http://ark.intel.com/products/ ... 0-%282M-Cache-2_40-GHz%29

He also said Sandy Bridge, and 2x2.4, P4 based ones are single core.
The above is a Sandy Bridge Celeron at 2.4 GHz, dual-core. It's closer to his CPU description...

Quote from -.Ryan.Cooper.- :

whats your problem ?

It cannot be Sandy Bridge - SB uses integrated RAM controller which only works with DDR3, yours is DDR1. And Sis651 chipset is for P4 and old Celerons, not Sandy Bridge. Your stuff doesn't add up...
I'm guessing it's an old P4 based Celeron.

Quote from bmwe30m3 :

dadge, the facepalm is at your part.
I think what E.Reiljans meant was that AutoPilot's examples were from older cars, when the gfx card were still ATi not AMD, even if AMD owned ATi back then, the cards were called ATi, 4k series and 200 series aint that new anymore.

Jesus, the article is less than 3 years old. That was the first thing I found when googling "failure rates graphics cards". If you're gonna say "X is better than Y", then maybe it should include the last couple years at least, and not a single series from two particular manufacturers.
If Mercedes S had lower failure rates than BMW X5 in Spain in 2011, does that mean that statistically Mercedes cars have lower failure rates than BMW, and citing a result from 2009 is like comparing cars from the 80's?

Quote from E.Reiljans :

What's ATI? I was talking about AMD.
Also let's talk how AMD CPUs were better than Intel ones 15 years ago.

You can't make an unqualified 'nVidia is statistically better than AMD' statement and then only accept one cherry-picked recent result. And it's only 3 years old, not 15, many people still have these. You replied to a guy who had 5870, from below, it was actually more reliable than gtx 285, so you're already generalizing to 5000 series yourself.

I've found 2 more recent results:
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/810-5/cartes-graphiques.html
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/843-5/cartes-graphiques.html

Only the 69xx of the 6000 series is less reliable, and more like 2x, not 3x. Probably due to the fact that 580 was a refinement of Fermi, and 69xx was a larger architectural change.
And you still haven't cited your source.

Quote from FRZN-95 :

Yep, so as it is it's a locked processor and the turbo speed is upto 3.5ghz, if you go to bios disable turbo boost you can actually overclock upto 3.8 (that is the maximum) and the re is no problem with stability and heat issues had it tested for about 7 hours..

I thought that the max OC would be +4 bins, so for 2310 that would be 3.3 GHz, and with turbo you could reach 3.6GHz for one core. Disabling turbo shouldn't affect this limit. This seems like a "faulty" MB implementation or something.
Given that most 2500K reach 4.4+ easily, I've no doubt that the vast majority of 2310s will work fine at 3.8 GHz if one can set it.

Quote from FRZN-95 :

Intel Core i5 2310 @ 3.8Ghz ( i know... )

Mind explaining this?

Quote from E.Reiljans :

But statistically NVidia cards have way less hardware errors.
EVGA failure rates on 500-series GeForce's in 2011: 1.3%
SAPPHIRE failure rates on 6000-series Radeon's in same year: 4.1%
Talk about almost 3 times more failures.

http://www.hardware.fr/news/10 ... av-cartes-graphiques.html
- GeForce GTX 280 : 9.9%
- GeForce GTX 260 : 4.3%
- Radeon HD 4870 : 3.2%
- Radeon HD 4850 : 1.9%

Talk about 3 times more failures...
You can see that it varies by manufacturer too, maybe evga is just better than sapphire. And you didn't cite source either.

You do have examples, you just find them on lfsworld like I did:
- for top 3 you have to find drivers in top 10 that have 3 or more people from their country in front of them. T. Stiborek was one such example. If CZE doesn't get points from him, then it's only top 3, if he does, then it's everybody.
- You asked if 11th placed guy should get the points for nutter rank if some points aren't given due to many drivers from the same country. You can check that by finding one example on lfsworld such as Avanah. There are a bunch of Finns in front of him and he's 11th, so you just see in nutter rank if USA got any points from him (he only has that lap, sometimes you need to check that he didn't get points for other combos and sum them up).

All the examples are on lfsworld, so how can you have no examples if you have internet access

No, the extra point goes to no one, and it applies equally to all ranks.
You should try to find an example on LFSW to confirm or disprove your guess, instead of having me look for it every time, next time you're on your own
On BL1/FBM Anavah from US is 11th, and US gets no points from him in the nutter rank.

OK, I've found one
Tomas Stiborek from Czech Rep. He's 4th on Fe3/FXO (7pts) and 10th on Bl1R/FXO (1 pts) so that should be 8 in total. However in nutter rank he contributes 7pts to CZE because on Bl1R/FXO there are 3 other Czech guys faster than him, so he doesn't count

I'm pretty sure it applies to all ranks, nutter rank included. You can try finding an example to prove one way or another. It might be tricky since you need to find someone who doesn't contribute much to nutter rank (so you can check easily), and there's a combo where he's in top 10 and there are 3 people better than him from his country.

If you think you can squeeze in 2500K, then do it, it's better than anything AMD has. Given that you're on budget, 2600K is not worth the price premium.
If not, then AMD. Bulldozer 61xx might be doing well on your particular apps of interests, because it has its strengths, so you may want to check it out. Overall some quad or even hex Phenom 2 is probably a better bang for the money.
I've never heard of any studies showing CPU reliability problems with either company, but it's your call. It reminds me of people who will only buy Japanese or German or American cars because that was their first car and it worked well...

As for Adobe and AMD, X1400 is a pretty old card.
http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/405/kb405711.html

You can see here that nVidia has issues with CS4 as well, in fact there are more nVidia cards there in the list of cards with problems. They are all older, I'm pretty sure that anything new from either nVidia or AMD won't have problems. In any case, I don't see any evidence for this "Adobe and AMD don't work together" view. That site is from Adobe, not like it's some fanboy site.

You're mostly into photo and video, you're picky enough to rule out AMD because of Adobe, yet a cheap 22" TN monitor is OK? Interesting...

I don't understand what you mean. Can you give an example?

Yes, so for BL1/FBM FIN gets 10+9+8 and others don't contribute.

I don't think you understand what I said, try reading it again.
If you don't believe it then here's a simple test: KY Oval/LX4 is one of the MHR combos. juunasd is 7th, so that means 4pts for Finland, right? Now go to the MHR and click on Finland and look at the responsible racers list - juunasd is not on the list. Notice that 5th placed Alonso[FIN] does appear on the list with 6pts and this is the only MHR combo he drove.
The reason is what I said - there are 3 Finnish guys faster than juunasd on KY1/LX4 so they only get 8+7+6=21 pts there.
Besides I'm telling you something Victor himself said long time ago, it's not like I accidentally noticed this...

There are many changes that are not so visible that were done on Vista/Win7, different driver model, kernel was redesigned for more security etc. Win 7 is simply a better OS. Not that there's anything wrong about using XP, but you'll have to get used to developers not always supporting old OS-es for everything. Like eyefinity.

Lack of indexed file system - I thought NTFS was indexed? If you mean that Windows' search through files is horrible, I agree. I installed cygwin so I could use grep and locate.

That's not how lfsworld does it though: only the top 3 best results for each country are counted for points, so Finland should have 54.

It isn't even so bad per se - it's the fact that they worked 3-4 years to deliver something that can't consistently beat even their own CPUs not to mention Sandy Bridge, that makes it quite disappointing.

Obviously they went for the server market, hope they can deliver there. GPUs are also going for the pro market with GCN, but consumers should get a decent performance bump too, I had hoped for the same from Bulldozer, eh...

Quote from AtomAnt :

Sounds like your mind is made up, never ask a question you don't want an answer to.

solid state, 32 gig start there

Made up my mind about what? I'm not buying anything here. And what question did I ask? Did you mean to quote someone else?

Quote from dadge :

divide the frequency by the CL and you'll see that the read/write cycles are the same(or close to). but thanks for confirming it for me.
1600MHz=1600 cycles per second. / CL9 (9 cycles per read/write) = 177.7 read/writes per second.
800MHz=800 cycles per second. / CL5 (5 cycles per read/write) = 160 read/writes per second. (200 if the CL is 4)
400MHz=400cycles per second. / CL2 (2 cycles per read/write) = 200 read/writes per second.

if i'm wrong then i've fluked building computers for 10 years and my luck is bound to run out.
i'm currently running a duel core phenom (socket AM3)with 8gb of DDR2 ram (socket AM2+ board)with a GTX470 and there isn't a game on the planet (for the pc) that i can't play. even with my 8800GT i could play GTA4 with the graphics set at full/ultra.
i even did a large scale battle on Arma2 (75 units per side fighting)to test the performance. my pc still gave good frames.

First, 1600MHz isn't 1600 cycles per second, it's 1,600,000 :P

This is not what CL means, you cannot compute bandwidth (reads/writes per second) in such a naive way:

1600 MHz = 0.625ns per cycle
The time to read amount of memory whose address is known @ CL9:
1 word = 9*0.625ns = 5.625ns (effectively 177M reads/s)
4 words = 9*0.625ns + 3*0.625ns = 7.5ns (effectively 533M reads/s)
16 words = 9*0.625ns + 15*0.625ns = 15ns (effectively 1067M reads/s)

800 MHz@ CL4:
1 word = 4*1.25ns = 5ns (effectively 200M reads/s)
4 words = 4*1.25ns + 3*1.25ns = 8.75ns (effectively 457M reads/s)
16 words = 4*1.25ns + 15*1.25ns = 23.75ns (effectively 674M reads/s)

Even though it should be slower by your logic, 1600@CL9 will generally be faster over 800@CL4, because you often read more than just one chunk.

Memory is very slow compared to CPU, so modern CPUs use various mechanisms to avoid memory bottlenecks like L1/L2/L3 caches, out-of-order execution, Intel HT also helps etc. So in real life faster memory won't matter so much in most cases. But there are such cases: take Llano APU, it's graphics part scales very well when you go from 1066MHz to 1866MHz RAM even if higher CL makes this CAS latency about the same, because it cares a lot more about mem bandwidth than CL.

CL factor determines CAS latency and this latency is the same, but that doesn't make CL10@1600 memory no faster than CL5@800. If you're reading more data, or know where it is long enough in advance, the bandwidth will depend more on speed than CL. Say you need to read 4 words/pages of memory (or whatever is the unit), the first one will take the same time, but the next 3 will come 2x quicker for 1600MHz.


As for OP, the build looks ok. 8Gb would be nice since it's cheap, but if it's for gaming, it won't matter as much since most games are 32-bit, thus limited to 2GB of RAM.

Quote from Nilex :

Hey i have a crazy idea, let's stick to original theme;

and leave the rest for the right time & place.
I know we all feel that we're helping, but we're actually making it worse. Wait for it. Step by step. Be patient.

The original theme seems settled, and Scawen explicitly asked about button clutch issue. So why exactly is here and now not the right place/time to provide an opinion about it?

Quote from scipy :

No, I'm not. I wasn't stating a fact, I just wrote an opinion (even wrote imo). Button is available for a reason, as some people don't have a clutch pedal but want to do all of the driving on their own etc.. it's just a side effect that it can be pressed faster than autoclutch (and this is only because a few years ago button control rate was increased from 5 or 6 to 10). Banning something just cause it opens a possibility of making even people with clutch pedals faster isn't fair to the other people,

You're talking about manually pressing a button. I can concur to some level that it's ok. But using a 3rd party program to create and tweak macros coupled with LFS settings so that you can shift faster than not just AC, but any human with manually using BC, is where the line is crossed IMO. And there's no additional effort with macros, you drive in the exact same way as with AC.

Quote from scipy :

just re-take the WR with BC. No one will think less of them.

Great. Because I've done it a couple times...

It should still be fixed from LFS. It used to be that you could drive through barriers on BL GP as well as through pits, and easily cut ~1s off your lap. I could use the same argument that it was open to everyone, but it was still fixed because it just isn't right. Maybe this will too if we complain enough :P

I'm late for the original topic (I'm fine with the proposed solution for the tyre preheating anyway), but I can chime in for the button-clutch problem. Yes, it's a pretty big issue and has ruined HL for me to a large degree. As arco said, physics hasn't been reset for a while so most WRs have become quite non-trivial to beat, and it's very sad to see some alien-like WRs being beaten by BC exploits. Majority of WRs in the last 6-12 months have been with BC. It's not a priority, but I'd really like to see something being done about it by the next time the hotlaps on LFSW are reset, as right now I have zero motivation of putting any sort of significant effort into a lap just to see it beaten with BC.
It's not just BC either, seems like the "root of all evil" is the fact that there are faster ways to shift than AC. Even with clutch pedal + shifter I've heard people are using crazy stuff like setting profiler so they need only press the clutch like 25% and using a button to switch between CL+SH and AC so for downshifting when it doesn't matter they just use AC etc. And you can trick LFSW too, there are BC laps on LFSW that are marked AC, so you can't trust that either any more...

Quote from Nilex :

Button clutch exploit (although these are cheats, not exploits):
I should also tell you i'm talking about subtle cheats that bring 0.1 sec/1 min, it's up to you to decide if that's worthy of the time. I remember we had Victor's announcement here on the forum to report any cheaters if we see them; that was about those blatant supersonic cheaters. They pretty harmless ever since ban button was invented tho. That 0.1 sec are killing it, not those that we can see.

On tracks like Bl GP with GTI/TBO, it's an easy 0.2-0.3s. Let's say I drove XRT on some hypothetical track for a year, 8 hours every day, and ended up with a PB of 2.00.00 (assuming a fixed set, i.e. no set-related laptime improvements) . The progress over the year would be roughly:
<2.01.00 - probably in the first couple of laps since it's XRT, my favourite car since S1 demo
~2.00.50 - 1-2 days
~2.00.30 - probably less than a week
The rest of the year would be spent on the remaining 0.3s which would likely be more luck than skill.

On a 2min track, 0.3s is a good estimate for the BC advantage over AC, so if people can't see where the problem lies if someone is given a free 0.3s advantage, then they're not hotlappers IMHO.
No, it won't make an average joe crushing WRs, nor do I care if average people use it. It's fast people who can make a decent lap into something that will make aliens sweat that I care about.

Anyway, my 3 cents...