AMD Phenom II 940 "Xtremely" Benchmarked

Page 32 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar


The only way to cut the world population in half without genocide is to provide everyone with a good income. Families that earn more have fewer children. Of course that would run into our consumer society issues as they'd want to spend that income on something and it probably wouldn't be green. It would also take a few generations, but it would boost robotics. We could all buy Japanese elder care robots as we'd not have enough grandkids around to help out. :lol:

Malthus was wrong 200 years ago and he's wrong now. Karl Marx was wrong 150 years ago and he's wrong now. Adam Smith was mostly right 200 years ago and he's mostly right now.

What we need is a truly information economy where artists, philosophers and theologians earn as much as athletes, movie stars and hedge fund managers.








 


Or a Athlon XP.

:kaola:

As for gaming, as long as we have one damn good PC gaming company that focuses their talents there I think PC gaming will be safe. VALVe that is. Yes they are doing the 360 releases but every game is made for the PC then ported.

And I doubt they will change unless there is a forced buyout which is impossible since it is a private company. That or they lose too much money. Also not possible because L4D blew the Orange Box away in pre orders alone and is still selling as is HL/HL2.

Next is HL2 EP3. Thats going to really sell since EP2 was so good that you want to see the next one.
 
the only way to cut carbon emissions, is to cut the world population by half ....
The only way to cut the world population in half without genocide is to provide everyone with a good income.
Click to expand...
Last I checked, 1 U.S. kid puts out more carbon than 5 Bangladeshi kids. Have to cut pop without raising income!

Or we could mass-produce trees with tax credits and impose a tax on tree-cutting.

Or we could have 95% population taking up 80% of the land, instead of 50% of the population sprawling across 100% of the land. Are we that desperate already to kill people to save our coastal buildings?

What we need is a truly information economy where artists, philosophers and theologians earn as much as athletes, movie stars and hedge fund managers.
Click to expand...
They already earn as much, if you count out money for TV appearances. Seems the Van Goghs and Chomskys of this world make fewer TV spots than the Kobe Bryants and John Travoltas and... wait, isn't a hedge fund one of the decadent blights of an information economy?
 


Another FPS gamer who's out of touch with current developments in MMO's, let alone single player CRPGs. I wouldn't play The Witcher or Mass Effect on an Athlon XP.

I played Oblivion on a P4 Northwood 2.8 with a Radeon 9800 Pro, but it was better on an Athlon X2 4600+ with a 3870x2 and even better with the much maligned triple cripple.

AI isn't just for FPS mobs anymore.




You have one damn good FPS company. When Valve puts out an SF CRPG set in their universe, then send me a PM. If it ain't a CRPG, I'm not totally enthused. I can get worked up a tiny bit over occasional strategy games, but it's the role playing that draws me in even more than the graphics.

In an MMO, I can pick flowers, craft, take a ride on my horse where the mobs are greyed out just to enjoy the virtual scenary and occasionally get off to heal a low level player who's in trouble. In a single player CRPG, I can follow a plot and storyline that's more involved than simply shooting mobs from one level to the next.

The only problems with the GTA games are their criminality. If there were a detective CRPG that mixed the odd humor of the "Under a Killing Moon" SF film noir with genuine open worlds and good quests, then I'd consider it, but I think that particular company is virtually evil and proud of it.



Vincent never made much off his paintings. What they sell for now would make him turn over in his grave if he knew. Chomsky make alot of money? Only if certain political sides are paying him for his views on the Middle East. Professors of semiotics don't make that much money. Hedge fund managers are like theologians in that they both claim to hedge against disaster (economic or spiritual) but they often have no idea what they're about.
 
The talk about a consumer society being bad is ridiculous. People have choices and they make choices based on what they think will make them happiest or give the most benefit. Instead of spending all that money on constant upgrades to computers, all of you could have installed solar panels on your roofs that would provide around 80% of your power needs. Why didn't you? Probably because you get more enjoyment out of a brand new computer rig then you do out of getting renewable energy.

All the PC talk is talk. When money is on the line, that's when we know what people REALLY value. If you spend $140 on cable TV + broadband instead of 1 month health insurance at $140, well then we know cable + broadband is more valuable to you and gives you more benefit. You've made your choice, and if health care insurance is so low down on your list that you never wind up paying for it, then don't complain that you don't have health care and now want someone else to give it to you for free.

Same with all the mass transport/green energy ideas. You can buy 100% green energy from most power companies. Sure it's way more expensive, but that's why green energy isn't automatically used. If you aren't using 100% green energy, then that means you'd rather spend the extra money on whatever else you did buy. "Saving the Earth" just wasn't as important as having the stuff you got instead.

Human economies have ALWAYS made stuff other humans want. It makes no sense to produce crap that no one else wants. Why do we make 4870x2 graphics cards and SUVs instead of more bicycles to ride to work? Because people want 4870x2 graphics cards and SUVs and don't want to ride bicycles to work. People also want to live in a nice house with backyard instead of some cramped highrise where you have to wait 15 minutes to get an elevator.

As long as we're human, we're going to produce what humans ACTUALLY want, not what some PC dribble says what they SHOULD want. That's why Communist countries have to be authoritarian, to force people to accept what they SHOULD want instead of getting what they ACTUALLY DO want.



As for me, I am going to wait for the AM3 boards to come out before I upgrade my very old AMD 3500+ and Nvida 7600GT system. I just looked at the recommended specs for GTA4 and my system won't be able to play it! And damned if I'm going to give up my new system for free range chicken, hell no, give me caged chicken fed with pesticide grown grain, I want a new computer system instead!
 
Yes, it's hard to be a law abiding citizen in the Grand Theft Auto world. What I like to do is enforce my brand of justice on criminals and corrupt police. Anyone who breaks the law by running a red light, police or otherwise is hunted down and killed whatever it takes. Of course a lot of innocent bystanders get hurt in the process, but that's unavoidable collateral damage. What is important is that the criminal be "brought to justice", even if it means launching rockets if they're trying to get away in a car.
 


Consumer societies aren't automatically bad or good. It's how things are produced for societies that are good or bad. Waste is actually bad for business and not using the most ecologically friendly technology that's affordable is wasteful. That's why we use natural gas and heating oil in our homes instead of coal. Once natural gas became affordable, and replaced coal the skies of cities like London and New York became much cleaner.



Why didn't I? I don't own my roof. If I could move into a townhouse with solar panels, then I'd be happy. I'd even pay a little more for rent under those conditions. Where I live solar panels would be a good idea. Eventually, the technology will improve such that solar panels are not only ecologically wise but cost effective.



I don't value money. I value what it brings. Money is worthless in and of itself. It's just a medium of exchange whose ultimate value is based on trust.

Valuing money as paper wealth brought us every single bubble that burst and hurt our capitalist economy. Ideally, greed should not be rewarded, but it's rewarded in two ways; government bailouts for banks and corporations that claim they are too big to fail and the rush to the next bubble using other people's money.

Both capitalism and government have issues that a bit of common sense and lack of greed could fix.




Politically correct has nothing to do with ecology or economics. You're using a term that's actually misapplied to issues of ethnicity and culture. I'm not very PC myself, but I am an ecologically minded advocate of private ownership, government regulation and capital investment for the good of us all.



I realize I'm a minority in this opinion, but I believe that present society criminal games like the GTA series are examples of exploitation. Most fiction or drama involving criminals include elements that call the lifestyle into question. GTA games generally glorify the lifestyle.

IMHO, gangster games should include aspects that separate them from the real world. Either base them in the past (i.e. the days of the beggar king of London or the gangs of New York), or in a fantasy environment (like Oblivion's Dark Brotherhood), or in a future dystopia.

There are times when I wish all you suburban GTA wannabees would get issued a reality check by life. Get robbed at gunpoint and see how you feel about it.

It might take that to change some people's minds. My mind was made up. I would not vote to ban GTA but I would not have it in my house, because I simply don't think it's morally or spiritually good to enjoy being the bad guy. At least in movies like the Godfather series, you have a sense that Michael Corleone didn't want to become who he became at the end. GTA roleplaying is more like Al Pacino's character in Scarface, someone that no one could really identify with or wish to be like.
 


Mmm anyone ever thought about decentralized power generation? If we use the heat energy produced by electricity generation...

Maybe governments should make solar panels a law... would stimulate the economy from all that demand, better than bail outs.

I wanna see a communist style community, (no dictator or person in charge) one where people are not so greedy.
 
^Except normal ppl like me cannot afford solar panels.

Hell I want them to get Fusion up an running. Its clean, super efficient and produces more electricity than anything else.

But stability is the problem. Boom. Thats all I can say.
 
@AMDfangirl..

Solar panels are not that efficient...

Windmills are so much better...

I dont understand why windmills are not attached to street lamps which gain electricity throughout the day and night and shine through LED bulbs...

As i have said before so much can be done if we all put some thought to it...

All lightbulbs should be converted to leds with lower power consumption and they take a long time to expire....


 


Windmills = noisy

Solar panels = example

Randomizer = chocolate

 


It's called anarchist and it would be a good idea, except for human nature. I've been robbed at gun point once in my life (two years ago). The police weren't very helpful afterwards either. Because I'm an old hippie, I had a cop yell at me to get on my way when I wanted to report it. He was directing traffic at street that was closed nearby. If I'd been a 20 something getting out of a Lexus, I'm sure his attitude would have been better.

Most utopian political philosophies misunderstand human nature, even if many religious theologies take too dim a view of human nature. Our republic is the best of the worst, and capitalism is the best of the worst. That's why we need governmental accountability, corporate accountability to shareholders and to the public, and regulation to minimize the effects of greed and designs on power.
 


Word, Playa.
 
Yipsi, one of the recognized "problems" in our current system is that pollution is a "bad" that no one wants, but people can produce pollution without having to directly pay for the negative effects. That's why I'm not against a pollution tax, it would make polluters pay for the negative effects they impose on us all. By the way, this is a capitalist solution and advocated by free market economists. The only question is how much "bad" does a ton of pollution impose? How much "bad" is that costing us? And so what should the tax rate be? I guess it's a series of questions, but once we figure that out, then polluters will also figure out if it is worthwhile to pollute or not. If solar and clean energies still cost too much over dirtier ones, then they'll just pay the tax, otherwise they'll switch to renewable, clean energy.


Humans respond to incentives, this could be called greed in one manner. The beauty of capitalism is that greed can be used to benefit society, in most cases this happens. Why was AMD started in the first place? Because Intel was making a lot of money and AMD "greedily" wanted some of that money for itself. So it tried and succeeded in making a CPU that was better than Intel's. Intel, not wanting to share the multi-billion dollar pie, responded by building an even better CPU than AMD's. You could say it was greedy for Intel not to want to share the market, but their greed benefits society because it creates competition, and competition is what drives capitalism. Capitalism needs competition in order for it to produce good effects, monopolies and a concentration of power are harmful.


People who stretch themselves too far thanks to their greed are punished by huge losses. Those who tried to flip homes in the final years are paying for it right now. Huge losses don't mean that capitalism is broken, rather they are the "whip" that capitalism uses to enforce discipline and make sure greed is checked. The fear of a large loss keeps speculators at bay, every once in a while speculators need to be reminded and kept in check.

Yes the bailouts for banks is one weakness of our economic system (not necessarily capitalism). The way we operate currently, the banks are vital and a collapse of the banking sector would cause a Great Depression like downturn. That's why I support the bailout of banks and the only reason I support the bailout. Besides, the way the bailouts have been structured, the taxpayer is likely to make money once things shake out. The Wall Street Journal reports that "we've" made $8 billion so far. That's because the bailouts are really nothing more than loans that banks have to pay interest on, as well as give up part of ownership just to receive the loans.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123130479111660343.html

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is getting a better return than most fund managers.

Mr. Paulson took a lot of heat for cobbling together much of the strategy for the government's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, on the fly. Three months later, however, Mr. Paulson and his team are awash in gains.

New Hampshire Republican Sen. Judd Gregg estimated that the bailout program has had a gain of about $8 billion in the past three months. "The TARP, for all its warts, has involved using tax dollars to invest in assets that will have ...
Click to expand...


Ideally, banks would be allowed to fail and be punished for their foolish lending. Again, that would cause a huge downturn so we need the bailouts. But that also means NO ONE else should be bailed out. It's not fair, but that means homeowners, GM, and any other corporation or entity should be allowed to go under and not receive money. If we remove the "whip" of capitalism, then people will no longer be afraid to speculate and things will get a lot worse. Banks get special treatment which also means that they should have to pay something for that (like special fees or taxes) or be regulated in a way others are not.


I hope I've used the force sufficiently.
 
I view GTA as a game, but I understand your point Yipsi. The game aspect should be repeatedly emphasized, especially by parents or even friends. In real life, it's not that easy to get away with killing a bunch of people, and in real life, it's game over forever once you die.

Yeah, I think Take Two Interactive doesn't try to put morality into the GTA series. That would be hard to pull off successfully while still allowing people to do whatever they want. However I think morality won't be changed by GTA, either your parents have taught you the difference between good vs. evil, or they haven't. People who understand right and wrong won't be affected by the game, the game could be a good way to blow off steam and do something "bad" without actually doing it in reality and hurting someone for real.

I think our society has really let off bad parents through allowing excuses. Poverty, time, blah blah, none of those should be accepted. This is the richest generation ever and humans have never had it so good compared to those living in the past. Poverty is no excuse for bad parenting, it didn't keep past generations, like the one who lived through the Great Depression, from teaching right and wrong. Without that moral guidepost, we get a society that says it's not a crime unless you get caught. Police can't be everywhere and we don't want spying everywhere either. Bad parents have to be called out and put to task.
 


/checks thread title

/checks quote again


wut? :pt1cable:
 
OMG NEWS FLASH ECT ECT


Have we gone of topic again...

Doesnt it show that computers are now so boring... we are now so off topic...



Its official.. Computers are boring ... GET A LIFE :) ( me included )
 
Well, I'll stay on topic. I mostly agree on critiques of the capitalist system that are from private ownership, free society viewpoints. I'm simply not a Libertarian, but a social conservative who wants government and business to do what they do best for the good of us all.

On topic is the GTA discussion. Swat team games were popular at one time, but now it's the other side of the social morass we're in today. A 6 year old drove to school and claimed he learned to drive from GTA. What parent would let their kid play GTA?

That said, there are no real world good guy games anymore, unless you count military shooters developed by the U.S. military as a recruiting tool. No film noir detective games and not even a reclaim the hood from bad guys vigilante games. People want to be the bad guys and do things in game that I can't repeat on the board (using my employer's notebook at work during break anyways).

Eventually the cycle will change and we'll see a different "take" on things. Until that happens, "Take You to the Cleaners with bad console ports with even worse morality" will make a killing.

The kid who killed his Mom over Halo 3 was mentally ill, I'm sure. I'm a very religious person and I don't see any issues with shooters involving defending humanity from aliens. I do see issues with pretending to be a gang banger. So, I'd allow Halo but not GTA. Luckily there are no guns in my house so even if my kid went nuts as a teen, he'd have to be able to beat me at swordplay LOL (I'm trying to teach him beginning foil rules with foam sabers -- will teach him real fencing later on, along with some aikido holds and locks for self defense).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom