FatCat, beleive it or not, my 2600m is using a POS TurboLink 430, which has positively terrible 12v rails and it's running up there at 2589 MHz itself. I think that the NF7-S boards are just some really great, forgiving boards for it to run it stable with an 11.37v 12v rail.
FatCat, beleive it or not, my 2600m is using a POS TurboLink 430, which has positively terrible 12v rails and it's running up there at 2589 MHz itself. I think that the NF7-S boards are just some really great, forgiving boards for it to run it stable with an 11.37v 12v rail.
my 2400m is stuck @ 2300 @ 1.75v...i need almost 1.9v just to hit 2390...been lookin @ the 2500m but dont know if the 430true will be able to push it to >2500mhz
Don't worry muddock, I have Al_Capown well in hand. He'll have words to eat by the end of this month. I can move on to bigger conquests like those in the top 100. Looks like I have dancer held off for the time being too.
If you want a new high power psu, get the Antec True Control 550 instead of the Enermax 651. I have both and both are good but I find the Antec a little more stable on voltage, The Antec is adjustable and it is also cheaper than the Enermax 651 also. When I bought my TC550, excaliberpc.com had a better price than Newegg, so I bought it from them.
As the saying goes: "If you can't beat them, join them".
The handbrake has overtaken me sometime ago.
Her P4 HT system running ok now (fingers crossed). I don't think i have a snowball's chance in hell of catching her. :rolleyes2
Sooooooo.........change of tactics.
I'll be running the "Old Athlon 850" under my name, "dragonV8".
MutantPea
SM21 (all others in between have 0 or low points production) Nothing personal ofcourse, hehehe.
Tried to cut and paste like all you other guys do, but it came out different. Still lots to learn, lol.
Ofcourse, untill we get a steady run going, we will not get a reasonable idea of performance.
After reading the previous posts i hope our new challenge falls within the accepted guidelines. :bigggrin:
Though we don't have any aces up our sleeves, we are now saving our pocket money for a possible 5th computer just with Folding in mind. Just not sure what would give "Team 93" best bang for bucks. A barebones P4 2.4??
A couple of cheapies like PIII 1.0g ??
We're not made of money, but don't mind investing a little for such a good cause. Any suggestions will be welcomed.
If you can find a good price on a HT P4 2.4/800 and a mobo that supports it and HT would be much better than a P3. Also, an AMD XP Tbred or Barton proc and a good, cheap nforce2 board with overclocking features is also an excellent choice for a folding rig, Jon and Sally. I don't know what prices are like down in Australia are like but here in the US you can get an XP2500 for about 1/2 the cost of a P4C 2.4 Northwood and the Shuttle AN35, which is a decent nforce2 board, is also generally cheaper than a board based on the 865 chipset for the P4. I have no experience with P4 boards based on the SIS or Via chipsets so I can't tell you if they would be a good choice or not for a folding rig. For folding though a P4 that doesn't support HT will not turn in more points than an XP machine, from my experience.
Thanks Mark, had thought about using paint etc. Sally showed me that one a while ago, but i forget through lack of use, lol.
Thanks too Doc, gives me a few things to research price wise. Not too familiar with AMD proc's. Our old HP is an Athlon 850, whch is the closest i've got to it. Never had the cover of that one yet. (Hmm, where is that phillips screw-driver, lol).
Didn't realise you could get the lower speed HT proc's. Don't want to invest in a top shelf computer as we have only just done that with Sally's P4 3.2 HT. Just need 1 more 512m ram. Got 1 spare already and that way i'll set it up for 4 x 512m. Would 2 x 1g ram in HT make it fold better than the 2 x 512m we have now??
I can relate to forced induction for power in cars, but computers are something else.
I'm prepairing to move up the ranks. Just finished my second wu. :celibrate: Unfortunatly i wont get many points for my new one. Only 13. Oh well i've better enjoy it as it could very well be the last gah wu ever folded.
And why am i moving so quickly up the ranks. Come on folk down here in the 7 to 800 ranks you aren't folding since i turn in more wu:s than you. Why aren't you folding. We should contact the members and tell them to start folding again. Sure it's nice that even a slow comp like my appear to be speeding but in reality it isn't, it has no competion as it is.
I'm prepairing to move up the ranks. Just finished my second wu. :celibrate: Unfortunatly i wont get many points for my new one. Only 13. Oh well i've better enjoy it as it could very well be the last gah wu ever folded.
And why am i moving so quickly up the ranks. Come on folk down here in the 7 to 800 ranks you aren't folding since i turn in more wu:s than you. Why aren't you folding. We should contact the members and tell them to start folding again. Sure it's nice that even a slow comp like my appear to be speeding but in reality it isn't, it has no competion as it is.
It's not about winning or losing, it's how you play the game. You are having a go and that is what matters. Can't all be like the "Big" players, lol.
I reckon if all the "Little" puters banded together to fold under the same name, you would frighten the hell out of the "Farmers", hehehe.
It's not only the 7-800 ranks that are inactive. Sally managed to get into the 300 rank and there are lots of inactive ones too. No doubt they have reasons for not folding, however if 10% reactivate because of your comment, YEEHAR, lots more WU's for the cause.
So how about it folks, follow EyesOnly lead and switch them on. :woowoo:
It not that i don't want to win but seing csimons numbers let's me believe that the fight is over. Luckely there are many who i can beat on the way. I want what's best for the team. So to all who are lower then me in the stats. Switch on your boxes now and set them up to fold in my name.
It not that i don't want to win but seing csimons numbers let's me believe that the fight is over. Luckely there are many who i can beat on the way. I want what's best for the team. So to all who are lower then me in the stats. Switch on your boxes now and set them up to fold in my name.
It's worth a try.
and remember - EyesOnly is spelled - m o n d i ...
havent replied to this thread yet but ---top 5 ... JIHAD !!!!!
7700+ per week - dually xeon 3.06 and 2 - 2.8 p4s coming in the next couple of days
made it to over 8K per week according to statsman. :woowoo:
Lotsa movers & shakers according to the weekly production totals--including a couple of folks in the 100s being in the top 12 weekly producers and other random folks outproducing those ahead of them. Good stuff.
By the way, I know this is , but I've just gotta spread the word about how much PNG files rock. That Statsman JPG that Mudd posted is about 120K, the Statsman PNG that I posted (ALMOST identical picture, almost) is only 18.4K.
ALSO, note the pixellation in Mudd's JPG around people's names -- and note its lack in the PNG. Good stuff, I tell you!
As a general rule, graphics with large swaths of unbroken colour (Like these screen captures) are better saved as gifs or pngs. Graphics with photographs, gradients and textures are better saved as jpegs.
0
KwitkoSheriff of Banning (Retired)By the thing near the stuffIcrontian
Lotsa movers & shakers according to the weekly production totals--including a couple of folks in the 100s being in the top 12 weekly producers and other random folks outproducing those ahead of them. Good stuff.
Yep, I managed to move my way into the top 30 weekly producers on the team. I went from 400 to roughly 1,600 points/wk. I should definitely hit 25K points over the weekend... FINALLY!
Heh, just noticed something interesting in the weekly production pic: the UVJVS Lab is the only folder on the list whose position corresponds with their production -- 14th place in both cases. Veddy interesting....
And so that you don't have to go back to page 4 to see that I'm telling the truth...
The PNG has a pixel count that's ~85% of the JPEG.
The filesize of the PNG is ~2/13 of the JPEG.
Impressive, indeed.
The "pixellation" is because JPEG is not a lossless codec; PNG is.
Compared to .tif, .jpg is VERY lossy. PNG uses an area algorithm for common color fills, so you are right that it will compress more with large single color areas, but that is why PNG can take a desktop shot and compress the heck out of it. When I stuck my entry up in the 1,000 folding points competition, the jpg was the best I could use here. In fact, it was a 4 layer gradient graphic. 70% of the gradients vanished in the conversion and compression and downsizing. Even the text was an AA'd gradient colored fill, as a vector pattern imposed as text fill. It was calced when I was working on it as a 32 bit pattern. I made the text partially transparent, also. .jpg does not know transparency. Had I gone to a .gif, and I tried, the result in 256 colors was a real mess. I started with a .tif that was over 3 MB in size as final product....
.gif knows how to use transparency, .jpg does not.... .png does not either. .gif is a 256 color map, but it can be any 256 colors, with one rerserved for background. It is best used for tones in same color family against another background color that contrasts for background. Then you can have grtadients in a .gif that look decent. Tintype photos morphed to drawings are an example, background there is white.
.jpeg is good for many colored text with small areas of adjacent and contrasting colors (it does best as 16 bit or less color depth, 64K colors graphics are where it reaches its metier in use)
.png does less lossiness than .jpg (aka .jpeg) and is most effective in situations where the graphic starts smaller and common color areas for background are large. It works fine for 16 bit color. .tif does gradients and transparency, but needs to be licensed for use commerically, so it is expensive.
An end user who is not going to publish the file as a .tif on a site does not need to use licensing, technically, the print software of graphics kind DOES include license for print use-- license is per copy of supporting software used, paid by software publisher. Publish .tif files on web, the server software has to support .tif. That is basically why .tif is not supported here, royalties are part of terms of licensing. One exception is CompuServe, they OWN the .tif patent.
Publish .tif files on web, the server software has to support .tif. That is basically why .tif is not supported here, royalties are part of terms of licensing. One exception is CompuServe, they OWN the .tif patent.
That aspect of copyright law is, in my extremely anti-corporate opinion, such utter horse****. I mean geez! We pay for the freakin' software that creates the files, and there are license and royalty fees associated with every sale--so why the **** does the fee structure kick in again when you want to use the file you created in an online venue? If I go down to Home Depot and buy myself some lumber and a bag of nails then does that mean I have to pay them another fee when I build something out of it? **** no! Bah. Stupid IP copyright laws really chap my hide.
Now if only Internet Explorer would support PNG files properly, I would use them all the time. Thanks, Microsoft.
Okay, back on topic!
Awright, this is getting out of hand, but I've gotta ask: what, exactly, do you mean? I use Firefox, not IE, but I did just fire up this page in IE to look at the PNGs and I didn't see anything wrong.... Am I missing something? Just curious.
Lossless compression rules. I'll quit being lazy and post in png now. To keep it on topic a little, the little jihad with Al_Capown is about to be o-vah. 9 or so days and counting down ya little mobster.
Awright, this is getting out of hand, but I've gotta ask: what, exactly, do you mean? I use Firefox, not IE, but I did just fire up this page in IE to look at the PNGs and I didn't see anything wrong.... Am I missing something? Just curious.
Comments
Enermax 651VP or something. It's a 550W Enermax.
thanks...ive been thinkin of upgrading my 430true...need more mhz to get u off my back for a little while
Al_Capown Overtake fatcat6 Date: 2004-03-12 22:00:00
my 2400m is stuck @ 2300 @ 1.75v...i need almost 1.9v just to hit 2390...been lookin @ the 2500m but dont know if the 430true will be able to push it to >2500mhz
KingFish
The handbrake has overtaken me sometime ago.
Her P4 HT system running ok now (fingers crossed). I don't think i have a snowball's chance in hell of catching her. :rolleyes2
Sooooooo.........change of tactics.
I'll be running the "Old Athlon 850" under my name, "dragonV8".
Under "JonsHandbrake" will be, :type:
My P4 2.4 notebook.
Our P4 2.4 desktop
Sally's P4 3.2 Hyper Threading Puter
:smokin:
Here is today's HIT List:
MutantPea
SM21 (all others in between have 0 or low points production) Nothing personal ofcourse, hehehe.
Tried to cut and paste like all you other guys do, but it came out different. Still lots to learn, lol.
Ofcourse, untill we get a steady run going, we will not get a reasonable idea of performance.
After reading the previous posts i hope our new challenge falls within the accepted guidelines. :bigggrin:
Though we don't have any aces up our sleeves, we are now saving our pocket money for a possible 5th computer just with Folding in mind. Just not sure what would give "Team 93" best bang for bucks. A barebones P4 2.4??
A couple of cheapies like PIII 1.0g ??
We're not made of money, but don't mind investing a little for such a good cause.
Jon & Sally
Thanks too Doc, gives me a few things to research price wise. Not too familiar with AMD proc's. Our old HP is an Athlon 850, whch is the closest i've got to it. Never had the cover of that one yet. (Hmm, where is that phillips screw-driver, lol).
Didn't realise you could get the lower speed HT proc's. Don't want to invest in a top shelf computer as we have only just done that with Sally's P4 3.2 HT. Just need 1 more 512m ram. Got 1 spare already and that way i'll set it up for 4 x 512m. Would 2 x 1g ram in HT make it fold better than the 2 x 512m we have now??
I can relate to forced induction for power in cars, but computers are something else.
Jon
Sorry MutantPea, nothing personal.
I'll say "sorry SM21" in advance as you are the next challenge in front Sally, now she is on a roll. :woowoo:
Prepare to be :Pwned: by my folding prowness!
I'm just letting you enjoy your "big numbers" while I prepare for my full on assault.
And why am i moving so quickly up the ranks. Come on folk down here in the 7 to 800 ranks you aren't folding since i turn in more wu:s than you. Why aren't you folding. We should contact the members and tell them to start folding again. Sure it's nice that even a slow comp like my appear to be speeding but in reality it isn't, it has no competion as it is.
It's not about winning or losing, it's how you play the game. You are having a go and that is what matters. Can't all be like the "Big" players, lol.
I reckon if all the "Little" puters banded together to fold under the same name, you would frighten the hell out of the "Farmers", hehehe.
It's not only the 7-800 ranks that are inactive. Sally managed to get into the 300 rank and there are lots of inactive ones too. No doubt they have reasons for not folding, however if 10% reactivate because of your comment, YEEHAR, lots more WU's for the cause.
So how about it folks, follow EyesOnly lead and switch them on. :woowoo:
It's worth a try.
and remember - EyesOnly is spelled - m o n d i ...
havent replied to this thread yet but ---top 5 ... JIHAD !!!!!
7700+ per week - dually xeon 3.06 and 2 - 2.8 p4s coming in the next couple of days
Lotsa movers & shakers according to the weekly production totals--including a couple of folks in the 100s being in the top 12 weekly producers and other random folks outproducing those ahead of them. Good stuff.
ALSO, note the pixellation in Mudd's JPG around people's names -- and note its lack in the PNG. Good stuff, I tell you!
Respect the PNG, and TAME the JPG!
The filesize of the PNG is ~2/13 of the JPEG.
Impressive, indeed.
The "pixellation" is because JPEG is not a lossless codec; PNG is.
Yep, I managed to move my way into the top 30 weekly producers on the team. I went from 400 to roughly 1,600 points/wk. I should definitely hit 25K points over the weekend... FINALLY!
And so that you don't have to go back to page 4 to see that I'm telling the truth...
Compared to .tif, .jpg is VERY lossy. PNG uses an area algorithm for common color fills, so you are right that it will compress more with large single color areas, but that is why PNG can take a desktop shot and compress the heck out of it. When I stuck my entry up in the 1,000 folding points competition, the jpg was the best I could use here. In fact, it was a 4 layer gradient graphic. 70% of the gradients vanished in the conversion and compression and downsizing. Even the text was an AA'd gradient colored fill, as a vector pattern imposed as text fill. It was calced when I was working on it as a 32 bit pattern. I made the text partially transparent, also. .jpg does not know transparency. Had I gone to a .gif, and I tried, the result in 256 colors was a real mess. I started with a .tif that was over 3 MB in size as final product....
.gif knows how to use transparency, .jpg does not.... .png does not either. .gif is a 256 color map, but it can be any 256 colors, with one rerserved for background. It is best used for tones in same color family against another background color that contrasts for background. Then you can have grtadients in a .gif that look decent. Tintype photos morphed to drawings are an example, background there is white.
.jpeg is good for many colored text with small areas of adjacent and contrasting colors (it does best as 16 bit or less color depth, 64K colors graphics are where it reaches its metier in use)
.png does less lossiness than .jpg (aka .jpeg) and is most effective in situations where the graphic starts smaller and common color areas for background are large. It works fine for 16 bit color. .tif does gradients and transparency, but needs to be licensed for use commerically, so it is expensive.
An end user who is not going to publish the file as a .tif on a site does not need to use licensing, technically, the print software of graphics kind DOES include license for print use-- license is per copy of supporting software used, paid by software publisher. Publish .tif files on web, the server software has to support .tif. That is basically why .tif is not supported here, royalties are part of terms of licensing. One exception is CompuServe, they OWN the .tif patent.
John D.
That aspect of copyright law is, in my extremely anti-corporate opinion, such utter horse****. I mean geez! We pay for the freakin' software that creates the files, and there are license and royalty fees associated with every sale--so why the **** does the fee structure kick in again when you want to use the file you created in an online venue? If I go down to Home Depot and buy myself some lumber and a bag of nails then does that mean I have to pay them another fee when I build something out of it? **** no! Bah. Stupid IP copyright laws really chap my hide.
Okay, back on topic!
Awright, this is getting out of hand, but I've gotta ask: what, exactly, do you mean? I use Firefox, not IE, but I did just fire up this page in IE to look at the PNGs and I didn't see anything wrong.... Am I missing something? Just curious.
KingFish