Relax

Well, I know how every one comes to this forum either to post their problem or to suggest solutions to others problems (thanx to those guys), but this post is a little different from the norm. I just wanted to say that every thing is going fine in my end of the universe. I thought you guys might want to relax your brains for a while. Here are my computer specs: (remember, I am on a tight budget so I had to make due with existing components like video card and memory).

Asus a7v (kt133)
Duron 800 @ 807 (don't know how that happened).
Global win fop38.
160 megs of generic pc 100 cas 3.
sb 128.
cheap nic card
cheap modem
Voodoo 3 2000 (16 megs) (143 mhz core clock)
Maxtor 20gig ata 100 7200rpm hdd
hp 4x4x24 writer
cheap generic 40x cd rom
really cheap 1.4 floppy drive
17" samsung monitor
decent sized case (19" I think)
2 case fans.
and other standard stuff (keyboard, mouse).

I've managed to score 1313 on 3dmark 2001. Not bad for voodoo 3 huh.

This system is fast enough for me (for now)


Since we cannot get what we like, let us like what we can get

Thanx,
I'm sure that you won't be disappointed by you selection of hsf. I was just wondering, are you going to use the thermal pads already on the wbk or are u going to remove it and apply some other compound like Arctic silver or some radio shack stuff.

Since we cannot get what we like, let us like what we can get

>>>Duron 800 @ 807 (don't know how that happened).

Turns out the FSB on the a7v is not _exactly_ 100MHz. Therefore, when a program such as Sandra, or MBM measures the cpu speed, rather than calculate it from the intended FSB/multiplier combination, it is a little different.

For example, the tbird on my a7v reads 1010MHz in these programs

Cheers!

--------
I have not yet begun to procrastinate.

my p2 400 shows 398...

<font color=red>Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.</font color=red>
Pablo Picasso

well the whole thing about multipliers and FSB speeds is a not quite fully truthful anyway. i have a duron 850 running at 133*6.5=864.5. but my BIOS posts it as 866. same thing with the pentium 667 133*5=665 but they post as 667. just some more additions to the truth from the corporations. evidence of this can be found all over the computer market. e.g. the box for my HDD says its a 40.9 gig but in wondows and in the bios it reads as a 39 gig. it is because most operating systems define a hard disk drive's capacity using binary or base-2 mathematics. This translates to 1 gigabyte (GB) equal to 1,073,741,824 bytes. This is the correct value when using binary or base-2 mathematics.

However, hard disk drive manufacturers define drive sizes using base-10 mathematics, in which 1 GB is equal to 1,000,000,000 bytes (rather than the 1,073,741,824 bytes, as listed above).

This discrepancy in reporting drive sizes (base-2 vs. base-10) may lead you to believe that you have a hard disk drive of less than expected capacity if you compare the figure reported by the operating system with the figure reported by your documentation, although the actual hard drive size is identical. Microsoft® Windows® simply counts the size differently, and will report a different, slightly smaller, figure.




is this reality... i thought it would more realistic.