >> >> support
> >> >> what you think should be happening.
> >> >
> >> > The chip does have a resistance, obviously.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> "Donald McTrevor" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:2RoKe.2067$U36.2028@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Pen" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:1_adndm4DOeMkGffRVn-sA@adelphia.com...
> >> >> >> Power is E*I. If voltage is held constant then
> >> >> >> power is not a function of current squared. The
> >> >> >> impedance of the CPU is not a constant with
> >> >> >> frequency making your theory invalid.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes I was not thinking of a constant voltage,
> >> >> > however
> >> >> > maybe you can run the chip at a lower voltage at a
> >> >> > lower
> >> >> > frequency.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Also with less current the chip will be cooler and
> >> >> > hence
> >> >> > have a lower resistance? (not sure whether it would
> >> >> > be
> >> >> > higher
> >> >> > though!!!).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Donald McTrevor" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:hFnKe.1966$U36.1583@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> > news:7kijf1h4thajjf40ebuhhlfjjahib9f8c1@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 23:03:38 GMT, "Donald
> >> >> >> >> McTrevor"
> >> >> >> >> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >Yes I would agree with that, posibbly or even
> >> >> >> >> >better,
> >> >> >> >> >however is not
> >> >> >> >> >power current squared X resistance in which
> >> >> >> >> >case
> >> >> >> >> >it
> >> >> >> >> >wuld
> >> >> >> >> >be
> >> >> >> >> >3/4 X 3/4 = 9/16 = about half the power?
> >> >> >> >> >If true thats quite a saving on heat and you
> >> >> >> >> >might
> >> >> >> >> >get
> >> >> >> >> >away
> >> >> >> >> >without a heatsink even better to drop from 600
> >> >> >> >> >to
> >> >> >> >> >300
> >> >> >> >> >which would be only 25% of normal power.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> No, that's incorrect.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > No it isn't its correct.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > because W=I x I x R
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > So...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > X =I x I x R/ [(Freq)*(V)2]
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I've posted equations previously
> >> >> >> >> about CPU power, Google should find them.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >
> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...9b3c4203?hl=en
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42FA1F8A.868EC1A3@yahoo.com...
> Donald McTrevor wrote:
> > "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> kony wrote:
> >>>
> >> ... snip ...
> >>>
> >>> If you underclock a 400MHz CPU to 300MHz but leave the
> >>> voltage the same it will produce exactly same amount of heat
> >>> as a 300MHz CPU will, because they're actually the same CPU.
> >>> Sometimes there is a very minor deviation to this as very
> >>> slight core changes are made to facilitate higher clock
> >>> speeds in later models per CPU family, but generally
> >>> speaking the difference isn't worth much consideration.
> >>
> >> Not so, because the primary current flow mechanism is to charge and
> >> discharge many itty-bitty capacitors once per clock cycle. This
> >> results in a certain Q (coulombs) per clock period, and when you
> >> increase the period you decrease the net Q per unit time, which is
> >> current. Thus the 400 to 300 frequency ratio should result in 3/4
> >> the current draw, and thus 3/4 the power level.
> >>
> > Yes I would agree with that, posibbly or even better, however is not
> > power current squared X resistance in which case it wuld be
> > 3/4 X 3/4 = 9/16 = about half the power?
> > If true thats quite a saving on heat and you might get away
> > without a heatsink even better to drop from 600 to 300
> > which would be only 25% of normal power.
>
> No, power is current * voltage, and voltage is constant here. The
> device is not ohmic, so it doesn't have a 'resistance'.
Well I think it does, it will have a resistance a capacitance and an
inductance.
>
> --
> Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
> Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
> <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
>
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:14:06 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>"Pen" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:1_adndm4DOeMkGffRVn-sA@adelphia.com...
>> Power is E*I. If voltage is held constant then
>> power is not a function of current squared. The
>> impedance of the CPU is not a constant with
>> frequency making your theory invalid.
>
>Yes I was not thinking of a constant voltage, however
>maybe you can run the chip at a lower voltage at a lower
>frequency.
yes you often can reduce voltage at lower speed. There is
some variability in how much though.
>
>Also with less current the chip will be cooler and hence
>have a lower resistance? (not sure whether it would be higher
>though!!!).
It's not very significant, the relative temp only changes
slightly. As with your K6-2 exploration and ideas about
performance, you again try to reinvent the wheel so to
speak. These are known facts and it would be better to
simply accept them until you understand what and why.
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:00:12 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>"Pen" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:2aydnWSA7NGehmffRVn-1g@adelphia.com...
>> The chip doesn't have a resistance, but rather an Impedance
>> which will vary with frequency. Ohms law only really applies
>> to static conditions. You're leaping to conclusions to
>> support
>> what you think should be happening.
>
>The chip does have a resistance, obviously.
Regardless of what you do or don't want to accept, simply
plugging in the numbers and taking measurements, it's
obvious your calculations are incorrect.
Donald McTrevor wrote:
> "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
.... snip ...
>>
>> No, power is current * voltage, and voltage is constant here.
>> The device is not ohmic, so it doesn't have a 'resistance'.
>
> Well I think it does, it will have a resistance a capacitance
> and an inductance.
It has an impedance, which is frequency sensitive. Square waves
contain many harmonics. The phase relationship between current and
voltage marks things as capacitive, inductive, or resistive. After
you study some functions of complex variables and Laplace and
Fourier transforms you may be able to begin to appreciate the
complexity of so characterizing the device. I already told you the
primary current draining mechanism.
Since you obviously already know everything I suppose there is no
point in informing you.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42FA7497.52E1B0C1@yahoo.com...
> Donald McTrevor wrote:
> > "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> ... snip ...
> >>
> >> No, power is current * voltage, and voltage is constant here.
> >> The device is not ohmic, so it doesn't have a 'resistance'.
> >
> > Well I think it does, it will have a resistance a capacitance
> > and an inductance.
>
> It has an impedance, which is frequency sensitive. Square waves
> contain many harmonics. The phase relationship between current and
> voltage marks things as capacitive, inductive, or resistive. After
> you study some functions of complex variables and Laplace and
> Fourier transforms you may be able to begin to appreciate the
> complexity of so characterizing the device. I already told you the
> primary current draining mechanism.
>
> Since you obviously already know everything I suppose there is no
> point in informing you.
Obviously I don't know everything I ws just stateing some basic
laws of physics. If in a physics class I said power was directly
proportional to currrent in an electrical circuit I would get my
knuckles rapped and deservidly so!!!
Probably be told to write out "Power equals I squared R" 1000 times too!!
>
> --
> Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
> Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
> <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
>
>
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:16:47 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>Obviously I don't know everything I ws just stateing some basic
>laws of physics. If in a physics class I said power was directly
>proportional to currrent in an electrical circuit I would get my
>knuckles rapped and deservidly so!!!
>Probably be told to write out "Power equals I squared R" 1000 times too!!
Rather than trying to comprehensively understand every tiny
mechanism involved in current, heat generation, it is easier
to simply take the opposite approach, to know that others
have measured current consumption to be very close (close
enough) to linear with frequency changes. If it did happen
to deviate a percent or two from that, what useful purpose
is there to implement this information into your K6-2
experiment?
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:0b4lf1tpf9lreoqg1uvtek5ptckofnsf13@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:16:47 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Obviously I don't know everything I ws just stateing some basic
> >laws of physics. If in a physics class I said power was directly
> >proportional to currrent in an electrical circuit I would get my
> >knuckles rapped and deservidly so!!!
> >Probably be told to write out "Power equals I squared R" 1000 times too!!
>
> Rather than trying to comprehensively understand every tiny
> mechanism involved in current, heat generation, it is easier
> to simply take the opposite approach, to know that others
> have measured current consumption to be very close (close
> enough) to linear with frequency changes.
Well if you can run at a lower voltage at a lower frequency they you may
find is not so linear and more proportional to the square root of the
frequency, possibly.
>If it did happen
> to deviate a percent or two from that, what useful purpose
> is there to implement this information into your K6-2
> experiment?
Not much really since I have as good as given up on it.
It seemed to be running OK at 4.5 X 66 =300 but it
failed to boot second time so I am back on the trusty
cyrix.
I think that without an L2 cache the K6 is handicapped.
The AIDA32 prog has a benchmark thing in it.
Memory reads:-
Duron-850 Gigabyte GA-7IXE4 AMD750
PC100 SDRAM 460 MB/s
Celeron-466A IBM 628848U i810 Int.
PC66 SDRAM 390 MB/s
PII-266 Intel DK440LX i440LX
PC66 SDRAM 350 MB/s
K6-III-450 Asus P5A ALADDiN5
PC100 SDRAM 290 MB/s
K6-2-450 Gigabyte GA-5AX ALADDiN5
PC100 SDRAM 260 MB/s
C3-800 VIA EPIA PLE133
PC133 SDRAM 210 MB/s
PentiumMMX-166 Asus TX97-E i430TX
PC66 SDRAM 190 MB/s
K6-266 Asus SP97-V SiS5598 Int.
66 MHz EDO RAM 60 MB/s
This Computer K6-2 4.5X66=300
52 MB/s
This Computer Cyrix MII 300
49 MB/s
So not much in it and the Cyrix had ZoneALarm running which may have slowed
it a tad.
But it shows how slow my computer is compared to others.
Basically it needs a new motherboard, and I need to get that Athlon64.
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:23:52 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:0b4lf1tpf9lreoqg1uvtek5ptckofnsf13@4ax.com.. .
>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:16:47 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
>> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Obviously I don't know everything I ws just stateing some basic
>> >laws of physics. If in a physics class I said power was directly
>> >proportional to currrent in an electrical circuit I would get my
>> >knuckles rapped and deservidly so!!!
>> >Probably be told to write out "Power equals I squared R" 1000 times too!!
>>
>> Rather than trying to comprehensively understand every tiny
>> mechanism involved in current, heat generation, it is easier
>> to simply take the opposite approach, to know that others
>> have measured current consumption to be very close (close
>> enough) to linear with frequency changes.
>
>Well if you can run at a lower voltage at a lower frequency they you may
>find is not so linear and more proportional to the square root of the
>frequency, possibly.
No, it is not proportional to the square root.
You have zero evidence to suggest it is and this is getting
ridiculous. You are essentially trying to reinvent facts
already known. Your argument is not valid and it is a waste
of time to argue something already proven false.
>
>>If it did happen
>> to deviate a percent or two from that, what useful purpose
>> is there to implement this information into your K6-2
>> experiment?
>
>Not much really since I have as good as given up on it.
>It seemed to be running OK at 4.5 X 66 =300 but it
>failed to boot second time so I am back on the trusty
>cyrix.
>I think that without an L2 cache the K6 is handicapped.
>The AIDA32 prog has a benchmark thing in it.
>
>Memory reads:-
That's not a cache benchmark.
I'd already suggested a benchmark for the cache but you are
intent on wasting time instead.
It could easily be that your motherboard or power supply are
simply aged to the point where they aren't stable with this
higher CPU load on them- something else I had also mentioned
briefly about the system age being a factor in upgrade
viability.
However, we can only assume what you have or haven't done to
set it up, you might recheck the jumpers to confirm they
were correct.
>
>So not much in it and the Cyrix had ZoneALarm running which may have slowed
>it a tad.
>But it shows how slow my computer is compared to others.
>Basically it needs a new motherboard, and I need to get that Athlon64.
It needs a 100% overhaul, not just a motherboard and CPU.
You might keep the floppy drive though, as one that old may
be out of alignment and any floppies made with it may not be
as readable with a new floppy drive.
Donald McTrevor wrote:
>
> "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
.... snip ...
>>
>> Since you obviously already know everything I suppose there is no
>> point in informing you.
>
> Obviously I don't know everything I ws just stateing some basic
> laws of physics. If in a physics class I said power was directly
> proportional to currrent in an electrical circuit I would get my
> knuckles rapped and deservidly so!!!
>
> Probably be told to write out "Power equals I squared R" 1000
> times too!!
PLONK thread.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:7rhlf1lta0kv392b2vm5ks94p7b9t7a1tr@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:23:52 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> >news:0b4lf1tpf9lreoqg1uvtek5ptckofnsf13@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:16:47 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> >> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Obviously I don't know everything I ws just stateing some basic
> >> >laws of physics. If in a physics class I said power was directly
> >> >proportional to currrent in an electrical circuit I would get my
> >> >knuckles rapped and deservidly so!!!
> >> >Probably be told to write out "Power equals I squared R" 1000 times
too!!
> >>
> >> Rather than trying to comprehensively understand every tiny
> >> mechanism involved in current, heat generation, it is easier
> >> to simply take the opposite approach, to know that others
> >> have measured current consumption to be very close (close
> >> enough) to linear with frequency changes.
> >
> >Well if you can run at a lower voltage at a lower frequency they you may
> >find is not so linear and more proportional to the square root of the
> >frequency, possibly.
>
> No, it is not proportional to the square root.
> You have zero evidence to suggest it is and this is getting
> ridiculous. You are essentially trying to reinvent facts
> already known. Your argument is not valid and it is a waste
> of time to argue something already proven false.
>
> >
> >>If it did happen
> >> to deviate a percent or two from that, what useful purpose
> >> is there to implement this information into your K6-2
> >> experiment?
> >
> >Not much really since I have as good as given up on it.
> >It seemed to be running OK at 4.5 X 66 =300 but it
> >failed to boot second time so I am back on the trusty
> >cyrix.
> >I think that without an L2 cache the K6 is handicapped.
> >The AIDA32 prog has a benchmark thing in it.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >Memory reads:-
>
> That's not a cache benchmark.
Never said it was.
> I'd already suggested a benchmark for the cache but you are
> intent on wasting time instead.
Well the K2 has no L2 cache anyway.
>
> It could easily be that your motherboard or power supply are
> simply aged to the point where they aren't stable with this
> higher CPU load on them- something else I had also mentioned
> briefly about the system age being a factor in upgrade
> viability.
I know its only a 100watt supply.
>
> However, we can only assume what you have or haven't done to
> set it up, you might recheck the jumpers to confirm they
> were correct.
>
> >
> >So not much in it and the Cyrix had ZoneALarm running which may have
slowed
> >it a tad.
> >But it shows how slow my computer is compared to others.
> >Basically it needs a new motherboard, and I need to get that Athlon64.
>
> It needs a 100% overhaul, not just a motherboard and CPU.
> You might keep the floppy drive though, as one that old may
> be out of alignment and any floppies made with it may not be
> as readable with a new floppy drive.
Mobo PSU CPU And memory. The case and drives are fine.
"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42FAD516.431A1D0C@yahoo.com...
> Donald McTrevor wrote:
> >
> > "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> ... snip ...
> >>
> >> Since you obviously already know everything I suppose there is no
> >> point in informing you.
> >
> > Obviously I don't know everything I ws just stateing some basic
> > laws of physics. If in a physics class I said power was directly
> > proportional to currrent in an electrical circuit I would get my
> > knuckles rapped and deservidly so!!!
> >
> > Probably be told to write out "Power equals I squared R" 1000
> > times too!!
>
> PLONK thread.
CBFalconer's rattle fly's right out of the pram.
He's not a happy little baby today, no doubt he will grow out
of it though :O|
>
> --
> Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
> Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
> <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
>
>
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:43:25 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> I'd already suggested a benchmark for the cache but you are
>> intent on wasting time instead.
>
>Well the K2 has no L2 cache anyway.
>>
I never said it did.
I said "test the L2 cache".
The board has it, and THAT was what you were "supposed" to
be checking the whole time. Most socket 7 CPUs don't have
L2 on the CPU itself, that is why the motherboard does.
>> It could easily be that your motherboard or power supply are
>> simply aged to the point where they aren't stable with this
>> higher CPU load on them- something else I had also mentioned
>> briefly about the system age being a factor in upgrade
>> viability.
>
>I know its only a 100watt supply.
Well, it was 100W, but now it may be several years old?
Considering the Sis chipset, the 100W CPU, Cyrix CPU, this
was a relatively low-end system even new and it wouldn't be
surprising if the power supply isn't adquate at this point.
Further, if the PSU is struggling it may not be enough for
even the Cyrix CPU, eventually. Getting a decade out of a
PSU in a budget-grade box is exceptional and anything more
at this point is just good luck (or lesser use of the
system).
>> It needs a 100% overhaul, not just a motherboard and CPU.
>> You might keep the floppy drive though, as one that old may
>> be out of alignment and any floppies made with it may not be
>> as readable with a new floppy drive.
>
>Mobo PSU CPU And memory. The case and drives are fine.
It isn't an ATX case is it? Can't be reuse then unless
you're a sheet-metal guru and feel like spending a few hours
to convert it.
The hard drive is one of the most significant bottlenecks to
basic uses, if you put it in a new system as the main HDD it
would cripple the system. Additionally it's age makes it a
liability, they do wear out eventually.
"~misfit~" <misfit61nz@yahoot.co.nz> wrote in message
news:42fc14f4$1@news.orcon.net.nz...
> Donald McTrevor wrote:
>
> *Even more!!!!*
>
> Man, you post a lot! Try starting one thread and sticking to it huh?
>
> Or are you really a fairly acomplished troll?
I dion't spend enough time on the net to fully understand the term
'troll', it seems to me that the term is only fully understood by menbers
of the species.
I believe the hardeened trolls spend a lot of time critisiisng perfectlly
normal behaviour.
How much I post is no concern of anyone but myself, and the
'troll hunting' variety of trolls.
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 00:32:36 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>"~misfit~" <misfit61nz@yahoot.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:42fc14f4$1@news.orcon.net.nz...
>> Donald McTrevor wrote:
>>
>> *Even more!!!!*
>>
>> Man, you post a lot! Try starting one thread and sticking to it huh?
>>
>> Or are you really a fairly acomplished troll?
>
>I dion't spend enough time on the net to fully understand the term
>'troll',
LOL, that's ridiculous, you've made hundreds of posts in the
last few months.
>it seems to me that the term is only fully understood by menbers
>of the species.
>
Again you are making things up.
You are a troll. Even so, trolls also sometimes have
hardware problems, it was being generous to try to help you
get your system running when all you kept doing is running
around in circles instead of simply setting up a single CPU
and benching it. If it takes over 3 posts TOTAL to do that
you are not being productive.
>I believe the hardeened trolls spend a lot of time critisiisng perfectlly
>normal behaviour.
I believe your beliefs are subjective and do not change what
a troll is in any other subjective or popularly-held
objective view.
>
>How much I post is no concern of anyone but myself, and the
>'troll hunting' variety of trolls.
True up to a point, but untrue in the larger picture.
Donald McTrevor wrote:
> CBFalconer's rattle fly's right out of the pram.
> He's not a happy little baby today, no doubt he will grow out
> of it though :O|
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:0iiqf1tqruqap0ungedtu4jo4lifo3gc5l@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 00:32:36 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"~misfit~" <misfit61nz@yahoot.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:42fc14f4$1@news.orcon.net.nz...
> >> Donald McTrevor wrote:
> >>
> >> *Even more!!!!*
> >>
> >> Man, you post a lot! Try starting one thread and sticking to it huh?
> >>
> >> Or are you really a fairly acomplished troll?
> >
> >I dion't spend enough time on the net to fully understand the term
> >'troll',
>
> LOL, that's ridiculous, you've made hundreds of posts in the
> last few months.
>
> >it seems to me that the term is only fully understood by menbers
> >of the species.
> >
>
> Again you are making things up.
> You are a troll. Even so, trolls also sometimes have
> hardware problems, it was being generous to try to help you
> get your system running when all you kept doing is running
> around in circles instead of simply setting up a single CPU
> and benching it. If it takes over 3 posts TOTAL to do that
> you are not being productive.
I didn't need benchmarks I already had accurate ones from that
site, which you and others would not accept were correct.
They were correct of course.
Which means those who doubted them were wrong.
*Wrong.*
>
>
> >I believe the hardeened trolls spend a lot of time critisiisng perfectlly
> >normal behaviour.
>
> I believe your beliefs are subjective and do not change what
> a troll is in any other subjective or popularly-held
> objective view.
>
>
> >
> >How much I post is no concern of anyone but myself, and the
> >'troll hunting' variety of trolls.
>
> True up to a point, but untrue in the larger picture.
>
"~misfit~" <misfit61nz@yahoot.co.nz> wrote in message
news:42fd67b7@news.orcon.net.nz...
> Donald McTrevor wrote:
> > CBFalconer's rattle fly's right out of the pram.
> > He's not a happy little baby today, no doubt he will grow out
> > of it though :O|
>
> I was right. A troll.
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:02:26 GMT, "half_pint"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>I didn't need benchmarks I already had accurate ones from that
>site, which you and others would not accept were correct.
>They were correct of course.
>Which means those who doubted them were wrong.
>
>*Wrong.*
Several of the synthetic CPU benchmarks looked roughly
accurate. The Doom (gaming) one certainly did not. Anyone
who feels a mid-speed K6-2 can game as well as a upper speed
Coppermine P3 hasn't done much gaming nor benchmarking for
several years.
Re: Should I have underclocked. 
Linear Mode
