new pc for lottosync, which is best?Prev TopicNext Topic

• paul762

  

  United Kingdom
  Member #3,002
  December 11, 2003
  542 Posts
  Offline
  Apr 13, 2004, 1:35 am

  ▲▼

  have been looking at pentium 4 and athlon amd 64 bit, which is best for lottosync?
• EXCALIBUR

  

  United States
  Member #2,460
  October 7, 2003
  766 Posts
  Offline
  Apr 13, 2004, 8:47 am

  ▲▼

  Paul

  LottoSync is O.K. but it isn't the Holy Grail.

  There is a good chance that in the future Guru will make it really good, all we can do is wait.

  Maybe Pc speed is what counts the most, then memory.

  So maybe which-ever is fastest?

  EXCALIBUR is no more that "Handle" is dead, gone.
  Maybe sometime in the future I might come back as LANTERN again, but maybe not, if I don't come back as LANTERN in the future then I won't come back at all, but as I said there is no more EXCALIBUR.
• johnph77

  

  CA
  United States
  Member #2,987
  December 10, 2003
  832 Posts
  Offline
  Apr 13, 2004, 11:51 am

  ▲▼

  paul762 -

  Really depends on how much money you want to spend and what alternate uses to which you'll use the PC. My personal preference is the P4, in that the P4 handles large files (Excel spreadsheets and other files 1MB and larger, for instance) faster than AMD's Athlon and Intel's Celeron. If you're regularly doing analyses which require spreadsheets at least as large as that, P4 would be the way to go, otherwise save your money by buying the lower-priced processor.

  gl

  john

  Blessed Saint Leibowitz, keep 'em dreamin' down there..... 

  Next week's convention for Psychics and Prognosticators has been cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances.

   =^.^=
• paul762

  

  United Kingdom
  Member #3,002
  December 11, 2003
  542 Posts
  Offline
  Apr 13, 2004, 11:54 am

  ▲▼

  thanks john i was hoping somebody was going to say the p4 as it was my preference anyway i just didnt know if it was the fastest for the job in hand.
• vick

  

  Canada
  Member #2,859
  November 23, 2003
  463 Posts
  Offline
  Apr 13, 2004, 1:27 pm

  ▲▼

  paul, the only intel processor that can keep up with the 64 bit amd is the intel p4 800 fb extreme edition [which i think has 2 mb on board cache memory], so for right now, either of these processor's would be tops. I'd personally go with the p4 extreme edition [note here in canada it costs about $1300 just for the cpu i think, comparable with the amd high end 64 bit] & dual channel ddr memory, fast drive etc

  the p4 extreme edition is a stop gap measure until intel releases their prescott cpu line this year and also their 64 bit line.

  it's never ending you can't keep up with all the cpu advances, just pay for upgrades
• paul762

  

  United Kingdom
  Member #3,002
  December 11, 2003
  542 Posts
  Offline
  Apr 13, 2004, 2:35 pm

  ▲▼

  thanks vick, that makes things a bit clearer, how you getting on with LS and keno?
• vick

  

  Canada
  Member #2,859
  November 23, 2003
  463 Posts
  Offline
  Apr 13, 2004, 8:10 pm

  ▲▼

  i'm waiting for guru to release the keno version because ver 1.7 only goes upto 60, otherwise it picks good numbers.

  Right now i'm playing a select few of random 10 number sets
• Guru

  Belgium
  Member #2,220
  September 2, 2003
  553 Posts
  Offline
  Apr 14, 2004, 7:53 am

  ▲▼

  Vick:

  I would prefer a P4 before an AMD athlon. The new P4 processors use less power and produce less noise and HEAT.

  The optimal lottosync pc is 512mb ram with a processor as fast as you can afford. Memory and harddisk capacity are by far less important than the processor !!
• ticket

  

  Canada
  Member #4,325
  April 13, 2004
  3 Posts
  Offline
  Apr 14, 2004, 1:33 pm

  ▲▼

   

  Paul  have you considered a dual hard drive raid 1 or raid 0

  I was told it up to 35% faster processing information I would think speed would be important

  but it does cost a lot more. let us know what you get.

    Ticket 
• vick

  

  Canada
  Member #2,859
  November 23, 2003
  463 Posts
  Offline
  Apr 15, 2004, 9:12 am

  ▲▼

  hard drives can NEVER be even close to the speed of memory, especially cpu cache memory. If you were doing alot of disk caching then can see where a raid would help, but with memory so cheap nowadays just buy 1 gb.
• LottoEngines

  

  Los Angeles, CA
  United States
  Member #3,917
  March 2, 2004
  13 Posts
  Offline
  Apr 16, 2004, 2:00 am

  ▲▼

  amd 64 bit.
• Irvin

  

  New Zealand
  Member #2,234
  September 2, 2003
  173 Posts
  Offline
  Apr 16, 2004, 9:34 am

  ▲▼

  When buying a PC never skimp on memory. You can have the fastest processor out there but if your applications are hogging the memory your just slowing the thing down.
• BobP

  

  Dump Water Florida
  United States
  Member #380
  June 5, 2002
  3,579 Posts
  Offline
  Apr 16, 2004, 12:35 pm

  ▲▼

  P-4, anything but AMD.  I've got two fried AMD boards in the closet with no idea what did them in, while the Intel has survived a fan breakdown/overheat, a wacky power supply and a spark jump from the vacum cleaner.  BobP
• hypersoniq

  

  Pennsylvania
  United States
  Member #1,340
  April 6, 2003
  2,583 Posts
  Offline
  Apr 17, 2004, 4:06 pm

  ▲▼

  ok, if you want a fast PC to run programs like lottosynch, get a dual CPU machine (or quad if your budget allows). You want one running win2k or XP Pro that has support for multi CPU's and lets you set processor affinity, this will allow you to isolate one CPU to just run lottosynch and the other to do whatever you normally do (like surf the LP ;-)  )

  Barring that, perhaps one of the 3GHz+ P4's with HyperThreading Technology...

  Have an EXCELlent day!
• RJOh

  

  100

  mid-Ohio
  United States
  Member #9
  March 24, 2001
  20,272 Posts
  Offline
  Apr 17, 2004, 4:16 pm

  ▲▼

  If lottosynch is not predicting the winning numbers, why be in a hurry?  Any other lottery program could give you an equally bad prediction in a potion of the time.

  RJOh

   * you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones *