games to push my PC to its limit

i want to know what are some games i can play on my PC to push to its limits.

i won Both Crysis games ,All the Stocker games, Metro 2033, Black Ops, the new MOH ( i dont see how that will push anything that games does not look great even on all very high settings), Arma 2, Dragon Age, Cronichols of Riddick, AVP ( the new one), Bad Company 2.

is there any games i can play. i have not problem with all the games i listed but i passed them all and BF:BC2 is fun but i hate how its not like how BF use to be.

Crysis and Metro 2033 are the games that I know of that are the hardest on your GPU. If you want something that will stress the hell out of your CPU, play GTA IV. It's a buggy, unoptimized mess... but it will stretch your system to it's limits! :P

But seriously.. just find games that you think you'll like. I wouldn't worry about how hard they will work your PC. There are tons of great games out there from the last 3-4 years that will be very enjoyable, whether they tax your rig or not.

Flight Simulator X perhaps? I would say Garry's Mod and start spawning as much as possible

shattered horizons

pt boats: knight of the sea.. and its upcomign expansion pacific gambit

Crysis and Metro 2033 are the games that I know of that are the hardest on your GPU. If you want something that will stress the hell out of your CPU, play GTA IV. It's a buggy, unoptimized mess... but it will stretch your system to it's limits! :P

hartsickdiscipl

I agree, however you will not be able to play Metro 2033 at max settings. I also have a GTX 460 and its just not enough :(

LOL... GTA4 being a CPU benchmark is funny but true at the sametime. Kind of cheating in the fact that Rockstar hardly tried, but I guess a stress test is a stress test. It sure does make my E8400 wanna cry. :lol:

if you want to test you audio may i recommend OPFP2 dragon rising and guildwars: eye of the north

i want to know what are some games i can play on my PC to push to its limits.

i won Both Crysis games ,All the Stocker games, Metro 2033, Black Ops, the new MOH ( i dont see how that will push anything that games does not look great even on all very high settings), Arma 2, Dragon Age, Cronichols of Riddick, AVP ( the new one), Bad Company 2.

is there any games i can play. i have not problem with all the games i listed but i passed them all and BF:BC2 is fun but i hate how its not like how BF use to be.

acsam12304

You obviously haven't tried FSX. Max everything out. Fly from the most crowded airport in one of the biggest cities with rain and broken/overcast skies and full air and ground traffic. It's quite a humbling experience.:lol: And that's not even taking into account mods like REX and GEX.

I learned early on to stick with rural areas and municipal airfields.

I got 1.8fps here (Haneda Airport Japan). Oh. Res is 1440x900:

This one at a different view was much better at 8.9fps.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Crysis and Metro 2033 are the games that I know of that are the hardest on your GPU. If you want something that will stress the hell out of your CPU, play GTA IV. It's a buggy, unoptimized mess... but it will stretch your system to it's limits! :P

demonic_85

I agree, however you will not be able to play Metro 2033 at max settings. I also have a GTX 460 and its just not enough :(

i manage to play Metro 2033 at max settings with no problem with my new res of 1920x1080

Crysis and Metro ofc. They both on max settings will puch your gtx460 most as far games go,[QUOTE="acsam12304"]

[QUOTE="demonic_85"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Crysis and Metro 2033 are the games that I know of that are the hardest on your GPU. If you want something that will stress the hell out of your CPU, play GTA IV. It's a buggy, unoptimized mess... but it will stretch your system to it's limits! :P

acsam12304

I agree, however you will not be able to play Metro 2033 at max settings. I also have a GTX 460 and its just not enough :(

i manage to play Metro 2033 at max settings with no problem with my new res of 1920x1080

As a owner of gtx460, crysis and crysis warhead and a 1920*1080 24" i know thats theres not many frames with veryhigh settings and no AA. AA and OC still dont matter the card is just not enough for it.

gtx460 is a great card i cant see much reason to get a better performing card today if your not obsessed with ûber high resolutions. (aka multimonitor gaming) But the card wont even be near "max" of crysis no matter how great OC your doing. (1Ghz) Without AA it could do V.high very sluggish but thats the best part about crysis and should ofc. be applyed that makes the gtx460 unplayable.

Arma 2

The original doom will really give your system some trouble...hmm what else, half life 1 is very demanding too

You obviously haven't tried FSX. Max everything out. Fly from the most crowded airport in one of the biggest cities with rain and broken/overcast skies and full air and ground traffic. It's quite a humbling experience.:lol: And that's not even taking into account mods like REX and GEX.

I learned early on to stick with rural areas and municipal airfields.

I got 1.8fps here (Haneda Airport Japan). Oh. Res is 1440x900:jun_aka_pekto

Yeah, FSX is the definitive benchmark. No gaming PC can run it maxed and get more than 20 FPS in a crowded airport.:lol:

[QUOTE="acsam12304"] Crysis and Metro ofc. They both on max settings will puch your gtx460 most as far games go,[QUOTE="acsam12304"]

I agree, however you will not be able to play Metro 2033 at max settings. I also have a GTX 460 and its just not enough :(

swehunt

i manage to play Metro 2033 at max settings with no problem with my new res of 1920x1080

As a owner of gtx460, crysis and crysis warhead and a 1920*1080 24" i know thats theres not many frames with veryhigh settings and no AA. AA and OC still dont matter the card is just not enough for it.

gtx460 is a great card i cant see much reason to get a better performing card today if your not obsessed with ûber high resolutions. (aka multimonitor gaming) But the card wont even be near "max" of crysis no matter how great OC your doing. (1Ghz) Without AA it could do V.high very sluggish but thats the best part about crysis and should ofc. be applyed that makes the gtx460 unplayable.

well if you dont belive me thats you. i can max out Metro 2033 with the DX-11 setting on all high as well and not lag one bit.

[QUOTE="swehunt"]

[QUOTE="acsam12304"]

i manage to play Metro 2033 at max settings with no problem with my new res of 1920x1080

acsam12304

As a owner of gtx460, crysis and crysis warhead and a 1920*1080 24" i know thats theres not many frames with veryhigh settings and no AA. AA and OC still dont matter the card is just not enough for it.

gtx460 is a great card i cant see much reason to get a better performing card today if your not obsessed with ûber high resolutions. (aka multimonitor gaming) But the card wont even be near "max" of crysis no matter how great OC your doing. (1Ghz) Without AA it could do V.high very sluggish but thats the best part about crysis and should ofc. be applyed that makes the gtx460 unplayable.

well if you dont belive me thats you. i can max out Metro 2033 with the DX-11 setting on all high as well and not lag one bit.

I don't think so. My 6870/965 runs it on High with 4x AF w/ DirectX 11 and there is the occasional stutter, Very High wouldn't be "smooth" enough. Of course, AMD still has to release proper drivers that actually have support, rather than hotfixes.

[QUOTE="swehunt"]

[QUOTE="acsam12304"]

i manage to play Metro 2033 at max settings with no problem with my new res of 1920x1080

acsam12304

As a owner of gtx460, crysis and crysis warhead and a 1920*1080 24" i know thats theres not many frames with veryhigh settings and no AA. AA and OC still dont matter the card is just not enough for it.

gtx460 is a great card i cant see much reason to get a better performing card today if your not obsessed with ûber high resolutions. (aka multimonitor gaming) But the card wont even be near "max" of crysis no matter how great OC your doing. (1Ghz) Without AA it could do V.high very sluggish but thats the best part about crysis and should ofc. be applyed that makes the gtx460 unplayable.

well if you dont belive me thats you. i can max out Metro 2033 with the DX-11 setting on all high as well and not lag one bit.

Diffrence between high and veryhigh in crysis is playable to "very-unplayable".

Where you get 10-15FPS is nowhere great, that is amsymal to play games with.

From benchmarks on the web the average (1900*1200) sems to be ~18FPS stock (and ~23FPS OC'ed) i can imagine how it's in extreme tesselation... ...It will without a doubth murder the gtx460.

This is Techpowerups review. (METRO) "Clearly those using single GPU setups will have to reduce the visual quality further to enjoy playable frame rates in Metro. " (talks about ANY singlecard solution out today.)

Minimum framerate is only 14fps, i would not call that playable.

In fact the gtx480 witch is much stronger of a card have trouble with metro, it is down to 23fps also during more intence scenes.

Metro 2033, Crysis, Arma II .

[QUOTE="acsam12304"] Crysis and Metro ofc. They both on max settings will puch your gtx460 most as far games go,[QUOTE="acsam12304"]

I agree, however you will not be able to play Metro 2033 at max settings. I also have a GTX 460 and its just not enough :(

swehunt

i manage to play Metro 2033 at max settings with no problem with my new res of 1920x1080

As a owner of gtx460, crysis and crysis warhead and a 1920*1080 24" i know thats theres not many frames with veryhigh settings and no AA. AA and OC still dont matter the card is just not enough for it.

gtx460 is a great card i cant see much reason to get a better performing card today if your not obsessed with ûber high resolutions. (aka multimonitor gaming) But the card wont even be near "max" of crysis no matter how great OC your doing. (1Ghz) Without AA it could do V.high very sluggish but thats the best part about crysis and should ofc. be applyed that makes the gtx460 unplayable.

I think I'll download FRAPS and see what kind of FPS I'm getting in Warhead on all max settings with no AA (1080p). It feels comfortable to me.

EDIT- I ran a couple of 3-minute benchmarks with FRAPS in the "call me ishmael" portion of the game. I did a variety of things. Ran along the beach, went deep into the forest, got into a couple of firefights with 3-4 enemies, threw a grenade and blew up their propaganda station, picked up a duck :P

Here are my results (system specs in my sig)- 1920x1080, All enthusiast settings, no AA, 64-bit, DX10

-Minimum- 27 fps

-Max- 48 fps

-Average- 36.52 fps

That's pretty typical of how it performs when I play the game.

Instead of giving you games that "MAX out your PC" as that is a completely wrong ideology to have, I will just give you several great games you may want to consider. Most of this is my collection.

1. GTR2 / GTR Evolututions / Race 07
2. Just Cause 2
3. Hegemony: Phillip of Macedon
4. NBA 2k11
5. The Witcher: Enhanced Edition
6. Alien Breed 1,2,3
7. Divinity II: The Dragons Knight Saga
8. Iracing
9. Big Bang Beat
10. Akatsuki Blitzkampf
11. Exceed 3rd Pentrate Black Package
12. Alternativa
13. Trackmania Nations Forever/ United Forever Star Edition
14. Recettaer: An Items Shop Tale
15. Pure
16. Switchball
17. Deathspank
18. Sacred 2: Ice and Blood
19. Titan Quest(plus expansion)
20. Need for Speed Shift
21. Wings of Prey
22. X3 Terran Conflict
23. Freelancer
24. Evochron Mercenary
25. The Undergarden
26. Valve games are a must (tf2, css, portal, hlf2 etc etc)
27. Batman Arklum Asylum GOTY edition
28. Starcraft 2
29. Borderlands GOTY Edition

There are more but this should get you a great mix of Pc games

[QUOTE="swehunt"]

[QUOTE="acsam12304"]

i manage to play Metro 2033 at max settings with no problem with my new res of 1920x1080

hartsickdiscipl

As a owner of gtx460, crysis and crysis warhead and a 1920*1080 24" i know thats theres not many frames with veryhigh settings and no AA. AA and OC still dont matter the card is just not enough for it.

gtx460 is a great card i cant see much reason to get a better performing card today if your not obsessed with ûber high resolutions. (aka multimonitor gaming) But the card wont even be near "max" of crysis no matter how great OC your doing. (1Ghz) Without AA it could do V.high very sluggish but thats the best part about crysis and should ofc. be applyed that makes the gtx460 unplayable.

I think I'll download FRAPS and see what kind of FPS I'm getting in Warhead on all max settings with no AA (1080p). It feels comfortable to me.

EDIT- I ran a couple of 3-minute benchmarks with FRAPS in the "call me ishmael" portion of the game. I did a variety of things. Ran along the beach, went deep into the forest, got into a couple of firefights with 3-4 enemies, threw a grenade and blew up their propaganda station, picked up a duck :P

Here are my results (system specs in my sig)- 1920x1080, All enthusiast settings, no AA, 64-bit, DX10

-Minimum- 27 fps

-Max- 48 fps

-Average- 36.52 fps

That's pretty typical of how it performs when I play the game.

Sadly i havn't installed the game again after my HDD swapping (new HDD = fresh install of win7) so i cant give any number rigth now.

This is the problem with Fraps, the result is so easy to get how you want it depending on where you record it.

However your result looks really great compared to anandtechs high settings:

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="swehunt"] I dont belive you. ;)

As a owner of gtx460, crysis and crysis warhead and a 1920*1080 24" i know thats theres not many frames with veryhigh settings and no AA. AA and OC still dont matter the card is just not enough for it.

gtx460 is a great card i cant see much reason to get a better performing card today if your not obsessed with ûber high resolutions. (aka multimonitor gaming) But the card wont even be near "max" of crysis no matter how great OC your doing. (1Ghz) Without AA it could do V.high very sluggish but thats the best part about crysis and should ofc. be applyed that makes the gtx460 unplayable.

swehunt

I think I'll download FRAPS and see what kind of FPS I'm getting in Warhead on all max settings with no AA (1080p). It feels comfortable to me.

EDIT- I ran a couple of 3-minute benchmarks with FRAPS in the "call me ishmael" portion of the game. I did a variety of things. Ran along the beach, went deep into the forest, got into a couple of firefights with 3-4 enemies, threw a grenade and blew up their propaganda station, picked up a duck :P

Here are my results (system specs in my sig)- 1920x1080, All enthusiast settings, no AA, 64-bit, DX10

-Minimum- 27 fps

-Max- 48 fps

-Average- 36.52 fps

That's pretty typical of how it performs when I play the game.

Sadly i havn't installed the game again after my HDD swapping (new HDD = fresh install of win7) so i cant give any number rigth now.

This is the problem with Fraps, the result is so easy to get how you want it depending on where you record it.

However your result looks really great compared to anandtechs high settings:

They were running at a higher resolution than me as well. That does make a difference. Every time I do a bench run, I get results very similar to the ones I posted. It's not a fluke, that's just how it runs.

I thought its been already established that a OCED gts 4601gb can run faster then a gtx 470 thus making the pictures provided meaningless (they using stock refs). If you use that as any judgement, dartsickdsiciple would be getting on average 40+ fps with these settings and depending on what all he's running on his pc (aero off, services off etc) I could easily see him at around 50 fps.

I get well over 60 fps in this game but I run only at 1440x900 (19inch monitor) or 1366x768 (hdtv)

I thought its been already established that a OCED gts 4601gb can run faster then a gtx 470 thus making the pictures provided meaningless (they using stock refs). If you use that as any judgement, dartsickdsiciple would be getting on average 40+ fps with these settings and depending on what all he's running on his pc (aero off, services off etc) I could easily see him at around 50 fps. jedikevin2

I know my Vantage GPU score is quite a bit higher than a stock GTX 470. I run with Aero and most other crap turned off.

I know my Vantage GPU score is quite a bit higher than a stock GTX 470. I run with Aero and most other crap turned off.

hartsickdiscipl

Whatcha get on gpu score of vantage hart? Most my 768mb will go without artifacting is 14500 at 850 core clock and shaders and memory up to numbers i don't remember. I sit pretty much at 14000 on vantage on a more average OC.

[QUOTE="swehunt"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I think I'll download FRAPS and see what kind of FPS I'm getting in Warhead on all max settings with no AA (1080p). It feels comfortable to me.

EDIT- I ran a couple of 3-minute benchmarks with FRAPS in the "call me ishmael" portion of the game. I did a variety of things. Ran along the beach, went deep into the forest, got into a couple of firefights with 3-4 enemies, threw a grenade and blew up their propaganda station, picked up a duck :P

Here are my results (system specs in my sig)- 1920x1080, All enthusiast settings, no AA, 64-bit, DX10

-Minimum- 27 fps

-Max- 48 fps

-Average- 36.52 fps

That's pretty typical of how it performs when I play the game.

hartsickdiscipl

Sadly i havn't installed the game again after my HDD swapping (new HDD = fresh install of win7) so i cant give any number rigth now.

This is the problem with Fraps, the result is so easy to get how you want it depending on where you record it.

However your result looks really great compared to anandtechs high settings:

They were running at a higher resolution than me as well. That does make a difference. Every time I do a bench run, I get results very similar to the ones I posted. It's not a fluke, that's just how it runs.

Anandtech using the "frost bench".

Im guessing you run a much newer driver than they did but a *~25-40% (* guessing as you run another setting) gain from drivers still dont seem very likely, doing the same test as Anandtech would probably give simular results as they get.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]I know my Vantage GPU score is quite a bit higher than a stock GTX 470. I run with Aero and most other crap turned off.

jedikevin2

Whatcha get on gpu score of vantage hart? Most my 768mb will go without artifacting is 14500 at 850 core clock and shaders and memory up to numbers i don't remember. I sit pretty much at 14000 on vantage on a more average OC.

15,505 GPU score (performance preset) at 834 core.

The resolution is very near yours so i dont think it would change much either - only a few % diffrence perhaps, the gameplay where you ran your recording does however, that can make a 20FPS diffrence. Ofc it's not a fluke, you could very well have the FPS your saying, but i dont think you recorded the part where the game is most intence. ;)

Anandtech using the "frost bench".

Im guessing you run a much newer driver than they did but a *~25-40% (* guessing as you run another setting) gain from drivers still dont seem very likely, doing the same test as Anandtech would probably give simular results as they get.

swehunt

You can think what you want. If I could exactly duplicate what anandtech did, I would. I can't duplicate the conditions of their test. All I can tell you comes from my personal experience, and that is that an overclocked GTX 460 1gb makes for a very enjoyable experience in Crysis and Warhead on all max settings @ 1080p with no AA. I can run the benchmark in a lot of different areas in the game, the results are still playable.

Not really understanding what you are trying to argue swehunt. His numbers seem pretty correct and definitely within reason. jedikevin2

The onther part witch dont ad up is Anandtech running only gamerquality (High) but hertsickdiciple is running the more demanding enthusiast (Very high) settings but he get's higher numbers anyway.

The resolution diffrence migth shift 3-6% in the result (about a single FPS) so it wont really matter, drivers migth also make a bit of diffrence but the

~30% thats left diffrence can only be related to the benchmark Diciple did vs. Anandtechs, theres no other explanation.

"Not really understanding what you are trying to argue swehunt." :?

Im not trying to argue, thats you, im just trying to show WHY theres a diffrence.

[QUOTE="swehunt"]

The resolution is very near yours so i dont think it would change much either - only a few % diffrence perhaps, the gameplay where you ran your recording does however, that can make a 20FPS diffrence. Ofc it's not a fluke, you could very well have the FPS your saying, but i dont think you recorded the part where the game is most intence. ;)

Anandtech using the "frost bench".

Im guessing you run a much newer driver than they did but a *~25-40% (* guessing as you run another setting) gain from drivers still dont seem very likely, doing the same test as Anandtech would probably give simular results as they get.

hartsickdiscipl

You can think what you want. If I could exactly duplicate what anandtech did, I would. I can't duplicate the conditions of their test. All I can tell you comes from my personal experience, and that is that an overclocked GTX 460 1gb makes for a very enjoyable experience in Crysis and Warhead on all max settings @ 1080p with no AA. I can run the benchmark in a lot of different areas in the game, the results are still playable.

I still don't see the whole connection. The original anandtech picture you posted is for lower game quality which offcourse hart should be faster which he is. Anandtech does not show Very high in their review unless I skipped over that picture. Infact, not alot of people even have gtx 460 1gb with a crysis review on ethusiastic. The only one I found (in a quick search) is from tomshardware which seems to agree with harts numbers.

Um, STOP THE PRESS! :oops:

I'm a retard today, after looking and trying to duplicate Anandtech test myself iv'e found out they actually run with 4xAA.

Oops, that make sense.

So that explain why theres a diffrence!

I still don't see the whole connection. The original anandtech picture you posted is for lower game quality which offcourse hart should be faster which he is. Anandtech does not show Very high in their review unless I skipped over that picture. Infact, not alot of people even have gtx 460 1gb with a crysis review on ethusiastic. The only one I found (in a quick search) is from tomshardware which seems to agree with harts numbers.

jedikevin2

I still don't see the whole connection The picture you posted is for lower game quality which offcourse he should be faster which he is. Anandtech does not show Very high in their review unless I skipped over a picture. Infact, not alot of people even have gtx 460 1gb with a crysis review on ethusiastic. The only one I found (in a quick search) is from tomshardware which seems to agree with harts numbers.

jedikevin2

Bingo.

[QUOTE="jedikevin2"]

I still don't see the whole connection The picture you posted is for lower game quality which offcourse he should be faster which he is. Anandtech does not show Very high in their review unless I skipped over a picture. Infact, not alot of people even have gtx 460 1gb with a crysis review on ethusiastic. The only one I found (in a quick search) is from tomshardware which seems to agree with harts numbers.

hartsickdiscipl

Bingo.

1. It's not even the same game.

2. I admit i were wrong since Anandtech didn't state they did a 4xAA clearly enough.

3. Those numbers still don't support (if they were from the same game) the numbers you were getting.

______________________ ________________ ___________ _____ _

"I still don't see the whole connection The picture you posted is for lower game quality which offcourse he should be faster which he is. Anandtech does not show Very high in their review unless I skipped over a picture. Infact, not alot of people even have gtx 460 1gb with a crysis review on ethusiastic. The only one I found (in a quick search) is from tomshardware which seems to agree with harts numbers."

@ Jedkevin, you got it all backwards, Anandtech were running LOWER settings than disiple did (according to the chart) , this is what didn't add up at all since disiple got a MUCH better result but running a more demanding setting, you seem to belive disiple were running lower quality but it's actually the other way around and thats why!

You must have been comfused from start! (just like me! :oops: )

Um i repeat... the andantech picture you posted showed lower game quality settings (high with 4xAA instead of ultra high with no AA) thus is a meaningless picture . In the end, I feel you were wrong to criticize hart. His numbers seems correct yet you kept trying to state he was wrong. I understand you went up in arms since you felt hart was somehow lieing or something but as both see, sometimes its best to figure everything out before we began to just crtiicize so aggresively.

@Hart

Nice Score. Sadly, I feel bad for many people who are gonna get tricked into getting these new crappy GTX 460 (SE models). I don't know what nvidia and partners were thinking on this new model with low processor cores and runs slower then the 768mb. Still good.

Back to TC subject...

I hope you take a peak back at the games I posted. You will be greatly satisfied with the games.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="jedikevin2"]

I still don't see the whole connection The picture you posted is for lower game quality which offcourse he should be faster which he is. Anandtech does not show Very high in their review unless I skipped over a picture. Infact, not alot of people even have gtx 460 1gb with a crysis review on ethusiastic. The only one I found (in a quick search) is from tomshardware which seems to agree with harts numbers.

swehunt

Bingo.

1. It's not even the same game.

2. I admit i were wrong since Anandtech didn't state they did a 4xAA clearly enough.

3. Those numbers still don't support (if they were from the same game) the numbers you were getting.

______________________ ________________ ___________ _____ _

"I still don't see the whole connection The picture you posted is for lower game quality which offcourse he should be faster which he is. Anandtech does not show Very high in their review unless I skipped over a picture. Infact, not alot of people even have gtx 460 1gb with a crysis review on ethusiastic. The only one I found (in a quick search) is from tomshardware which seems to agree with harts numbers."

@ Jedkevin, you got it all backwards, Anandtech were running LOWER settings than disiple did (according to the chart) , this is what didn't add up at all since disiple got a MUCH better result but running a more demanding setting, you seem to belive disiple were running lower quality but it's actually the other way around and thats why!

You must have been comfused from start! (just like me! :oops: )

What about those numbers doesn't add up? When you look at the chart that he just posted, and you look at my results, what's the problem? Warhead and Crysis use the same damn engine.. If anything Warhead runs slightly better on the same hardware. My results make perfect sense when you look at their numbers with a bunch of overclocked GTX 460's @ 1080p and all very high settings. Very high in Crysis = Enthusiast in Warhead. My results were only a few FPS faster than theirs in that chart.

Um i repeat... the andantech picture you posted showed lower game quality settings (high with 4xAA instead of ultra high with no AA) thus is a meaningless picture . In the end, I feel you were wrong to criticize hart. His numbers seems correct yet you kept trying to state he was wrong. I understand you went up in arms since you felt hart was somehow lieing or something but as both see, sometimes its best to figure everything out before we began to just crtiicize so aggresively.

@Hart

Nice Score. Sadly, I feel bad for many people who are gonna get tricked into getting these new crappy GTX 460 (SE models). I don't know what nvidia and partners were thinking on this new model with low processor cores and runs slower then the 768mb. Still good.

Back to TC subject...

I hope you take a peak back at the games I posted. You will be greatly satisfied with the games.

jedikevin2

I wish I could get a higher overclock, but I don't want to mess with voltages. My temps are super low, and I like that. I'm happy having a $200 video card that with a quick OC outperforms a GTX 470 in many situations. :)

Yeah, I don't like the "SE" models either. I guess it stands for "slower edition."