Wahoo P4 Stratagem System Review

Ian Bell writes "Buddhacon reviews the P4 stratagem system from Wahoo Computers. Could this be the most powerful home system on the market? With just about every option available including an overclocked Intel 2.9GHz CPU, Radeon 9700PRO, 1GB of memory and all the cooling features you can think of you would think a system like this would blow the competition away. Just goes to show that sometimes a fine tuned V6 can beat an over the top V8."

Comments

Wow

[FS1]

I think the thing has reach nirvana. Or at least is very close.

Re:Wow

[jo42]

Too bad it is in one of those f'g-boy glow in the dark geek cases...

go AMD

[cdf12345]

But how will it heat my house in the winter?

sorry, I'll stick with an AMD

Re:go AMD

[dlur]

If you really wanted to heat your house in the winter you should find an old multi-CPU socket 7 board and go with a bunch of old Cyric PR266 CPUs. Now those were good processors...for overheating anyways.

Re:go AMD

[HFXPro]

I will admit AMD chips usually run a higher base temperature, especially compared to a P4. However, P4's of about the same speed with the same heat sink will usually run hotter when loaded up beyond 50-60%. So if you want to heat your house, just let the P4 run a nice number crunching program such as seti@home. I have found this the case in several systems I have had the pleasure of observing.

Re:go AMD

[HFXPro]

I second that. In fact I have a Cryis M2 300 (233Mhz) sitting right here on my shelf. Sure its great for average applications, but the fpu is so poor do not even think about playing games, programming your own games, or running a large number crunching program. I had better luck with a 133 MMX Pentium for these types of work.

Re:go AMD

[ivan256]

If you really wanted to heat your house in the winter you should find an old multi-CPU socket 7 board and go with a bunch of old Cyric PR266 CPUs.

Unfortunatly, they have no SMP support.

Re:go AMD

[HFXPro]

I could be wrong. For some reason though Win2k (the last operating system I ran on it stated it as having MMX support).

Slick

[Soporific]

I would take one in a second. AMD or Intel wouldn't make a lick of difference to me.

~S

Re:Slick

[Alan Partridge]

despite the MASSIVE case and terrible photography?

wtf

[CySurflex]

reviews the P4 stratagem system from Wahoo

Does anyone else think this sounds like Latin crossed with web-dotcom-buzzwords?

Re:wtf

[rmarll]

Does anyone else think this sounds like Latin crossed with web-dotcom-buzzwords?

Think of Don Quixote, and look at the price(6500+). Only in america is the irony this good.

Re:wtf

[Parad0x177]

Actually, I think Yahoo should follow suit with Microsoft and sue Wahoo for trademark infringement. ;-)

Re:wtf

[anonymous loser]

I'm still trying to figure out what a taco place needs with all that horsepower.

Re:wtf

[devnull17]

IIRC, Wahoo was a big-name warez site a few years back.

I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for?

[jonman_d]

Christ people, this is starting to sicken me. I've got an iMac 333 G3, a couple P2 333 and an old P1 90. Unless you're doing something like heavy graphics editing, what the hell would you ever need something this powerful for? And over over six grand?

People, stop trying to build the fastest box imaginable, and thing serious. Use what you need for the job. Save money. Reuse old machines. Don't spend six grand on something you'll never need (well, you will, but probably when it costs more like a thousand bucks). If you can justify having this much power, okay, but otherwise, stop wasting time and money, and killing perfectly usable old boxen.

$6535.00?

[Gleng]

It looks really nice, but at $6535.00 (I'll assume that's USD) isn't it a bit overpriced for a system that'll be only adequate in 6 months/1 year?

Yes, it's an extremely sweet machine but certainly not value for money.

Re:$6535.00?

[PuVDraM]

BTW, do you know that 6535 is a sequence of figures that is encountered rather early in the decimals of pi ? They could have chosen some earlier ($3141 or $1415, even $4152 would have been better)

Anyway. I agree that it won't even be good for enterprises. (Who spend quite a block of money into machines, AFAIK)

But, when you think of it, it is rather pleasant to work on an overpowered machine 8 hours a day :o) And you can't say it is not "adequate", because with all this VNC, Windows 2000, SAP, automated management, Windows X servers and stuff, machines are not that quick. Have you ever tried to use Eclipse on an AMD 700 ? They say that when you're programming, "labourious tasks have to be automated". Automating tasks in programming (requires syntax analyzing and things like that) costs a lot in terms of CPU. And it's nice when boring things are quickly done in your stead :o)

I still think it won't work, but it would be kinda cool if my employer provided me such a machine. ;o)

Re:$6535.00?

[very]

I'd like to get rid off the floppy and the drive, so that will cost me $6485.00

nope it's still too expensive for me.

Maximum PC

[zerocool^]

Amazing. That's just about the same specs that Maximum PC put in their Dream Machine 2002.

Of course, that was dead tree form, and 2 months ago, so Slashdot is amazed by this computer because it's advertised online.

All these componants are available, and have been for a while. If you want to make one of these, go for it. Grab a ThermalTake case or a VapoChill, an Intel board and 1GB of PC1066 with a 2.8/2.whatever, and go to town. Overclock your 9700 pro.

It's not special. It's just special to slashdot.
Or, if you prefer:

Old and busted... New hotness.

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[Anonymous Coward]

regardless, you can build the same system with dual pentiums and 2 gigs of ram for less...

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[Rosonowski]

Well, in my case, it ends up being for games.

I can get an average of 40fps at 1024x768 in ut2k3 with everything turned on, and that makes me happy, and I'm running a fairly old system.

MSI k7tTurbo2 (kt133a Chipset)
512MB SDRAM (pc133)
Geforce3 ti200

we SAID 'Meh'

[zephc]

I'd like the alienware Area51 laptop more

up to 3 GHz p4, even if it IS a desktop P4 and not a laptop one... that's what AC adaptors are for

Re:we SAID 'Meh'

[Toraz Chryx]

You realise that a desktop P4 3.06Ghz can kick out around 100w of heat when going 100% on something... right?..

Do you have ANY idea what that would do to your lap? :)

Re:we SAID 'Meh'

[Flounder]

Do you have ANY idea what that would do to your lap?

Yeah, burn my penis off. Been there, done that, got the bandages. It could be worse. A woman could cut off your penis while you're sleeping and toss it out the window of a moving car.

Re:we SAID 'Meh'

[jaavaaguru]

www.x3d.com? I thought X3D was a trademark of the x3D graphics technology: www.x3d.org. x3d.com's little shockwave on their website thing doesn't look at all 3D on my monitor, so is kinda pointless.

Re:we SAID 'Meh'

[zephc]

i saw the infomercial with wil wheaton for the x-3d glasses, and thought I would tease him a bit about it (seeing as he is a /. reader)

Heat to cost radio

[cdf12345]

but then I have to calculate the cost of savings by going with AMD, vs a P4 and divide that into the supposed heat savings, and I'll probably end up not giving a damn by the end of the calculations....

Overpriced systems are newsworthy?

[Unoriginal Nick]

Who, in their right mind, would buy one of these for $6536? You could easily build a faster system for 1/3 the price. It seems like a company that just doesn't know how to build computers. It comes with water cooling, but could only be overclock to 2.9GHz before it started becoming unstable. What? Why does it have a Zip drive if it comes with a CD and DVD burner? Why RAID-0 WD1200JB hard drives, and not a Cheetah 15k.3 for a boot drive? And most importantly, they don't seem to know how to ship a computer:
"Due to inadequate mounting procedures, the Radeon 9700's core was ripped from the card during shipping."

Re:Overpriced systems are newsworthy?

[freaksta]

Not to mention, the idiots put the dust filters on the EXHAUST FANS. i don't know about you, but i want what little dust that gets throught my intake filters to go out the back, not stay in.

Freaksta

NOT WORTH IT

[Chuu]

I have been building my own systems for quite a while. This system is a nice one . . . but $6500 jesus christ! And it's not even top of the line -- for some reason they are using a P4 2.5ghz @ 3.0ghz, instead of a true 3.0 with hyperthreading. This leads me to believe it was an old review. Anyways, back to the price issue, if I was to put an equivalent to that system (i.e. top of the line now, instead of top of the line then) into a decent case:

Equivalent watercooling System: $300

Enermax 550W Quiet Power Supply: $180

Case Fans: $20 (They're using panaflo L1A's for everything, an excellent choice for a watercooled system, but yes they really are this cheap)

Babybus: $40

Pentium4 3.0ghz /w HT gaurenteed to overclock nicely: $700 (note this is about $400 more then the CPU they are using)

2x HDD Cooler: $25

Top of the line Granite Bay Motherboard: $200 (includes intel 10/100/1000 ethernet)

2x Sticks of 512mb Insane DDR of a brand of your choice : $400

Radeon 9700 pro : $270

Sound Blaster Live! Audigy Platnium : $200 (To anyone considering this -- DO NOT BUY IT -- go with terratek if you truly care about sound!)

2x WD1200JB Hard Drives: $280

Plextor CD-RW + HP DVD+RW Drives : $450

Zip Disk + Floppy: $35

Hardware Modem: $50

WinXP Pro: $170

Total: $3662

That is a FREEGING HUGE PRICE DIFFERENCE. Your paying about $3000 for the case plus them putting it together. I mean, I know that there are people willing to pay quite a premium for a well built system they don't have the time to research -- but jesus chrirst $3000 is nuts. This article is just more free advertising for some random company.

Re:NOT WORTH IT

[darkov]

The problem is that the people with enough money to buy this sort of stuff most often have the least knowledge or time to put one together. And the time factor is substatial. When it starts flaking out on you intermitently you can't just dump it on the vendor. You have to pull out or replace each bit until you find out whats going on. Ror your average nerd this is no problem since they have lots of time on their hands -pesky things like girlfriends or lives don't sap their tinker time, but for most people they have better things to do.

So yes, you're right, but there is obviously a market for this sort of stuff.

Re:NOT WORTH IT

[jsse]

The extra $3000 for each box sold is to make up for the loss in recovering meltdowned servers as a result of slashdot effect.

That cost you to attempt to advertise in Slashdot. :)

Re:NOT WORTH IT

[t0qer]

When it starts flaking out on you intermitently you can't just dump it on the vendor.

You've obviously never shopped at frys! They just re-shrinkwrap whatever gets returned in the hope that some sucker loses his reciept!

Re:NOT WORTH IT

[Chuu]

I do agree with you, but the thing is there are comporable companies that are charging nowhere near the 100% markup. Alienware is the most popular name on the list, I've done quick tallies on them and come up with markups of ~10-30% on average, which is very reasonable considering the included support package and software (this $6500 machine comes bare). The number one draw on this overpriced monster is the case -- and I swear i've seen it somewhere before on a high end case website for ~$300 or so. I just have a viseral reaction when I see just blatent rip-off's like this. Hense the reason I try to avoid stores like Microcenter like the plague.

Re:NOT WORTH IT

[ergo98]

Well you have to give them credit: They spray painted the front of the DVD, CD, and Audigy front panel... Ugh. The idea of spray paint on the front of one's computer is not something that I would look forward too. Then again, it is "Viper Blue"...

Re:NOT WORTH IT

[Blimey85]

I had this problem with two of my dual processor machines when I first got them. I had built them myself and neither of them worked quite right for the first month. I had a long list of strange things happening with just about every component. Would have been very nice to just ship them both back to whoever and ordered new ones but I swapped each piece into another machine and eventually figured out what my troubles were.
My Voodoo 3 card (a bit lame in a dual AMD box but I couldn't afford to upgrade it after buying all of the other parts) didn't work in either of the new boxes. It worked fine in an older box however. So I replaced that. Moved a network card to a different slot, and swapped the processors around to level the voltage. After much googling I had found an article where a guy had a similar problem and he noticed that the voltage to each processor was not anywhere near the same, so he swapped them and it leveled out and his machine quite crashing. I checked my voltages and on one of the machines I had the same problem he described. Swapped the processors and problem was gone.
Since that initial 3 or so weeks that I spent getting them in working order, they have been very stable and I haven't had a single problem, plus I saved a great deal of money by building them myself. Of course, I ended up spending a great deal more time than I had expected and would have probably came out ahead by buying them from someone else at a premium and spending those hours working but it's only money right?

Re:NOT WORTH IT

[Gedalia]

Hey hand painting all the cards and chips isn't cheap.

Forum Links

[Rosonowski]

Ok, was it just me, or did the "forum links" on the side bar read like a troll's wetdream?

Orgasms from around the world by dang
- International Music by dang
- From Russia, with lots of tongue by twitch
- Whoa, girls come here!? by twitch
- Kung Fu Stick fighting, episode 3! by Kernobi
- Man To Get 3 Years in Prison for Pretending to be Will Smith by Kernobi
- Eew! Urine skincare products by Kernobi
- What is a girls favorite sexual position? by Kernobi
- Girlfriends and video games do they mix? by Kernobi
- OMG look at these boobs by Kernobi

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[MrBoombasticfantasti]

I disagree with your viewpoint. I'm one of those people that upgrades (or rather buy new) their machines as soon as something faster comes round. Why do I do it, as my old machine is obviously fast enough for any normal purpose? Well, a couple of reasons: 1) Games! I play a lot of graphics intensive games that can really use all the oomph you can wring out of the hardware. Call me shallow, and I shall ignore you! ;-) 2) I recycle my old machine to neighbours, friends and charity. Two weeks ago, I gave away my XP2400+/512Mb/180Gb/GnuLinux system to a local organisation that works with handicapped children. 3) I like to build machines from parts I get from all over the place. I usually lead the local stores in performance by at least half a year. Again, I know this is a weird thing but I enjoy that. Anyway, while I don't *need* to upgrade, I frequently do: about every three months. Ciao!

Re: Just hook it up to your...

[$$$$$exyGal]

The same can be said about the water cooling job; all the tubes were measured to fit - and are no longer than they have to be.

Just hook the water up to your radiator and you can use that to stay warm at night :)

Still too damn slow...

[ites]

And in the 1970's, they thought that digital watches were the coolest thing. Sure, this machine almost fast enough to divx my library of DVDs before I die, but that's not real computing. What I'm waiting for is a machine powerful enough to calculate the DNA sequences for artificial life. Now that's hard work. Another 20 years or so of Moore's law, and we'll be there. Then I can just scan and clone myself, with a few improvements.

Re:Still too damn slow...

[Anonvmous Coward]

" What I'm waiting for is a machine powerful enough to calculate the DNA sequences for artificial life."

Yeah, they should just build that instead of doing these incremental speed increases.

Multiple CPUs?

[tgrotvedt]

For that price, you could build a dual CPU box with 2 PIII class chips. You could match the RAM, video/sound cards, HDD etc. A system that could do almost everything this one can could have been built 12 months ago.

Before people say that this is different because it's a desktop (unmodified), do I need to point out that the average user won't need this much power? The people that buy this will be rich techies, or businesses. Alot of techies prefer dual CPU stuff for the value, so this has no real market. Too new, too expensive.

Re:Multiple CPUs?

[Lumpy]

LOL....

No for that price you can build a QUAD p-III XEON box.

I have All dual P-III machines here you cant buy a dual p-III motherboard that takes anything but pc133 ram so you're maxed at 2 gig of ram on the better boards. and if you use SCSI instead of the lame IDE for your raid/drive array's you still come out cheaper...

my SCSI machine.... 4 36gig U160 SCSI drives in a raid 5 array off of a slow 29160 U160 scsi controller, 2 gig pc133 ram, 2 P-III 1ghz processors, Geforce 4 dual head, and a "alienware" case (actually an antec but the same case that alienware uses) with dual 21 inch monitors cost LESS than $1400.00 over 1/2 the cost in drives that wont fail like the ide junk will.

no for that price they quoted I can make a beowulf cluster of dual P-III computers.

Re:Multiple CPUs?

[stoops]

Before people say that this is different because it's a desktop (unmodified), do I need to point out that the average user won't need this much power?

Darn it!! While I was thinking about how much fun a gamer could have with a machine like this, I completely forgot to consider that this machine is probably targeted at the average user!! Stupid me!!

Re:Multiple CPUs?

[ambit]

From what i have seen there is at least one dual pIII board out there that takes DDR: http://supermicro.com/PRODUCT/MotherBoards/VIA/P3T DDR.htm
if you wanted to go the VIA Route

I'm confused

[Andorion]

"Most powerful home system"? 3.06GHz P4s are available, I don't understand why this system has a 2.8 overclocked to 2.9?

-Berj

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[Andorion]

I think it's absolutely STUPID to say that a P2 333 is 'fast enough' for home use. Granted, 3GHz might be overkill at the moment *only* because of how expensive it is, but there are definitely reasons to have a fast machine.

Hell, even if you disregard every single cool application that either runs better or needs a fast machine to run, it's worth getting a fast machine simply for how responsive it is.

-Berj

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[Kenshiro]

Oh, no, you're missing the point entirely. I use my old P-120 for computing, of course.

This thing is mood lighting for my living room!

2.5ghz?

[phreak03]

Sheesh, i overclocked my 1.8 p4 to that without watercooling even. antek server case, and thermaltake dragon cpu fan. While I understand the built in tempreture sensors in a P4 chip that prevent overheating, what is there to stop you from frying your nice radeon 9700 and haveing a first class door stop? correct me if i'm wrong but isn't the latest ddr fastaer anyways? throw in the fact that this thing is useing a PCI card for a raid controller (i don't care if the motherboard has gigabit, get one with a raid controller, like the nice ABIT) the only articles i'd want to see would either be on what the heck these "duel bios" motherboard are all about, and why the heck hasn't their been more fanfair over abits "legacy free" motherboards (screw ps2 and serial and the endless irq conflicts)

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[NeoEinstein]

I pretty agree with you but, where do you find old boxes ? The whole computer market is overclocked overheated and overmoneyed ! I got my AMD 550MHz since three years now, and wouldn't give it away, but even that is too much for the use I have : wife's reading and sending mail, sister surfing on the Internet, myself got not enough time to really appreciat the power. But now there are 2GHz and more, cool yeah, but does it really enhance working speed ?? It allows you to faster kill in Quake3 (or alike), but that's pretty all it does !

Porn is just that much better at 2.9ghz!

[cdf12345]

Really, I swear!

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[craigtay]

the reason I would buy the thing is because my penis is small. That machine will make others believe otherwise. Plus it has an AWESOME DVD burner, in blue no less!

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[PuVDraM]

Well, your 550 is pretty fine, IMHO. But instead of getting a older box, make it silent :o) That's the problem with old boxes : a lot of noise. (I am really happy with my AMD 700, especially when I wonder whether it's running)

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[jsse]

You probably don't do much of the following:

1) Games
2) MS Office files

These are two things and force us to upgrade. :(

(You probably argue Office 97 running just fine...until you need to read somebody else's document, which mostly likely in Office XP format)

last post

[AnimeFreak]

nobody is allowed to post anymore after this post

I don't get it

[0x0d0a]

Why are people remotely excited about this?

I figured that some poster had managed to sucker the editors into putting an ad up, but apparently people are really into this.

Can anyone tell me why people *care* about this? There's nothing particularly significant about this computer. It's not on the level of people introducing case windows for the first time, nor is it a never-before-done hardware hack. Some guy tossed a bunch of stuff that's already been done into a case, and is selling it for a *lot* of money. Big whoop.

This doesn't have unparalleled performance, since Sun sells systems that can smoke this thing.

It doesn't let home users do anything they couldn't do before, since no software requires this, and in two years it's going to be a middling system.

It's just another currently high-end x86 system. You can get things like this from a *ton* of vendors, with overclocking even.

Re:I don't get it

[gl4ss]

uh, as far i could tell by the comments nobody on slash got fooled into thinking it's even remotely worth it.

it's not freakkin high end even.

and the oc is ridiculously low for such a high price.. and why not use a real 3ghz cpu in the first place..

Re:I don't get it

[tony_gardner]

Which systems, exactly? I work in a research institution, and we use both Suns and PCs, and every one of our benchmarks that I've seen show that, at any given time, a high end PC (Redhat) beats out a high end Sun (Solaris) workstation for the 3 main CFD codes we use (CPU intensive tasks).

We still buy Sun, for ease of administration, reliability and warranty, but not for speed (or speed/cost ratio).

Re:I don't get it

[mfago]

This doesn't have unparalleled performance, since Sun sells systems that can smoke this thing.

Which systems exactly?

Oh, a Sun Fire 15k should outperform this guy, unless you're counting FPS in [name here]. Nowhere near the $6k pricepoint though.

Seriously, a Sun Blade 2000 is probably price comparable, but I doubt that its performance is comparable (on CFD anyhow). What'd your benchmarks show?

Re:I don't get it

[pod]

This doesn't have unparalleled performance, since Sun sells systems that can smoke this thing.

Forget Sun. I'll build a PC machine for 1/3 the price that will demolish this thing on just about every benchmark you want to throw at it. That's at least 100% markup we're talking here, unless the case costs $3000.

Re:I don't get it

[Ars-Gonzo]

If you're going to spend this kind of money on a pre-modded system, get a Voodoo or an Alienware and get a real warantee, a nicer paintjob, and a faster machine.

I don't understand why this is on /.

///Will Smith

Re:I don't get it

[0x0d0a]

Wasn't talking about price/performance, just performance. Blades were *not* what I was thinking of. :-)

Getting a "prettied" up system is not what you would get if you were just going for a bang for the buck system.

My point was simply that the system isn't breaking new ground.

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[Stanley Feinbaum]

Most people don't need a Porsche either, but I sure as hell enjoy mine.

Consider this a "luxery PC" and the market for these items is generally small, but profitable.

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[0x0d0a]

I think it's absolutely STUPID to say that a P2 333 is 'fast enough' for home use.

All depends on what you're using, doesn't it?

XP is pretty awful on something like that, but Linux is more than happy on a system of that caliber.

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[0x0d0a]

That's the problem with old boxes : a lot of noise.

I gotta disagree. Fans tend to get noisier over time, but as long as you're PIII/K6 era or before, you have far less heat generated than an Athlon or a P4. Which means you can run quieter fans.

I know someone with a 486 and no fans.

Profit!

[xxSOUL_EATERxx]

You mean you can get people to pay an extra $2000 for a computer just by painting the case *blue*?

...jeez, I'm in the wrong line of work.

For the price this comp is a

[Soul Colossus]

piece of ass. shitty overclock, too, espeically for expensive water cooling. i recently built my intel box for roughly $1400: P4 2.4B @ ~3ghz MCX-4000 & 80mm 84cfm Tornado (best P4 aircooling) Epox 4PEA+ (excellent board) 9700 Pro w/ TV-out (only $250 on pricewatch) 512MB Corsair XMS PC3200 DDR Samsung 955DF 19" Monitor (flat) Logitech MX 700 Cordless Optical mouse (sweeet) Antec PlusView 1000 AMG clear side panel ATX case all this doesnt include my 12x CD-RW, 200gb WD drive, and my keyboard and home made rounded cables :) but its a very sweet system for $1400 and very comparable to this $6k POS (i call it a POS cuz thats what u get if your paying $6k). this wahoo may have twice the ram (RDRAM no less) but the way i see it thats not saying much when it comes to just playing some goddamn games and not oggling and the memory benchmarks. i dont know about you but when i build a PC for performance i build it as a sweet gaming machine not to crunch numbers. i always tell friends never to buy a desktop PC unless its something like Alienware (they dont usually cost $6k) but to build their own or have me or antoher friend help them because they learn so much, rather than have all the hard (and fun) work done for you.

Re:For the price this comp is a

[micahmicahmicah]

well, if we are going to start bragging about system stats - I might as well join in

This cost me about $1700 to build back in September.

AMD 2000XP
(3) 512MB PC2100 DDR
Soyo Dragon 333 Ultra Platinum
Western Digital 60 Gig HD
(2)Western Digital 1200JB in Raid-0
SoundBlaster live 5.1
Sony DVD-A05
HP CDRW
Palit Geforce 4 ti4200 128MB
3com nic
1394 Firewire Card
Full Tower case
17" Monitor
5.1 Speakers
Phillips Webcam

I use it for copying DVD's and encoding SVCD's, playing emulators ( Daphne, Vivanonna, MAME, and all the old consoles ), and for converting video from my Sony IP5. That's along with the regular IRC,AIM,P2P and the general sillyness associated with owning a Creative Nomad Jukebox.

If you read this far, you are clearly wasting your time.

Mod this up and impress me.

Who is the market for these sorts of computers?

[UserChrisCanter4]

I go to college in a small town, and thus I pay my college bills by working for Best Buy. We carry Alienware systems (well, carry is the wrong word, since they're ordered through our store but there are no pre-built systems kicking around). As I walk by our demo unit, I often ponder the market for systems like Alienware, Falcon Northwest, and these Wahoo Fellas. These guys are all using standard component parts, (in the case of Alienware, readily available cases from Chieftec and standard off-the-shelf boards components). In the case of companies like Wahoo and Falcon Northwest, they even tell you the actual Mobo, RAM, Hard disk, etc. manufacturers. So honestly, where is their market?

Retail Boxed PCs have the ignorant consumer who knows the brand name. Screwdriver shops have the slightly more informed consumer looking to save a buck or get more standardized parts (or the geek who doesn't feel like spending his day off building a PC). But these companies seem to charge an extreme premium for their products, given that most screwdriver shops would sell you the exact same parts and assemble them in the same manner (maybe not this watercooling business, but I know of a couple shops that would probably do that). The best I can figure is heavily spoiled 14 year-old boys who know that the Radeon 9700 is good because they saw it on PlanetQuake, but you can't build a computer company on the whims of 14 year-old boys (can you?!?). So seriously, I'd like some input here. Does anyone own, for example, an Alienware or similar system? Do you know someone who owns one? What was the motivation for the purchase? Since it's the only item I can really quantify that they might offer beyond the local shop, do these "premium" PC companies have tech support that's really that much better (or honestly, necessary) than the screwdriver shop that'll sell you the same PC, built with the same parts, for $500 less?

Re:Who is the market for these sorts of computers?

[ConsistentChaos]

". . . but you can't build a computer company on the whims of 14 year-old boys (can you?!?)."

One word -- Nintendo.

Re:Who is the market for these sorts of computers?

[Soul Colossus]

i dont know anyone that owns a "premium" prebuilt. anyone. BUT i said in the post before yours that id tell someone who wants a gaming PC to buy Alienware or Falcon Northwest over some Gateway or Dell shizzitz. at least Alienware and Falcon won't likely fuck up all the time and fool the customer like their stupid (which is a likely assumption). above all i say grow a cerebral lobe build ur own damn PC or get someone to help you. this comp is SO not worth $6000.

Re:Who is the market for these sorts of computers?

[UserChrisCanter4]

I suppose rather than "computer company" I should have used the words "PC Company". Nintendo succeeds with 14 year-old boys because even a 14 year-old can afford a $150 GameCube. Save for a few months, ask for money for your birthday and you're set. Companies like Alienware and so forth are charging over $3,000 for units that can be bought for $800 less. 14 year-old boys can't even fathom $800, much less $3,000, unless they're of the ludicrously spoiled persuasion. While I don't see Dell marketing to 14 year-olds, I do see Nintendo. So, again, where is the market for these PCs?

Re:Who is the market for these sorts of computers?

[Latent IT]

So, again, where is the market for these PCs?

I'm sure you could sell one to nearly everyone who owns a BMW, it's nearly the same thing.

Re:Who is the market for these sorts of computers?

[UserChrisCanter4]

Having owned a BMW (well, sort of. It belonged to the folks, but I've driven it enough), I can tell you that it isn't the same thing. If BMW told me where I could get their chassis, their straight-six engine, their transmission, their suspension, etc., and I could pay my mechanic to put it together for $8,000 less than it cost at the dealership, THEN it'd be close to the same thing. The fact that a 3-series sedan costs about $10,000 more than your basic japanese sports sedan shows in a Bimmer. The stick shift clicks happily into place, no effort. It feels like quality. Things like the instrument panel backlight, the gas struts for the hood lift, and the attechment mechanisms for the trunk look as though they had a good amount of thought put into them. Not to mention that their engines are torquey as hell and the ride is ridiculously smooth even as you run into 3-digit speeds. If you ever have the opportunity to drive a new Bimmer (not some 60,000 mile model that's been ragged on by the owner), do so. You'll see that the extra $10,000 you spend really does go somewhere (although I don't think I could ever personally justify the money).

Re:Who is the market for these sorts of computers?

[starfoxmac]

I've bought my last two computers from Atlas Micro. They're just like Alienware and Falcon, only their systems are reasonably priced. A few months ago, I bought a system from them in the $1400s that cost in the $2200s at Alienware, Falcon, and Dell: Thoroughbred 2.4+, 512mb 400mhz ddr ram & mobo, radeon 9700, 80gb, dvd, cd. The last system that I bought from them is still solid - it's my parents' now.

Re:Who is the market for these sorts of computers?

[Kong99]

Couple years ago I bought a custom PC from GamePC.com I bought it from them because I was not yet ready to build my own but I knew the components I wanted for my PC. I got exactly what I wanted at a fair price, imo. I also got excellent customer service from them as well. I know several persons from an online game club I belong too that bought from Alienware for really the same reasons. They wanted a fast rig with specific components but did not want to build their own. I would say there is a decent market for these quasi-custom PC makers, the fact that 3 I can think of seem to be all doing well (Alienware, FalconNW, and GamePC) would seem to further that fact. I think there is a market of relatively saavy computers users who probably do not work in the "computer" field but do know their hardware and are willing to spend a little more to get a fast rig. You also have the group, as has been mentioned, who just want the "fastest" and want to be "cool". Like young single yuppie males, just another toy in the collection. ps. I have built my last 2 rigs but I could see a day when I don't want to build my next one but still want a cutting edge rig. I know where I can go to find it.

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[GraZZ]

Just don't try to compile XFree86 on it too often :P

hmm

[craigifer]

I'll stick with my 225MHz Packard

not too bad

[DrSkwid]

I've been building a new server on a 150Mhz 486 p54C Overdrive with 64mB RAM, it chugs along quite nicely compiling Apache et al.

Re:not too bad

[Toraz Chryx]

emphasis on "Chugs along" I feel....

Re:not too bad

[Groganz]

I had nothing against older PCs, until I got a job fixing them, now I'd like to burn anything less than a PPro. That aside, apache is a pretty small package, try compiling openoffice instead.

Pointless

[craigifer]

To me unless you're running some type of server, are into heavy graphics/animation/movie making or are a porn movie addict this power is beyond pointless. Yea, yea, what about the little Quake, etc...players who demand the power. Well to me with the online capabilities of XBox and PS2's why run the crap on computers when one of those boxes are thousands less than this Wahoo job. Doesn't make sense to me.

case mods

[aggie113]

found it funny that the pics on wahoo's site of the custom lianli case look pretty much like mine :) Except of course mine is better and I have the personal pride invested in it that comes with creating something yourself. I never can understand it when a techie buys an OEM. Why would you not want to put together your own system? (rhetorical question) Some case pics

Is it me?

[michelcoene]

Or can I get 3 x more bang for the buck by buying a Dell multi-processor server and stuffing in some fancy video/audio thingies? Or is it the paint that is so expensive?

Re:Is it me?

[homer_ca]

Not really. Server chipsets are optimized for I/O, processor and reliability, not graphics. Dell uses Serverworks and Intel E7500 chipsets. The AGP performance you need for gaming would lag behind the desktop chipsets.

Still, if you didn't need the AGP performance, a Poweredge 1600SC with dual 2.4Ghz Xeons, 1GB RAM and a 10K rpm SCSI drive runs you about $2000. Dual 2.8G Xeons is about $800 more.

er case mods

[aggie113]

er, better make that for case pics

Re:er case mods

[PuVDraM]

Here is the site of the guy who designed the case. :o)

Stop the car analogies already

[Alan Partridge]

why do we always get this idiotic V6, V8 and turbo crap? A V6 of x displacement will be broadly equivalent in power and torque output to a V8 of the same displacement - the car engine/CPU analogy NEVER FUCKING WORKS.

So stop it.

Re:Stop the car analogies already

[Viol8]

Besides which most japanese 4 cylinder turbo engines could smoke the lumps of prehistoric V6 & V8 iron that come out of detroit anyway.

Re:Stop the car analogies already

[FatherOfONe]

Can you back this up with any data?

You take the best 4cyl Japanese car and I will take the top 8, 10 and 12 cyl cars and we will see who wins on 99.999% of the race tracks in the world. I don't mean to put down the likes of Honda or Nissan, I own a Nissan and love it, but to say that it would stand a chance against a Mustang or Camaro (comparable cars) is a joke. The only thing it would win on is gas milage.

I don't see too many people using 4cyl cars in Top Fule. Even the 6cyl gets beat in 1/8 mile races now....

Re:Stop the car analogies already

[Parad0x177]

Still lot's of holes, but not a bad analogy overall.

Re:Stop the car analogies already

[jDinK]

Oh? Name me one japanese car with a 4-cylinder sold in the US that could "smoke" even a crappy V8, say an old corvette or modern camaro. Oh, what's that? Mods? j-spec? Oh, sorry I didn't know you were playing by a different set of rules.

Re:Stop the car analogies already

[alx.slashdot]

Did you ever take a look at Mitsubishi Evo VI?

Re:Stop the car analogies already

[Parad0x177]

Note that he did specify sold in the U.S.

Re:Stop the car analogies already

[alx.slashdot]

Sorry, my mistake :( But because it's not sold in the US doesn't mean it isn't out there, does it?

Re:Stop the car analogies already

[Alan Partridge]

"Torque wins, period."

why can't a 38 tonne truck go faster than my Mazda RX-7 then?

dullard

I'm confused...

[thryllkill]

...it might just be me, but I swear the first page says it has a 2.8 P4 overclocked to 2.9, but the last pages says a 2.53 and no mention of overclocking.

I would hate to pay $6500 and be slighted 370 mhz of performance...

Re:I'm confused...

[barureddy]

"I would hate to pay $6500 and be slighted 370 mhz of performance..."

I would feel bad now and I see your point, but in 1990, it would be worth every cent. Heck even in 1995 it would be worth every cent.

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[Alan Partridge]

even more pertinent is the fact that you'll be able to build something faster for $1500 in 3 months time. It's a total waste of everyone's time.

Re:I know some Alienware owners

[Bastian]

They're both friends of my younger brother. Other than the fact that they're 18, you're right - they're boys whose parents have too much money. They go for the PC's like Alienware because they heard that Alienware makes the best computers for gaming, but they really don't know jack/shit about what makes a computer good for gaming.

Coincidentally, most of the kids in this same crowd also have Honda Civics and the like with just about every sort of "racing mod" (their word) imaginable except the ones that would improve a car's performance or handling very much - $400 performance clutches w/ aluminum flywheels on a car that still has the original 1.2L engine and the like.

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[t0qer]

my 2 word rebute...

doom 3

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[Alan Partridge]

Professional journalist? Why the fuck can't you spell LUXURY then? Useless, lying twat.

A custom case is not news.

[Insanity]

It doesn't matter if this computer is a good deal or a bad one, if the components are well chosen or not, if the construction quality is amazing or if the whole thing just looks cheesy, the real question is this: how is this news?

Someone throws standard retail components into a custom-designed case, sells it for way more than it's worth, and somehow we care?

Computers are not cars, there is no art to tweaking them at the hardware level. Put prefabricated components together in the right way, and you have a computer. There are many hardware sites dedicated to this; let this kind of article be posted there.

This whole case-modding culture is a joke if you think about it. It's the computer equivalent of bored rich kids paying someone to put the world's largest spoiler on a civic.

V6 and V8 comparisons

[Tribbles]

V6 engines normally outperform a V8 with the same size - the V6 has less rotary momentum to worry about, and so has a faster rev increase. V8s have a higher rotary momentum (more pistons), and so will be slower to rev.

Just a little side-piece...

Re:V6 and V8 comparisons

[Johan Veenstra]

Ahum, you've got to be kidding. With the same total swept volume, the smaller cilinders of the V8 should make it rev higher, and thus produce more bhp.

Re:V6 and V8 comparisons

[rjstanford]

Ahum, you've got to be kidding. With the same total swept volume, the smaller cilinders of the V8 should make it rev higher, and thus produce more bhp.

Welcome to the difference between torque and horsepower.

The small cylinder, high-reving V8 should indeed have higher bhp. This can translate directly into higher top speeds, and will allow better use of gears (more time in lower gears). It will also be smoother (more, smaller sparks), which is why luxury cars almost always come with V8s or even V12s.

The V6, while not reving as high, will have a stronger torque curve (each pulse provides more raw power) and, as was originally posted, can rev faster (but to a lower maximum rpm).

This helps to explain why Ferraris run V12s while Semis run V8s. The Ferrari is faster, but a nice diesel semi will be substantially more powerful.

Or, to bring it back to computer terms, bandwith != latency.

Re:V6 and V8 comparisons

[diesel_jackass]

I'll stick to my factory-tuned H4 thank you very much.

I'm on my third car, never had more than 4 cylinders. I've had an I4, V4, and H4. The I4 is the easiest to work on, but the H4 is a much sweeter engine. I also have a motorcycle with an I4. I think 4 is the magic number when it comes to non-rotary engines.

Re:V6 and V8 comparisons

[foxtrot]

Welcome to the difference between torque and horsepower.

The small cylinder, high-reving V8 should indeed have higher bhp. This can translate directly into higher top speeds, and will allow better use of gears (more time in lower gears). It will also be smoother (more, smaller sparks), which is why luxury cars almost always come with V8s or even V12s.

The V6, while not reving as high, will have a stronger torque curve (each pulse provides more raw power) and, as was originally posted, can rev faster (but to a lower maximum rpm).

This helps to explain why Ferraris run V12s while Semis run V8s. The Ferrari is faster, but a nice diesel semi will be substantially more powerful

...which gets us to the difference between theory and practice. :)

As designed, four-cylinders tend to rev higher, and V8s less so, because the reason to design an engine as a four cylinder is to reduce displacement and use less fuel. Since horsepower is directly related to engine RPM, the four cylinder from, say, that new hopped up Integra model makes a ridiculous number of horsepower up at some obscene RPM figure, but not so much down low. On the other hand, the V8 from a 'Vette may make a similar number of horsepower, but it does so at a much lower RPM figure. They're designed this way because the greater rotating mass of the V8 (more pistons and piston rods, more valves, etc...) would lead you to reliability problems if you were spinning all that metal at 9,000 RPM, and since you can make the power you need with fewer RPM, you do so.

The original statement is, of course, true, that a hopped-up V6 can beat a hopped up V8, because frankly, the number of cylinders is pretty much irrelevant, but there's no replacement for displacement. If you had a four cylinder engine with the same displacement as a V8, you'd wind up with fairly close to the same amount of power.

In reality, with commonly found engines found in vehicles here in America, the reason V6es can beat V8s is because the V6 get more souping up and get more horsepower per displacement-unit, which sounds exactly like what's described here; a 2.9 GHz P4 getting the souping up of some ridiculous cooling and overclocking to make it beat top of the line P4 with a cheapass fan slapped on it.

Re:V6 and V8 comparisons

[BeeShoo]

So... you're saying that a V6 can outperform a V8 with the same MHZ rating? ;-)

Re:V6 and V8 comparisons

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Diesel tractors (semis) don't operate on the same combustion principles, and of course, the displacement is higher and they have a lot of gearing. Ferriris probably top out at six gears for forward, I think some trucks have as many as eighteen forward speeds, I'll have to ask my dad. And most of the ones I have looked at under the hood are inline sixes.

Part of going with more and smaller cylinders might have something to do with emissions, so you can rev higher and not have such a huge combustion radius.
When making their large engine in the 90's, I understand that Chrysler went with a 488 V-10 vs. a 440 V8 is the diameter of the piston which makes it hard for such a large and thoughrough combustion, thus making CO emmissions a problem. With higher revving engines, I think the piston size has to be smaller yet.

My Money

[Bios_Hakr]

Hey, I have a great idea. How about you not telling us what we should spend our money on.

I'm not trying to be harsh, but every time an article is posted about a faster chip, bigger hard drive, or overclocking, you mofos come out of the woodwork and tell us we are stupid. It just gets really old.

I personally have a K6-500 that I use as a file server. I have used it to surf the internet, but with new software (Mozilla, KDE, WinXP, etc...) it really bogs. I could probably use an older version of Windows or KDE and swap out Mozilla for lynx, but I don't want to. I want to use the latest, bug ridden software. And I want to have a fast computer.

Stop telling us that our hobbies sicken you. Stop telling us where our money is best spent. Let us have our fun.

Maybe they need it for.......

[mdechene]

cd linux*
make xconfig
make dep
make bzImage

Try doing that on one of them pokey computers and then realizing you forgot to include the module for your sound card after you reboot the new kernel. Back to the drawing board. Of course, a $200 microtel pc from Walmart would probably do the trick, but if these kids wanna inflate the economy, I ain't stopping them.

Re:Maybe they need it for.......

[mackstann]

why even bother posting?

ok you didnt even make modules or make modules_install, but then you talk about forgetting a module? and even if you do forget a module, you can go back, select it, and compile it (only it), and install it, very quickly. and xconfig is lame.

and people posting stupid comments shouldn't refer to others as "kids".

Impressing others

[pommiekiwifruit]

the reason I would buy the thing is because my penis is small. That machine will make others believe otherwise.

I find spending a couple of hours with PhotoShop provides much clearer proof for the doubters.

Re:Impressing others

[wheany]

I find that instead of buying the latest smookeeng processor, just double the amount of RAM in the machine. This works (at the moment) at least as long as you currently have less than 512MB.

Less swapping means a lot more speed. Yes, and this holds true with Photoshop as well.

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[Alan Partridge]

that's ONE word and ONE number

IDE RAID 0

[LarsG]

Oh great.

Striped array with no parity is exactly what I want to use on consumer grade IDE HDs. </sarcasm>

For that price, I'd expect RAID5.

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[nick-less]

my 2 word rebute...
doom 3


when Doom3 finally goes Gold, this System will be outperformed by $999 boxes from Walmart...

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[jaavaaguru]

I can get an average of about 50fps at 1024x768 32-bit colour with everything up full on my PC with 256mb (ECC DDR) and a GeForce 2mx on Linux. Looking at the difference in memory speed there, it goes to show that your quicker graphics card makes a huge difference. When my PC starts to feel slow though, I'll spend about £120 and throw in another AMD 1600+ MP chip. Who needs overclocking (or central heating) ;-)

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[Lumpy]

heavy graphics editing doesnt even need this... Hell, non linear video editing doesnt need this.

I edit on a Dual P-III 866 and a 10 minute short with lots of work in it take less than 20 minutes to render (Dv video source Dv video out or mpeg2) The AVID's at work use Pentium-II 550's single processor and they are the top of the line PROFESSIONAL video editing stations not toys.

The only thing I can think of that explains why people are building ultra-fast machines is that they are preparing for either the next Windows release or the next Gnome or KDE release.

(Yes, I am bitter that Gnome and KDE are as slow as the Microsoft operating systems on their own. time to stop or remove "features" and start making it faster.)

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[Powercntrl]

what the hell would you ever need something this powerful for?

"I'll take trolls that got modded up for $100, Alex."

<sarcasm>
Oh, I don't know... I swear, these people buying these new-fangled computer things are out of their mindes. They've obviously never seen the kick ass integer benchmarks of my abacus.
</sarcasm>

dissipation?

[muyuubyou]

Your post was fun, but let me doubt AMD has ANYTHING dissipating anything near to that system.

check Intel's dissipation
then check AMD's

AMD is better per Watt right now. New P4s get very heatsy.

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[mackstann]

my p233 ran with 2 fans at 5v, silently, for quite a while. now they're back at 12v, but just because it's stuffed into a motherboard (i.e. cardboard) box, and space is tight, so i figure i shouldnt skimp on cooling :P

anyways, while a 233 surely is not sufficient for a modern desktop, an athlon 1600 or so sure is, and they're about $60. not sure why people need the biggest baddest stuff, well ok maybe i am sure. ego boost :)

makes you wonder whether people that buy this stuff are just rich and dont give a crap, or they actually have save up for a while to afford it. if the latter, then man...poor fools....

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[NeoEinstein]

No, I don't wanna get an older box ? Sorry if my message sounded alike. I'm rather looking forward to get a more powerfull one, techno is evolving fast yes, but that's no reason to stay in the stoneage :o) (nice smily, haven't seen it before)

With the noise I have to agree, but I don't think the Pentium is loads better :|

P.S.: What does this IMHO mean ?? Could some tell me ?

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[stoops]

20 minutes!!!! geez, who wants to wait 20 minutes for anything? i suppose waiting 20 minutes for a cd to burn is okay too, right (especially when you have to burn 10)? with video editing, only real time is fast enough.

Piece of Crap

[cybergibbons]

No, this is a long way from the best system I have ever seen. I'm going to be harsh and say why...

What's with the shitty toggle switch "baybus" fan controllers? The site reports that the fans don't even start on the lowest speed. That isn't good engineering, and they shouldn't really ship a product like that. I would expect all the fans to be intelligently controlled by a microprocessor independant of the motherboard. This would include fan failure detection, CPU throttling etc.

They've put a live drive behind a door... erm, isn't that a little stupid? Now you're going to have to leave the door open all the time, or hack a hole in it, or not use the live drive.. oh well/

Raid 0 with no proper backup? I don't think so. I've seen far too many people lose data on raid 0 now to ever use it. At this kind of price, it would be nice to see two very fast and small scsi drives raided for a boot drive. Then larger IDE drives for data. But still no raid 0.

There seems to be some confusion about SCSI and IDE. People suddenly thought that IDE drives were better, especially in RAIDs... and it's plain wrong. SCSI is more reliable (the drives are built far better), it is faster, the bus is quicker. When you are doing things like photo or video editing, then having a fast page file and scratch disk is very important. SCSI has lower access and seek times, and the difference notices a hell of a lot.

The paint job looks pretty shite as well.

I just don't believe they are charging that much for this system. It's not amazing or anything.

Something that beats it? Go to The Overclocking Store and take a look at their Advance Micronics systems. Refigerator based cooling, complete systems, which are better configured and specced. You get an LCD and bluetooth mouse and keyboard for less than the system in the slashdot story. But...

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[perlyking]

"Stupid" would be saying its not fast enough without giving a reason why.

Most people browse the web and check their email. Its only fairly recently that even our office computers have got faster than 333mhz. We still run one on a P133 and up to a few months ago another P133 was hosting a database and some software (running NT) and it was fast enough.

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[moonbender]

I used to think so, too, but some people disagree and say the can see and feel the difference between 20, 40 and 60 fps. I'm not sure anymore. Oh and I won't comment on how Zelda 64 supposedly is "infinitely more interesting" than yet another FPS. De gustibus non est disputandum!

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[moonbender]

That's great, but, you see, we normal people can't afford to do that. ;)

I am an Alienware owner.

[archivis]

Why did I buy alienware? Summer before last my computer began to break down - CD burner and monitor both died about a week apart, and the main hard drive started misbehaving - and since it was a 4 year old box I started looking at my replacement options...

I originally looked at purchasing parts and assembling a system piecemeal. I discovered that living where I did (middle of nowhere town in NEw Brunswick, Canada) I'd have to have everything shipped - most of it from the states. After I totaled up the cost of shipping and customs duties for the parts, and then factored in the time required for me to assemble it, I realized it would be about the same cost as buying what I wanted, pre=assembled and warrentied, from Alienware (w/free shipping). Free shipping really helped - as well as the fact that when my nice big Alienware box crossed the border the customs official informed me that as an international student residing temporarily in Canada I wasn't required to pay duty (something I wouldn't have discovered if I had made a bunch of small purchases not requiring me to speak on the phone with customs).

As for what they offer as added value, the support people that I talked to when I had problems with my box were first-rate. The ONLY help desk people I've ever spoken with who didn't treat me like a moron and actually listened to me.

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[forty_two]

Obviously you're not a gamer. Hell, I'm not a gamer and my slowest machine has dual Celerys @ 500. All the machines older than that have found new homes at non-geek friends houses and charities. I used to keep that crap around, but what's the point? If I wanted a room filled up with 20MB hard drives and 256K ISA video cards I'd call up Microsoft and tell them I was a school looking for a donation.

Anyway, nobody who had more brains than money would buy the machine being reviewed. Of course, that doesn't mean they have to "justify having that much power." "Because I want it," is more justification than is required.

Totally useless to buy high end.

[miffo.swe]

With the growing capabilities of clustering even workstations no one really needs one single ultra powered workstation. The bragging value may be high but its not worth the money. No computer have ever got a nerd laid to my knowledge.

A friend of mine bought a high end state-of-the art system for about 5000$ and now its worth nothing, only two years later. The only thing worth anything is the monitor, the rest is now history.

when software comes that requires this kind of CPU power in a single workstation (Windows 2010?) the computers will jump up in spead rather fast. until then the people paying 6000$ for something they dont really need or have use for are as fooled as those who buys Porches.

PS. Atleast a Porche draws chicks, computers dont. DS

I4

[MySpleenHurts]

My naturally aspirated inline 4 will kick the shee-ite out of most V8s.

Nothing To See Here

[_Neurotic]

I agree with many of the comments so far. This really isn't anything special. There are plenty of vendors out there that sell better systems for less money.

This box is nothing more than an overstuffed behmoth. If you want to see some really cool systems, look to the [H]ard|Forum and you'll be blown away at what a bunch of [H]ardcore [H]ardware geeks can do in their garages.

And if you really want someone else to build it for you, look around, there are much better deals out there.

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[NineNine]

but Linux is more than happy on a system of that caliber.


...As long as you don't go *anything* more graphical than ASCII.

stave off an upgrade for many years...

[jonathanbearak]

they aren't referring to the performance
rather, the debt

$6500!!!!!

Yea!!

[theprancinghorse]

Now, solitaire won't frame anymore and I can keep my beer cool right inside my cabinet so I don't have to make frequent trips to the fridge while playing!!

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[Toraz Chryx]

...

I can SEE 20 frames per second.. individually, that's below the point my eye needs to create the illusion of motion. (incidentally, I frequently notice shuddering on film)

I stop noticing fps improvements at ~70fps

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[motox]

I think this story is classifiable as advertising... like many "stories" on slashdot lately....

Thoroughbred vs. Palomino for auxilliary heating

[Sun Tzu]

Actually, the Thoroughbred core versions of the XP processors are *much* cooler than the Palomino. I have two 1700+ chips, one with each core, in identical (tiny) aluminum cases. The Palomino runs far hotter than the Tbred. Oddly, much hotter than seems to be accounted for by the 64 vs 49 watt power consumption they are respectively rated. The Palomino, btw, has now been upgraded with faster (and louder!) fans but the box still runs much hotter.

Bottom line, a Tbred is only useful for heating a small room. For a whole house, specify 'Palomino core'.

Send us your Linux Sysadmin articles!

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[ergo98]

Hell, non linear video editing doesnt need this.

I suppose if one is willing to wait an infinite amount of time, any processor is perfectly sufficient. Personally, however, I'm of the "playing around" variety and like to put things together and then see what they look like: I currently have a Athlon 1800+ and having recently gotten a MiniDV camera I was blown away by how overwhelmingly intensive it is. I'll be upgrading shortly.

I shouldn't even credit this whole line of questions with a response though: "Who needs it?" questions are not only ridiculously dumb, they're overwhelmingly redundant-> Every bloody piece of hardware yields a wanker spouting off about "who needs it?". Two years later they're using the hardware they were bitching about when they find it in the discount bin, still crying "Who needs it?" to whatever the latest hardware is. I have a wanker I know who continually assures me that no one ever needs more than a 386/33 -> We should pit him up against Mr. 333Mhz Mac guy (what a WASTE of cycles! Who needs 333Mhz?)

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[wheany]

I can see the difference between 25 and 50 fps, but a game running at 25 fps (or even 15 fps) doesn't bother me much, as long as the framerate stays constant. What bothers me more is when a game runs at 100 fps most of the time, then slows down to 3 when there is lots of action on screen, then speeds up again.

Since when is Slashdot...

[Pii]

...comprised of people that need only bang out a few business letters, browse a couple websites, or send and receive email messages?

Christ almighty, read that site banner:

Slashdot: News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.

Joe average, the guy you are describing, has no idea where to find Slashdot. I certainly don't read this site so that I can see what passes for "good enough" in non-technical circles.

I want to know about:

• the latest and greatest
• cool uses for existing technology
• technology used in ways that it was never intended
• things that have never been done before

Stop acting as if this is a site dedicated to the least common denominator. It's not, and if it ever becomes so, as you suggest, I'll go somewhere else. If you're looking for the former, go read C|net.

Re:Since when is Slashdot...

[Groganz]

OTOH. The point a lot of other posters are making is that this isn't anything unique. Not the latest and greatest, not expecially cool, not being used in unusual ways, been done before.

Re:Since when is Slashdot...

[Pii]

Actually, I think that's a seperate point... One that has a certain degree of merit, but the specific gripe I've seen more than any other has to do with this being "too much system for the average user."

Those other complaints are fine with me... This system isn't unique, it is ridiculously expensive, it doesn't use the latest components (for the CPU), and it's all been done before.

For those reasons, sure, maybe this doesn't rate being a feature on Slashdot.

But being too powerful for the average user? That's not the limtmus test I want to see used in determining what makes it on to Slashdot, just as I wouldn't want to read a magazine claiming to deal with high performance automobiles, only to find that it contained information solely about the latest offerring from Saturn, Kia, or Hyundai.

Re:V6 != V8 != V12

[ergo98]

To be fair the McLaren F1 is naturally aspirated, whereas the Koenigsegg is supercharged. One could likely make a 900HP 4 cylinder with enough pressure.

Uh Wait a minute...

[doppleganger871]

That system would be the equivalent of a finely tuned, blown, bored, stroked, balanced, ported and polished V8. If it were a V6, it wouldn't have the biggest (fastest) CPU in there.... it'd have a smaller, leaner CPU, kinda like a Transmeta.

Just my $.02315927584, or roughly thereabouts.

Use an old P90

[TheConfusedOne]

If you calculate the whole thing using an old Pentium 90 chip you can probably save yourself millions.

Hmmm, maybe they just forgot to upgrade the accountant PC's over at Enron and WorldCom...

Re:Use an old P90

[JudgeFurious]

Dude! I had that chip! It was toasty :)

I think it's still running somewhere right now keeping a family of seven warm.

Re:Use an old P90

[leviramsey]

If you calculate the whole thing using an old Pentium 90 chip you can probably save yourself millions.

A Pentium 60 would be even warmer...

Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[Parad0x177]

Sure they can, once they have had at least the cost of the car spent on them again and once they have been rendered completely useless for day to day street use because they require at least racing fuel and can't make power below 5 or 6 thousand rpm.

But, spend the same amount of money on a "lump of iron" (which are mostly aluminum now, anyway) V8 and it will blow the doors off of the little 4 cylinder.

Case in point, if a 4 cylinder turbo is so much better than a V6, V8, V10, etc, then why don't you see Indy cars, Top Fuel dragsters, or exotic super cars running them?

Internal combustion engines are essentially glorified air pumps. The more air it can pump the more power it can make. So, it follows that the larger the displacement, or the higher the intake charge density, or the faster you spin it, the more powerful the engine has a potential to be.

Four cylinders, no matter how "advanced" are still limited by physics and metallurgy. You can only make the cylinders so big, or boost it so high, or rev it so far before it breaks. By adding more cylinders you gain several advantages:

1. More cylinders allow for smoother running by reducing the number of degrees of crankshaft rotation between ignition events. (With a little geometry it can easily be shown why it's hard to beat an eight cylinder in this regard.)
2. For much the same reason, you increase torque potential by reducing the amount of "dead time" between ignition events.
3. You reduce the necessary bore size for a given displacement, thereby reducing piston ring mass and allowing for higher piston velocities and accelerations (higher revving for a given stroke length). Hence the reason many of the exotic engines have high cylinder counts for relatively small displacement (think Ferrari); they are intended to rev like mad.
4. You also reduce the clamping force required per cylinder head bolt (because there are generally more bolts) for a given cylinder pressure (thereby increasing boost potential). (Think blown dragster or Indy car, where 30 lbs. of boost isn't that big a deal.)

So, basically, the turbo fours aren't really all that advanced from a basic design sense. They are simply using lots and lots of gadgets to overcome inherent limitations. There is no substitute for displacement.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[diesel_jackass]

Case in point, if a 4 cylinder turbo is so much better than a V6, V8, V10, etc, then why don't you see Indy cars, Top Fuel dragsters, or exotic super cars running them?

hmm, someone has never seen the WRC. The WRC spec Subaru WRX has a 2.0L 4 cylinder engine. It has been tested to go 0-60 in 4.3 seconds... on loose gravel!

I guess Lotus isn't an exotic supercar manufacturer any more ;-) There are very few cars that can outperform a Lotus Elise.

How about a Hayabusa? Its nice little naturally aspirated four takes it to 200mph very easily, once you replace the factory chip.

There is no substitute for displacement.
Keep telling yourself that every time you fill up your tank.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[Viol8]

Yes you're right - with everything else being equal a larger engine with more cylinders will always produce more power than a smaller one with fewer cylinders. But in the real world we have detroit churning out engines that have to have a huge capacity to generate any decent power because they were designed around the same time that Fred Flintstone was born. If you took the same technology used on small jap engines and applied it to a detroit V8 not only would it probably double its power output but it would probably get better mpg as well!

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[The AtomicPunk]

2002 Lotus Elise - 0-60 in 5.7 seconds, top speed 125mph. Did you mean there are very few trucks that can outperform it? :) Not to mention it weighs 1600 lbs...

A Hayabusa? That's a Motorcycle, no? What's it weigh, 500lbs at most? Non-sequitor anyone? Are you familiar with the concept of power to weight ratios?

I'm afraid your three red herrings aren't that red, and don't refute his argument either.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[diesel_jackass]

I missed the part where you told me about the WRX, why'd you completely ignore it?

A stock elise goes 0-60 in 5.7, but any Elise can outhandle just about any car on the road. It only weighs 1600# because it has a 4cyl engine, not a big bulky 8cyl.

My point is that power-to-weight and handling are everything. Displacement has nothing to do with it.

His numbered points make sense, but the rest is BS.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[Parad0x177]

Ah, someone with a thoughtful rebuttal! :)

I assume you are referring to the various variable valve timing schemes, and engine management systems and I absolutely agree that these are some very slick systems and that Detroit could (and is in the process of) learning from them.

However, I think we should give credit where credit is due. Most of the technology that the Japanese engines are making use of actually developed elsewhere. (i.e. Europe) But, Japan did bring the technology to the mainstream.

And I beg to differ on the Flintstone issue. To use a specific example, the GM LS1 and LS6 V8's are designs that are only a few years old. In terms of issues such as volumetric efficiency and the like, they are really very impressive. And then you have to consider that they manage to get 25 to 30mpg and good emissions from a normally aspirated, push-rod V8 making over 300hp without the use of variable valve timing, exotic variable volume intakes and the like (making the engines cheaper and easier to develop and produce). So really, the engines are quite impressive in their own right.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[Parad0x177]

I completely ignored it (the WRX) because it was irrelevant to the point I was making. I didn't say there couldn't be a fast four cylinder. (I have personally seen a 1100hp, 7.0 sec. 4 cylinder Chevy Cavalier.) But I did say that in order to make it perform with larger displacement engine it has to be so heavily modified that expense, derivability, and reliability become huge issues.

Which brings me back to the Elise. As I said before, how much does it cost? And as far as handling goes, it is easy to make a car handle if its top speed is 132mph. (Hell, the Chevy Beretta I drove in high school and college would come pretty close to that...) However, if you (somehow, probably by stuffing a "bulky" V8 in it) made it as fast as a (I'm guessing cheaper) Corvette Z06, then it's handling probably wouldn't be on par with the Z06.

(Side note: A "bulky" V8 isn't any longer than a 4 cylinder, just a little wider. Think about it...)

You are correct that power-to-weight and handling (depending on the intended use of the car) are very important. However, you must also acknowledge the price/performance ratio (my original point). And, like it or not, displacement is often the cheapest, simplest, and most reliable way to make more power.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[Parad0x177]

Man, I finally find an ally and they don't even put their name on the post! :)

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[diesel_jackass]

And how much do you drive your car on "loose gravel" anyways?
well i've been driving through inches of snow and ice for the past few weeks. i only drive on "loose gravel" about once a month.

The Sub produces pretty good HP, but at what RPM? Lets not even start talking about torque
no really, lets talk about it...
Power 223.7 kw / 300.0 bhp @ 5500 rpm
Torque 490 nm / 361.4 ft lbs

You're not going to see any Cobras or Z06's passing this one any time soon.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[diesel_jackass]

I agree that you wouldn't want an 1100hp 4cyl car as a reliable daily driver.

The Elise is $35k. Have you ever seen Elise's (or Miata's, or S2000's) at SCCA events? They clean house.

I can't argue price/performance, but its your definition of performance that I disagree with. You say performance is displacement, I say performance is power-to-weight and handling.

The original argument that I tried to make, and failed miserably (no I wasn't on the debate team), was that there are many factors that can make for a fast vehicle, and the number of cylinders (8 vs. 6 vs. 4 vs. etc...) doesn't always have a direct relationship with "performance".

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[BigBir3d]

That has already been done.

The Ford Mustang has had the DOHC EFI V8 for some time now. The displacement went from 5.0 to 4.7 but the power stayed about the same. Hardly the "double the power output" that you claim.

4700cc making ~300 hp, at the crank, is no big deal. Especially in the 2 wheeled world where 599cc makes over 105hp, at the rear wheel (120ish at the crank).

As far as cubic inches versus hp, it is not a linear relationship. The higher the cubes, the less hp per cube. That is why a Chevy 454 makes not much more power than a 350. You would expect more, until you account for the fact that the 350 can rev faster, longer, and more reliably than the 454 can.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[good soldier svejk]

More cylinders allow for smoother running by reducing the number of degrees of crankshaft rotation between ignition events. (With a little geometry it can easily be shown why it's hard to beat an eight cylinder in this regard.)

I agree with everything you say except this. Smoothness is not a simple case of more is better. Crank timing is key, and in fact you typical straight four with a 180 degree crank has perfect primary balance. The V6 does well in form factor, crank strength and secondary balance. But my feeling is that a straight four with a well designed couterbalancer to cancel secondary vibration should be smoother than your average V6. Of course a straight six with a 180 degree crank will be even smoother. In fact the straight six is a great engine layout if you don't care about size. Its disadvantages vs. the V6 are length, crank whip at high rotational speeds and cooling.

I'm a two wheel guy, so I don't have a lot of real world examples at my fingertips (I can only think of one V6 motorcycle ever made, a Laverda). However I do remember the Magliazzi brothers recommending the Nissan L4 over the V6 in the new Altima based on smoothness and overall performance.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[Parad0x177]

A couple of problems here:

1. Here again, it isn't fair to compare cars to motorcycles. The hot motorcycle engines will rev easily to 13 or 14 thousand rpm (because of the small bore/low reciprocating mass). However, your average car engine would have turned itself into a large handgrenade by 7 or 8 thousand at the most. If you could turn a big engine that fast, it would still make more horsepower.
2. I am still assuming that he was refering to variable valve timing and variable intake volumes. The Ford mod. motors (including the Cobra's 4.6 liter DOHC) don't have this and could benefit from it. (As could any and all engines.)
3. Horsepower versus displacement is linear if you can keep the volumetric efficiency, burn rate/efficiency and reciprocating mass the same. (Granted, not necessarily an easy task.)
4. You are correct that the Big Block Chevy (396,454,502) will not rev as high, as fast, or as long as the small block 350 (due to more reciprocating mass). However, if they are in equal states of tune (the production 454's of today are built for low-end torque in trucks, where all-out performance isn't an issue), the Big Block will make more horsepower per rpm (up to it's admittedly lower limit). A fairly mild 454 can make 500hp easily, but it would take a pretty radical 350 to make the same. And the torque that the 454 will produce and the rpm it produces it at will be brutal.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[karnal]

In addition, I'd like to throw out my two cents. I own an LT1 equipped Camaro, and love the feel of the car. It's not exactly nimble in the turns, but the out and out growl and torque are impressive for a sub 25000$ (new) car.

As I understand it, the block for the LT1 has remained fairly unchanged for a few decades... Now, what's in a block? A piece of steel, bored to X dimensions etc. The real fun at that point is introducing a new cam, new timings, different fuel map ratios, etc. The engines of today may have their roots in early 1900's design technology, but things such as aluminum heads (and aluminum block for the ls1, if I'm not mistaken) and better mapping of spark and fuel metering lead to improvements in the overall performance and efficiency from the engine.

And I do get 30mpg on the freeway. :) Gotta love that!

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[jDinK]

You just shot yourself in the foot, as the others seem to have shown you.

WRC spec, which is most certainly NOT legal for sale in the US, and probably can't even run on pump gas, is still bested by a V8 which DOES conform to said rules. Read my two AC posts a few levels into the thread.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[jDinK]

Please note that you are comparing a US spec Z06 to a WRX that is far and away from the one sold in the US!

US WRX has 227hp and 215ft-lb torque.

Just a bit of a difference, once you factor in the same laws and emissions that chevy has to follow with the Z06 eh?

(yeah I'm repeating my AC post, so sue me)

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[Parad0x177]

It's always nice stumbling across a fellow F-Body person. :)

You are right in that the LT1 (and LT4) block shares most of the general characteristics of the earlier small block Chevys. There are a few subtle differences (it uses reversed coolant flow, for instance). But, the big differences lie in the heads, induction and fuel injection, exhaust, and ignition.

The LS1 (and LS6) are a similar story, but have even less in common with the previous generations and yes, they are all aluminum to my knowledge.

Basically, they kept all the stuff that worked and improved everything else, which just makes them cheaper (and easier/more fun) to build, buy, and work on. :)

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[ncc74656]

Side note: A "bulky" V8 isn't any longer than a 4 cylinder, just a little wider. Think about it...

As proof, consider the V8 swaps that have been done into small cars such as the Fiero or even the Chevette. (My first car was an '80 Chevette...a bigger engine would've kicked ass. :-) )

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[BigBir3d]

1. Wrong! Hi revs is a matter of bore to stroke ratio. New bikes motors are over square, ie bore > stroke. On the order of 1.5 to 1.0. Similar to "stroking" a motor to get better torque, you "bore" it for higher rpm capabilities (with the right pistons/rings/con rods/valves/springs etc) for each idea of course.

2. Variable valve timing is to make up for inadeqaute port flow. Clean up the intake/exhaust ports and the need is very much reduced for this kinda thing.

3. Not realistic is it ;-)

4. Don't bring torque into this... 'there is no replacement for displacement' *cough* when you are talking torque. This is where reciprocating mass is important.

Anyways... hi tech is hydraulic valves, Ti components etc. What most, not all, but most, guys do to their Civics is what guys have been doing to their Chevy/Ford/Mopar for decades now. Cheap, effective mods.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[Saurentine]

Case in point, if a 4 cylinder turbo is so much better than a V6, V8, V10, etc, then why don't you see Indy cars, Top Fuel dragsters, or exotic super cars running them?

Racing? Governing body rules. BMW dominated the Formula 1 circuit in the 80s like no one has ever dominated before, smoking Ferraris, et. al. with a turbocharged 4 cylinder. Then the rules were changed. Formula 1 politics make it extremely unlikely that a four cylinder will be competitive again in the near future.

Smaller displacement engines were starting to make inroads into American open wheel racing (CART and Indy) before those rules were changed to reduce boost as well.

Dragsters? We both know that when it's all about acceleration and nothing else, it has to be a supercharger.

Exotics? Lotus and Porsche spring to mind... it's all less about engineering choice and more about marketing perceptions anyway. What kind of wealthy man would accept a FOUR cylinder small penis compensation device when a TWELVE cylinder small penis compensation device was available? Obviously a V12 is more manly than a sissy turbo four.

1. More cylinders allow for smoother running by reducing the number of degrees of crankshaft rotation between ignition events. (With a little geometry it can easily be shown why it's hard to beat an eight cylinder in this regard.)

More cylinders reduce torsional vibration, but fundamental internal harmonics of the typical eight cylinder engine aren't that great. The best engines, based on internal harmonic vibrations, are Inline (Straight) 6s and 90 degree V16s. That's why almost all large commercial duty diesels are I6 turbocharged, not V8s of any kind. (It's also why the latest GMC truck engine is an I6.)

2. For much the same reason, you increase torque potential by reducing the amount of "dead time" between ignition events.

This is simply a false statement. More ignition pulses don't directly increase torque.

3. You reduce the necessary bore size for a given displacement, thereby reducing piston ring mass and allowing for higher piston velocities and accelerations (higher revving for a given stroke length). Hence the reason many of the exotic engines have high cylinder counts for relatively small displacement (think Ferrari); they are intended to rev like mad.

This is also wrong. Any given displacement is Bore x Stroke, not just bore. Large bore, short stroke engines are responsible for most of the high revvers, NOT small bore, long stroke. Dragsters, for example, use large bore, short stroke engines to get their high revs and acceleration. That's also what is behind Ferrari and Lamborghini's performance engines.

4. You also reduce the clamping force required per cylinder head bolt (because there are generally more bolts) for a given cylinder pressure (thereby increasing boost potential). (Think blown dragster or Indy car, where 30 lbs. of boost isn't that big a deal.)

30 lbs of boost in an Indy car, you say??? BULL! 30 INCHES, not pounds! 30 inches of boost is less than 5 psi! Dragsters, on the other hand, need nothing but acceleration, so tremendous boost and huge displacement are BOTH normal. However, keep in mind that clamping forces required for the winning BMW Formula 1 engines were easily met with 1980s technology.

Finally, don't count me on the "smaller engine" side of this argument based on this one post. I've driven Ferrari, Porsche, BMW, Lotus, Corvette, Lamborghini, Acura, Nissan, and many others. Small displacement and large displacement engines both have their merits and tradeoffs. I just hate to see incorrect stereotypes and urban myths that are propagated by big block enthusiasts who don't have their facts straight.

There is no substitute for displacement.

Actually, there is. It's called forced induction, and where it hasn't been legislated out of racing, it frequently does quite well to substitute for a whole lot of additional displacement.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[jDinK]

I can't agree with you on the civics versus chevy/ford/mopar mods. My sister's boyfriend is a civic guy. It's in our driveway all the time, probably lowering the value of our house. =) Civic DX, probably one of the slowest cars you can buy, and automatic of course. Yellow stickers decorate the windows, windshield and rear window. (stuff like "exotic imports" and " racing") Yellow bandana hanging from the mirror, all kinds of crap inside painted yellow, floormats that say "racing" on them. Huge aluminum 2-story wing on the back, and exhaust tip that my dog can fit inside.

It's my impression that old fashioned tuners usually worry about rwhp instead.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[Parad0x177]

1. You are correct that this geometry is important for determining the behavior of the motor (more torque on the low end versus more power on the high end) and it also effects durability issues. (Bad geometry can lead to premature, out-of-round wear in the cylinder.)
   
   But, if you really want to be technical, then you must separate bore and stroke into separate issues completely. Given two otherwise identical engines with different strokes, the shorter stroke will rev higher (and quicker).
   
   However, if you have two otherwise identical engines with different bores, the smaller bored engine will rev quicker (Smaller pistons = less mass to accelerate) and it will also rev higher because smaller pistons use smaller rings.
   
   The ring mass becomes an issue as piston (and ring) velocities increase. These velocities are a function of stroke and engine speed and as either (or both) of these increases, the forces exerted by the rings on the upper ring lands of the piston increase due to increased acceleration. (Think about it: regardless of stroke, a piston has to travel up and in the cylinder once per engine revolution. So, for a longer stroke engine, the piston has a greater distance to cover in the same amount of time. Therefore, it must travel faster.) And since, Force = Mass * Acceleration, if you increase the stroke of the engine or the mass of the rings (or both), you increase the force exerted on the top lip of the piston proportionally. Like anything, this thin rim of metal can only stand so much before it fails.
   
   (Note: Similar issues apply to the shearing strength of the wrist pins and the tensile strength of the rods.)
   
   
2. While variable valve timing can be used to compensate for poor volumetric efficiency (to an extent), that is not it's only benefit. It, in effect makes one camshaft behave like several different camshafts all at once. (In other words, you could get a low-midrange torque cam and a mid-top end horsepower cam all in one physical unit.) In theory, if you could make it the system infinitely adjustable (as some companies are doing by eliminating the cam entirely and using solenoid-actuated valves), you can have the perfect cam for any and all engine speeds. Very Cool.
   
   
3. :)
   
   
4. True, while it is hard to accelerate, high reciprocating mass does lend inertia and therefore torque.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[diesel_jackass]

Ok, if you're going to get technical...

Z06 = ~$45000 USD
WRX = ~$23000 USD

Now let's spend the $22K difference to make it even...

Well for <$5K we could take it up to 368HP with this stage 4 kit. Lets say it takes 15 hours for a professional installation at $100/hour then that takes us up another $1500 bringing us to a total of $29500.

Now let's smack on a Stage 3 short block for more reliability. That's another $6700 including labor. That takes us up to $36200.

Even though the AWD will easily make up the difference of HP vs. RWD (unless we're driving on a nice hot track) lets spend $2k more on a nitrous kit just to make sure we can embarass the Z06.
That only takes us up to $38200.

$4000 for a stage 3 suspension kit. Taking us to $42000.

Wheels: 4 17x7.5 Prodrive GC-06D $1,900
Tires: 4 225/45YR17 BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KD $780

That will take us up to ~$45000. For a machine that will embarass pretty much anything else in that price range. You could argue the reliability of the WRX, but when you're comparing it with an American car is that really relevant?

Personally I'd rather just spend $12K on a Hayabusa (yes it is a motorcycle, yes it ONLY has a 4cyl engine) and embarass them both.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[Parad0x177]

Smaller displacement engines were starting to make inroads into American open wheel racing (CART and Indy) before those rules were changed to reduce boost as well.

Exactly the point all along. A bigger engine at the same boost pressure will make more power than the smaller one. Period. In order to run with the larger N/A engines, the smaller ones had to run higher bost pressures and when that was limited, they got there legs cut out from under them.

Dragsters? We both know that when it's all about acceleration and nothing else, it has to be a supercharger.

Actually, if you will notice, fast dragsters run in excess of 300mph. I would say that speed might be a factor here.

Also, a turbocharger is technically a supercharger, it is just a special subset of devices (superchargers) used to artificially increase intake charge density that happens to use wasted exhaust heat to drive the compressor. The automotive world simply uses the generic term supercharger to refer to crank driver compressors due to popular recognition.

Oh and, turbochargers are allowed in some classes of NHRA drag racing.

More cylinders reduce torsional vibration, but fundamental internal harmonics of the typical eight cylinder engine aren't that great. The best engines, based on internal harmonic vibrations, are Inline (Straight) 6s and 90 degree V16s. That's why almost all large commercial duty diesels are I6 turbocharged, not V8s of any kind. (It's also why the latest GMC truck engine is an I6.)

You are absolutely correct here, as I admitted when someone else pointed it out earlier. I worded it poorly and omitted some important caveats. (Read the rest of the thread.)

This is also wrong. Any given displacement is Bore x Stroke, not just bore. Large bore, short stroke engines are responsible for most of the high revvers, NOT small bore, long stroke. Dragsters, for example, use large bore, short stroke engines to get their high revs and acceleration. That's also what is behind Ferrari and Lamborghini's performance engines.

Do the math on the European V10's and V12's. In terms of displacement/cylinder, they are generally about equivalent or smaller than the average V8.

30 lbs of boost in an Indy car, you say??? BULL! 30 INCHES, not pounds! 30 inches of boost is less than 5 psi! Dragsters, on the other hand, need nothing but acceleration, so tremendous boost and huge displacement are BOTH normal. However, keep in mind that clamping forces required for the winning BMW Formula 1 engines were easily met with 1980s technology.

Granted, I was making a bit of an assumption here as that I am not terribly familiar with the rules of the Indy series. However, I find it hard to believe that the Indy cars are only running 5lbs. of boost when the Buick Turbo 3.8L V6 ('86-'87 and '89) in production form ran 15lbs. of boost. Especially when you consider that this engine was originally developed for Indy....

Actually, there is. It's called forced induction, and where it hasn't been legislated out of racing, it frequently does quite well to substitute for a whole lot of additional displacement.

Ah, but here again that is the point. If you took the larger engine used forced induction, it will still make more power. What people often fail to realize is that forced induction is just a source of "virtual displacement". In other words, assuming perfect volumetric efficiency, a perfect intercooler, and discounting changes in fluid dynamics from increased charge air density, an 1.5L engine at 15lbs (or roughly 30lbs MAP, or 1.5 atmospheres) will behave like a 3.0L engine.

Finally, don't count me on the "smaller engine" side of this argument based on this one post. I've driven Ferrari, Porsche, BMW, Lotus, Corvette, Lamborghini, Acura, Nissan, and many others. Small displacement and large displacement engines both have their merits and tradeoffs. I just hate to see incorrect stereotypes and urban myths that are propagated by big block enthusiasts who don't have their facts straight.

I couldn't agree with you more. And just so you (and everyone) know, I am a huge fan of turbocharged engines and own a couple of cars that have them. Actually, I am just an all around gearhead with few if any brand biases. I like cars, just not ignorance.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[Parad0x177]

I would say reliability is a huge issue and while American cars may sometimes suffer in some areas, there are a whole lot American V8's that have taken millions of miles of abuse and are still ticking. (Trust me, I've seen them.)

I really have to wonder what kind of shape your heavily modified WRX would be in after 250,000 miles. And here again, how driveable would it be in day to day, stop and go traffic? Sounds like it would probably be very peaky. (Considering you have spent $22K to turn it into a race car.) Not to mention, what would the value of the car be...

But, I do agree on the Hayabusa. They pretty well kick ass.... ;-)

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[Saurentine]

You are not gonna get them to admit that ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, there is no replacement for displacement.

The premise wasn't ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL in the first place. If it was, there wouldn't have been a discussion. No wonder you posted as Anonymous Coward.

There were immense technical errors in the post I responded to. I posted some corrections.

I personally don't care if you favor big block V8s or turbocharged I3 engines; if you post incorrect stereotypes as fact, then get modded up to 4 or 5, someone should post a correction.

Yes, all else being equal, bigger is more powerful. You're obviously too dim to see anything more than the crudest, most obvious facts, so I won't explain any more of the real world to you.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[diesel_jackass]

yeah, because the Z06 handles great in the 12"+ of snow we have.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[BigBir3d]

1. You make too many assumptions when you are talking about bore versus rpm. My knowledge is in 2 different areas, old Chevy motors (350) and modern motorcycle engines.

With bikes, to get the high hp numbers there are 2 ways to do it: rpm or displacement.

Bike racing is based on displacement classes; ie 600cc 750cc 1000cc and then 2 cycle or 4 cycle (trying to mix those is a bitch and someone always complains of a disadvantage, ala Nascar). In the past 12 years that I have been a fan/enthusiast a lot of things have changed. EFI is here now. New "exotic" materials with specific properties for specific circumstances (iron block and aluminum heads... i wonder why they leak?). One side effect is coated cylinder liners that offer lower friction than regular uncoated liner.

Ever increasing bore sizes. To get down the straight faster means hp, seeming as how hp is a function of distance/mass/time. One thing a bigger bore gets you that is often ignored is better breathing. More valve edge distance; via bigger valves, or more of them (Yamaha/Honda uses 5 per cylinder in some motors instead of 4).

Oh yes, as I re-read your comment, piston goes up and down twice per combustion cycle (rpm) in 4 cycle engines.

Also, different materials have different densities. That is why pistons have different weights. And of course there are different designs for the pistons; skirt length, thickness, dome shape (hemi or not) etc.

And another thing, the rings are not at the tip of the piston. They are below the top/face of the piston. All they are is a floating seal to keep combustion mixture out of the crankcase. Floating I mean not permanently attached to piston or cyclinder wall. Ring mass is of little concern when one realizes that they weigh 1/1,000 (or less) of the piston that they are attached too.

Shear strength of wrist pins is no biggie, as the are hollow metal tubes. Change the material or the thickness per the application.

2. I am not suggesting that VVT is bad, just not needed for most applications. For most racing applications, it is excess mass (hindering acceleration) and something else to fail (bad). When you look at race engines, they operate in a very narrow power band. Torque on the bottom is not usually needed, as they don't operate at such lowly rpm's except in the pits... ;-)

Besides, it is far easier to have an adjustable valve exhaust that gets the same effect for you. And if it fails, it is still functional; which is nice for picking up points in a race vs retiring for the fact that you can't mix gas and air.

4. That is why cyclinders don't all fire at the same time.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[Saurentine]

Granted, I was making a bit of an assumption here as that I am not terribly familiar with the rules of the Indy series. However, I find it hard to believe that the Indy cars are only running 5lbs. of boost when the Buick Turbo 3.8L V6 ('86-'87 and '89) in production form ran 15lbs. of boost. Especially when you consider that this engine was originally developed for Indy....

First, I'll say that I don't think you're a big block bigot, as I initially thought. Sorry about that.

"CART believes tight competition should take care of the rest, albeit with a few changes. Turbo boost has been reduced from 37 to 34 inches, but drivers will be allowed to use traction control." USA Today, Mar 7, 2002 (40 inches of boost is 5.4 psi.)

"2002 Indy Racing League Engine Program
Engines used in the Indy Racing League are 3.5-liter, V8 engines with dual overhead cams. The engines are normally aspirated, which means they do not use turbochargers." Indy Racing League website rules page.

Indy cars are required to only use a specific GM or Nissan engine (they're supposed to be near identical) and no others are permitted. They're even rev-limited at 10,700RPM. CART cars allow turbochargers on relatively small V6 engines, or normally aspirated 5.7 liter V8 engines, but, for the most part, allow manufacturers to develop their own engines.

If any form of racing had permitted unrestricted engine development (within the framework of size, weight, and fuel usage requirements), I think we'd have small 20,000 RPM turbocharged 4 cylinder engines dominating competition, based on BMW's domination in the 80s.

Just a few racing facts to think about...

Last, don't think of me as a Rice Boy fan. Anyone who'd put the kind of money into a Honda it takes to get the speed of a stock Mustang is a few parts short, if you ask me.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[reboots]

As proof, consider the V8 swaps that have been done into small cars such as the Fiero or even the Chevette. (My first car was an '80 Chevette...a bigger engine would've kicked ass. :-) )

Not to mention doubling the number of cylinders in a Volvo 240...a very popular sleeper conversion.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[hampton]

With bikes, to get the high hp numbers there are 2 ways to do it: rpm or displacement.

not just with bikes. that applies to cars too. HP = Torque * RPM / 5252. this tells me that if you want to make more power, either increase torque (displacement or forced induction) or increase RPM.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[Alan Partridge]

WRC (and Formula 1) run on 98RON unleaded petrol. Sorry, but what Americans don't know about building sports cars can JUST ABOUT fit into the Grand Canyon.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[karnal]

The only thing I really have to complain about with the lt1 (in the f-bodies, anyways) is the spark plug wiring. Who came up with that convoluted scheme of routing them behind the power steering pump etc?

geesh.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[Sketch]

The LS1 (and LS6) are a similar story, but have even less in common with the previous generations and yes, they are all aluminum to my knowledge.

Actually, the LS1 is a complete redesign. The only commonality is that they kept the same cylinder bore spacing. Chances are good there are NO parts that will interchange between an LS1 and LT1.

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[Sketch]

Actually, the Mustang has been SOHC V8. Only the Cobras have a DOHC V8, which makes a good bit more power.

5.0L V8, pushrod, "215" hp (see below)
4.6L V8, SOHC, 225hp.
4.6L V8, DOHC, 300hp (approx)

Also interesting to note, at the time Ford switched to the 4.6L, they changed the way they rated hp on their engines. Using the same test methods, the 5.0 only makes 205hp.

While I'm talking about the "5.0", a personal mini-rant. The engine is 302ci. Let's do some math...

302(ci) * .016381 = 4.947062(L).~= 4.9L

4.9L != 5.0L, unless you work for Ford, or designed Pentiums for Intel. ;)

Re:Your car has clear taillight lenses, right? ;-)

[Alan Partridge]

"4. Don't bring torque into this... 'there is no replacement for displacement' *cough* when you are talking torque. This is where reciprocating mass is important."

yes there IS. Why do Americans not appear to understand pressurised induction systems. Supercharging is an almost PERFECT "replacement for displacement".

Good thing journalists have editors.

[TheConfusedOne]

Consider this a "luxery PC" and the market for these items is generally small, but profitable.

Stanley Feinbaum, professional journalist. I have no tolerance for bad journalism!

Luxury, perhaps? Yeah, it's picking nits but the .sig begged for it.

You are absolutely right...

[rollthelosindice]

This is a six thousand dollar waste of money. And it just goes to show that the reviewers aren't all that bright giving it a 8 out of 10, and also thinking that you'd be able to notice a difference if it was overclocked further to 3.0 Ghz from 2.9 The only use for this machine is, and as it was benchmarked for, is Unreal tournament and other games where "kids" want THE fastest machine around to give them an advantage over the guy they are trying to kill with a slower machine. But I don't know any "kids" you can drop 6 grand on a PC.

What about Cyrix?

[Parad0x177]

I mean, if all out performance isn't an issue (and I'm sure no one around here really cares about that....), I'm guessing it's hard to beat the old Cyrix processors (at least watts/clock speed)? I've seen space heaters that dissipated less heat. And you should be able to pick up several of them really cheap. ;-)

Hand Picked?

[kruczkowski]

Hand picked Intel Pentium 4 "Northwood" 2.53 GHz processor

"Hey Bob, this one looks good!"
"No, it has a scratch here, keep looking, we need the best!"

Re:pressure

[doppleganger871]

Hm... 800 cubic inch V8... 7000 horsepower (give or take a few hundred).... big honkin' blower. Distance between rebuilds... about 1 mile (including distance for burn-out, and slowing down at the end of the 1/4 mile run).

Yes, doing drugs would be a cheaper high, but not nearly as loud.

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[Groganz]

Agree totally. It amuses me when I see people going gah-gah over some spiffy new overpriced PC that will cost half as much and and be concidered an "entry-level" system in 6 months.

OTOH, I have bought 2 SMP machines in the last 18 months. I knew they weren't the fastest (P3 v P4) but they chug along much more robustly, and will probably be of more value in later years.

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[Aggrazel]

Well, 6 grand *is* a bit of overkill considering you can build something that is about 90% as fast for right about $1000.

But really, its all about image quality. Sure your 2 year old computer will run Unreal Tournament just fine at a framerate thats fast enough that you can't tell the difference if it were higher ... but can it do that and run 4x FSAA at the same time?

Obsolete already

[Danborg]

It just cracks me up that this overpriced machine is already behind the technology curve. The motherboard they chose does not support the new 8x AGP standard, so for that reason they are not getting full use of their Radeon 9700 card. (It will sync to 4x AGP.)

And too bad they didn't choose the 3.06 Ghz P4 with Hyperthreading -- yet another new feature this machine of yesterday does not support.

And what about Serial ATA (SATA) hard drives? A year from now, when pretty much every drive sold is SATA, the owner of this dinosaur will be sorry they didn't have the foresight to include support for this technology.

Several other posters seem enamored with the DVD+RW drive that is included, but a better choice would be the new Sony drive that supports DVD+RW, DVD+R as well as DVD-RW and DVD-R. (Yes, those dashes and plus signs mean different things folks!)

I could build a more modern machine that supports all of the important technologies listed above for half the price, without all the punk-ass neon light shit.

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[ayeco]

watch out, apple might come at you about this patent infringment!

I hope you weren't on the debate team....

[Parad0x177]

You are correct, the WRX is a very impressive little car, thanks in no small part to its all-wheel drive and the fact that it really is a little (and very light) car. Not to mention, when was the last time you saw someone on the street driving a WRC (race) spec WRX? That's like me justifying my argument by comparing a stock Honda to a Porsche 911 GT3 RS prepped for 24 hours at Le Mans.

I also agree that Lotus does produce exotic (and pretty) cars. However, the Elise isn't exactly a rocket ship. Zero to 62 in 5.1 seconds, while good, isn't astonishing. And 156hp? Your point was what, exactly? Oh, and how much did it cost again? Personally, I am more impressed by the Esprit. But, it also happens to be powered by a twin turbo V8.....

And unless my memory fails me, isn't a Hayabusa a MOTORCYCLE?!?! Let's see it has, a 1300cc (1.3L) engine and it weighs what, 480lbs? In other words, it has nearly as big an engine as and weighs roughly 75% less than your previously mentioned Elise. Isn't bringing that into a discussion about cars kind of like me saying that, if I strap my ass to a artillery shell, I can do 0-60 in about 1ms and top out at over 3000mph?

Now, as far as the gas comment goes, I would rather buy a little more gasoline, spend less per horsepower on the car, and have a car that is fast and doesn't look (and sound) like I have seen The Fast and the Furious one too many times....

Ouch, not even close

[DG]

Sorry Hoss, but you're not even close on this one.

The amount of _torque_ an engine puts out is (to grossly simplify) a function of its displacement.

The amount of _power_ produced is torque over time, so it is a function of displacement times engine RPM.

At no time does cylinder count enter into this. Two given engines, one a V12 and the other an I4, of the same displacement and turning the same RPM should, all else being equal, produce equal power levels.

Where the real world starts intruding is when you start increasing displacement. Ignoring forced induction for a second, you increase displacement by adding bore diameter, stroke length, or additional cylinders.

As you increase bore diameter and/or stroke length, you tend to increase the inertial loads on the con rods, and these loads increase as a function of a power of engine RPM. Given that there is a fixed strength amount for reasonable materials used in non-racing engines, increasing displacement by going to a bigger bore or a longer stroke means reducing maximum RPM potential.

For a big diesel where redline is often less than 3000 RPM, this isn't an issue, so you take advantage of the natural balance of the I6 and make the bores and strokes as big as you like.

But on passenger car engines, and especially in racing engines, adding displacment while retaining RPM capacity means adding cylinders.

Once you start doing that, the primary constraint becomes packaging - all else being equal, a 4 litre I8 will be twice as long as a 2 litre I4, but a 4 litre V8 is only slightly longer (but wider) than a 2 litre I4.

DG

Re:Ouch, not even close

[tburkhol]

At no time does cylinder count enter into this. Two given engines, one a V12 and the other an I4, of the same displacement and turning the same RPM should, all else being equal, produce equal power levels.

All else is not equal, though. The 12 cyl has three times as many pistons, probably 3 times as many valves, which means a lot more mass in the engine needs to be accelerated during the course of each revolution. In theory, there ought to be no difference, but in practice mechanical engines are terribly inefficient, and increasing the number of moving parts increases the inefficiency.

Re:Ouch, not even close

[good soldier svejk]

All else is not equal, though. The 12 cyl has three times as many pistons, probably 3 times as many valves, which means a lot more mass in the engine needs to be accelerated during the course of each revolution. In theory, there ought to be no difference, but in practice mechanical engines are terribly inefficient, and increasing the number of moving parts increases the inefficiency.

OTOH, it introduces other efficiencies, such as the increased valver perimeter you mentioned and better combustion. That is why Honda wasted so much money developing oval piston V4s in the eighties. Grand Prix rules prohibited them from using more than four cylinders, but to be competitive with a four stroke they felt a V8 was necessary. So they build a V8 with four cylinders. In the end it was a total flop, but the pistons sure looked cool.

BTW, he coolest four stroke bike of all time was the Moto Guzzi V8 of the fifties. At the top end it was as fast as GP bikes of the early eighties, although that was largely due to superior aerodynamics, which were later banned.

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[fdisk3hs]

It CAN be taken too far though...

For example my "money pit" 25MHz Mac...

I can't stop buying more parts for it, and you can't even run a GUI browser on it (under Debian)...

The only thing it's good for is running Links and bidding on more old Mac parts on eBay!

A machine with 100 times the processing power is starting to sound pretty good...

lr

Is this an ad?

[(eternal_software)]

This sure seems like an ad to me. It's definetly not "news for nerds" or even "stuff that matters".

Is Slashdot selling out quietly?

holy christ that is one ugly computer

[AssFace]

I must be getting old - I have not once looked at my computer and thought "if only that were made of blue jello" and then acted upon that though.

I guess I am interested more in performance and couldn't give a crap how it looks... although I do think the W series Sony Vaios are purdy.

I assume that is for gaming and such - otherwise, just make a nice little cluster. you could make a sweet one of athlon xp 2100s - 5 of them for $1600 or so. I suppose distributed computing doesn't have much purpose if you just want to play Unreal Tournament though.

I'm gonna go dip my computer in chocolate and bacon fat now because I want to have a cool looking computer like all the kids these days.

Re:PC manageability exceeds that of Sun

[Glasswire]

First the perf myth is dispelled, watch for the management myth to go down.

Sun has been living with an outdated out-of-band management scheme based on serial ports which requires technially stupid solutions like hooking system RS232 to an external terminal server to dumb-down than dumb-up the interface for remote LAN-based access.
There are all sorts of much more powerful out-of-band management solutions in the Intel world (intelligent, independently powered cpu modules with network connection for much more robust in and out-of-band mgmt AND powerful default baseboard mgmt). Sun manages to perpetuate the management myth due to ignorance and wishful thinking - and needs to, since they've obviouly lost the price perf and even raw perf crown a while ago...

CAPITALISM AT WORK ! ! !

[ghibli]

Stock prices are rising! The recession is over! Capitalism is alive and well!

I am HAPPY that this company is selling these computers at such a high price. It simply means one more reason for people to buy items from me... You wanna buy a motherboard? Hey, man! I can get you a good price on an AMD cpu! Need Intel inside? No problem!!!

[[ I drive a Volvo 240. ]]

Are you sure you want to talk about it....

[Parad0x177]

Ummmm.....maybe it is just me, but this is also from the very website you quoted:

Power: 302.0 kw / 405.0 bhp @ 6000 rpm Torque: 542.33 nm / 400.0 ft lbs @ 4800 rpm (And that's without a turbo and intercooler.)

And I am guessing that, if you compared power and torque curves, the torque and power start to build a lot earlier with the Z06, making it much easier to drive day to day and potentially faster off the line.

And assuming that your figure of 0 to 60 in 4.3 for the WRX is correct, then the Z06 bests it at 3.9 seconds. (in a heavier car, with only two wheels pulling, thereby negating some of the difference between gravel and pavement)

So, here again, assuming all else equal (including All-wheel drive), the bigger displacement car would embarrass it.

Even from a store it'd be cheaper

[Len]

Your neighbourhood computer store will sell you a system assembled to your specifications for a reasonable price, and service it if it breaks. It'd cost more than Chuu's example, but not much.

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[Scooter]

Obviously not played UT2K3 then? Or even JKII? My current games machine is a 1.2Ghz Athlon on an Asus m/b with 256Mb DDR ram, and a GeForce 256 DDR and UT2K3 is just about playable at 800x600, but with most of the prettiness turned off. Now obviously, I don't need half of the junk in that $6K box (the flashing lights for example - how many extra FPS do I get for blue glow in the dark lighting?) but I do need more rendering power - and more ram, and then of course, to feed my shiny new 9700pro, I need an 8x AGP port, and a faster CPU, so better get a new m/b too! This will all probably need more power, and generate more heat, so more fans, bigger or more PSU's...

Serious gaming doesn't happen on a Playstation - they may have optimised architecture for video gaming, but this cripples them for everything else - and you need masses of storage, and a general purpose OS for serious multiplayer games.

iMacs are fine machines, but I would be unhappy about the lack of upgrade options.

Games aside, you make some very valid points though - I recently retired my Slackware 3.6 box that I've had on my network for 6 years (internet/mail/news gateway) - and then only as it had no PCI slots - and I needed one for my ISDN ta when I finally threw out the modem I was using for Internet access.. It gathered dust in the corner with no monitor or keyboard for those 6 years. My games machine on the other hand has had almost all parts upgraded at some point though - online gaming is incredibly competitive in certain circles, and players who can afford to avail themselves of the latest kit will always have an advantage. Besides - I'd hate to think I'd spent £40 on a game but my ancient video hardware makes it look like Quake in software mode :)

Its like show horses

[Zerelli]

The people who do not understand why this system is so expensive have not had experience selling to people with lots of money. That sounds a little strange so let me give you an example (a strange one but it works). A few years back I used to raise and show rabbits (pedigreed fancy rabbits, look up the American Netherland Dwarf Rabbit Club or American Rabbit Breeders Association for more info). We would occasionally sell stock at some of the shows. One of the places we sold lots of rabbits was the State Fair. While watching the crowd go buy and talking to people interested in buying, I ran across some horse people (there was a very large Quarter Horse show at this fair). I had some pet quality stock there that I would have sold at a flea market for $10 to $20. For the fair the price was slightly higher, say $20 to $30. The horse people remarked that my rabbits were a lot cheaper than the guy whom they had just spoken to. I explained that we do not try to make money off of stock just to cover feed costs, I also pointed out that the stock I had was from more prestigious blood lines. They bought the most expensive and lower quality animals. Their reason? They said they didn't want a cheap rabbit, they wanted and expensive one. The price tag is a prestige item more than what they are buying. That is why this company will make money. People with money don't really care $6k to someone willing to pay $6k for a computer is peanuts.

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[ph0rk]

my p2 400 displays pr0n with the greatest of ease.

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[devnull17]

The bottom line is that nobody needs this, and that the price is ridiculously high for the extra benefits you receive. It's been this way since the beginning of the industry.

The truth is that for every one intelligent computer enthusiast I know (the kind that write software and actually know how things work), there are about five people that care only about raw speed. The car analogy works here, in that it's not about what your computer is good for. It's about having more than everyone else. I'd attribute it to some kind of insecurity, be it Freudian in nature or something else entirely.

On the bright side of things, the premiums that fools pay for hardware such as this drives the prices down on the more sensible, middle-of-the-road components that most of us buy. So don't complain too loud.

And talk about a slow news day...

Luxury PC

[pr0ntab]

If this thing had a bunch of nicities that made it more pleasurable to use, or was bundled with something that did something surprising or innovative, then you could call it a luxury PC. But as far as I see it, this is a "sports coupe PC" and not a very exciting one either. Why the fuck do they need water cooling for a 2.8GHz->2.9GHz overclock? It doesn't come with an HDTV capable video card, nor a Composite/S-VHS interface. I don't see a nice monitor in the bundle. No built in microphone bundled with voice recognition software. And a fucking Audigy. That's the crappiest prosumer sound card in existence. Not even a friggin cupholder. Oh, but cold cathode lights. Now we are living in style.

I stand humbled

[Parad0x177]

After I posted that, I was wondering if anyone would catch that one, so I'm sincerely impressed.

You are absolutely correct and I concede the point. I also worded the statement poorly and would also have had to include the caveat without sacrificing structural strength by offseting the common crank throws. In other words, I didn't account for the difference between even and odd fire V6's, V10's, and V12's. An easy modern example of this would be to compare the crank from a Ford V10 (even fire) to that of a Chrysler V10 (odd fire).

Re:I stand humbled

[good soldier svejk]

I figured you knew this and were just generalizing.

That offset crank pins thing is a pet peeve of mine. Honda used to brag about it on the Shadow motor. But it was just a kludge for overcoming inherent design deficiencies in the crappy (fake) Harley engine layout. Why not just use a decent engine design (OK, I know why, marketing).

This is bullshit

[Jennifer Ever]

Wow, 3 pages of specs. It's almost like reading a brochure.

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[kenthorvath]

Tell you what, next time you need a place to donate your 6 month old PC, I'd be happy to accept it, OK? Let's be friends....

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[frank_adrian314159]

Most people don't need a Porsche either, but I sure as hell enjoy mine.

Yeah, but this isn't a Porsche - it's a tricked out '57 Chevy Coupe with fuzzy dice hanging from the rear-view mirror. If you really want to drive that kind of clown car, I got true symapthy for you.

I'd think of the Apple line as a Porsche.

Re:I know some Alienware owners

[asteinberg]

They go for the PC's like Alienware because they heard that Alienware makes the best computers for gaming, but they really don't know jack/shit about what makes a computer good for gaming.

Hah, my roommate is definitely one of those kids. He paid big bucks to get a top-of-the-line Alienware computer, but for the first six months of using it, somehow he managed to have his CPU underclocked - the bus was set to 100 mhz instead of the 133 his Athlon is meant to use, but the multiplier was unchanged, meaning his 1.4 ghz cpu was running at about 1 ghz. Ooops.

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[leviramsey]

Professional journalist? Why the fuck can't you spell LUXURY then? Useless, lying twat.

Journalists don't need to spell... that's what they have editors for.

Windows User?

[misleb]

Heh, you must be one of those Windows XP users I have been hearing so much about.

-matthew

yeah seriously.

[sideshow]

I'm still trying to figure out what a taco place needs with all that horsepower.

I had to reread the hed a bunch of times because I would get to the end and think, "mmmmmmmm, fish tacos," and forget what I was reading about.

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[volve]

And then the money you made on the last 30 systems you built, gets given to a charity... which is a wonderful idea, but 1x XP2400 with the specs you mentioned is the equivalent in cost to about 6x Celerons... now which do you think would be more useful to said charity?

Personally, unless you have a grand plan along the lines of giving that charity 5x more PCs or something, you're wasting money, despite whether you can technically 'afford it', I hate to think of all the handicapped children vying to use 1 PC...

-VolVE

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[0x0d0a]

I'm running galeon, pan, sawfish, and a buncha rxvts along with xmms right now. xmixer. gkrellm. sawfish's pager. Solid dragging in sawfish. And that's on a slower system (PII/266 instead of PII/333).

It runs fine, and there are gtk2 apps with antialiased text in there. Granted, I'm not using E's "reflection" plugin or anything like that, and it wasn't too long ago that mozilla ran too slowly on a system like this, but it's fine now.

Re:Re-read the last line

[Noel]

Generally, you're right, but the difference might not be as much as you think. Look at this dyno chart of an RSX Type S. The torque curve is flat at 125 lb/ft or above from 2500 to 8000 rpm. That's a pretty flexible engine.

It's a little silly to compare cars that are so different in cost, but I'm a bit obsessive, so here goes an exhaustive comparison.

2003 Corvette Coupe:

curb weight: 3214 lb
6th gear: 0.50:1
5th gear: 0.74:1
final drive: 3.42:1
rear tire size: 275/40-18, nominal circum: 83.75 in.
mph@2000 rpm, 6th: 92
mph@2000 rpm, 5th: 62
rear wheel hp @ 2000 rpm: 110

2003 Acura RSX Type S:

curb weight: 2767 lb
6th gear: 0.738:1
5th gear: 0.921:1
final drive: 4.389:1
front tire size: 205/55-16, nominal circum: 78.16 in.
rpm@92 mph, 6th: 3758
front wheel hp @ 3750 rpm: 87
rpm@62 mph, 5th: 3169
front wheel hp @ 3200 rpm: 72
rpm@62 mph, 4th: 3904
front wheel hp @ 3900 rpm: 92

Rear wheel weight/power ratio comparison:

92 mph, 6th gear:

Corvette: 29.2 lb/hp
RSX: 31.8 lb/hp

62 mph, 5th gear:

Corvette: 29.2 lb/hp
RSX: 38.4 lb/hp (30 lb/hp in 4th)

At 62 mph in 5th, you'd have to shift down to 4th in the RSX to match the Corvette's acceleration in 5th, but at 94 mph in 6th they're pretty close. Not as much difference as I expected...

Of course, the Corvette costs about twice as much as the RSX. Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer choices...

FWIW, as nice as the Corvette is, if I had the money, I'd get an S2000. Sure, I'd have to shift down at least two gears to accelerate, but Corvettes feel too big and heavy for me, and I love the sound and feel of Honda engines when they're spinning towards redline.

[Okay, make that excessively obsessive...]

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[commbat]

If I wanted a room filled up with 20MB hard drives...

I just threw out a P 133 computer with a 2 gig HD. MB was bad. It wasn't even worth it to hunt down my screwdriver to remove the HD, not with prices rapidly approaching a buck a gig.

All right, I'll wave my fanboy flag.

[protohiro1]

I have nothing to add here. But I am a subaru fanboy. I admit it. I might as well come clean right now. I test drove one to see if it lived up to the hype and I got out of the car thinking "what part of my life do I need to change to get one of these?" Now I have a WRX and I love it love it love it. It is really fast. The turbo lag is a drag (as a poster mentioned). If you lose boost on the turbo (below about 3000rpm) you feel like you're driving a taurus. But over that it just rocks. It won't win a drag race with a camero. But get on a road with turn and it is as advertised. For a car that normal people can afford, you really can't have more fun. (and if you live in Colorado you have AWD, ABS and the thrill of making SUV drives question their purchase choices)

Re:I'm sorry, but WTF would you ever need this for

[laymil]

hah...actually...its more the other way around. anything using Xwindows is slow as balls. however, windows xp, when configured properly, is quite responsive and runs quite well on a pentium ii 333. i should know, as i'm typing this on one right now. granted the extra ram and decent (for its day) video card don't hurt, but it really is enough for home use. i can easily burn cds at 16X or above, watch dvds while doing other things, etc. if you plan on using it for games, look elsewhere, but don't knock the old systems built from spare parts :).