Check out this PC for only $299.

[QUOTE="dukenukemownsu"]having windows 7 now is pointless Hakkai007

You're pointless.

Windows xp can't use directx 10 features.

I know there was talk about a fake hack years ago and that is what it is a fake hack.

Also windows 7 can use directx 11 and runs the same as windows xp.

[QUOTE="dc337"]

Best for budget HD gaming. You can get a used ps3 for $250. But the real problem with the pc is that it gets skipped on too many multiplats. Going pc-only is unacceptable to most gamers.

Hakkai007

Well I don't know about most gamers since PC gaming is fairly popular especially in Europe.

And Consoles miss out on a lot of PC games but it is all about gaming taste.

Some people prefer the PC games more than the console games and visa versa.

Also 720P is barely HD. PC gamers have been experiencing higher resolutions than 720P since the late 1990s.

Most people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 40". You need to go past 50" to see the difference.

720p on a late 90's monitor is not the same as 720p on a modern plasma due to pixel smoothing. You also need a higher res when you are a foot and a half away from the screen.

dc337

CRT monitors are great and don't have a native res so the pixel smoothing is no biggie.

I can tell the difference by a huge amount and I mean huge amount from 720P to 1080P.

That is way over twice the amount of pixels.

That is many times more a jump than 480P to 720P.

crysis is definitely gonna have lower framerates running on windows 7 and vista than xp.dukenukemownsu

Nope.

I ran crysis on both OSes at very high and got the same frame rate.

You forget I can disable all the extra features of windows 7.

[QUOTE="dc337"]

Most people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 40". You need to go past 50" to see the difference.

720p on a late 90's monitor is not the same as 720p on a modern plasma due to pixel smoothing. You also need a higher res when you are a foot and a half away from the screen.

Hakkai007

CRT monitors are great and don't have a native res so the pixel smoothing is no biggie.

I can tell the difference by a huge amount and I mean huge amount from 720P to 1080P.

That is way over twice the amount of pixels.

That is many times more a jump than 480P to 720P.

[QUOTE="dukenukemownsu"]crysis is definitely gonna have lower framerates running on windows 7 and vista than xp.Hakkai007

Nope.

I ran crysis on both OSes at very high and got the same frame rate.

You forget I can disable all the extra features of windows 7.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="dukenukemownsu"]crysis is definitely gonna have lower framerates running on windows 7 and vista than xp.dukenukemownsu

Nope.

I ran crysis on both OSes at very high and got the same frame rate.

You forget I can disable all the extra features of windows 7.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="dukenukemownsu"]crysis is definitely gonna have lower framerates running on windows 7 and vista than xp.dukenukemownsu

Nope.

I ran crysis on both OSes at very high and got the same frame rate.

You forget I can disable all the extra features of windows 7.

CRT monitors are obsolete and don't have the same smoothing or as high of contrast ratios. As for 1080/720 the increase in pixels don't matter due to the viewing distance.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/lcd-tvs/119323-need-help-1080p-720p-viewing-distance.html

You also have to compare 720p native to 1080p native. You can't compare by downscaling an HDTV.

dc337

I have compared and there is a big difference.

.

720P is 921,600 pixels

1080P is 2,073,600 pixels

.

More than 2 times the pixel count adding much better picture quality.

More pixels on the screen means more detail able to be displayed.

Things from further away in the background have more pixels to give detail.

Especially on screens with good pixel pitches.

[QUOTE="dukenukemownsu"][QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Nope.

I ran crysis on both OSes at very high and got the same frame rate.

You forget I can disable all the extra features of windows 7.

dukenukemownsu

No it isn't also windows xp with everything turned of runs the same with windows 7 with settings turned off.

I am done arguing with you this time. You don't know what you are talking about.

I have already seen your ignorant posts in other threads.

So goodbye.

[QUOTE="dukenukemownsu"][QUOTE="dukenukemownsu"] u forgot i have vista and i can do same crap plus even in xp compatibility mode it's still slower than xp. windows 7 same crap Hakkai007

No it isn't also windows xp with everything turned of runs the same with windows 7 with settings turned off.

I am done arguing with you this time. You don't know what you are talking about.

I have already seen your ignorant posts in other threads.

So goodbye.

Crysis benchmarks are everywhere, not sure why you guys are even bothering to argue.

http://www.paulspoerry.com/2009/08/13/windows-7-benchmarks-xp-vs-vista-vs-7/

dc337

Mainly because that is over a year ago when windows 7 was new.

Also they don't turn off aero and other stuff.

More than 2 times the pixel count adding much better picture quality.More pixels on the screen means more detail able to be displayed.

Things from further away in the background have more pixels to give detail

Especially on screens with good pixel pitches..

Hakkai007

That's a pretty good price for that PC. It really needs a better graphics card though. You can get a console killer graphics card for $100 or less. Also that system would be much better off with 4 GB as opposed to 2 GB (though 2 GB is workable even on a Win7 machine, believe me, I know lol). As far as practical gaming goes, $450-500 makes more sense, unless you want to play very old games specifically, in which case a dual core, 2 GB, lower end dedicated graphics would suffice.

So can you tell the difference from 50 feet away? Viewing distance matters, your eyes do not have 10x zoom. There are plenty of AV guides that state 1080p is not needed for 40" and smaller due to viewing distance.

In other words, you would not enjoy any benefit from the higher pixel count associated with a 1080p HDTV if you were to sit further away than 1.8 times the TV screen width; your 1080p HDTV and a cheaper 720p TV of the same screen size will both appear just the same!
http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/Tv-viewing-distance.html

dc337

Well yah you might not need it if you sit far away but that just takes away some of the detail.

I usually play at my desk with the screen in front of me so resolution makes a difference.

.

Distance will still not account for twice the amount of pixel coverage.

It is more noticeable in game rather than movies though which your quote seems to be about.

That's a pretty good price for that PC. It really needs a better graphics card though. You can get a console killer graphics card for $100 or less. Also that system would be much better off with 4 GB as opposed to 2 GB (though 2 GB is workable even on a Win7 machine, believe me, I know lol). As far as practical gaming goes, $450-500 makes more sense, unless you want to play very old games specifically, in which case a dual core, 2 GB, lower end dedicated graphics would suffice.

mouthforbathory

Dual core can play the newest games at high or max.

Only a small amount of games really need a quad core.

Although a lot of dual cores, even good ones, would bottleneck the high end video cards of today.

Sure those higher end phenom II x4 and i5 + i7 will give a great boost in frame rate but the loss in frame rate from only having a dual core is enough to get by on higher settings for most games.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

More than 2 times the pixel count adding much better picture quality.More pixels on the screen means more detail able to be displayed.

Things from further away in the background have more pixels to give detail

Especially on screens with good pixel pitches..

dc337

[QUOTE="dc337"]

So can you tell the difference from 50 feet away? Viewing distance matters, your eyes do not have 10x zoom. There are plenty of AV guides that state 1080p is not needed for 40" and smaller due to viewing distance.

In other words, you would not enjoy any benefit from the higher pixel count associated with a 1080p HDTV if you were to sit further away than 1.8 times the TV screen width; your 1080p HDTV and a cheaper 720p TV of the same screen size will both appear just the same!
http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/Tv-viewing-distance.html

Hakkai007

Well yah you might not need it if you sit far away but that just takes away some of the detail.

[QUOTE="mouthforbathory"]

That's a pretty good price for that PC. It really needs a better graphics card though. You can get a console killer graphics card for $100 or less. Also that system would be much better off with 4 GB as opposed to 2 GB (though 2 GB is workable even on a Win7 machine, believe me, I know lol). As far as practical gaming goes, $450-500 makes more sense, unless you want to play very old games specifically, in which case a dual core, 2 GB, lower end dedicated graphics would suffice.

Hakkai007

Dual core can play the newest games at high or max.

Only a small amount of games really need a quad core.

Although a lot of dual cores, even good ones, would bottleneck the high end video cards of today.

Sure those higher end phenom II x4 and i5 + i7 will give a great boost in frame rate but the loss in frame rate from only having a dual core is enough to get by on higher settings for most games.

[QUOTE="dc337"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

More than 2 times the pixel count adding much better picture quality.More pixels on the screen means more detail able to be displayed.

Things from further away in the background have more pixels to give detail

Especially on screens with good pixel pitches..

mouthforbathory

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="dc337"]

So can you tell the difference from 50 feet away? Viewing distance matters, your eyes do not have 10x zoom. There are plenty of AV guides that state 1080p is not needed for 40" and smaller due to viewing distance.

In other words, you would not enjoy any benefit from the higher pixel count associated with a 1080p HDTV if you were to sit further away than 1.8 times the TV screen width; your 1080p HDTV and a cheaper 720p TV of the same screen size will both appear just the same!
http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/Tv-viewing-distance.html

dc337

Well yah you might not need it if you sit far away but that just takes away some of the detail.

I use a 22in monitor and can tell the difference. I don't need a 40in.

Any practical builder these days with any gaming in mind will go for a quad. No point in investing in dual cores in desktops unless gaming is an afterthought or it's for a specific title. Yes, you're correct in that most dual cores would have no problem with most games these days, but many popular titles still benefit highly, especially if you like running Windows Media Player or something similar in addition to the game itself. Also, you'll probably want the quad for not games as much as multitasking in general. I like to use FRAPS for game recording too, and going from an Athlon II 3.0 GHz dual core to a Athlon II x4 2.8 GHz really helped in all fronts of my computing experience, from gaming, to FRAPS recording, to video encoding/creation using recordings made from FRAPS, etc. That machine only has 2 GBs of DDR3 on it as well, yet runs absolutely fine, hardly any difference between 2 and 4 GB DDR3. Then again, I know how to keep my programs in use nice and managed when playing games to where it's not an issue. Win7 32 bit I have on the machine usually doesn't use more than 300-400 MB of RAM. The GTX 460 1 GB in it still gets bottlenecked before anything else. I'm a big fan of the Athlon II x4s though, they're cheap, relatively powerful, and will get someone great multitasking performance.

mouthforbathory

Yes I agree that quad core is the best for building today but I am talking about people who are still using older gaming PCs.

The quad cores will give a nice boost in performance but those who still use an old dual core will be just fine with most games.

Recording is another thing as dual cores lose a lot of frames to it while quad cores don't.

[QUOTE="mouthforbathory"]

[QUOTE="dc337"] So can you tell the difference from 50 feet away? Viewing distance matters, your eyes do not have 10x zoom. There are plenty of AV guides that state 1080p is not needed for 40" and smaller due to viewing distance.


In other words, you would not enjoy any benefit from the higher pixel count associated with a 1080p HDTV if you were to sit further away than 1.8 times the TV screen width; your 1080p HDTV and a cheaper 720p TV of the same screen size will both appear just the same!
http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/Tv-viewing-distance.html

dc337

[QUOTE="stiggy321"][QUOTE="dukenukemownsu"] i didnt? 1600x1200 is console res?Hakkai007

Nah he will get better framerate like 15fps.

I get in the low 20s at 1680x1050 and my CPU takes quite the beating along with my GPU which is how I know he is full of ****.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="stiggy321"] Why do you lie on a video game website's forum? With that PC and an 8800GT, you can not play crysis at the highest settings and get more than 10 frames per second... at that resolution. Technically you paid (at least) 500 dollars for that computer.dukenukemownsu

Nah he will get better framerate like 15fps.

I get in the low 20s at 1680x1050 and my CPU takes quite the beating along with my GPU which is how I know he is full of ****.

http://i53.tinypic.com/141pdn5.jpg if u own crysis warhead press the tidle key `~ for the console type con_restricted=0 then map cargo. let the level load do not move ur mouse at all let it load and lets see what ur framerate is lookin across level. im getting 28 fps when i first spawn max settings 1600x1200 no aa no af. take a picture at same spot iam do not move ur mouse just let game load and then take picture of ur framerate in same spot iam. mine's 28 fps.dukenukemownsu

Crysis Warhead has some gimped settings over Crysis.

It runs better than Crysis because of that.

Also standing still and letting everything load is a lot different than fighting a full group of Korean soldiers with explosions and other stuff going on.

I remember the ice level being one of the most GPU stressing maps.

[QUOTE="dukenukemownsu"]http://i53.tinypic.com/141pdn5.jpg if u own crysis warhead press the tidle key `~ for the console type con_restricted=0 then map cargo. let the level load do not move ur mouse at all let it load and lets see what ur framerate is lookin across level. im getting 28 fps when i first spawn max settings 1600x1200 no aa no af. take a picture at same spot iam do not move ur mouse just let game load and then take picture of ur framerate in same spot iam. mine's 28 fps.Hakkai007

Crysis Warhead has some gimped settings over Crysis.

It runs better than Crysis because of that.

Also standing still and letting everything load is a lot different than fighting a full group of Korean soldiers with explosions and other stuff going on.

I remember the ice level being one of the most GPU stressing maps.

hell no dude, i own crysis original and warhead.....warhead has much better textures/shaders. showing ur framerate where you spawn without moving is only way to compare pretty much.dukenukemownsu

Actually no Warhead is a little bit scale back in settings which gives it a slight edge in performance.

Also while it would compare our frame rte at idle it wouldn't compare frame rate while actually playing in motion.

Are you using an modified configs?

Any patches or anything changed from the original version of Warhead?

[QUOTE="dukenukemownsu"]hell no dude, i own crysis original and warhead.....warhead has much better textures/shaders. showing ur framerate where you spawn without moving is only way to compare pretty much.Hakkai007

Actually no Warhead is a little bit scale back in settings which gives it a slight edge in performance.

Also while it would compare our frame rte at idle it wouldn't compare frame rate while actually playing in motion.

Are you using an modified configs?

Any patches or anything changed from the original version of Warhead?

do you even own crysis original game and crysis warhead? warhead definitely has better graphics.dukenukemownsu

I own both and Warhead is slightly worse but not by much.

OS or KB/M, and it costs 10 more dollars than you said even without those things.

[QUOTE="dukenukemownsu"]do you even own crysis original game and crysis warhead? warhead definitely has better graphics.Hakkai007

I own both and Warhead is slightly worse but not by much.

i want to see what ur framerate is where u spawn in the map cargo in crysis warhead. i want to see if ur 600 mhz clock speed makes a huge difference. set it 1600x1050 or whatever, i get same framerate at that res as 1600x1200.dukenukemownsu

I will do it later when I have time to install the game.

[QUOTE="dukenukemownsu"]i want to see what ur framerate is where u spawn in the map cargo in crysis warhead. i want to see if ur 600 mhz clock speed makes a huge difference. set it 1600x1050 or whatever, i get same framerate at that res as 1600x1200.Hakkai007

I will do it later when I have time to install the game.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="stiggy321"] Why do you lie on a video game website's forum? With that PC and an 8800GT, you can not play crysis at the highest settings and get more than 10 frames per second... at that resolution. Technically you paid (at least) 500 dollars for that computer.dukenukemownsu

Nah he will get better framerate like 15fps.

I get in the low 20s at 1680x1050 and my CPU takes quite the beating along with my GPU which is how I know he is full of ****.

That looks like it's on medium. Look at the grass draw distance.

[QUOTE="dukenukemownsu"][QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Nah he will get better framerate like 15fps.

I get in the low 20s at 1680x1050 and my CPU takes quite the beating along with my GPU which is how I know he is full of ****.

WhenCicadasCry

That looks like it's on medium. Look at the grass draw distance.

[QUOTE="dukenukemownsu"][QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Nah he will get better framerate like 15fps.

I get in the low 20s at 1680x1050 and my CPU takes quite the beating along with my GPU which is how I know he is full of ****.

WhenCicadasCry

That looks like it's on medium. Look at the grass draw distance.