thisguyisnuts :
What is my problem?
My problem, as I stated earlier, was that you were wrong, not listening to people who corrected you politely; and rather than learn from such clarification and expand your knowledge of a subject you needed education on, you claimed confusion as fact and were a big-all-caps-internet-jerk about it.
I found this thread in an attempt to learn more about triple channel vs. dual channel, and your misinformation could be detrimental to others that will be be doing the same.
Oh come on, It's blatantly obvious to anyone reading your posts that you came to and posted on this thread with no other intention than to flame another forum member. You joined Tom's Hardware on Oct. 6th 2011 under the screen name "thisguyisnuts" and your first post was a response to my post the very same day.
Since ALL of you posts (4 in total) have been direct responses to my posts it's obvious that even your screen name "thisguyisnuts" was also created for the sole purpose of flaming. You're (you are) fooling no one.
You say that I was wrong and responded rudely to polite people. What was I wrong about? I said "DDR3 does indeed equal triple-channel" I never said or even suggested that DDR3 always equals triple-channel. In fact I quite clearly pointed out in my first post as well as the one that you were so offended by that DDR3 does NOT always equal triple-channel due to the users hardware/configuration.
I even posted a very basic-simple-easy to under stand analogy as to why I made the statement "DDR3 does indeed equal triple-channel". If you had understood this (very basic-simple-easy to under stand) analogy you would have also understood the part where DDR3 did NOT equal triple-channel due to configuration/hardware.
Since you say you could not understand this (very basic-simple-easy to under stand) analogy, I'll explain it to you.
300lb weight set = triple-channel, could only lift 200lbs = platform (CPU, Motherboard) only capable of dual-channel memory operation, someone that is capable using it to it's full potential and lift the entire 300lbs = platform capable of triple-channel memory operation. I realize that explaining this may have seemed a little retarded but, unfortunately it was necessary for "thisguyisnuts".
If I was unclear about anything I posted in either of my 1st 2 posts, it was my use of the designation DDR2 when I stated "can only run it as DDR2" instead of saying dual-channel but with the exception of "thisguyisnuts" and 2 other Sandy Bridge Fan(atics), I think most people (that wanted to understand) knew that I meant DDR2's maximum 2 channel capability, if not it should be clear now. While some might say that that DDR2 is indeed capable of triple-channel because number of channels is due to other hardware (CPU, Motherboard), they would be almost correct except that (to my knowledge) there has never been any hardware and most likely will never be any hardware that allows this.
And just so there's no more confusion on what someone might think I "SEEM TO THINK" nowhere in this entire thread have I even suggested that the 3 in DDR3 or the 2 in DDR2 has any direct correlation to the number of channels memory is capable of. To the best of my knowledge it is a generation designation.
As far as the whole rudeness/politeness thing goes, First "Leaps-from-Shadows's" says: "You seem to think DDR3 equals triple-channel, which isn't the case. Sandy Bridge uses DDR3 in dual-channel, while EE uses DDR3 in triple-channel." Then "compulsivebuilder" says: "The 990 fan(atic) was badly mistaken about DDR3, and about his chip being so much better than any Sandy Bridge chip"
I really don't think to many people would find either one of those statements polite. While they're not incredibly rude by any measure (you're the only one that has been incredibly rude on this thread), they were definitely a misrepresentation of what I said and certainly, they were a long way from polite.
By the same token my response "REALLY, YOU TRULY THINK I DON'T UNDERSTAND DDR3?" was not meant to be incredibly rude, or polite for that matter. Maybe you don't realize it but upper case is also used to accentuate the importance of a word(s) or sentence, like when you see a warning label. Almost always the word WARNING is in upper case. This is used to accentuate the level of importance the author has given to a word(s) or sentence not the level of rage or anger directed at the user/reader.
Is this why your so miserable? Did you actually think all those warning labels on just about every man-made product was angrily screaming (Nerd Raging) at you? You poor miserable fool! I feel for ya!
You say you came to this thread to learn, now would be a good time to start!
So did you think you could make a point about my supposed rudeness by lashing out in your first two responses to my posts in this thread and trying to squeeze as many insults into them as possible. Comments like: "Weirdo with the weight analogies", "misplaced commas", "still confused", "too much HGH", "you nerd-rage", "spew angry nonsense". Because let me tell you, between that "misplaced commas" comment and the constant reminder that I sometimes write "your" when I should have instead written "you're" I'm so depressed I don't even know if I will be able to get out of bed tomorrow. :lol: I mean what are you like 10yrs old?
You post links as if just posting them somehow gives you credibility when they often don't even address the comments made and even when they do, they often don't support your position. A perfect example is this link: [/url]
http://www.extremetech.com/computin...cing-revealed-a-lot-cheaper-than-sandy-bridge (if link doesn't work just copy/paste) which you posted after stating: "Bulldozer ring a bell?" Since that's all you said on the subject I have to assume it's in response to a this comment I made in my previous post:
Then you go on to say: " Given that AMD is refusing to support it," Really, you want to bring AMD into the discussion. Since when have AMD's CPU's been anywhere near cutting edge on anything when compared to Intel. AMD's CPU's have always been more about value than performance hence if you were to replace "refusing" with can't or at least can't support it for their target price range, your statement would be far more accurate. I think even you know better, maybe not.
Your link quite clearly supports my previous statement so I have to wonder did you even read it or did you just assume that no one else would!
So just in case no one did here are a few quotes from that link:
Early benchmarks of Bulldozer showed that Zambezi was never likely to be competitive with Intel’s Core i7 — and these prices, which are all well below any of Intel’s comparable i7 (and even some i5) Sandy Bridge chips, suggest that the FX Series chips are priced to sell rather than compete.
And
In all likelihood, though, AMD probably never intended to compete with Intel in terms of raw processing power — and the just-announced Intel i7-2700k, which will arrive around the same time as the FX Series, will certainly make sure of that. Zambezi, if anything, is simply intended to close the widening gap between Phenom II and Sandy Bridge — to prove to consumers and OEMs that AMD still knows know to make a competitive CPU. Here’s hoping.
Enough said on that subject.
Your obvious intentional misrepresentation of quotes by not mentioning who actually wrote what or taking them out of context and making comments that suggest that they mean something other than they actually do are pretty lame as well. Anyone can re-read my previous posts to find the truth. Although even I have to admit you have my grudging admiration for your comments surrounding the 2nd quote in your last post. You so artfully wove your comments both before and after it to make any reader that had not read the original think it meant something completely different than what it originally meant. You gained my grudging admiration, but you actually lost a few points in the respect department (not that there was actually any left to lose). But regardless, any third world propaganda department would be happy to have you as an employee.
So what is your problem? I really don't know. Maybe you were originally posting under a different (your usual) screen name and you felt insulted by what I said. A little too thin skinned if that's the case. Or maybe you were just abused as a child. Again, I really don't know or care for that matter. It does make for interesting speculation though.
Something else I know is that the forum member that started this thread "jwill27" understood my point of view and went on to buy the system that was right for his needs. A Intel core i7 990X with 24gb's of DDR3 in a triple-channel configuration.
The one thing I won't be doing in the future is responding to anymore of your posts. Although it may be somewhat amusing, it is also an exercise in futility and unfair to the other readers/posters of this thread but, I guess you could always re-register under a new screen name and try again. Let's hope not!
So I'll start at the beginning.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram