Unfortunately, there are NO magic utilities that will wave it's magic wand and *poof* out pops a list of the 10 recommended steps to ultimate gaming perforgasm.
It's called trial and error, and it takes time to figure things out for yourself.
Don't try the all encompassing, single pass, benchmark utilities as they are too general.
#1 - Memory - It's been repeated here multiple times - Gaming takes memory - I won't play on a gaming rig with less than 2GB RAM. Disable virtual memory (as stated earlier as well) - try downloading TweakXP from totalidea - it has some nice memory tweaking settings that take the guesswork out of things.
#2 - Benchmarking / Tweaking / Re-benchmarking...
SiSoft Sandra (as mentioned earlier in this thread) is a good start. It has several modules, which can be run individually.
Go through your memory benchmarks - tweak settings in the BIOS (if they are available for tweaking), then re-run - DOCUMENT your changes, 1 change at a time - it's time consuming as hell, yet it's the only way to truly know what changes caused what differences in performance.
Run the disk benchmarks, tune the cache settings in the registry, re-run the disk benchmark, then re-run the memory again to see what impact having changed the disk cache has on memory performance.
Networking - if you are using a motherboard, with an embedded network interface, and it's not a hardware (ie seperate chip) implemented network interface - replace it with a card - software based network interfaces, running from chipset/cpu ruin system performance.
Places like http://www.dslreports.com/ under the tools section have some decent tools for examining your system settings, and suggesting changes to optimize throughput.
Playing with QOS settings may also effect network performance.
#3 Video - what games are you planning on playing, what refresh rate does your monitor support?
If your monitor only supports 60hz refresh, then it doesn't do a lot of good to go out and get that 80fps monster video card (unless you plan on replacing the monitor). The only place this isn't true, is in the digital realm of LCD monitors, where the faster you can refresh the image, between syncs, the better off you are.
Monitor - if using an LCD, what's your black to black / white to white delay? Replace the monitor if it's over 8ms - as that may introduce ghosting while playing. (I personally use a Viewsonic VX922 - with 2ms black to black / white to white - it's awesome IMNSHO)
I'm not sure I'd fully agree with that statement either.
Reason one, Cache size - if they release slightly altered Conroe models, with varying sizes of cache, that of course will skew the results.
Reason two, Memory speed utilized with the system - varying speeds / quality of RAM will impact speed results, regardless of CPU mhz
Reason three, System cooling efficiency - if the machine built with the faster proc cannot cool the cpu sufficiently, typical configurations will slow the machine down to compensate for it.
Now - if you can clearly state that
#1 - All tests are done using the same memory, (the same physical RAM sticks) #2 - All tests are done with the same chassis, motherboard, power-supply, hard drives, video card and cooling system (except for the CPU heatsink, using the one supplied with each CPU by Intel) #3 - All tests are done with CPUs using the same size cache.
Then you should be able to compare Mhz to Mhz and get a somewhat linear result in benchmarks.
But don't tell me, that just by increasing mhz within a single architecture, that you can get an approximately linear result curve - there are too many other factors involved.
Granted, I am being nit-picky here, yet I'm just following someone else's lead in that regard.
Business Objects, once you are a customer, spends more effort in telling you why your problem isn't their problem, even when you use their *default* installation and setup.
They are constantly changing the layouts and deployment locations of their sub-components, and make it nearly impossible to throw a decent proxy front-end on their applet, so that it can fit into a standard (for our company) multi-tiered/multi-firewalled layout.
It used to be that the docroot for all applets was/businessobjects, now they are moving them in a seemingly random manner. That's not the biggest problem either. Their current incarnation, will not allow the web server front end to be configured for SSL, while their Tomcat listener is non-ssl. For some reason, they hard-code the url components to be non-ssl, and the proxies we've tried cannot override this (at least the time we've spent attempting this has been unsuccessful). We finally enabled SSl at the application layer, and changed the proxy to simply use a passthru mode. It's ugly and it's not what we'd prefer to be doing.
We've been waiting close to 6 months for a fix to this problem. One they were able to reproduce in their office, 6 months ago. Recently, when asked by us about the status, they stated that "We were finally able to reproduce the problem, and have sent it off to engineering." When we mentioned the fact that that's where we were at 6 months ago - they were like "Oh!"...
Anyway - that's a customer's experience with Business Objects - and to put it mildly.... In my opinion, it sucketh greatly.
Doesn't anyone else recall Intel releasing a faster processor, yet having to have the CPU idle for half of them to keep it from melting down?
Seems to me that we can speculate all you want, yet, in the end, only final numbers will be able to show what's what....
At this point it's all a big phallic comparison, and everyone who jumps on board swinging their own extensions are just blowing smoke up everyone's arses.
unless of course you're compiling your code using Intel's compiler, which automagically ignores most of the AMD extensions, leaving the compiled binary crippled.
Except for the fact that the DMCA is actually illegal...
It doesn't take into consideration that Copyrights EXPIRE! - without taking that into consideration, and form of encryption on copywritten content, is illegal. And any law that enforces illegal practices, must therefore be illegal.
#1 - that's $250.00 for EVERY release of the driver, not per driver. #2 - again - same thing - EVERY release is another $250.00 bucks. #3 - And I want to play crippled media why? When the hardware I have is PERFECTLY capable of playing content, without modification - it's just that the vendors believe they have "we the customers" over a barrell... #4 - Far from it.... Call it bitterness, call it seeing things for what they are, call it true understanding of the evil that is Microsoft.
It sure as hell isn't $250.00 per driver - it's $250.00 per every version / release of said driver.
With how many incremental releases of some drivers being sent out to fix this bug or that bug for some software that may or may not follow the api properly, how many $250.00 shots are the vendors going to take?
How many beta drivers will never be released (they cannot be leaked as they aren't signed - unless some group figures out how to forge the signatures)?
How many bugs will wait longer between release cycles to be fixed by the "officially released" drivers?
How many bugs could be fixed by a simple registry hack for the driver, that will be disallowed as that might cause the driver to fail to load (ie signature doesn't match)?
Aside from the fact that Microsoft doesn't test anything. They hand out programs to the vendors who do the work themselves, then submit the completed test results to get their signature to add to the driver package.
Things that the MS Driver Signing doesn't do:
It doesn't test every aspect of the driver. It doesn't guarantee compatibility of the driver with the hardware it's written for. It doesn't detect bugs, nor does it detect loss of patches from earlier fixed bugs.
It just says that "such and such vendor has followed our guidlines for writing a driver, regardless if the guidelines were correct or not".
How many MS Certified drivers have caused network nightmares, only to be fixed by non-signed beta drivers. Now this won't even be an option. Every beta driver will have to be certified/signed - costing vendors more money, slowing down release cycles, not really improving the quality of the drivers and ending up causing us, the end users more problems.
Aside from item #4 being my personal opinion, wth else is trollish about this post?
Not a damned thing... Some poor M$ payrolled lacky with mod points is informed to *punish* those that don't bow down and worship Microsoftopian values.
Reason #1 - Unless the vendor pays M$ loads of cash to certify their drivers and sign them (or purchase the ability to sign them, themselves) the monitors / devices will have to use the built-in generic M$ drivers.
Reason #2 - When a vendor goes defunct and 3rd parties pick up the flag to write / maintain drivers for said hardware, there's not enough money in it to pay M$ to sign / test / certify said drivers. So no 3rd party driver pick-ups anymore.
Reason #3 - In order to play DRM'd content, your display must be of the *bullshit* signed / approved type. Without it, you can have the greatest video card in the world, and nearly the greatest monitor and still only get crap resolution to display on from the content. Couple this with nearly ZERO functional video cards to support this new digitally signed hardware, and the same spot for monitors, it will be some time before the market catches up and releases new hardware to *enable* these features.
Reason #4 - It's from Micro$uck - so it has to suck.
Not only DID they do this, they also included verbage in the contract that said "If you discuss this license with the press, or leak it anywhere else, then we'll cancel the contract, and no longer allow your company OEM pricing".
Now, since I no longer work for the OEM in question, the contract is no longer binding to me.
According to some *inside* information that I have, several vendors were required to *buy* MS licenses, regardless of which OS the customer was requesting to have pre-loaded on the hardware.
So - for every box purchased, pre-loaded with Linux, it also generated a *sale* for Microsoft.
Now, it's been a year or two since I last checked into this, so I cannot say whether or not this *agreement* is still in force. However, I would not be surprised to see this still be the case.
Install the first camera(s) in this Police Chief's house - in every room, then wire it up to the public access channel.
Install the 2nd set of camera(s) in the Mayor's house.
Finally, the Police Chief's and Mayor's office.
Simply claim, if you aren't doing anything wrong, why should you mind being monitored 24x7, and since you both are in public office, your lives are now 100% public.
By the time the current DVD selection has dwindled to that point, there won't be anything new worth watching.
ie - Rocky X, Blade IX, I know what you did 5 summers ago, that kind of shit
Then the MPAA will still blame Pirating for reduced revenue streams and lost profits.
Let's face it - they will continue to ratchet in the rights, reduce compatibilies, raise prices and still go crying to their pocket congressmen that they don't make enough profit.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, there are NO magic utilities that will wave it's magic wand and *poof* out pops a list of the 10 recommended steps to ultimate gaming perforgasm.
It's called trial and error, and it takes time to figure things out for yourself.
Don't try the all encompassing, single pass, benchmark utilities as they are too general.
#1 - Memory - It's been repeated here multiple times - Gaming takes memory - I won't play on a gaming rig with less than 2GB RAM. Disable virtual memory (as stated earlier as well) - try downloading TweakXP from totalidea - it has some nice memory tweaking settings that take the guesswork out of things.
#2 - Benchmarking / Tweaking / Re-benchmarking...
SiSoft Sandra (as mentioned earlier in this thread) is a good start. It has several modules, which can be run individually.
Go through your memory benchmarks - tweak settings in the BIOS (if they are available for tweaking), then re-run - DOCUMENT your changes, 1 change at a time - it's time consuming as hell, yet it's the only way to truly know what changes caused what differences in performance.
Run the disk benchmarks, tune the cache settings in the registry, re-run the disk benchmark, then re-run the memory again to see what impact having changed the disk cache has on memory performance.
Networking - if you are using a motherboard, with an embedded network interface, and it's not a hardware (ie seperate chip) implemented network interface - replace it with a card - software based network interfaces, running from chipset/cpu ruin system performance.
Places like http://www.dslreports.com/ under the tools section have some decent tools for examining your system settings, and suggesting changes to optimize throughput.
Playing with QOS settings may also effect network performance.
#3 Video - what games are you planning on playing, what refresh rate does your monitor support?
If your monitor only supports 60hz refresh, then it doesn't do a lot of good to go out and get that 80fps monster video card (unless you plan on replacing the monitor). The only place this isn't true, is in the digital realm of LCD monitors, where the faster you can refresh the image, between syncs, the better off you are.
Monitor - if using an LCD, what's your black to black / white to white delay? Replace the monitor if it's over 8ms - as that may introduce ghosting while playing. (I personally use a Viewsonic VX922 - with 2ms black to black / white to white - it's awesome IMNSHO)
HTH
I'm not sure I'd fully agree with that statement either.
Reason one, Cache size - if they release slightly altered Conroe models, with varying sizes of cache, that of course will skew the results.
Reason two, Memory speed utilized with the system - varying speeds / quality of RAM will impact speed results, regardless of CPU mhz
Reason three, System cooling efficiency - if the machine built with the faster proc cannot cool the cpu sufficiently, typical configurations will slow the machine down to compensate for it.
Now - if you can clearly state that
#1 - All tests are done using the same memory, (the same physical RAM sticks)
#2 - All tests are done with the same chassis, motherboard, power-supply, hard drives, video card and cooling system (except for the CPU heatsink, using the one supplied with each CPU by Intel)
#3 - All tests are done with CPUs using the same size cache.
Then you should be able to compare Mhz to Mhz and get a somewhat linear result in benchmarks.
But don't tell me, that just by increasing mhz within a single architecture, that you can get an approximately linear result curve - there are too many other factors involved.
Granted, I am being nit-picky here, yet I'm just following someone else's lead in that regard.
Business Objects, once you are a customer, spends more effort in telling you why your problem isn't their problem, even when you use their *default* installation and setup.
/businessobjects, now they are moving them in a seemingly random manner. That's not the biggest problem either. Their current incarnation, will not allow the web server front end to be configured for SSL, while their Tomcat listener is non-ssl. For some reason, they hard-code the url components to be non-ssl, and the proxies we've tried cannot override this (at least the time we've spent attempting this has been unsuccessful). We finally enabled SSl at the application layer, and changed the proxy to simply use a passthru mode. It's ugly and it's not what we'd prefer to be doing.
They are constantly changing the layouts and deployment locations of their sub-components, and make it nearly impossible to throw a decent proxy front-end on their applet, so that it can fit into a standard (for our company) multi-tiered/multi-firewalled layout.
It used to be that the docroot for all applets was
We've been waiting close to 6 months for a fix to this problem. One they were able to reproduce in their office, 6 months ago. Recently, when asked by us about the status, they stated that "We were finally able to reproduce the problem, and have sent it off to engineering." When we mentioned the fact that that's where we were at 6 months ago - they were like "Oh!"...
Anyway - that's a customer's experience with Business Objects - and to put it mildly.... In my opinion, it sucketh greatly.
LOL - the benchmarks were probably compiled by Intel as well, using the Intel compiler, with default settings too.... =D
if you have to *remember* to turn it on, it's not very *automatic* now is it....
Sorry - couldn't resist.
As far as Mhz semi-equating to speed...
Doesn't anyone else recall Intel releasing a faster processor, yet having to have the CPU idle for half of them to keep it from melting down?
Seems to me that we can speculate all you want, yet, in the end, only final numbers will be able to show what's what....
At this point it's all a big phallic comparison, and everyone who jumps on board swinging their own extensions are just blowing smoke up everyone's arses.
At least it claims to do much the same thing...
h p?CatID=36&FamID=80&ProdID=233/
http://www.hawkingtech.com/products/productlist.p
unless of course you're compiling your code using Intel's compiler, which automagically ignores most of the AMD extensions, leaving the compiled binary crippled.
Except for the fact that the DMCA is actually illegal...
It doesn't take into consideration that Copyrights EXPIRE! - without taking that into consideration, and form of encryption on copywritten content, is illegal. And any law that enforces illegal practices, must therefore be illegal.
You poor bastard!
Oh - and as long as I have the Karma to burn, for those of you who thought my comment was a troll..... Here's a real troll for you....
FUCK YOU VERY MUCH!
#1 - that's $250.00 for EVERY release of the driver, not per driver.
#2 - again - same thing - EVERY release is another $250.00 bucks.
#3 - And I want to play crippled media why? When the hardware I have is PERFECTLY capable of playing content, without modification - it's just that the vendors believe they have "we the customers" over a barrell...
#4 - Far from it.... Call it bitterness, call it seeing things for what they are, call it true understanding of the evil that is Microsoft.
It sure as hell isn't $250.00 per driver - it's $250.00 per every version / release of said driver.
With how many incremental releases of some drivers being sent out to fix this bug or that bug for some software that may or may not follow the api properly, how many $250.00 shots are the vendors going to take?
How many beta drivers will never be released (they cannot be leaked as they aren't signed - unless some group figures out how to forge the signatures)?
How many bugs will wait longer between release cycles to be fixed by the "officially released" drivers?
How many bugs could be fixed by a simple registry hack for the driver, that will be disallowed as that might cause the driver to fail to load (ie signature doesn't match)?
Aside from the fact that Microsoft doesn't test anything. They hand out programs to the vendors who do the work themselves, then submit the completed test results to get their signature to add to the driver package.
Things that the MS Driver Signing doesn't do:
It doesn't test every aspect of the driver.
It doesn't guarantee compatibility of the driver with the hardware it's written for.
It doesn't detect bugs, nor does it detect loss of patches from earlier fixed bugs.
It just says that "such and such vendor has followed our guidlines for writing a driver, regardless if the guidelines were correct or not".
How many MS Certified drivers have caused network nightmares, only to be fixed by non-signed beta drivers. Now this won't even be an option. Every beta driver will have to be certified/signed - costing vendors more money, slowing down release cycles, not really improving the quality of the drivers and ending up causing us, the end users more problems.
Aside from item #4 being my personal opinion, wth else is trollish about this post?
Not a damned thing... Some poor M$ payrolled lacky with mod points is informed to *punish* those that don't bow down and worship Microsoftopian values.
Gotta love it....
Reason #1 - Unless the vendor pays M$ loads of cash to certify their drivers and sign them (or purchase the ability to sign them, themselves) the monitors / devices will have to use the built-in generic M$ drivers.
Reason #2 - When a vendor goes defunct and 3rd parties pick up the flag to write / maintain drivers for said hardware, there's not enough money in it to pay M$ to sign / test / certify said drivers. So no 3rd party driver pick-ups anymore.
Reason #3 - In order to play DRM'd content, your display must be of the *bullshit* signed / approved type. Without it, you can have the greatest video card in the world, and nearly the greatest monitor and still only get crap resolution to display on from the content. Couple this with nearly ZERO functional video cards to support this new digitally signed hardware, and the same spot for monitors, it will be some time before the market catches up and releases new hardware to *enable* these features.
Reason #4 - It's from Micro$uck - so it has to suck.
I was actually directing my comment at John Smedley....
Yes, but I don't believe it was owned by SOE when Everquest was initially released.
'Nuff said.
Not only DID they do this, they also included verbage in the contract that said "If you discuss this license with the press, or leak it anywhere else, then we'll cancel the contract, and no longer allow your company OEM pricing".
Now, since I no longer work for the OEM in question, the contract is no longer binding to me.
According to some *inside* information that I have, several vendors were required to *buy* MS licenses, regardless of which OS the customer was requesting to have pre-loaded on the hardware.
So - for every box purchased, pre-loaded with Linux, it also generated a *sale* for Microsoft.
Now, it's been a year or two since I last checked into this, so I cannot say whether or not this *agreement* is still in force. However, I would not be surprised to see this still be the case.
Sheesh - and now everyone on Slashdot has a nice shopping list of components - with a little hard work, a location to shop....
LOL....
Keeping my list of equip private...
What happens when the machine thinks we all look alike?
The cure is simple.
Install the first camera(s) in this Police Chief's house - in every room, then wire it up to the public access channel.
Install the 2nd set of camera(s) in the Mayor's house.
Finally, the Police Chief's and Mayor's office.
Simply claim, if you aren't doing anything wrong, why should you mind being monitored 24x7, and since you both are in public office, your lives are now 100% public.
By the time the current DVD selection has dwindled to that point, there won't be anything new worth watching.
ie - Rocky X, Blade IX, I know what you did 5 summers ago, that kind of shit
Then the MPAA will still blame Pirating for reduced revenue streams and lost profits.
Let's face it - they will continue to ratchet in the rights, reduce compatibilies, raise prices and still go crying to their pocket congressmen that they don't make enough profit.