• Changes to Server go to this thread http://overzealousgamers.com/threads/etpub-changelog.6665/

Gaming computer???!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sisibouri

New Member
nelots said:
timewilltell said:
you know what, you are actually right for once, the 8w figure is for sdram hence absolute worst case scenario.
Worst case? more like you have no idea what you're talking about.
timewilltell said:
a lot of performance ram usually runs around 2v (1.7, 1.9, some even 2.3) as i explained 15w per gb is more realistic for ddr3, its also about the same as what you just said
i was just making a point and that was just off the top of my head at the time, i could not remember ddr2 or 3 "guide" which is all it is, spec sheets for most ram actually say like 1 or 2 watts per module but once again this is not full load and would likely only be at standby.
Where the hell do you pull all these random numbers from? DDR3 is rated by default to run off 1.5V, performance modules operate 1.65V. If you push DDR3 to consume 1.9V or above then it'll begin to suffer damage so your 1.7V - 1.9V figures maybe ok if extra cooling is fitted but 2V - 2.3V is just fail.
figures are pulled from manufactures technical data sheets on there ram read voltages at links below nub
http://www.kingston.com/hyperx/products/khx_ddr3.asp
http://www.kingston.com/hyperx/products/khx_ddr2.asp
in case you dont want the to check links and use effort
KHX9200D2/1G 1GB DDR2 1150MHz Non-ECC CL 5 5-5-5-15 2.3-2.35V random one just for example

who fails?? :rnade:


timewilltell said:
the links were simply a quick search on google, as i said old but theory is still correct.
as you don't seem to take my word for it or deaths, i figured i would show you another article saying much the same thing as we are saying!!
You two throw in random numbers and formulas into your posts and you link us to outdated information which in principle may be correct but doesn't apply to todays current hardware.
Yeah, I'm going to take both your words without question. QUICK TELL ME MORE INTERESTING INFORMATION and justify everything with random numbers/formulas and also end the post by saying "I'm an electrician by trade."
its a lot more then what you have and trigger asked (basically), the formulas are not random, and the links are quite valid (equations don't change only the variables)
timewilltell said:
you do realize i said that like 3 pages ago don't you? lol i was actually wondering when you were going to pick it up, trigger beat ya too it though :lol:
That's because I didn't bother checking the link.

wasn't at a link it was in my original post, learn to read :-)
timewilltell said:
our work thing is: to be sure, to be sure, to be sure!
You should change your work thing to: Get a clue, get a clue, GET A CLUE!
lmao ya think your funny don't ya!
 

nelots

Well-Known Member
Death_Reincarnated said:
So you dare to question my knoweldge
YES, I dare to question your 'knoweldge.'
Death_Reincarnated said:
I'm not saying you have been entirely wrong nelots but your ego and pride fail you to see that you are wrong at times.
My ego and pride has little to do with correcting the misinformation you two have been spewing along with the various failures in comprehending other people's posts.
Death_Reincarnated said:
I can requote what nelots said but it would fall to deaf ears.
Your replies 'fall on deaf ears' because you fail to comprehend other peoples posts and end up talking nonsense.
Death_Reincarnated said:
The 8W/128MB has been mentioned here (http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/42917 ... onsumption) but it more reasonable for 15W per GB (http://www.pcpower.com/technology/power_usage/).
Here is some more reading to help you out. They too agree with an average of 15W per 1GB. http://www.experts-exchange.com/Hardwar ... 89064.html
Ahhh, so you two gather information from the same source, too bad you're unable to correctly apply it correctly. 8W to 128mb refers to SDRAM not DDR3 Ram which we were discussing.
15W per GB was just a rough estimation without specifics to what kind of RAM so it's still short on detail.
Death_Reincarnated said:
@nelots your version of finding out the power usage seems to be somewhat weird/wrong. Firstly I don't know where you got that 128MB (or is is Mb?) value since a 4GB DDR3 ram module can have different chip configuration (due to each IC chips memory value) and its hard to say where you ripped that number from. Secondly the applied voltage is constant and yes DDR3 is based on a 1.5V supply but P=V*I and when you a running the ram sticks at peak you are drawing more current while the same voltage is supplied (it may even go up due to temperature changes) - so it is more important to take notice of the current supplied rather than voltage and so I am not sure why you use voltage to find out the power used by the RAM.
Notice I did mention "in general" and since in general modules are fitted with 128mb chipsets, need I expand or can you work it out yourself?
Wow again with the formulas, I said "in general," so general use is assumed thus all the other crap you spewed is negligible.
Death_Reincarnated said:
Either way it is hard to pin point the actual power usage of RAM since some people give values of over 100W while others say 15W per GB.
Are you confirming you have no clue again?
Death_Reincarnated said:
I know that you can use RAM to its full capacity at one point and then hardly
Well it is called Random Access Memory for a reason.
Death_Reincarnated said:
I honestly dont want to go too far with the technical mumbo jumbo as its not really useful at this time and will drag this on unneceseraly.
Sounds more like you have no idea.
 

Death_Reincarnated

Well-Known Member
nelots said:
Death_Reincarnated said:
So you dare to question my knoweldge
YES, I dare to question your 'knoweldge.'
LOL ok so what educational background do you have?
nelots said:
Although I dropped out of school at year 10...
Here is mine:
- VCE enter score of 92%
- Bachelor in Physics with Disctinction
- Honours with HD in Physics/nanotechnology
- Currently finishing PhD in material science
Thats just the educational background...
Care to show off your knowledge?

nelots said:
Death_Reincarnated said:
I'm not saying you have been entirely wrong nelots but your ego and pride fail you to see that you are wrong at times.
My ego and pride has little to do with correcting the misinformation you two have been spewing along with the various failures in comprehending other people's posts.
How can you suggest that I and timewilltell have misinformed others where both of us needed to correct you on several occasions. You have, if my memory serves me correct, not even once scientifically corrected me, nor used anything close to science to backup yourself...what youve done was pull out numbers and quotes from sites and even said that someone told you this is how to evaluate power usage of RAM without taking the time to show the understandign behind this.

nelots said:
Death_Reincarnated said:
I can requote what nelots said but it would fall to deaf ears.
Your replies 'fall on deaf ears' because you fail to comprehend other peoples posts and end up talking nonsense.
You judge me yet you never take into account my opinion - this being a perfect example and your failure to correct me based on sound knowledge in the technical aspects of this debate.

nelots said:
Death_Reincarnated said:
The 8W/128MB has been mentioned here (http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/42917 ... onsumption) but it more reasonable for 15W per GB (http://www.pcpower.com/technology/power_usage/).
Here is some more reading to help you out. They too agree with an average of 15W per 1GB. http://www.experts-exchange.com/Hardwar ... 89064.html
Ahhh, so you two gather information from the same source, too bad you're unable to correctly apply it correctly. 8W to 128mb refers to SDRAM not DDR3 Ram which we were discussing.
15W per GB was just a rough estimation without specifics to what kind of RAM so it's still short on detail.
I never gathered this information from that source - I merely found it by googling it. If you bothered to read my last entire post you would understand that the 8W/128MB value given initially by timewilltell, I understood it to be based on early RAM modules but nooooooo you still go ahead and write this jubberish and think that I dont know this and think Im talking about all RAMs. Discussion of DDR3 ram has only surfaced in the recent posts, not from the start, so really why dont you run through the posts and understand the timeline of the events that took place in the posts before you jump to conclusions fool. I also indicated that 15W per GB seems to be the general consesus on the power usage of RAMs at present time and looks to be an estimation. If you look at the two values (8W/128MB and 15W/1GB) both show different results if it were based on a 4GB RAM module so it is obvious but still where do these values come from - this is the key to understanding which one is correct but to be more precise a wattage value per IC chip is the most accurate way but even then you still havent accounted for the frequency, voltage, current and temperature when using RAM to give a precise value to the power usage of RAM.

nelots said:
Death_Reincarnated said:
@nelots your version of finding out the power usage seems to be somewhat weird/wrong. Firstly I don't know where you got that 128MB (or is is Mb?) value since a 4GB DDR3 ram module can have different chip configuration (due to each IC chips memory value) and its hard to say where you ripped that number from. Secondly the applied voltage is constant and yes DDR3 is based on a 1.5V supply but P=V*I and when you a running the ram sticks at peak you are drawing more current while the same voltage is supplied (it may even go up due to temperature changes) - so it is more important to take notice of the current supplied rather than voltage and so I am not sure why you use voltage to find out the power used by the RAM.
Notice I did mention "in general" and since in general modules are fitted with 128mb chipsets, need I expand or can you work it out yourself?
Wow again with the formulas, I said "in general," so general use is assumed thus all the other crap you spewed is negligible.
You said 'divide the total memory of your module by 128mb' in your previous post, also how can a chipset hold 128MB of data? I suggest you take more care in adressing values properly...its not 128MB (i.e megabytes) its 128Mb (megabits) you idiot! This is what I mean by you not knowing enough technical information about this - someone takes it as MB and think omgzzzz nelots is riteee 1 IC chipset = 128megabytes of data . As for most general way of figuring this out, as you said, was based on someones method by which you assumed they know what they are talking about and that you understood completely how to translate it without errors - so please tell us how and why you would go about this the way you suggested (in figuring out the wattage use) - ive taken the liberty in adressing the errors in your so called "formulae".

nelots said:
Death_Reincarnated said:
Either way it is hard to pin point the actual power usage of RAM since some people give values of over 100W while others say 15W per GB.
Are you confirming you have no clue again?
Its hard to pinpoint it because there are several factors to be taken into consideration plus information gathered from sources (via websites) do not all agree on a specific value. There are estimates and several have come up with a value bot its hard to find a source where it actually looks at the variables involved in determining the power usage of RAM. Thus far from my knowledge and information found on forums I have come to the conclusion that the power usage of RAM depends on: voltage, current, frequency, temperature, IC chipset configuration, fluctuation in memory usage required, overclocking and probably more but just cant think of top of my head of anymore at this moment.

nelots said:
Death_Reincarnated said:
I know that you can use RAM to its full capacity at one point and then hardly
Well it is called Random Access Memory for a reason.
Seriously is this your response? Never mind... /FF

nelots said:
Death_Reincarnated said:
I honestly dont want to go too far with the technical mumbo jumbo as its not really useful at this time and will drag this on unneceseraly.
Sounds more like you have no idea.
Oh really? So far I have discussed this topic with far more technical information than you have...so please tell me who has no idea. /FFF

For those interested on power usage of RAM here are few links to byte on:
http://www.kingston.com/tools/UMG/default.asp
http://www.overclockers.com/more-ram-mo ... ore-power/
http://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic. ... 7&p=815456
http://serverfault.com/questions/142101 ... on-for-ram
http://www.rampedia.com/index.php/AE2e

Take good notes nelots...you'll need them.

As for your above post which mocks the persons within the images - just shows you have no respect nor can you constructively argue points put forth; which indicates that you really are an egoistic selfish arrogant prick. Kudos on proving that I'm right.
 

nelots

Well-Known Member
Death_Reincarnated said:
LOL ok so what educational background do you have?



Death_Reincarnated said:
Here is mine:
- VCE enter score of 92%
- Bachelor in Physics with Disctinction
- Honours with HD in Physics/nanotechnology
- Currently finishing PhD in material science
Thats just the educational background...
Care to show off your knowledge?
Nice qualifications, it'd be useful if we were discussing about Physics and material science, too bad everything discussed here relates to computer science and electrical engineering.
Death_Reincarnated said:
I'm not saying you have been entirely wrong nelots but your ego and pride fail you to see that you are wrong at times.
Let's talk about arrogance, ego and pride......
You post in a gaming forum with 'lingo' thinking people will understand it(Square - root) - arrogance.
You continue to argue your point about PMPO/Square-root is relevant even though others(timewilltell) have noted the formula applies to audio devices and not PSU - ego.
You continue to dig a bigger hole with more technical information which nobody cares to look up - pride.
Death_Reincarnated said:
How can you suggest that I and timewilltell have misinformed others where both of us needed to correct you on several occasions. You have, if my memory serves me correct, not even once scientifically corrected me, nor used anything close to science to backup yourself...what youve done was pull out numbers and quotes from sites and even said that someone told you this is how to evaluate power usage of RAM without taking the time to show the understandign behind this.
Unlike you, I'm happy to admit my mistakes but unfortunately, I haven't made any as yet so please provide some examples of my mistakes and I'll happily go through them with you.
As for scientifically correcting you, I don't need science, I just use something called 'common sense.'
It's a skill achieved through practical experience but I can fill you in on that one another day.
Death_Reincarnated said:
You judge me yet you never take into account my opinion - this being a perfect example and your failure to correct me based on sound knowledge in the technical aspects of this debate.
How did you come to that conclusion? I quoted your comments and made a response with reasoning yet I am judging you without taking your opinions into account? Yeah I totally failed that one.
Death_Reincarnated said:
The 8W/128MB has been mentioned here (http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/42917 ... onsumption) but it more reasonable for 15W per GB (http://www.pcpower.com/technology/power_usage/).
Here is some more reading to help you out. They too agree with an average of 15W per 1GB. http://www.experts-exchange.com/Hardwar ... 89064.html
Death_Reincarnated said:
I never gathered this information from that source - I merely found it by googling it. If you bothered to read my last entire post you would understand that the 8W/128MB value given initially by timewilltell, I understood it to be based on early RAM modules but nooooooo you still go ahead and write this jubberish and think that I dont know this and think Im talking about all RAMs. Discussion of DDR3 ram has only surfaced in the recent posts, not from the start, so really why dont you run through the posts and understand the timeline of the events that took place in the posts before you jump to conclusions fool. I also indicated that 15W per GB seems to be the general consesus on the power usage of RAMs at present time and looks to be an estimation. If you look at the two values (8W/128MB and 15W/1GB) both show different results if it were based on a 4GB RAM module so it is obvious but still where do these values come from - this is the key to understanding which one is correct but to be more precise a wattage value per IC chip is the most accurate way but even then you still havent accounted for the frequency, voltage, current and temperature when using RAM to give a precise value to the power usage of RAM.
Please show me where you have mentioned the above info prior to your last post.
In particular where you figured out 8W/128MB was based on early RAM.
nelots said:
What kind of RAM are you basing those figures off? ancient SDRAM
Discussion of anything other than DDR3 RAM or you coming to the conclusion that 15W/GB was the "general consesus."


Death_Reincarnated said:
@nelots your version of finding out the power usage seems to be somewhat weird/wrong.......
True IC chips are measured in Mb(megabits) but why bother when calculating with memory capacities given in GB(gigabytes).
Boy for someone with such vast qualifications you do seem to lack the general knowledge so I guess you couldn't figure it out yourself so I'll help you out here.
"In general" DDR3 came out as 1GB stick modules(ie: 1GB DDR3 etc etc)
"In general" a DDR3 module is fitted with 8 IC chips. Sure there are different chip configurations amongst the various manufacturers but I'm taking about 'in general.'
So to get the 128MB figure you divide the total memory of the module 1GB or 1024MB by the number of chips(in general) which is 8 and that equals 128MB.
Why use MB instead of Mb, simple, its easier to work with.


Death_Reincarnated said:
ive taken the liberty in adressing the errors in your so called "formulae".
Oh, you corrected me good right there but too bad you failed to realize I was already three steps ahead of you....... whoops?


Death_Reincarnated said:
Oh really? So far I have discussed this topic with far more technical information than you have...so please tell me who has no idea. /FFF

For those interested on power usage of RAM here are few links to byte on:
http://www.kingston.com/tools/UMG/default.asp
http://www.overclockers.com/more-ram-mo ... ore-power/
http://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic. ... 7&p=815456
http://serverfault.com/questions/142101 ... on-for-ram
http://www.rampedia.com/index.php/AE2e
Take good notes nelots...you'll need them.
Nice links to DDR2 RAM plus as usual TL:DR.
Since you haven't as yet noticed, the whole recommendations thing involved DDR3 RAM, this whole thread involved DDR3 RAM........ just click through the first 3 pages of this thread and see what kind of RAM is discussed.

Death_Reincarnated said:
As for your above post which mocks the persons within the images - just shows you have no respect nor can you constructively argue points put forth; which indicates that you really are an egoistic selfish arrogant prick. Kudos on proving that I'm right.
He asked if I thought I was funny so I responded, whats wrong with that?
As for arrogance, ego, selfish etc etc, refer to my above response.
 

Antagonist

Well-Known Member
im pretty sure i speak for all of us when i say..... EVERYTIME u need to make your point butz u do it with the help of visual aids!
i actually look forward to it as much as a frogma rebuttal
 

nelots

Well-Known Member
Antagonist said:
im pretty sure i speak for all of us when i say..... EVERYTIME u need to make your point butz u do it with the help of visual aids!
i actually look forward to it as much as a frogma rebuttal






 

Death_Reincarnated

Well-Known Member
nelots said:
Nice qualifications, it'd be useful if we were discussing about Physics and material science, too bad everything discussed here relates to computer science and electrical engineering.
LOL so computer science has nothing to do with material science? U crack me up now man. If it wasnt for material science then computer science and electrical engineering would not downzise to micron/nano size dimensions in the first place. Material science is the backbone of the latter two u douchebag. All of these are valid sciences in this discussion and if you have not got any solid background in any of these them please just STFU right now cos youre pretty much basing all of your posts on nothing more than word of mouth and reading/taking in OTHER peoples knowledge which can be wrong as well. I'm still waiting for your qualifications - or have you none?

nelots said:
Let's talk about arrogance, ego and pride......
You post in a gaming forum with 'lingo' thinking people will understand it(Square - root) - arrogance.
LOL that is pretty much the basics and if you dont know them then whats the point in arguing with someone who has no clue in basics of electronics. That info is highschool stuff...oh wait you dropped out well that makes sense.

nelots said:
You continue to argue your point about PMPO/Square-root is relevant even though others(timewilltell) have noted the formula applies to audio devices and not PSU - ego.
The differences between RMS/PMPO are important because sales people have used these to lie about their product in widespread applications in the past and still do.

nelots said:
You continue to dig a bigger hole with more technical information which nobody cares to look up - pride.
If youd care then youd understand the logic behind and see for yourself what makes sense and what doesnt; but you dont bother so really you have no right to question me if youre not going to bother understanding the technical stuff in the firstplace.

I really cannot see any ego thus far. It really is just your opinion and untill you understand the technical aspects of this discussion you have no right to call me egoistic - although I can...just look at the ammout of pics you have showned depicting me and timewilltell in silly ways to counter argue your points. Really nelots thats childish behaviour but then again I could expect something like that from you at some point.

nelots said:
Unlike you, I'm happy to admit my mistakes but unfortunately, I haven't made any as yet so please provide some examples of my mistakes and I'll happily go through them with you.
As for scientifically correcting you, I don't need science, I just use something called 'common sense.'
It's a skill achieved through practical experience but I can fill you in on that one another day.
You havent made any mistakes? If you did not then no-one would counter argue you in the first place! Your common sense is based on the knoweldge of other people since you yourself have none. Its the same as beleiving every word that comes out of everyone elses mouth. Other people can have the expertise and its good to listen to them but even then they can be wrong so really it looks like your information comes from limited sources with good knowledge and mass ammout of forums/threads - hey I could be wrong but I'm willig to bet on this.

nelots said:
How did you come to that conclusion? I quoted your comments and made a response with reasoning yet I am judging you without taking your opinions into account? Yeah I totally failed that one.
LOL i like youre reasoning with those cute pics. The thing is youre not taking my opinions into account, otherwise you would not mock me as you have. Common sense right there for ya.

nelots said:
Please show me where you have mentioned the above info prior to your last post.
In particular where you figured out 8W/128MB was based on early RAM.
Ive discussed it on page 8, while timewilltell mentioned it first on page 3 but it wasnt discussed more in depth untill page 8 - which we all did at roughly the same time. Also I said I understood it but not bothered to reply to it since its discussion was left for several pages since it was mentioned first by timewilltell.

nelots said:
What kind of RAM are you basing those figures off? ancient SDRAM
Discussion of anything other than DDR3 RAM or you coming to the conclusion that 15W/GB was the "general consesus."
OMG.../FF 15W/GB seems to be the general concensous on forums but wether this is right or not I'm not sure and I have pointed this out - plus to be exactly sure you really need to base the wattage output per IC chip, which I also mentioned. Nelots seriously it looks like youre just reading what you want and not bothering with what was said in the past posts. Man your lost. The operting voltage of RAM has been lowered since early models of RAM but thats primarly due to better 'material science'. OMG look materials science is a key in here. DDR3 RAMs ar able to run at higher Hz with more chips stacked likewise more boards stacked to give higher memory of RAM but to counter this the IC chips memory has been increased from knowledge in materials science - OMG again!.

nelots said:
True IC chips are measured in Mb(megabits) but why bother when calculating with memory capacities given in GB(gigabytes).
Because that is their true memory value. The RAM module is based on megabytes (or nowadays in gigabytes) whereas an IC chip of a RAM is based on megabits. So if youre talking about an IC chip then its megabits NOT megabytes. Once again you fail to understand proper lingo - get a clue. Stop confusing people!
nelots said:
Boy for someone with such vast qualifications you do seem to lack the general knowledge so I guess you couldn't figure it out yourself so I'll help you out here.
"In general" DDR3 came out as 1GB stick modules(ie: 1GB DDR3 etc etc)
"In general" a DDR3 module is fitted with 8 IC chips. Sure there are different chip configurations amongst the various manufacturers but I'm taking about 'in general.'
So to get the 128MB figure you divide the total memory of the module 1GB or 1024MB by the number of chips(in general) which is 8 and that equals 128MB.
Why use MB instead of Mb, simple, its easier to work with.
Ok so 1GB (or 1024MB) RAM module is divided by 8 IC chips which gives 128MB but taking the below example you used:

nelots said:
The most general way of figuring out the power consumption of DDR3 RAM that I've been told is the following:
Divide the total memory of your module by 128mb and then multiply that figure by the voltage specs of your RAM.

Example: 4GB DDR3 1.5V
4096 divide by 128 = 32
32 x 1.5 = 48W at load
This would mean that a 4GB DDR ram with 8 IC chips would give a values of 512MB...NOT 128MB! Even if its fitted with double bank (i.e 16 chips) it gives 256MB...NOT 128MB!
So you see nelots - stop talking crap already!

nelots said:
Nice links to DDR2 RAM plus as usual TL:DR.
Since you haven't as yet noticed, the whole recommendations thing involved DDR3 RAM, this whole thread involved DDR3 RAM........ just click through the first 3 pages of this thread and see what kind of RAM is discussed.
The whole discussion on RAMs powr usage was not discussed from the start. We first started discussing PSU and power usage of parts which on page 3 timewilltell noted that RAM uses the value of 8W/128MB, only on page 8 has the discussion of RAM power usage been understaken. So we may have taked about DDR3 ram in terms of how much BUT NOT how much power it RAM uses from the start of this thread.

nelots said:
He asked if I thought I was funny so I responded, whats wrong with that?
As for arrogance, ego, selfish etc etc, refer to my above response.

Add another 'ha' to that meter and you know what I think.
 

nelots

Well-Known Member
Death_Reincarnated said:
LOL so computer science has nothing to do with material science? ......I'm still waiting for your qualifications - or have you none?
So does that mean a person with an Arts degree majoring in Law equals instant corporate lawyer?
Fundamentals maybe there but there's a reason why they're separate. Material science maybe the foundation to computer science and electrical engineering but they're also specialized extensions to the foundation thus requiring additional sets of knowledge.






Death_Reincarnated said:
LOL that is pretty much the basics and if you dont know them then whats the point in arguing with someone who has no clue in basics of electronics. That info is highschool stuff...oh wait you dropped out well that makes sense.
The point is you're going too technical and expect people from a gaming forum to understand the 'lingo' but nice one playing the "I'm qualified" justification.






Death_Reincarnated said:
The differences between RMS/PMPO are important because sales people have used these to lie about their product in widespread applications in the past and still do.
Nobody asked for nor cares about PMPO or RMS, why change it to RMS now since the lingo is 'Square- root'?

Death_Reincarnated said:
If youd care then youd understand the logic behind and see for yourself what makes sense and what doesnt; but you dont bother so really you have no right to question me if youre not going to bother understanding the technical stuff in the firstplace.
That maybe valid in a computer science/electronics forum but this is just a gaming forum so going into detail is pointless.

Death_Reincarnated said:
I really cannot see any ego thus far. It really is just your opinion and untill you understand the technical aspects of this discussion you have no right to call me egoistic - although I can...just look at the ammout of pics you have showned depicting me and timewilltell in silly ways to counter argue your points. Really nelots thats childish behaviour but then again I could expect something like that from you at some point.
"you have no right to call me" is justification enough of your arrogance/ego. Just because I didn't go through the tertiary education system doesn't mean I have no idea.
The pics are just there to keep the readers entertained. Walls of text tend to bore them so it's a nice transition to keep them interested.

Death_Reincarnated said:
You havent made any mistakes? If you did not then no-one would counter argue you in the first place! Your common sense is based on the knoweldge of other people since you yourself have none. Its the same as beleiving every word that comes out of everyone elses mouth. Other people can have the expertise and its good to listen to them but even then they can be wrong so really it looks like your information comes from limited sources with good knowledge and mass ammout of forums/threads - hey I could be wrong but I'm willig to bet on this.
All the counter arguments have stemmed through timewilltells and your failure to comprehend my posts. I don't see any(yet), I maybe wrong so feel free to go through and point the mistakes.

Death_Reincarnated said:
LOL i like youre reasoning with those cute pics. The thing is youre not taking my opinions into account, otherwise you would not mock me as you have. Common sense right there for ya.
The pics have nothing to do with my comments, they're simply their to keep readers from falling asleep from the walls of text.
Heres a news flash, almost everybody mocks you and it doesn't mean we haven't taken your opinion into account, it means we think you're wrong.

Death_Reincarnated said:
Ive discussed it on page 8, while timewilltell mentioned it first on page 3 but it wasnt discussed more in depth untill page 8 - which we all did at roughly the same time. Also I said I understood it but not bothered to reply to it since its discussion was left for several pages since it was mentioned first by timewilltell.
Learn to read, I did say show where you mentioned that prior to your previous post which was on page 8. It's now though because you didn't bother to reply so you win again!

Death_Reincarnated said:
OMG.../FF 15W/GB seems to be the general concensous on forums but wether this is right or not I'm not sure and I have pointed this out - plus to be exactly sure you really need to base the wattage output per IC chip, which I also mentioned. Nelots seriously it looks like youre just reading what you want and not bothering with what was said in the past posts. Man your lost. The operting voltage of RAM has been lowered since early models of RAM but thats primarly due to better 'material science'. OMG look materials science is a key in here. DDR3 RAMs ar able to run at higher Hz with more chips stacked likewise more boards stacked to give higher memory of RAM but to counter this the IC chips memory has been increased from knowledge in materials science - OMG again!.
You sure lack substance for someone who thinks highly of their own mathematical skills. Dividing the total memory of the module by 128MB is figuring the number of IC chips on the module. So what was that about "reading what you want"?
Also I did mention the phrase 'in general' so would I need to google it and link you to some outdated links to the definition of the phrase "IN GENERAL"?
Death_Reincarnated said:
Ok so 1GB (or 1024MB) RAM module is divided by 8 IC chips which gives 128MB but taking the below example you used:
This would mean that a 4GB DDR ram with 8 IC chips would give a values of 512MB...NOT 128MB! Even if its fitted with double bank (i.e 16 chips) it gives 256MB...NOT 128MB!
So you see nelots - stop talking crap already!
I did say "IN GENERAL" right? also I did mention different manufacturers will have various chip configurations right? talk about reading what one wants to read......
Death_Reincarnated said:
The whole discussion on RAMs powr usage was not discussed from the start. We first started discussing PSU and power usage of parts which on page 3 timewilltell noted that RAM uses the value of 8W/128MB, only on page 8 has the discussion of RAM power usage been understaken. So we may have taked about DDR3 ram in terms of how much BUT NOT how much power it RAM uses from the start of this thread.
Regardless of the power usage discussion, I was referring to the type of RAM discussed throughout the entire thread.
Death_Reincarnated said:
Add another 'ha' to that meter and you know what I think.
I love how you continued on with the old theme so I'll give you some points on that front.
In terms wittiness and any comedic values, it scores a big fat zero.
 

Death_Reincarnated

Well-Known Member
nelots said:
Death_Reincarnated said:
LOL so computer science has nothing to do with material science? ......I'm still waiting for your qualifications - or have you none?
So does that mean a person with an Arts degree majoring in Law equals instant corporate lawyer?
Fundamentals maybe there but there's a reason why they're separate. Material science maybe the foundation to computer science and electrical engineering but they're also specialized extensions to the foundation thus requiring additional sets of knowledge.
This isnt a specialised case. Simply using basic electronics/mathematics to understand this issue. I havent put forth anything specialised to argue any of the points so really your point is flawd.
Also there are several arts degrees out there which can branch off to law and eventually lead a person with educational qualifications to become a corporate lawyer.
As for the so called 'specialised extenstions' they are still based on the same foundations although have their own set or rules and requirements.
Realy you could do better; shame on you.

nelots said:
Death_Reincarnated said:
LOL that is pretty much the basics and if you dont know them then whats the point in arguing with someone who has no clue in basics of electronics. That info is highschool stuff...oh wait you dropped out well that makes sense.
The point is you're going too technical and expect people from a gaming forum to understand the 'lingo' but nice one playing the "I'm qualified" justification.
I havent gone too technical on anything and any reply which refused to acknowledge what I'm saying was from person(s) who have no idea in the first place.
Its like telling a child 'do you want some sucrose or carbohydrates?' If the child knew what they meant he would say 'yes please!'. In translation youre the child nelots and someone like me is the other person.

nelots said:
Death_Reincarnated said:
The differences between RMS/PMPO are important because sales people have used these to lie about their product in widespread applications in the past and still do.
Nobody asked for nor cares about PMPO or RMS, why change it to RMS now since the lingo is 'Square- root'?
Since no-one knew what I was on about in the first place plus 'square-root of 2' is value that converts between PMPO and RMS, so really its more reasonable to say RMS/PMPO than the other. As for the 'nobody asked nor cares' I can say the same thing about you - 'nobody asked for your childish behaviour'.

nelots said:
Death_Reincarnated said:
If youd care then youd understand the logic behind and see for yourself what makes sense and what doesnt; but you dont bother so really you have no right to question me if youre not going to bother understanding the technical stuff in the firstplace.
That maybe valid in a computer science/electronics forum but this is just a gaming forum so going into detail is pointless.
Really? So its good enough to rip out wiki/forum quotes to make assumptions and conclusions - might as well say that the general IQ of people on this forum is below 50 if youre going to suggest that. Just go through all the thread and youre bound to find someone dig up some advanced knowledge in some topic to make sense of it. This may not be a computer science/electronics FORUM but the topics can be and if someone has an advanced knowledge in a topic why not share it - or should it all be kept to wikiquotes like you suggested?

nelots said:
Death_Reincarnated said:
I really cannot see any ego thus far. It really is just your opinion and untill you understand the technical aspects of this discussion you have no right to call me egoistic - although I can...just look at the ammout of pics you have showned depicting me and timewilltell in silly ways to counter argue your points. Really nelots thats childish behaviour but then again I could expect something like that from you at some point.
"you have no right to call me" is justification enough of your arrogance/ego. Just because I didn't go through the tertiary education system doesn't mean I have no idea.
The pics are just there to keep the readers entertained. Walls of text tend to bore them so it's a nice transition to keep them interested.
So what gives you the right? Please tell me because I have not once insulted you (idiot/fool and words which depict an unsound/unreasonable thinking are not an insult if reasons are put forth) personally or degraded you by any form of written/visual form. You call that entertainment or just a way to make fun of someone when you cannot rebuttal.

nelots said:
Death_Reincarnated said:
You havent made any mistakes? If you did not then no-one would counter argue you in the first place! Your common sense is based on the knoweldge of other people since you yourself have none. Its the same as beleiving every word that comes out of everyone elses mouth. Other people can have the expertise and its good to listen to them but even then they can be wrong so really it looks like your information comes from limited sources with good knowledge and mass ammout of forums/threads - hey I could be wrong but I'm willig to bet on this.
All the counter arguments have stemmed through timewilltell's and your failure to comprehend my posts. I don't see any(yet), I maybe wrong so feel free to go through and point the mistakes.
So all of my counter arguments have stemmed through someone elses responses? I also have failed to comprehand your posts? Seriously those are two big assumptions which you have made. Why not go though the entire thread from start to finish, maybe then youd get a clue - actually why bother you still going to come to the same conclusion because you think youre right (all the time). I'm making this assumptiom because not even once have I read anything from you that remotly resembles a 'i'm wrong' especially towards me.

nelots said:
Death_Reincarnated said:
LOL i like youre reasoning with those cute pics. The thing is youre not taking my opinions into account, otherwise you would not mock me as you have. Common sense right there for ya.
The pics have nothing to do with my comments, they're simply their to keep readers from falling asleep from the walls of text. Heres a news flash, almost everybody mocks you and it doesn't mean we haven't taken your opinion into account, it means we think you're wrong.
Then why not separate them from the arguments? Why do they need to be part of the argument...oh wait unless this is part of your counter arguments which basically mocks me - that makes perfect sense and you can deny it all you want but you know its not true. Almost everybody basically sums up the same people I had arguments with in the past - nothing new and its more of a personal vandata because of these situations. Sure i've made mistakes before and I admited to them - mostly to do with the technical side of ET - sure i'll admit I was wrong at times if havent before. What you are suggesting is that you are indeed mocking me in this thread and at recent time which would make you a liar that the pics are purely there for the entertainment for others and have no other purpose.

nelots said:
Death_Reincarnated said:
Ive discussed it on page 8, while timewilltell mentioned it first on page 3 but it wasnt discussed more in depth untill page 8 - which we all did at roughly the same time. Also I said I understood it but not bothered to reply to it since its discussion was left for several pages since it was mentioned first by timewilltell.
Learn to read, I did say show where you mentioned that prior to your previous post which was on page 8. It's now though because you didn't bother to reply so you win again!
I havent mentioned it previously to my knowledge but if that is how you understood it then it was not meant to sound like that. I meant that I understood this value to be associated with early RAMs but only commented on this on page 8 since things didnt add up, also there wasnt much interest about this untill page 8.

nelots said:
Death_Reincarnated said:
OMG.../FF 15W/GB seems to be the general concensous on forums but wether this is right or not I'm not sure and I have pointed this out - plus to be exactly sure you really need to base the wattage output per IC chip, which I also mentioned. Nelots seriously it looks like youre just reading what you want and not bothering with what was said in the past posts. Man your lost. The operting voltage of RAM has been lowered since early models of RAM but thats primarly due to better 'material science'. OMG look materials science is a key in here. DDR3 RAMs ar able to run at higher Hz with more chips stacked likewise more boards stacked to give higher memory of RAM but to counter this the IC chips memory has been increased from knowledge in materials science - OMG again!.
You sure lack substance for someone who thinks highly of their own mathematical skills. Dividing the total memory of the module by 128MB is figuring the number of IC chips on the module. So what was that about "reading what you want"?
Also I did mention the phrase 'in general' so would I need to google it and link you to some outdated links to the definition of the phrase "IN GENERAL"?
This is what you said:

nelots said:
The most general way of figuring out the power consumption of DDR3 RAM that I've been told is the following:
Divide the total memory of your module by 128mb and then multiply that figure by the voltage specs of your RAM.
When I asked you where you managed to get the value of 128MB you said it comes from dividing the total memory of RAM module by the number if IC chips, This is not the same as you said in the above bolded out words which should sounds more like 'The most general case would be to divide total memory of a RAMs module by the ammount of IC chips. '.. which doesnt give 128MB in any general case but varies depending on the number of IC chips and memory of the RAM module itself. So you see how flawd your advice is and yet you still argue...
Just to simplify your so called 'in general' method: If youd take notice the number '32' in your example is actually the number of IC chips in the RAM module. Which is what I suggested to take notice of in the first place in figuring out the wattage used. Simple maths points this out if you take into account that the value 128MB came about by what you said (total memory of RAM module divided by total number of IC chips)

nelots said:
Death_Reincarnated said:
Ok so 1GB (or 1024MB) RAM module is divided by 8 IC chips which gives 128MB but taking the below example you used:
This would mean that a 4GB DDR ram with 8 IC chips would give a values of 512MB...NOT 128MB! Even if its fitted with double bank (i.e 16 chips) it gives 256MB...NOT 128MB!
So you see nelots - stop talking crap already!
I did say "IN GENERAL" right? also I did mention different manufacturers will have various chip configurations right? talk about reading what one wants to read......
Your 'in general' is wrong - this is the point so stop giving wrong advice to poeple. I did say "your wrong" right? Also due to manufacturers variability in IC chip configuration the 'in general' which you suggested is wrong...again. Take into account that example you have given which you suggest is the 'in general' method - its misleading and bad advice anyhow.

nelots said:
Death_Reincarnated said:
The whole discussion on RAMs powr usage was not discussed from the start. We first started discussing PSU and power usage of parts which on page 3 timewilltell noted that RAM uses the value of 8W/128MB, only on page 8 has the discussion of RAM power usage been understaken. So we may have taked about DDR3 ram in terms of how much BUT NOT how much power it RAM uses from the start of this thread.
Regardless of the power usage discussion, I was referring to the type of RAM discussed throughout the entire thread.
Yes because you just pointed out he obvious VVV

nelots said:
Trigger Happy said:
why you believe it takes 8W per 128mb of RAM.
timewilltell said:
@trigger: the ram calculation is more an absolute worst case scenario
Are you serious? 8W per 128mb of RAM......... What kind of RAM are you basing those figures off? ancient SDRAM because DDR3 wont be stable and most likely explode without fitting some heavy duty after market cooling system.
How about actually trying to understand where that figure came from without stating the obvious, which The Admiral stated this back on page 3 (way before you)

The Admiral said:
timewilltell said:
avg ram is about 8w per 128mb
Really? That's 64W/GB. So 256W for a 4GB stick of RAM? That sounds a little absurd...

nelots said:
Death_Reincarnated said:
Add another 'ha' to that meter and you know what I think.
I love how you continued on with the old theme so I'll give you some points on that front.
In terms wittiness and any comedic values, it scores a big fat zero.
It wasnt intended for any comedic purposes - it was to indicate (by visual way) my response and to keep the vieweres interested, like you suggested.
 

noobItUp

Super Moderator
Staff member
Oh man, even I got bored reading that. Next time can we have some pictures or something to break it up?
 

Joke :D

Well-Known Member
faggotry thread, just buy a computer that suits your needs, don't go overboard, don't square-root your PSUHDDGFXVHSADHDGBHAIDS or whatever, etc
 

Trigger Happy

Moderator
I think this is the first thread that I stopped reading on the forums.
TOO LONG; DIDN'T READ...I knew where it was heading anyway, just more fail.

Cheers
 

nelots

Well-Known Member
Death_Reincarnated said:
This isnt a specialised case. ..... eventually lead a person with educational qualifications to become a corporate lawyer.
Way to mangle things up with the coveted D_R touch.
You can't be a Corporate Lawyer on an Arts Degree period same as you can't be an Electrician on a Physics Degree.







Death_Reincarnated said:
As for the so called 'specialised extenstions' ......Realy you could do better; shame on you.
Yeah, shame on me for not understanding but props on managing to construct such easy to read sentences.
Death_Reincarnated said:
I havent gone too technical on anything and any reply which refused to acknowledge what I'm saying was from person(s) who have no idea in the first place.
So timewilltell has no idea either when he said your PMPO/Square-root doesn't apply here? It doesn't take a genius to figure out PMPO(Peak Music Power Output) relates to audio but hey the fundamentals are there so YOU'RE RIGHT!
Death_Reincarnated said:
Its like telling a child 'do you want some sucrose or carbohydrates?' ....someone like me is the other person.
Nice analogy there D_R and it's true, when we're in a playground full of toddlers, you really would be the idiot asking the kids whether they'd want 'sucrose or carbs.'
Death_Reincarnated said:
Since no-one knew .....reasonable to say RMS/PMPO than the other.
Nice, first you provide us with that ingenious application of PMPO/Square-root = actual power and now you're changing it to 'square-root of 2' is the value...... its more reasonable to say RMS/PMPO???'
You can't even get the formula right and you expect me to trust your word without question because you're "QUALIFIED" in PHYSICS?
Want me to call Mensa so I can bask in your intelligence?
Death_Reincarnated said:
Really? So its good enough to rip out wiki/forum quotes to make assumptions and conclusions..... if someone has an advanced knowledge in a topic why not share it - or should it all be kept to wikiquotes like you suggested?
Really, I determine my opinion/views based on wiki quotes and randomly searched forum posts?
See me providing various outdated links or any reference to wikipedia in my posts?
You really need to get off that 'advanced knowledge' high horse, reality can be a hard pill to swallow.
Death_Reincarnated said:
So what gives you the right? Please tell me because I have not once insulted you ....
Read this http://mw2.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insult , its the definition of the word insult and if you don't understand it then read this one as it's more suited to your english level http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/insult.
Death_Reincarnated said:
You call that entertainment or just a way to make fun of someone when you cannot rebuttal.
I'm pretty sure my rebuttal makes sense to others but for some reason because I lack the D_R touch, you don't understand. I guess I have to stop posting to the point and murder the English language to get you to understand.
Death_Reincarnated said:
So all of my counter arguments have stemmed through someone elses responses?
Yes, counter arguments or any argument for that stems from other people's responses/views unless you were countering yourself all this time?
Death_Reincarnated said:
I also have failed to comprehand your posts? Seriously those are two big assumptions which you have made. ... maybe then youd get a clue
They're "BIG ASSUMPTIONS" only in D_R's world but watch out, reality can BITE!
Death_Reincarnated said:
I'm making this assumptiom because not even once have I read anything from you that remotly resembles a 'i'm wrong' especially towards me.
Am I suppose to admit being wrong for questioning PMPO/Square-root=actual power or was that RMS/PMPO??? wait why are we using RMS when "Square-root" is the lingo???
Anyway just to show I am humble, I will admit it, I did something wrong in my last post. So to everyone, I apologize for the error and I've taken the liberty of correcting that error and hope you all can look past it in hindsight. Please enjoy my revised PMPO/Square-root=actual power v2.0








Death_Reincarnated said:
Then why not separate them ..... nothing new and its more of a personal vandata because of these situations.
Harden up princess, there is no vendetta, I just hate seeing people being misinformed by so called "QUALIFIED" individuals.

Death_Reincarnated said:
Sure i've made mistakes before and I admited to them - mostly to do with the technical side of ET
You sure fooled me on that one.
Death_Reincarnated said:
sure i'll admit I was wrong at times if havent before.
Nice follow up sentence to the one above....... SOUNDS LIKE A CONUNDRUM!!! OMG CAN ANYONE ELSE CONFIRM????? IF SO I CAN CHECK THIS FROM MY BUCKET LIST!!!!!
BUCKET LIST #9823482374 - use the word CONUNDRUM.
Death_Reincarnated said:
What you are suggesting is that you are indeed mocking me in this thread and at recent time which would make you a liar that the pics are purely there for the entertainment for others and have no other purpose.
Yeah, I lied, you mad? want tissues? Still, it keeps readers from dozing off and also I hoped the picture would be easier for you to understand since you have such a hard time comprehending my posts in text form.
Death_Reincarnated said:
if that is how you understood it then it was not meant to sound like that. I meant that I understood this value to be associated with early RAMs but only commented on this on page 8 since things didnt add up, also there wasnt much interest about this untill page 8.
You're so quick to jump on my so called 'mistakes' yet you let that one go for so long? Yeah, I believe you because you have a Physics degree.
Death_Reincarnated said:
Ok so 1GB (or 1024MB) .....So you see nelots - stop talking crap already!
Your 'in general' is wrong - its misleading and bad advice anyhow.
I'm sorry, for someone of your intellect I assumed you'd know more but way to show you lack of "general knowledge" right?
I did mention the following "in general" assumptions:
nelots said:
In general" DDR3 came out as 1GB stick modules(ie: 1GB DDR3 etc etc)
"In general" a DDR3 module is fitted with 8 IC chips. Sure there are different chip configurations amongst the various manufacturers but I'm taking about 'in general.'
http://www.valueram.com/datasheets/KHX1600C9D3B1_2G.pdf read the product description, "based on..," that is a 1 stick 2GB module.
http://www.valueram.com/datasheets/KHX1 ... 1K2_2G.pdf read the product description, "based on...," that is a 2 stick 2GB module.
Both above confirms the 8 IC chips per module(stick) assumption I made.
I based my calculations on the 1GB module(which I had stated) thus 4GB is 4x1GB modules.
So am I still wrong with no clue?
Death_Reincarnated said:
Yes because you just pointed out he obvious VVV
With posts like that how could I possibly question or match your academic brilliance......
WHAT WAS I THINKING!!!!!
Death_Reincarnated said:
How about actually trying to understand where that figure came from without stating the obvious
If it was so obvious why would anyone question it and why didn't anyone correct it earlier???
Death_Reincarnated said:
It wasnt intended for any comedic purposes - it was to indicate (by visual way) my response and to keep the vieweres interested, like you suggested.


Your 'hahahaha' pic was a nice attempt at keeping the 'viewers interested.'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top