need help choosing ram

[Faa]

I created a graph to prove you wrong, you were proven wrong. The graph was linearly scaled. It was in a straight line. It was proportional to each other. But apparently it's not valid even though I used perfectly applicable values that were very relative.

No 1600MHz over 800MHz should give a 100% gain in FPS thats what proportional means. That didnt happen so no lineair scaling here at all. 

This is what proportionality is:

x as 2 gives us 12.5 in y & x as 4 gives us 25 as y. 

 

Get over it, and stop crying like the little baby that you are. 

Youre twisting everything like fuck. You are being proved wrong into the ground.

 

 

Oh you are still offended that I ripped you a part in PM, cry some more about it. Throw in some more straw man tactics to dissuade the conversation from the fact that you consistently get proven wrong and consistently wont suck it up like a man.

Mad people are always funny

[SpecTre12345]

 

No 1600MHz over 800MHz should give a 100% gain in FPS thats what proportional means. That didnt happen so no lineair scaling here at all. 

This is what proportionality is:

x as 2 gives us 12.5 in y & x as 4 gives us 25 as y. 

 

Youre twisting everything like fuck. You are being proved wrong into the ground.

 

 

Mad people are always funny

 

 

You don't know what you are talking about. The graph was created based on Linearity -  having a response or output that is directly proportional to the input. 

 

Look again:

 

 

How much more stupid can you get? The input is memory frequency, the output is FPS. Increase frequency by 400MHz, get a directly related output or response of 20% increase in fps. What is it that you fail to understand here? Like I said, 15 years old tops, that smokes weed all day.

[Faa]

You don't know what you are talking about. The graph was created based on Linearity -  having a response or output that is directly proportional to the input. 

 

Look again:

How much more stupid can you get?

Again.

y/x = a

Doing for x1 & y1.

50/400 = 0.125 -> your constant is 0.125

Doing for x2 & y2

60/800MHz = 0.075

Now this

x1/y1 -> 12.5/2 = 6.25

x2/y2 -> 25/4 = 6.25

Thats directly proportional as the constant was the same for every coordination (x,y).

[SpecTre12345]

Again.

y/x = a

Doing for x1 & y1.

50/400 = 0.125 -> your constant is 0.125

Doing for x2 & y2

60/800MHz = 0.075

Now this

x1/y1 -> 12.5/2 = 6.25

x2/y2 -> 25/4 = 6.25

Thats directly proportional as the constant was the same for every coordination (x,y).

 

That's because you fail to understand the definition of proportional, and are only using it in one context.

 

proportion - the relation of one part to another or to the whole with respect to magnitude, quantity, or degree

 

The relation of the increase in memory to the relation of increase in FPS. Increase the quantity of memory frequency, increase the quantity of fps. Very simple stuff man. Without all your bullshit.

[Faa]

That's because you fail to understand the definition of proportional, and are only using it in one context.

 

proportion - the relation of one part to another or to the whole with respect to magnitude, quantity, or degree

 

The relation of the increase in memory to the relation of increase in FPS. Increase the quantity of memory frequency, increase the quantity of fps. Very simple stuff man. Without all your bullshit.

I agree that there's a gain but there's no lineair scaling like you claimed which I'm proving out here. A line in a x/y graph is always a lineair function in the form of y=ax. Y is your end result such as fps, a is your constant, x is what you give in and multiply by a to get your y. In your graph you have 4 constants, you can only have one constant for a single line. You can't make a lineair function with these coordinations: 1 (800MHz, 50 fps) 2 (1066, 53fps) 3 (1333MHz, 57fps) 4 (1600, 60 fps) because there's a different constant between each coordination so no relationship at all. "Mathematics Having the same or a constant ratio."  going to be lineair at all so your claim was blatant wrong.

 

Given two variables x and y, y is directly proportional to x (x and y vary directly, or x and y are in direct variation) if there is a non-zero constant k such that

The relation is often denoted, using the ∝ symbol, as

and the constant ratio

 

[SpecTre12345]

I agree that there's a gain but there's no lineair scaling like you claimed which I'm proving out here. A line in a x/y graph is always a lineair function in the form of y=ax. Y is your end result such as fps, a is your constant, x is what you give in and multiply by a to get your y. In your graph you have 4 constants, you can only have one constant for a single line. You can't make a lineair function with these coordinations: 1 (800MHz, 50 fps) 2 (1066, 53fps) 3 (1333MHz, 57fps) 4 (1600, 60 fps) because there's a different constant between each coordination so no relationship at all. "Mathematics Having the same or a constant ratio."  going to be lineair at all so your claim was blatant wrong.

 

Given two variables x and y, y is directly proportional to x (x and y vary directly, or x and y are in direct variation) if there is a non-zero constant k such that

The relation is often denoted, using the ∝ symbol, as

and the constant ratio

 

 

You're using technicalities in a specific context to disprove the graph as valid. The graph scaled linearly, in the definition that it went up in a straight line as you increased x. When you increased your x value, your y value increased. It was directly proportional. In that increasing the memory frequency by 400MHz, you gained 20% increase in FPS. If you kept increasing 400MHz, you would keep gaining fps. Thus being a proportional increase. The increase in fps is directly related to the increase in the frequency. Thus making it proportional (the relation to one part to another with respect to quantity). It scaled linearly because it went up in a straight line (and having a response directly related to the input or in this case x resulting in y [the relation to increasing frequency to the increase in FPS]). There's nothing more to get out of this than the obvious. You can keep using technicalities to make it seem like it didn't scale linearly but it doesn't change the fact that it did. All you have to do is look at the graph. 

 

[Faa]

You're using technicalities in a specific context to disprove the graph as valid. The graph scaled linearly, in the definition that it went up in a straight line as you increased x. When you increased your x value, your y value increased. It was directly proportional. In that increasing the memory frequency by 400MHz, you gained 20% increase in FPS. If you kept increasing 400MHz, you would keep gaining fps. Thus being a proportional increase. The increase in fps is directly related to the increase in the frequency. Thus making it proportional (the relation to one part to another with respect to quantity). It scaled linearly because it went up in a straight line (and having a response directly related to the input or in this case x resulting in y [the relation to increasing frequency to the increase in FPS). There's nothing more to get out of this than the obvious. You can keep using technicalities to make it seem like it didn't scale linearly but it doesn't change the fact that it did. All you have to do is look at the graph. 

 

 

This is your nonsense: http://i.imgur.com/OXbYUnh.png

Because your made up graph scales lineairly doesn't mean x & y are scaling lineairly together. Saying that ram & fps scales lineairly means, 40% more ram speed 40% more fps end of it.

[SpecTre12345]

Because your made up graph scales lineairly doesn't mean x & y are scaling lineairly together. Saying that ram & fps scales lineairly means, 40% more ram speed 40% more fps end of it.

 

Thanks.