Search results

Yup, that's what I used, my old nexus phone which has a wide angle lens. I actually see more w/ my eyes, but only on that black. Normal monitor use nothing is a problem or bothersome.

Mine calibrated to 32 brightness / 73 contrast. Normal room is lights all off except for a low backlight behind monitors, and a fishtank light off to right side of room.

Distance? That's about 1.5 feet away, taken w/ wide-angle. They don't look anything like Dorian7's.

Here are my 3. I'm quite happy with them.

Very likely get replacements w/o working button sound--not a good track record on the sound: 2 out of my 3 the button sound doesn't work. Personally I don't care one bit... the sound is lame anyways. :)

No grainy here, xdanio. (U2415 x 3)

Won't work on me, I have e-mailing turned on on my account... unless they can also stop the bank from sending me e-mails every time a transaction happens.

Still haven't got any emails from them... And I was actually trying to use it during the outtage.

I have a new HP xw8400 workstation (2 x Xeon 5150, 2.66GHz), and the difference of temps between the cores under full load has reached over 25C! The 2nd core on each cpu was always much hotter, and even reached 83C at one point, where the other core was only in the 50s. Most of the time the...

Don't forget the 165 has dual 1MB cache compared to the X2's dual 512K. Depending on what you're doing, that cache may be worth it.

I also scored a CCBBE (but it's 0615EPMW) from Newegg last week. I'm up to 2.8GHz with minimal voltage increase. :D

Hmm, I wonder how new that is? I've seen the Opteron 165 for $150-$160 for a while now (that's why I bought one over a week ago... and btw, it's awesome!). If it's currently supposed to be $255, that's a huge bargain.

Well, my $159 dual core Opteron 165, stock 1.8GHz runs 100% stable at 2.8GHz... that's 1,000MHz overclock, and it is quick compared to my A64 (Venice) 3000+ which was at 2.4GHz. So I'd say these 165's are some of the best OC'ers from what I've seen. :)

30 seconds with Photoshop CS2 40 seconds with Photoshop CS 40 seconds with Photoshop 7 (fastest of 3 runs each, 80% of ram dedicated to PS) • DFI LanParty UT nF4 Ultra-D, 704-2bt bios • Opteron 165 currently @ 1.376v, 306x9, 2.75GHz, CCBBE 0615EPMW • 2x512 OCZ EL Plat. Rev2 @ 229MHz...

...is that the 15.9" spec is (what I was expecting and hoping) the lowest height. I bought 2 of them, and they fit in the desk just fine.

last bump...

bump... anyone have this monitor?

I know it shows the height as 15.9" on the specs, but is that the minimum or maximum height with the stand (which as 5.3" of height adjustment)? Anyone know?

I bought one of the HIS X800XL's, and the fan died after about a week. I called HIS, and they said they couldn't and wouldn't do anything about it, I had to return it. So when I returned it to Newegg, I got a different brand instead.

Yeah, seriously. I run my 3000+ Venice at 2.5GHz; stock cooling. Very nice performance increase over the stock 1.8GHz.

Well I don't think the level load is CPU bound. I did some tests, and the game used the cpu 100% during the game... the only time it dropped was during level loads, and this was the only disk activity. Here's the task mgr -- you can easily tell where the level load was, 2/3's along the graph:

I'm still curious about the CPU load though. I think I'll chart out some CPU load graphs and see exactly what's going on.

I'll try some transfer tests w/in drives and see if the Raptor is any faster in that regard. Thanks. btw — I assumed level loading was hard disk bound because the HD activity is very intense until the level is loaded, and cpu usage is not maxed out.

Yeah, I saw that before... but again, all benchmarks seem to suck. I'm just judging by how long particular levels take to load up in games. With the 64K clusters, it seems a little faster now, but not more than maybe 5%... and the Raptor isn't any faster at loading the levels than the...

None -- the one I can format is my gaming drive. I can't easily format my boot drive. So I went ahead and tried it at 64K, and it seems a little faster, but not much. Here's what Sandra says now: Benchmark Results Drive Index : 51 MB/s Performance Test Status Run ID : GAMEBOX on...

Thanks... heheh... I haven't used FAT –anything– in years. So, do you think I should try 16k like ATW did? Do you think that will make that big of a difference in performance? Or could it be something else?

No array -- just a single raptor 74GB in 2 evenly sized (34.62GB) partitions. I used XP's default Allocation size when formatting. I can easily reformat one of the partitions, but not the other (which is my boot partition). If I can find out what size the allocation units are somehow, then...

Sandra shows between 29 and 46MB/s (depending on what I'm doing), and an 12-18 ms avg access time. Seems really bad. A typical breakdown if I'm not doing anything else on the computer looks like this: WD Raptor 74GB: Benchmark Results Drive Index : 46 MB/s Performance Test Status...

Seems like it's not very fast. Haven't noticed it to be any faster than my Maxtor 200GB DiamondMax Plus 9 7200rpm. The only time I can tell that it's faster is when benchmarking. (HD Tach shows 122MB/s burst, 64.3 MB/s avg.) Loading up games, etc., seems just as long as on the Maxtor...

I've been using Rain-X on my mousing surfaces for years... works great.