For all you computer people, I have a question.

[OrganisM]

Re: For all you computer people, I have a question.

I spent $2200 on an excellent quality Samsung. Yeah, that's all it cost for the HD. And it cost me almost nothing for the rest of my equipment.

What do you consider full quality? And high res? What chipset is on your mobo?

Keep in mind, there are multiple markets and price ranges. Are the people who are talking about performance of a QX6700 vs the new AMD Quad-FX platform going to be "general users"?

And "most" is a relative term. Even if "most" of computer users don't use technology to its full potential, you might be forgetting that we're dealing with large numbers here, so the "minority" of people who use technology fully is at least in the tens of millions, if not hundreds.

Look, I'm not trying to fling **** in your face, but the arguments you're making are a bit off.

EDIT: and when I start a sentence with "for those", I'm talking about multiple people, and it's not necessarily directed towards a single person.

[tsugomaru]

Re: For all you computer people, I have a question.

You all have just committed an EPIC FAIL.

First, AMD is a fraction of the size of Intel. Stop comparing them.

Oh sorry, I forgot to mention I haven't been looking at their newer products. Back when I was looking for parts to buy, I kept on reading reviews where AMD processors lasted for more than two years and read the Intel reviews where the processors broke down pretty fast.

When the Intel Conroe processors came out, the price to power ratio for Conroe was better than the AMD ones after the huge price nerfs. That's where I'm basing my statements off of. I wasn't aware of any new Intel technology with the ability to reduce AMD down to a fraction.

Second, even though you can't tell the difference when you're watching scat porn on Windows media player using your P4 versus using anything else, there is quite a difference when using higher-end applications. I'm getting into music production, and I'm a gamer. For both of those needs, it's best to get a better performing system.

Like you, I'm also a gamer and to be honest, I'm content with the 40-60 fps. My eyes can't tell the difference after anything higher than 30 fps and I can get use to frame lag, if of course my computer will ever go that low.

I never watch high-definition movies on my computer, what's the point? It's a waste of space on my hard drive to download and I have a TV downstairs that can play those movies.

And your system probably isn't even upgradeable to run much of anything anymore. A mobo that supports P4's socket type probably runs off of old PCI-bus video cards, so you'd be lucky to be doing anything other than playing DVDs low-res using WMP.

Once again, I don't watch DVD movies on my computer. Also, you're right that I can't upgrade my computer. I'd have to buy a new motherboard, processor, and ram. But how is that AMD's fault? It's mine.

@ tsugomaru: What price range are you talking about? There are different price ranges, which are better covered by one company than the other. In addition, are the CPUs you're comparing even comparable in clockspeeds/performance?

Yes, I already mentioned when Conroe came out, the price to power ratio was better than anything AMD could come out with even after their releases and price nerfs.

By the way, it's partially my fault because I didn't go into detail about why I said AMD and Intel are about the same. I was looking at it from my point of view, cost and every day computer usage as well as some decent gaming.

~Tsugomaru

[Squeek]

Re: For all you computer people, I have a question.

The TV may have been two grand, but the HD-player was another $500 - $1000, the component cables are never cheap, you gotta have a surround sound system with all of that, and then the media is quite a bit as well. You got quite a deal on a 1080p TV if it only cost 2 grand. Most of the ones I see go for 3-6 grand.

I consider top-quality to be shown what the director intended to show. VHS tapes couldn't do this because they had to pan&scan. DVDs started coming out in widescreen and they were formatted to play with Surround Sound with high audio and video quality. That's how the director wants you to watch movies.

I know the limitation of human vision and I know 1080p exceeds those limitations. Humans can only see 60 lines per degree of arc. 1080p puts out more than that.

Put bluntly, from 8 feet away while watching a 50 inch plasma TV, the human eye is generally incapable of reliably distinguishing any detail finer than that shown on a true 720p display!

Source: http://www.vizcom.com.au/news/160/10...f-human-vision

You would need a 100 inch screen to fully utilize 1080p.

[OrganisM]

Re: For all you computer people, I have a question.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on a minute. I never said you watch movies on a computer, or that you should. I chose that as a simple everyday usage of computers that actually takes up more power and uses the GPU more than the Notepad and Calculator apps.

And that's the thing, you were looking at things from a particular point of view. And everybody chose a different market/price range to talk about, so it gets stupid. One can't compare the issues of the enthusiast or supercomputer market to the low-end $500 computer user.

For those that are everyday users, they don't know or care what Conroe is, and they'll ask somebody to do all the work for them and tell them what they want. They won't be asking a question about the efficiency of one processor over another given a particular use.

For those who pay attention to benchmarks, they often make use of their equipment, and so it is practical and usable and does make for a real-world benefit.

The TV may have been two grand, but the HD-player was another $500 - $1000, the component cables are never cheap, you gotta have a surround sound system with all of that, and then the media is quite a bit as well. You got quite a deal on a 1080p TV if it only cost 2 grand. Most of the ones I see go for 3-6 grand.

I know Xbox 360's only 1080i, but I spent only $200 more to get the HD-DVD add-on, since I already had my 360, and the cables came with the system. My high quality cambridge soundworks speaker system I bought 4 years ago for $500 is 5.1 and actually very high quality. The TV wasn't even on sale. It uses DLP, which eliminates the pixelated nasty look of some plasmas. So in the past 5-10 years, I've spent maybe 3.5 grand. My setup's very good, too.

I consider top-quality to be shown what the director intended to show. VHS tapes couldn't do this because they had to pan&scan. DVDs started coming out in widescreen and they were formatted to play with Surround Sound with high audio and video quality. That's how the director wants you to watch movies.

The director shot movies in film quality. Are you insinuating that DVDs are film quality? And don't forget that movies are shown in theaters first.

I know the limitation of human vision and I know 1080p exceeds those limitations. Humans can only see 60 lines per degree of arc. 1080p puts out more than that.

It's true, it's more than you can see, but why do I see an improvement? There's also the issue of picture vividness and a lot of other things you don't get as much of in lower-quality TVs.

EDIT: Ah, your article puts it best:

"Of course there are other factors that affect perceived image quality. The way color is handled, the latency of pixel illumination, motion artifacts and the effects of the algorithms that fit the image data to the native resolution of the display (and more importantly the SOURCE) all play a part in a qualitative assessment of the image."

[tsugomaru]

Re: For all you computer people, I have a question.

Well, you decided to toss in watching high-def movies on the computer when you were listing things that you did on your PC.

It's really up to the OP, he needs to tell us what he's looking for.

~Tsugomaru

[Nightfirecat]

Re: For all you computer people, I have a question.

Well, you decided to toss in watching high-def movies on the computer when you were listing things that you did on your PC.

It's really up to the OP, he needs to tell us what he's looking for.

~Tsugomaru

yeah- in my opinion, the only practical use for computers in terms of movies are saving the movies on the computer and watching them later... It's kind of a waste to get a computer with a DVD drive with no intent to save them on your computer.

@organism, the reason I posed this question was to try to bring out the knowledge of the general FFR forum posters (which at this point it has..) and to try to help those who don't understand the topic of computers.
I know plenty about computers-- in fact I'm building one myself, and I would love to participate in this conversation/argument that is going on here, but I can't get online with a decent computer very often.. (until i build mine over the summer )... So I'll try to periodically poke in here and post something.