Hilarious! :) The Mac mini review @ Ars

You SERIOUSLY don't know what I was talking about, do you?

Cluless troll.

Maybe you wouldn't have some many people pissed at you if you defended your position with facts instead of name calling. If you know the real truth, please explain it, it shouldn't be hard for someone as knowledgable as you.

BTW, cache can help any processor as memory will always be slower and have higher latency than cache. And the pentium M and xeon have very good memory buses, the only thing in the consumer market that can beat them is the opteron's/athlon 64s low latency memory bus and it's a lot newer than the memory bus the pentium m and xeon use. And in the past the memory bus of the p4 destroyed the memory bus of the athlon xp(higher bandwidth and lower latency, plus p4's have much faster cache), yet the p4 needed more cache to be able to beat the athlon, so your excuse of a poor memory controller being the reason for more cache is definetely not the only reason to add cache.
 
Fox5, I think it's best if we just drop the issue. We (and I think most everyone else) know what we're talking about. No need to further his antics.

Please, I'm begging you to just let him think he's right. :rolleyes:
 
Killer-Kris said:
I give up.... :rolleyes:

I think a mod needs to close yet another thread due to unabashed trolling.

FYI: it was over already when you entered with your unwanted crap here. SOo it's really funny if you want to close anything.
 
Fox5 said:
You SERIOUSLY don't know what I was talking about, do you?

Cluless troll.

Maybe you wouldn't have some many people pissed at you if you defended your position with facts instead of name calling. If you know the real truth, please explain it, it shouldn't be hard for someone as knowledgable as you.

BTW, cache can help any processor as memory will always be slower and have higher latency than cache. And the pentium M and xeon have very good memory buses, the only thing in the consumer market that can beat them is the opteron's/athlon 64s low latency memory bus and it's a lot newer than the memory bus the pentium m and xeon use.
.

So then they are NOT very good, right?

Kids: you guys are using absolutely subjective measuring... it's NOT good IMO. So?

And in the past the memory bus of the p4 destroyed the memory bus of the athlon xp(higher bandwidth and lower latency, plus p4's have much faster cache), yet the p4 needed more cache to be able to beat the athlon, so your excuse of a poor memory controller being the reason for more cache is definetely not the only reason to add cache.

That's another story: P4 had a way more lightweight core than Athlons.

BTW the only thing that gave P4 an edge in most cases when somenthing was SSE2-enabled: I remember when the first updated DLLs came out for max - I think for max 4 - and I measured 6-8x performance jump on our huge scenes.
 
Fox5 said:
You SERIOUSLY don't know what I was talking about, do you?

Cluless troll.

Maybe you wouldn't have some many people pissed at you if you defended your position with facts instead of name calling. If you know the real truth, please explain it, it shouldn't be hard for someone as knowledgable as you.

I admit I was pissed off on this...

Girls:

1. Halo runs D3D by default on PC, so it's pretty silly to draw conclusions towards how an OpenGL version wil run on a completely different platform. Apparently even Killer-Crap didn't understand it but no porblem, he was talking about modelling, etc. :rolleyes:

2. What you've said "Since most of the operating system doesn't really need to be active while running a game," is an utterly silly comment if you think about it. (What is that "really" means after all?:p)
Second: the context was whether 256MB memory is enough to run anything? If you go and start logging the memory usage under Windows or OSX, you'll see when you play a game and even if you closed down EVERYTHING manually from the task manager or - in case of OSX - from console, you'll still have several things running and consuming memory. First and foremost - apparently Killer-Crap forgot to check his 'old' books :rolleyes: - all the necessary things which allows you to run your games, not to mention kernel etc. I bet you cannot free up more than 200MB, even in case of serious manual - console - startup section hacking.
 
3. Apparently none of guys knew it and I forgot to mnetion this: OS X, unlike other unixes, DOES NOT use dedicated swap partition. Instead it uses the boot partition's free space, just like Windows - so when you only have 256MB memory, you'll have to deal with serious swapping which in case of Mac mini's small - and probably slow - drives... khm, probably pretty bad stuff, I believe.

PS: There are several great, "in-depth" style OS X books out there, usually around $20-30 only fom Amazon.
 
popc1.gif
 
Back
Top