X

    Subscribe to New Ads!

    Receive weekly ads in your inbox!



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Making A Case For Unlocked Dual Core CPU - Research On Losing The Entry Level OCers

  1. #1

    Making A Case For Unlocked Dual Core CPU - Research On Losing The Entry Level OCers

    Hey guys,

    Just wanted to share this little bit of research I did on the loss of entry level overclockers. Hope you like it!

    In light of the recent news leak by VR-Zone from which we learned the Haswell Refresh is seeing the daylight on June 2nd at Computex 2014, we reviewed the initial information from Intel regarding their upcoming enthusiast releases. In this article I would like to go deeper in on Intel?s approach to the enthusiast market and make an additional case for the USD $100 Pentium K edition.

    "... Combining the clear interest of the community to have an overclockable and affordable processor with the historical evidence of the Entry level overclocker group the likes of Pentium E2160, I believe there is demand and room for this type of product. The Entry level overclockers of today are the big spenders of tomorrow and therefore it is important to cater to their wish for the overclocking experience within their budget range. The almost completely wiped out group of Entry level overclockers usually feature the most enthusiastic people, as they are ?in it? for the passion rather than financial gain or grand media exposure. We should treasure that group and make them feel welcome in the world of overclocking again ..."
    Where courage, motivation and ignorance meet, a persistent idiot awakens.

  2. #2
    I am Xtreme FlanK3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Czech republic
    Posts
    6,797
    Finally...Its clear and logic. 75% of forum users have not much money for highend PC. All my forum friends (not from extreme comunnity) have CPU as core i3 or Athlons K edition, because performance is good for them (and they can tweaking K Athlons, others remmeber at Pentium dual core E times).
    ROG Power PCs - Intel and AMD
    CPUs:i9-7900X, i9-9900K, i7-6950X, i7-5960X, i7-8086K, i7-8700K, 4x i7-7700K, i3-7350K, 2x i7-6700K, i5-6600K, R7-2700X, 4x R5 2600X, R5 2400G, R3 1200, R7-1800X, R7-1700X, 3x AMD FX-9590, 1x AMD FX-9370, 4x AMD FX-8350,1x AMD FX-8320,1x AMD FX-8300, 2x AMD FX-6300,2x AMD FX-4300, 3x AMD FX-8150, 2x AMD FX-8120 125 and 95W, AMD X2 555 BE, AMD x4 965 BE C2 and C3, AMD X4 970 BE, AMD x4 975 BE, AMD x4 980 BE, AMD X6 1090T BE, AMD X6 1100T BE, A10-7870K, Athlon 845, Athlon 860K,AMD A10-7850K, AMD A10-6800K, A8-6600K, 2x AMD A10-5800K, AMD A10-5600K, AMD A8-3850, AMD A8-3870K, 2x AMD A64 3000+, AMD 64+ X2 4600+ EE, Intel i7-980X, Intel i7-2600K, Intel i7-3770K,2x i7-4770K, Intel i7-3930KAMD Cinebench R10 challenge AMD Cinebench R15 thread Intel Cinebench R15 thread

  3. #3
    Xtreme Enthusiast Kai Robinson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    East Sussex
    Posts
    831
    Taking a budget CPU and clocking the nuts off it was half the fun. I remember taking my old Core 2 Duo E4300 and running it stably at 4Ghz 24/7. Thats a 2.2Ghz overclock :p

    Main Rig

    Intel Core i7-2600K (SLB8W, E0 Stepping) @ 4.6Ghz (4.6x100), Corsair H80i AIO Cooler
    MSI Z77A GD-65 Gaming (MS-7551), v25 BIOS
    Kingston HyperX 16GB (2x8GB) PC3-19200 Kit (HX24C11BRK2/16-OC) @ 1.5v, 11-13-13-30 Timings (1:8 Ratio)
    8GB MSI Radeon R9 390X (1080 Mhz Core, 6000 Mhz Memory)
    NZXT H440 Case with NZXT Hue+ Installed
    24" Dell U2412HM (1920x1200, e-IPS panel)
    1 x 500GB Samsung 850 EVO (Boot & Install)
    1 x 2Tb Hitachi 7K2000 in External Enclosure (Scratch Disk)


    Entertainment Setup

    Samsung Series 6 37" 1080p TV
    Gigabyte GA-J1800N-D2H based media PC, Mini ITX Case, Blu-Ray Drive
    Netgear ReadyNAS104 w/4x2TB Toshiba DTACA200's for 5.8TB Volume size

    I refuse to participate in any debate with creationists because doing so would give them the "oxygen of respectability" that they want.
    Creationists don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters to them is that I give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public.

  4. #4
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Fullerton, California
    Posts
    848
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai Robinson View Post
    Taking a budget CPU and clocking the nuts off it was half the fun. I remember taking my old Core 2 Duo E4300 and running it stably at 4Ghz 24/7. Thats a 2.2Ghz overclock :p
    That's probably the exact reason they don't do it anymore, seriously. I remember when Sandy Bridge was released and anyone and their grandmother was getting 4.5 GHz OC's with decent cooling on 2500K's. If they had an unlocked i3, man, we would be seeing 5 GHz OC's on cheap cooling. I think it's an (unfortunate) strategic play on their part, especially when it comes to gamers. Going Intel, the choice is a dual i3 3.0-3.5 GHz with no OC or an unlocked quad core i5... That's a HUGE product gap, but it makes a lot of people spend the extra money.

  5. #5
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Ace Deuce, Michigan
    Posts
    3,956
    Quote Originally Posted by urbanfox View Post
    That's probably the exact reason they don't do it anymore, seriously. I remember when Sandy Bridge was released and anyone and their grandmother was getting 4.5 GHz OC's with decent cooling on 2500K's. If they had an unlocked i3, man, we would be seeing 5 GHz OC's on cheap cooling. I think it's an (unfortunate) strategic play on their part, especially when it comes to gamers. Going Intel, the choice is a dual i3 3.0-3.5 GHz with no OC or an unlocked quad core i5... That's a HUGE product gap, but it makes a lot of people spend the extra money.
    I have a 4.5 ghz 2500k myself

    One of the greatest purchases I've ever made; the best part is that it's held its own against most modern cpus - having the me the cost of an upgrade requiring a complete overhaul of my motherboard etc. I've been a big proponent of a dedicated overclocking cpu. I want to see Intel bin the out of a 4770k, and shut off everything but the top 2 cores, so you get a cpu that's capable of hitting 6 ghz given the right tweaks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hans de Vries View Post

    JF-AMD posting: IPC increases!!!!!!! How many times did I tell you!!!

    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    .....}
    until (interrupt by Movieman)


    Regards, Hans

  6. #6
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok,Thailand (DamHot)
    Posts
    2,690
    People loss their fun on dual core overclocking since i5-655K (If not correct me)
    Last edited by PatRaceTin; 04-27-2014 at 05:30 AM.
    Intel Core i5 6600K + ASRock Z170 OC Formula + Galax HOF 4000 (8GBx2) + Antec 1200W OC Version
    EK SupremeHF + BlackIce GTX360 + Swiftech 655 + XSPC ResTop
    Macbook Pro 15" Late 2011 (i7 2760QM + HD 6770M)
    Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014) , Huawei Nexus 6P
    [history system]80286 80386 80486 Cyrix K5 Pentium133 Pentium II Duron1G Athlon1G E2180 E3300 E5300 E7200 E8200 E8400 E8500 E8600 Q9550 QX6800 X3-720BE i7-920 i3-530 i5-750 Semp140@x2 955BE X4-B55 Q6600 i5-2500K i7-2600K X4-B60 X6-1055T FX-8120 i7-4790K

  7. #7
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Ace Deuce, Michigan
    Posts
    3,956
    Quote Originally Posted by PatRaceTin View Post
    People loss their fun on dual core overclocking since i5-655K (If not correct me)
    Perhaps that's true for explicit dualcores, but it's not uncommon to see skilled overclockers disable cores to the maximize their stable frequency (ie turn a quadcore into a dualcore).
    Quote Originally Posted by Hans de Vries View Post

    JF-AMD posting: IPC increases!!!!!!! How many times did I tell you!!!

    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    .....}
    until (interrupt by Movieman)


    Regards, Hans

  8. #8
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    263
    I read most of it, but not all of it.

    Did you address the fact that having a more than two cores has a tangible impact on gaming performance and multitasking? Perhaps the real need is for cheaper quad cores and not dual cores.
    4770K Batch 3312B707 Costa Rica l Asus Maximus VI Impact 1404 l Corsair Vengeance 16GB 1866 l EVGA GTX 680 4GB

  9. #9
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,550
    Quote Originally Posted by urbanfox View Post
    That's probably the exact reason they don't do it anymore, seriously. I remember when Sandy Bridge was released and anyone and their grandmother was getting 4.5 GHz OC's with decent cooling on 2500K's. If they had an unlocked i3, man, we would be seeing 5 GHz OC's on cheap cooling. I think it's an (unfortunate) strategic play on their part, especially when it comes to gamers. Going Intel, the choice is a dual i3 3.0-3.5 GHz with no OC or an unlocked quad core i5... That's a HUGE product gap, but it makes a lot of people spend the extra money.
    Intel is gouging on desktop cpus. AMD hasn't released anything in so long that Intel is clearly taking advantage.

    Hell, I paid the same amount for my first quad core cpu over years ago that Intel is selling them for to this day. You can not tell me after all of these process shrinks that they can't produce an affordable (sub-$300) hex core cpu. Nope, those are $500+ cpus for the more expensive platform that I don't need.

    I really, really hope that AMD releases a solid desktop cpu at some point in the near future. I really want to be done with intel.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by munim View Post
    I read most of it, but not all of it.

    Did you address the fact that having a more than two cores has a tangible impact on gaming performance and multitasking? Perhaps the real need is for cheaper quad cores and not dual cores.
    No, this was more focused on the effects of ditching the low-end tunable CPUs on the overclocking community.

    You make an interesting point, though. Of course it would always be better to get a cheap quad core offering. The cheapest quad core for Haswell still is EUR ?150 which is around the price of Core 2 Duo E6300, but you can't mess around with that one.

    FYI, according to Steam Hardware Survey 50% of the gamers still run a dual core and this hasn't changed much in the past 1.5 years. So you could say a EUR ?150 price point is still to high for most people; even to switch from dual to quad core.

    Where courage, motivation and ignorance meet, a persistent idiot awakens.

  11. #11
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,550
    Back when the E6300 was around a very sizable portion of people in the Steam hardware survey were using single core cpus.

    I think that the reason that dual core adoption has stayed the same for so long is due to quad core cpu pricing staying the same for such a long time. Thats the one that bugs me.

  12. #12
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Ace Deuce, Michigan
    Posts
    3,956
    Quote Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ View Post
    Intel is gouging on desktop cpus. AMD hasn't released anything in so long that Intel is clearly taking advantage.

    Hell, I paid the same amount for my first quad core cpu over years ago that Intel is selling them for to this day. You can not tell me after all of these process shrinks that they can't produce an affordable (sub-$300) hex core cpu. Nope, those are $500+ cpus for the more expensive platform that I don't need.

    I really, really hope that AMD releases a solid desktop cpu at some point in the near future. I really want to be done with intel.
    I completely agree. That's the main reason why I haven't upgraded my 2500k. There just isn't enough performance incentive at a good price anymore to upgrade imo.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hans de Vries View Post

    JF-AMD posting: IPC increases!!!!!!! How many times did I tell you!!!

    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    .....}
    until (interrupt by Movieman)


    Regards, Hans

  13. #13
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ View Post
    Hell, I paid the same amount for my first quad core cpu over years ago that Intel is selling them for to this day. You can not tell me after all of these process shrinks that they can't produce an affordable (sub-$300) hex core cpu. Nope, those are $500+ cpus for the more expensive platform that I don't need.
    You have to remember that manufacturing costs is just one thing. They also have to cover huge R&D costs and to make profit.

    I would rather get quad core with slower clockspeed than high clocked dual core. I think intel doesnt want to offer too fast overclockable cpu:s so they simply restrict them to dual cores.
    "I would never want to be a member of a group whose symbol was a guy nailed to two pieces of wood."

  14. #14
    I am Xtreme zanzabar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SF bay area, CA
    Posts
    15,787
    Quote Originally Posted by massman View Post
    No, this was more focused on the effects of ditching the low-end tunable CPUs on the overclocking community.

    You make an interesting point, though. Of course it would always be better to get a cheap quad core offering. The cheapest quad core for Haswell still is EUR ?150 which is around the price of Core 2 Duo E6300, but you can't mess around with that one.

    FYI, according to Steam Hardware Survey 50% of the gamers still run a dual core and this hasn't changed much in the past 1.5 years. So you could say a EUR ?150 price point is still to high for most people; even to switch from dual to quad core.

    that goes by logical not physical cores, so the i3 and amd a6-8 count there as well. that other is the amd fx and i7 that have 6 or 8 logical cores. so half are running on an older chip, a pentium, or a4.
    5930k, R5E, samsung 8GBx4 d-die, vega 56, wd gold 8TB, wd 4TB red, 2TB raid1 wd blue 5400
    samsung 840 evo 500GB, HP EX 1TB NVME , CM690II, swiftech h220, corsair 750hxi

  15. #15
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Miltown, Wisconsin
    Posts
    353
    Just go with AMD if your on that end of the cost spectrum. AMD has a lot to offer the low budget buyer, with tweak friendly support. I bought a opty 165 and nforce 4 board a couple years ago just to tinker with. It was so much fun. For day to day stuff, it still holds its own. I even bought a xp-2500m for the hell of it. Those were the days.
    Quote Originally Posted by ***Deimos*** View Post
    WARNING GTX480 - may cause dizziness, blurred vision, dry mouth, dehydration, shortness of breath, headaches, naussea, explosive diahrea


    Foxconn Bloodrage P11 ( 2.1 SLIC MOD )
    Corei7 980 (3118B583) 4.2ghz 24-7 with stock vcore
    2x8GB PNY 1600c9 @ 1600mhz 9-9-9-24-1T
    nVidia GTX 770
    256gb OCZ Vertex4 FW 1.5
    2TB Green Barracuda
    Antec HCG-620w PSU
    Corsair H50 ( Sucks Hairry Balls IMHO )
    Coolermaster Storm Sniper Black Custom Sleeved
    3 x Dell U2410 H-IPS 1920x1200 Surround
    Windows 7 x64 Ultimate




  16. #16
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    1,960
    Quote Originally Posted by massman View Post
    No, this was more focused on the effects of ditching the low-end tunable CPUs on the overclocking community.

    You make an interesting point, though. Of course it would always be better to get a cheap quad core offering. The cheapest quad core for Haswell still is EUR ?150 which is around the price of Core 2 Duo E6300, but you can't mess around with that one.

    FYI, according to Steam Hardware Survey 50% of the gamers still run a dual core and this hasn't changed much in the past 1.5 years. So you could say a EUR ?150 price point is still to high for most people; even to switch from dual to quad core.

    Im not sure the survey of steam are much accurate, + you have many peoples who surely are using Steam with laptop with dual + HT ( 2C/4T).... Steam is too a plateform now for independant games who are surely more suited for low config in most case ( laptop ) I dont know, i see rarely gamers without quadcore on desktop, whatever it is an old quadcore (I7 920-950 ) or SB, because they dont have the feeling to need to upgrade. If i only take the Intel case, between an 2600K > a 3700K > a 4700K...if you own a 2500- 2600K ( why not with an low oc at 4.2, or even stock ), do you really need to look at the last one ?

    The performance jump across 3 generations and specially in game is extremely low... let alone for thoses who overclock their processors
    Last edited by Lanek; 04-29-2014 at 05:41 AM.
    CPU: - I7 4930K (EK Supremacy )
    GPU: - 2x AMD HD7970 flashed GHZ bios ( EK Acetal Nickel Waterblock H2o)
    Motherboard: Asus x79 Deluxe
    RAM: G-skill Ares C9 2133mhz 16GB
    Main Storage: Samsung 840EVO 500GB / 2x Crucial RealSSD C300 Raid0

  17. #17
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Arlington VA
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ View Post
    Back when the E6300 was around a very sizable portion of people in the Steam hardware survey were using single core cpus.

    I think that the reason that dual core adoption has stayed the same for so long is due to quad core cpu pricing staying the same for such a long time. Thats the one that bugs me.
    The vast majority of computer consumers upgrade habits do not resemble this forum at all though.

    For most people computing power has been more than enough for some time now. A dualcore will run the OS, Office, web browsing, facebook, basic photo editing, skype, and everything most people do. After that threshold is crossed form factor, power consumption, and asthetics matter far more than sheer power. In fact, if that quadcore moves you into a thicker form factor, lowers battery life, or uses more power it's a downgrade from a dual, even if the quad was cheaper. So people get the computing device that works for them, and then play the games they can run off it. They aren't going to upgrade to play a fancy AAA game, that's what consoles are for. They play the PC games they can run... and they will not sacrifice form factor or upgrade just to run BF4 or COD on a PC, they will run it off console. Furthermore most consumers do not upgrade just because of new hardware or games. They upgrade when the current box they have straight up dies, or when a new operating system comes out turning the old machine into a hand-me-down for the kid.

    Most people are running laptops or hand-me-down desktops and upgrading only when the new version of Windows comes out or when something like an Ultrabook lets them squeeze into an even smaller and lower power form factor. It's to be expected that what they run in terms of core count, RAM volume, ect is vastly below here. The gap between enthusiasts and most consumers is only going to grow larger.
    AMD Phenom II BE, ASUS Crosshair II formula, 8gb ddr2 800, 470 SLI, PC P&C 750, arcera RAID, 4x OCZ Vertex2, 2x samsung 7200 1tb, HT Omega Clario +

  18. #18
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Fullerton, California
    Posts
    848
    Quote Originally Posted by munim View Post

    Did you address the fact that having a more than two cores has a tangible impact on gaming performance...
    It depends entirely on settings, resolution, and the GPU used. The higher the resolution/settings, the more GPU driven the game becomes and the less the CPU matters. A 4-5 GHz DC even without HT would be more than enough for even a SLI/Crossfire setup.

  19. #19
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    8,832
    Quote Originally Posted by urbanfox View Post
    The higher the resolution/settings, the more GPU driven the game becomes and the less the CPU matters.
    True, although many games are CPU limited even with high resolution and settings. Depends on the hardware config.

    Quote Originally Posted by urbanfox View Post
    A 4-5 GHz DC even without HT would be more than enough for even a SLI/Crossfire setup.
    It's not nearly as simple as that. The shortest answer: depends on the game.
    Donate to XS forums
    Quote Originally Posted by jayhall0315 View Post
    If you are really extreme, you never let informed facts or the scientific method hold you back from your journey to the wrong answer.

  20. #20
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Arlington VA
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by urbanfox View Post
    It depends entirely on settings, resolution, and the GPU used. The higher the resolution/settings, the more GPU driven the game becomes and the less the CPU matters. A 4-5 GHz DC even without HT would be more than enough for even a SLI/Crossfire setup.
    People using dual cores usually aren't going to have crossfire or SLI. People are either on dual cores for power/form factor/battery reasons or because they don't upgrade all the time/financial reasons. Crossfire and SLI obliterate all of those instantly.
    AMD Phenom II BE, ASUS Crosshair II formula, 8gb ddr2 800, 470 SLI, PC P&C 750, arcera RAID, 4x OCZ Vertex2, 2x samsung 7200 1tb, HT Omega Clario +

  21. #21
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Fullerton, California
    Posts
    848
    Quote Originally Posted by crash5s View Post
    People using dual cores usually aren't going to have crossfire or SLI. People are either on dual cores for power/form factor/battery reasons or because they don't upgrade all the time/financial reasons. Crossfire and SLI obliterate all of those instantly.
    I understand that, we are talking about reasons Intel wouldn't implement unlocked dual-cores. If an unlocked dual core could be had for a lot less than an unlocked quad core, then a lot more budget or mid-range gaming machines would have two GPU's possibly.

  22. #22
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Fullerton, California
    Posts
    848
    Quote Originally Posted by zalbard View Post
    It's not nearly as simple as that. The shortest answer: depends on the game.
    While that's true, I was making a general comment based on the purpose of this thread which would apply to the vast majority of games.

  23. #23
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Fullerton, California
    Posts
    848

  24. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    10
    Still rocking a unlocked dual core and a measly gtx460. From my point of view this forum has died in relation to AMD's offerings. My next upgrade is a second-hand r9 290 after all the bitcoiners get out of the mining craze. Unfortunately I will most likely go Intel regarding that upgrade.

    PS. I still like looking at my Framed Abit NF7-s on the wall.
    Last edited by b00ts77; 05-23-2014 at 12:37 PM. Reason: added non relevant info.
    AMD PII 555be @ x4 3.2
    Asrock 890GX Extreme 3
    Ocz Black edition 7-7-7-24
    Prolimatech Megahalems w/ Gentle Typhoon
    Samsung 1920x1200 LCD
    CM HAF922 Limited Red
    OCZ Agility 3 120gb
    Samsung F3 1tb
    Asus GTX460 1gb

  25. #25
    Xtreme Enthusiast Kai Robinson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    East Sussex
    Posts
    831
    That may be because AMD has no high-end offerings anymore? The FX line is dead in the water - everything 'new' (excavator/carrizo) is speculation, and AMD are focusing on the low to mid-end of the market now. I would love AMD to announce something new for the high end, but they won't do that this year, and possibly not until the end of next year, either.

    Main Rig

    Intel Core i7-2600K (SLB8W, E0 Stepping) @ 4.6Ghz (4.6x100), Corsair H80i AIO Cooler
    MSI Z77A GD-65 Gaming (MS-7551), v25 BIOS
    Kingston HyperX 16GB (2x8GB) PC3-19200 Kit (HX24C11BRK2/16-OC) @ 1.5v, 11-13-13-30 Timings (1:8 Ratio)
    8GB MSI Radeon R9 390X (1080 Mhz Core, 6000 Mhz Memory)
    NZXT H440 Case with NZXT Hue+ Installed
    24" Dell U2412HM (1920x1200, e-IPS panel)
    1 x 500GB Samsung 850 EVO (Boot & Install)
    1 x 2Tb Hitachi 7K2000 in External Enclosure (Scratch Disk)


    Entertainment Setup

    Samsung Series 6 37" 1080p TV
    Gigabyte GA-J1800N-D2H based media PC, Mini ITX Case, Blu-Ray Drive
    Netgear ReadyNAS104 w/4x2TB Toshiba DTACA200's for 5.8TB Volume size

    I refuse to participate in any debate with creationists because doing so would give them the "oxygen of respectability" that they want.
    Creationists don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters to them is that I give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •