Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

300 discussion: Mods please move to off topic forum

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 23, 2007 1:25:09 PM
March 23, 2007 1:32:29 PM

AAH! Must hijack this thread before it erupts into another stupid flamewar, seeing as nothing constructive can come from this topic anyway.

So how many of you saw the new movie '300'? What did you think of it? I was actually pretty unimpressed, I was expecting more from all the hype over it.
March 23, 2007 1:37:24 PM

I think I want more than one place's information on the 6000+ drawing more power than the QX6700 at load. It would be close, I would imagine...but it still doesn't seem totally right.
March 23, 2007 1:38:57 PM

Quote:

So how many of you saw the new movie '300'? What did you think of it? I was actually pretty unimpressed, I was expecting more from all the hype over it.

Agree, I was told its better than Gladiator, but saw nothing more than historical comic. Good actors and nice fight scenes, but still movie felt like one big-popcorn-special-effect. Good for relaxation after long work day, but forgetable as soon as you finish watching it. Gladiator was way way better and more memoriable.
March 23, 2007 1:41:39 PM

Quote:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q1/cpus/index.x?pg=1

Conclusions
The fact that Intel retains the overall performance crown comes as no surprise. As we said at the outset, AMD has no real answer to the Core 2 Extreme X6800 among its dual-core processors. Also, Intel's quad-core CPUs tend to scale better than AMD's Quad FX platform, especially for typical desktop-class applications. Our move to Windows Vista x64 has done little to alter this dynamic. At the same time, Core 2 processors tend to draw less power and to be more energy efficient—sometimes markedly so—than Athlon 64s. Right now, Intel has the magic combination of a superior processor microarchitecture and a more mature, fully realized 65nm manufacturing capability working together on its side.

This one-two punch has allowed Intel to maintain a performance edge at most price points, despite standing pat through AMD's aggressive pricing moves and new model introductions. AMD's current weaknesses manifest themselves most fully in its high-end models, like the Athlon 64 X2 6000+, which draws more power at peak than the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 yet is often outperformed by the less expensive Core 2 Duo E6600. The Athlon 64 looks more competitive in its lower-end incarnations like the X2 5000+ and 4400+, which match up better on both performance and power characteristics against the Core 2 Duo E6300 and E6400. These processors have the benefit of being available in 65nm form, and I'd say the minor performance penalty one pays in performance at 65nm (due to the slower L2 cache) is worth it for the reduced power draw.

...



I bet you just love it don't you? AMD is slower now, ATTACK!!!!!!! Wait, you can still play he games you could when they weren't. What's the problem?
March 23, 2007 1:42:21 PM

Quote:

So how many of you saw the new movie '300'? What did you think of it? I was actually pretty unimpressed, I was expecting more from all the hype over it.

Agree, I was told its better than Gladiator, but saw nothing more than historical comic. Good actors and nice fight scenes, but still movie felt like one big-popcorn-special-effect. Good for relaxation after long work day, but forgetable as soon as you finish watching it. Gladiator was way way better and more memoriable.

My thoughts exactly. It was basically one big impressive fight scene, momentarily interrupted on occassion by a "plot". Which is okay, it was definitely worth the $10 to see it, but I admit I was expecting some great epic storyline. The premise of the movie had potential for it.
March 23, 2007 1:52:50 PM

If you really want to be impressed by it you have to put yourself completely in the position of accepting the lifestyle of the Spartans and their beliefs and mores. Once you do that, the story gets a little more life to it.

Gladiator is also a great movie, but more story-oriented. I'm not about to call one better than the other, but Gladiator does have a stronger story.

But I've always been partial to Achilles vs. Hector, :) 
March 23, 2007 2:07:03 PM

Quote:

So how many of you saw the new movie '300'? What did you think of it? I was actually pretty unimpressed, I was expecting more from all the hype over it.

Agree, I was told its better than Gladiator, but saw nothing more than historical comic. Good actors and nice fight scenes, but still movie felt like one big-popcorn-special-effect. Good for relaxation after long work day, but forgetable as soon as you finish watching it. Gladiator was way way better and more memoriable.

My thoughts exactly. It was basically one big impressive fight scene, momentarily interrupted on occassion by a "plot". Which is okay, it was definitely worth the $10 to see it, but I admit I was expecting some great epic storyline. The premise of the movie had potential for it.

I enjoyed 300 more than Gladiator personally. I thought they did a great job with the movie, it was a perfect adaption of the graphic novel.

They could have done without the wife's side story though.
March 23, 2007 2:09:32 PM

Yeah the wife's side story seemed a bit irrelevant, but without it, wouldn't the movie be just two hours of a big fight? As well filmed and impressive as the fighting was, that would seriously test my attention span.
a c 471 à CPUs
March 23, 2007 2:46:51 PM

Quote:

So how many of you saw the new movie '300'? What did you think of it? I was actually pretty unimpressed, I was expecting more from all the hype over it.


Haven't seen it yet. Is the movie historically accurate with regard to the fact that 300 Spartans stood along side appromixately 1,000 Thespians warriors while fighting off King Xerxes' army of Immortals?
March 23, 2007 2:53:06 PM

Yeah pretty much. It's not really historically accurate in the exact sense, but they spin it well. They mix truth and fantasy together in a way that makes it seem like the visual incarnation of a legend. That I was impressed with.
March 23, 2007 2:54:44 PM

For me, Gladiator and Sin City were both great. 300.. wasn't, to be blunt. It wasn't "bad" per se, but plot was non-existent, the female lead was a weak character, and the battles managed to stretch out too long, yet not convey the needed sense of time and setting. If someone only sees the ad, they aren't missing out on much by not seeing the film.

P.S. Also, one of the most famous leaders from Ancient Greece was played by a guy with a relatively strong Scottish accent. Yeah. It's hard to empathise with a guy who you think is about to drop his kilt and moon the enemy.
March 23, 2007 2:56:47 PM

Who the hell needs a plot for a story thats 2400 years old and known the world over :?: :?: :?:

:roll:
March 23, 2007 3:02:52 PM

Quote:
Haven't seen it yet. Is the movie historically accurate with regard to the fact that 300 Spartans stood along side appromixately 1,000 Thespians warriors while fighting off King Xerxes' army of Immortals?


Its based on a novel not historical accuracy so no it really only focuses on the spartans. Although the arcadians are shown during the movie. The phocians are mentioned but never shown. The thespians had no mention.

Historically the numbers were roughly guessed to have looked like this...

Units | Numbers
Spartans 300
Mantineans 500
Tegeans 500
Arcadian Orchomenos 120
Other Arcadians 1,000
Corinthians 400
Phlians 200
Mycenaeans 80
Thespians 700
Thebans 400
Phocians 1,000
Opuntian Locrians 13
Total 5,200+

From the Wiki
March 23, 2007 3:13:25 PM

Quote:
Who the hell needs a plot for a story thats 2400 years old and known the world over :?: :?: :?:

:roll:


Mostly, because its supposed to be a movie, not a documentary. It needs a story to grip the audience. Also, you ask "Average Joe" to faithfully recall the events of the Battle of Thermopylae. About 4 weeks ago, he looks at you blankly, before wondering if its some new deodorant. Now, if you're lucky, he'll look at you blankly for a while, before perking up, and responding "Oh yeah, that thing from 300?". "Known the world over" in educated circles perhaps, but most people knew/know very little about it.

300's problem is that a movie can thrive, even if it only has one of the necessary dramatic conventions, be it a strong plot, engrossing characters, or revolutionary effects. It doesn't really pick up points in any category.
March 23, 2007 3:19:58 PM

small circles huh. I guess they are getting smaller with the education levels of today. I went to all inner city public schools and even they teach you something about Sparta, Athens, and Rome at some point. Oh well, perhaps the story isn't lost on everyone.

For a movie shot entirely on sound stage the scenery was amazing. Perhaps not to the total geek who has been accustomed to such things in games and so forth but for a movie screen it was pretty sweet. And if King Leonidas isn't a great character then I give.
March 23, 2007 3:28:24 PM

I know a bit about Ancient Greece, but my school teaching of it was approximately zero. (Included instead Norman invasions, First and Second World Wars etc). I'm not saying that no-one knows the story, nor that a specifically classical education is required. I was pointing out that your assertion "known the world over" may be a tad over-enthusiastic, especially if you meant more than the flimsiest grasp of the events.

King Leonidas was/is indeed a great character. A pity, therefore, that 300 didn't realise his potential.
March 23, 2007 3:35:55 PM

Quote:
small circles huh. I guess they are getting smaller with the education levels of today. I went to all inner city public schools and even they teach you something about Sparta, Athens, and Rome at some point. Oh well, perhaps the story isn't lost on everyone.

For a movie shot entirely on sound stage the scenery was amazing. Perhaps not to the total geek who has been accustomed to such things in games and so forth but for a movie screen it was pretty sweet. And if King Leonidas isn't a great character then I give.





I agree. Though I studied history in school and sometimes my wife stares at me with a blank look when talking about something I think everyone should know about.

I though 300 was a very entertaining movie (much better than troy). So was Gladiator. I'd say both will end up on my tops list, alongside Braveheart (good, but also quite inaccurate, though the viewer is warned at the begining), Gettysburg, The Longest Day, and Saving Private Ryan.
March 23, 2007 3:39:07 PM

Quote:
AAH! Must hijack this thread before it erupts into another stupid flamewar, seeing as nothing constructive can come from this topic anyway.

So how many of you saw the new movie '300'? What did you think of it? I was actually pretty unimpressed, I was expecting more from all the hype over it.


I might go and see it tonight. I will be able to contribute something useful to this thread then :D 
March 23, 2007 3:39:47 PM

Battle of Thermopyles? Yup, had that one in class - second year of junior high, Greek antiquity.

It is difficult to say for certain about that particular battle, but Sparte were indeed terminally bad asses (if any of you know their military ranking peculiarities, you'll get the pun).
March 23, 2007 3:41:01 PM

I dont know, I would say it doesnt have the recognition of say WWII but it definitely has a broad range. To a European I would think the story is well known. Obviously the Iranian President knows it well. Definitely has his panties in a wad over the movie. The Middle East, judging by their reactions, knows it well. I talked to several people in Russia and they know the story. South America doesnt have a clue. In the US its mostly known by people who went to college or watch the Discovery channel.

Well thats my logic behind "known the world over" anyway. But what the hell do i know, I might be a redneck. :lol: 
March 23, 2007 3:44:56 PM

Quote:
For me, Gladiator and Sin City were both great. 300.. wasn't, to be blunt. It wasn't "bad" per se, but plot was non-existent, the female lead was a weak character, and the battles managed to stretch out too long, yet not convey the needed sense of time and setting. If someone only sees the ad, they aren't missing out on much by not seeing the film.

P.S. Also, one of the most famous leaders from Ancient Greece was played by a guy with a relatively strong Scottish accent. Yeah. It's hard to empathise with a guy who you think is about to drop his kilt and moon the enemy.



Sin City was great. Even though it was rendered with Opteron. I like the chivalric touch to it. The hitman scene at the end was a great touch.

I culd see me pulling a "Marv" especially since I lost my pills. Gladiator was OK. Anything with a scene like with the lions will be good. My favorite fight movie though would have to be Revenge of the Sith or - though it was a comedy - Kung Fu Hustle.
March 23, 2007 3:48:57 PM

Quote:
Haven't seen it yet. Is the movie historically accurate with regard to the fact that 300 Spartans stood along side appromixately 1,000 Thespians warriors while fighting off King Xerxes' army of Immortals?


Its based on a novel not historical accuracy so no it really only focuses on the spartans. Although the arcadians are shown during the movie. The phocians are mentioned but never shown. The thespians had no mention.

Historically the numbers were roughly guessed to have looked like this...

Units | Numbers
Spartans 300
Mantineans 500
Tegeans 500
Arcadian Orchomenos 120
Other Arcadians 1,000
Corinthians 400
Phlians 200
Mycenaeans 80
Thespians 700
Thebans 400
Phocians 1,000
Opuntian Locrians 13
Total 5,200+

From the Wiki

I bet a C2D would whip that 5200+ :lol: 
March 23, 2007 3:49:10 PM

If that is all that you got from the movie then you got exactly what the director wanted. It was suppose to be one big fight hence the movie was based on a nation whose culture is fighting. I loved the movie and have seen it 6 times, but to each his own I suppose. By the way if you have the chance to see it in IMAX then do it!

Best,

3Ball
March 23, 2007 3:51:42 PM

Quote:
AAH! Must hijack this thread before it erupts into another stupid flamewar, seeing as nothing constructive can come from this topic anyway.

So how many of you saw the new movie '300'? What did you think of it? I was actually pretty unimpressed, I was expecting more from all the hype over it.


i liked it the old eye joke was funny, but i woched hot fuzz after it i liked that more
March 23, 2007 3:52:21 PM

Quote:
If you really want to be impressed by it you have to put yourself completely in the position of accepting the lifestyle of the Spartans and their beliefs and mores. Once you do that, the story gets a little more life to it.

Gladiator is also a great movie, but more story-oriented. I'm not about to call one better than the other, but Gladiator does have a stronger story.

But I've always been partial to Achilles vs. Hector, :) 


Mixing your movies there Achilles vs. Hector comes from the movie Troy. Gladiator had a superb story line with well developed characters and the fight scenes played into the story. The 300 although excellent cinematography doesn't have near the development and just one apocaclyptic battle so I'd have to say I prefer Gladiator.

P.S. Excellent Hijackof the topic
March 23, 2007 4:00:20 PM

Quote:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q1/cpus/index.x?pg=1

Conclusions
The fact that Intel retains the overall performance crown comes as no surprise. As we said at the outset, AMD has no real answer to the Core 2 Extreme X6800 among its dual-core processors. Also, Intel's quad-core CPUs tend to scale better than AMD's Quad FX platform, especially for typical desktop-class applications. Our move to Windows Vista x64 has done little to alter this dynamic. At the same time, Core 2 processors tend to draw less power and to be more energy efficient—sometimes markedly so—than Athlon 64s. Right now, Intel has the magic combination of a superior processor microarchitecture and a more mature, fully realized 65nm manufacturing capability working together on its side.

This one-two punch has allowed Intel to maintain a performance edge at most price points, despite standing pat through AMD's aggressive pricing moves and new model introductions. AMD's current weaknesses manifest themselves most fully in its high-end models, like the Athlon 64 X2 6000+, which draws more power at peak than the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 yet is often outperformed by the less expensive Core 2 Duo E6600. The Athlon 64 looks more competitive in its lower-end incarnations like the X2 5000+ and 4400+, which match up better on both performance and power characteristics against the Core 2 Duo E6300 and E6400. These processors have the benefit of being available in 65nm form, and I'd say the minor performance penalty one pays in performance at 65nm (due to the slower L2 cache) is worth it for the reduced power draw.

...


First, let's ignore those who don't want you to start a topic because they don't agree with it.

With that done, let's get to the point.

Unless biased (sorry Baron, I had to say it :wink: ), theire is no denying that Intel is superior to AMD right now. So much that it's not even funny. Because of this I purchase a C2D E6600 (now running at 3.0GHZ and below 40C at full load) and won't regret it even if Barcelona kick ass.

Still, I'm awaiting Barcelona, Penryn and NEHALEM with a lot of impatience. But like Baron said so often in the months following C2D press benchmark and before it's release: "Let's wait for the real test by unbiased source before drawing any conclusion". Barcelona looks good but is untested, so I still suggest going Intel for anybody purchasing a PC today.

My 2 cents! :wink:
March 23, 2007 4:02:25 PM

LOL This thread is so hijacked it just got a new title.

Congrats hijackers!
March 23, 2007 4:05:25 PM

Quote:


Units | Numbers
Spartans 300
Mantineans 500
Tegeans 500
Arcadian Orchomenos 120
Other Arcadians 1,000
Corinthians 400
Phlians 200
Mycenaeans 80
Thespians 700
Thebans 400
Phocians 1,000
Opuntian Locrians 13
Total 5,200+

From the Wiki


I bet a C2D would whip that 5200+ :lol: 
Core 2 Persian, overclocked to a Million+ :lol: 
March 23, 2007 4:15:01 PM

Quote:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q1/cpus/index.x?pg=1

Conclusions
The fact that Intel retains the overall performance crown comes as no surprise. As we said at the outset, AMD has no real answer to the Core 2 Extreme X6800 among its dual-core processors. Also, Intel's quad-core CPUs tend to scale better than AMD's Quad FX platform, especially for typical desktop-class applications. Our move to Windows Vista x64 has done little to alter this dynamic. At the same time, Core 2 processors tend to draw less power and to be more energy efficient—sometimes markedly so—than Athlon 64s. Right now, Intel has the magic combination of a superior processor microarchitecture and a more mature, fully realized 65nm manufacturing capability working together on its side.

This one-two punch has allowed Intel to maintain a performance edge at most price points, despite standing pat through AMD's aggressive pricing moves and new model introductions. AMD's current weaknesses manifest themselves most fully in its high-end models, like the Athlon 64 X2 6000+, which draws more power at peak than the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 yet is often outperformed by the less expensive Core 2 Duo E6600. The Athlon 64 looks more competitive in its lower-end incarnations like the X2 5000+ and 4400+, which match up better on both performance and power characteristics against the Core 2 Duo E6300 and E6400. These processors have the benefit of being available in 65nm form, and I'd say the minor performance penalty one pays in performance at 65nm (due to the slower L2 cache) is worth it for the reduced power draw.

...


First, let's ignore those who don't want you to start a topic because they don't agree with it.

With that done, let's get to the point.

Unless biased (sorry Baron, I had to say it :wink: ), theire is no denying that Intel is superior to AMD right now. So much that it's not even funny. Because of this I purchase a C2D E6600 (now running at 3.0GHZ and below 40C at full load) and won't regret it even if Barcelona kick ass.

Still, I'm awaiting Barcelona, Penryn and NEHALEM with a lot of impatience. But like Baron said so often in the months following C2D press benchmark and before it's release: "Let's wait for the real test by unbiased source before drawing any conclusion". Barcelona looks good but is untested, so I still suggest going Intel for anybody purchasing a PC today.

My 2 cents! :wink:

And I still recommend AMD. All my games run real fast and that's all I'm worried about. I don't think I've ever looked at my CPU temps. I hate the noise and that is consistent with the great and powerful C2D also.

Wait, you remember wha I said LAST YEAR. You must hag on my every word. I ony remember what I didn't say and "wait for the real benches" was not it.

So how does it feel to be a Brood warrior? (couldn't help it).

My 3 cents!
March 23, 2007 4:18:17 PM

Waited 2 months to see it, and it didn't live up to my expectations. Horrible dialogue, over-acting and the lack of any real actor talent killed what would have been an otherwise average film with great special effects. I was bored by the end of it, but it just MHO. Some of you guys will like it, others will be disappointed.
March 23, 2007 4:23:25 PM

Quote:
First, let's ignore those who don't want you to start a topic because they don't agree with it.

With that done, let's get to the point.

Unless biased (sorry Baron, I had to say it :wink: ), theire is no denying that Intel is superior to AMD right now. So much that it's not even funny. Because of this I purchase a C2D E6600 (now running at 3.0GHZ and below 40C at full load) and won't regret it even if Barcelona kick ass.

Still, I'm awaiting Barcelona, Penryn and NEHALEM with a lot of impatience. But like Baron said so often in the months following C2D press benchmark and before it's release: "Let's wait for the real test by unbiased source before drawing any conclusion". Barcelona looks good but is untested, so I still suggest going Intel for anybody purchasing a PC today.

My 2 cents! :wink:


OT :evil: 
March 23, 2007 4:33:19 PM

Quote:
For me, Gladiator and Sin City were both great. 300.. wasn't, to be blunt. It wasn't "bad" per se, but plot was non-existent, the female lead was a weak character, and the battles managed to stretch out too long, yet not convey the needed sense of time and setting. If someone only sees the ad, they aren't missing out on much by not seeing the film.

P.S. Also, one of the most famous leaders from Ancient Greece was played by a guy with a relatively strong Scottish accent. Yeah. It's hard to empathise with a guy who you think is about to drop his kilt and moon the enemy.



Sin City was great. Even though it was rendered with Opteron. I like the chivalric touch to it. The hitman scene at the end was a great touch.

I culd see me pulling a "Marv" especially since I lost my pills. Gladiator was OK. Anything with a scene like with the lions will be good. My favorite fight movie though would have to be Revenge of the Sith or - though it was a comedy - Kung Fu Hustle.

Sin City was twisted but good. Gladiator was great. I liked lord of the rings over star wars. Now for a bloody war type movie not much comes close to good old Full Metal Jacket. I hate to think how many times I saw that movie as a kid. Was my stepdad's favorite movie. Anymore though it seems I tend watch anime more than anything else.

Well, LOTR loked a little too gay to me (no offense) and I saw none of them though I did like the version in the Thor comics.

As far as war movies, The Great Raid and Tears of the Sun are my favorites. Private Ryan was good ut a litle too sad. Not lik war movies can be happy, but I hated it when Capt Miller got killed, though it was good to see Oppum blast that prisoner they let go.
!