I think it would be fun to pick a specific issue of Computer Shopper (available on archive.org) and declare a competition's rules to be, "Use any CPU and video card that are for sale in this issue. Highest 3DMarkxxxx score at the end of this month wins."

STX wrote on 2023-11-03, 04:22:

I think it would be fun to pick a specific issue of Computer Shopper (available on archive.org) and declare a competition's rules to be, "Use any CPU and video card that are for sale in this issue. Highest 3DMarkxxxx score at the end of this month wins."

I like that idea alot. We could also use Maximum PC. You pick first. I think we also need a separate section on Vogons for "Aiming for the star" threads.

I don’t really see the point in that. It removes all the weird and wonderful platform combinations you typically get with the usual unrestricted in at least one area “stars” thread. The systems were already benched in-period, leaving the only real difference being later driver releases.

Overclocking comes into it too, but these are parts that are getting harder to source, let alone possible to speed bin like we used to in the day.

We could make a general rule that GPUs and chipsets are always unrestricted.

paradigital wrote on 2023-11-03, 07:05:

I don’t really see the point in that....

Ha ha, if you don't like my first idea's restrictions, then you'll really dislike my second idea: Pick a specific computer parts magazine issue. Allow any CPU, video card, motherboard (or equivalent with the same processor socket, chipset and video card slot) and RAM (or equivalent with the same interface, speed and capacity) that is listed for sale in that issue. The total price for CPU + video card + motherboard + RAM must be ≤$1000 according to that magazine issue. Highest 3DMarkxxxx score wins.

Maybe, to preserve the "aiming for the stars" idea and enable more people to participate, all CPUs available on a certain date should be allowed without any other restrictions. (I have an ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro AGP that would be hilarious to pair with an early Pentium 4 CPU, or even a Socket-370 Pentium III.)

So i have a socket 423 on the way anyone wanna do a Aiming for the starts?

I agree the next Aiming for Stars should be S423!

Edit: typo! I meant S462 (Socket A) Athlon XP

*shaking my 1.5 willamette in it's protector pack* Do you really want me to crack open this can of whoopweakass ???

We will be able to see just how weak they actually were with the ultimate test of Aiming for the stars. It probably wont even make it to the moon.

Winchip,

Jk, no one cares about winchip 🤣

Ummm, socket 3 aiming for the stars

(ISA only) systems aiming for the stars

Socket 3 aiming for the stars

Sphere478 wrote on 2023-11-04, 21:20:

Winchip, […]
Show full quote

Winchip,

Jk, no one cares about winchip 🤣

Ummm, socket 3 aiming for the stars

(ISA only) systems aiming for the stars

Socket 3 aiming for the stars

CPU Galazy on Youtube already did socket 3 all by himself with his 200MHz 486.

I was gonna argue he was on socket 6, but nope that Lucky Star/Sis board was socket 3.... PCI though not ISA... however, I think that chipset is on some ISA boards too.

Socket 423 Aiming for the starts has started.

Netburst: Aiming for the Stars

Xplo wrote on 2023-11-04, 19:52:

I agree the next Aiming for Stars should be S423!

Edit: typo! I meant S462 (Socket A) Athlon XP

Oops. I have helped feed the Willamette movement 😬

Xplo wrote on 2023-11-05, 08:09:

Xplo wrote on 2023-11-04, 19:52:

I agree the next Aiming for Stars should be S423!

Edit: typo! I meant S462 (Socket A) Athlon XP

Oops. I have helped feed the Willamette movement 😬

Im sure we will get to socket A soon enough.

Im thinking once the action dies down for Willamette, Ill add a bracket for Northwoods and so on like episodes. So eventually this will have all the P4 cores covered. Or should i just open it up now to all P4 cores???

Going by socket may make more sense to me, it maxes out the platform, not the core ya know?

Sphere478 wrote on 2023-11-20, 02:58:

Going by socket may make more sense to me, it maxes out the platform, not the core ya know?

Not everyone has the fasted CPU for each socket. It lets more people participate by keeping the different cores separated.

I agree with Sphere478 but so far you are keeping the socket types separate, so doing both (soc and proc type) as you have been is a good idea.

Apples to Apples and Oranges to Oranges.