How many PC gamers can run games at High res/Maxed

i can max most games. just not supreme commander the cpu requirement to run it buttery smooth is a quad core that i cant afford :(.ANti_RiCeR

You can get a computer upgrade including motherboard, ram, cpu, video card, power supply for under $720 that will maxgames surpassing any console out there.. Its always great to see people saying its too expensive, or think you need to upgrade every 6 months. These people don't know how to build computers (which is easy to do regardless of who you are), or even research before they randomly buy things.

The great thing about this is people fail to realize that high settings that arn't max for alot of games already surpass consoles.. Not to mention the customizability to the point there is a huge difference between max graphics in a game liek FEAR then FEAR in Xbox360.. There are numerous features the consoles don't use but computers can have on but usually do not turn it on because they are huge graphics hogs nor do they change much in visuals.

[QUOTE="ANti_RiCeR"]i can max most games. just not supreme commander the cpu requirement to run it buttery smooth is a quad core that i cant afford :(.smokeydabear076

No it isn't its a massive graphics hog, try to play a game with max map settings+ players... See what happens.

i'm betteting most people won't be able to get crysis to at high res. which compltely defeats the whole crysis look better then (insert KZ2, COD4, halo3, ect.)Ragashahs

crysis will look better on lower rewolutions as well....all the videos are in 720p...in PC gaming.....high resolution is much much higher then what the consoles go.

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="ANti_RiCeR"]i can max most games. just not supreme commander the cpu requirement to run it buttery smooth is a quad core that i cant afford :(.sSubZerOo

No it isn't its a massive graphics hog, try to play a game with max map settings+ players... See what happens.

All the PC's in the house are broke in one way or another. So no. But after July 22nd I'll be getting one of these.

E6850
2GB
8800 GTX

Which I reckon will be sufficient.

i have a 7900GT KO.....but yeah, i need to upgrade prolly.lespaul1919

Good lord, I don't understand a word or (Number) you guys are saying, looks like alot of you have rigs that can play, games, one question, is there any computer that run Crysis at Max resolution? Or will it take a year for comps to catch up? Hermitkermit

Middletower w/ PSU: Acutake ACU-X-ACT + LC Power LC8850 V2.2 - Arkangel
MoBo: ASUS M2N-E/R/GL, AM2/2K, NF570U, DDR2, PCIe
CPU: AMD A64 X2 6000+ BOX
RAM: 3x KINGSTON 1GB/800MHz DDR2 CL4 (4-4-4-12) DIMM
Graphics: ATI Radeon HD 2900XT 1GB DDR3 PCIE, VIVO, dual DVI-I
--
Monitor: PHILIPS LCD 19'' 190X7FB AUDIO DVI USB PerfectP Black 2ms
Keyboard: Logitech G11
Mouse: LOGITECH MX518 Gaming Mouse 1600dpi

Gonna be a monster PC:twisted:

[QUOTE="Hermitkermit"]Good lord, I don't understand a word or (Number) you guys are saying, looks like alot of you have rigs that can play, games, one question, is there any computer that run Crysis at Max resolution? Or will it take a year for comps to catch up? WESTBLADE

Middletower w/ PSU: Acutake ACU-X-ACT + LC Power LC8850 V2.2 - Arkangel
MoBo: ASUS M2N-E/R/GL, AM2/2K, NF570U, DDR2, PCIe
CPU: AMD A64 X2 6000+ BOX
RAM: 3x KINGSTON 1GB/800MHz DDR2 CL4 (4-4-4-12) DIMM
Graphics: ATI Radeon HD 2900XT 1GB DDR3 PCIE, VIVO, dual DVI-I
--
Monitor: PHILIPS LCD 19'' 190X7FB AUDIO DVI USB PerfectP Black 2ms
Keyboard: Logitech G11
Mouse: LOGITECH MX518 Gaming Mouse 1600dpi

Gonna be a monster PC:twisted:

Why not? Vista isnt as abd as people make out, and it can only get better. I really like it so far, much better than xp in terms of features and looks. Driver support is getting better, and world in conflict in directx10 is unbelivable.Both world in conflict andlost planetrun smooth with my 8800gtx at 1680x1050,aa +af all maxed. I'll admit company of heroes indx10 is a failure though :P

I can run maxed.salzdaprinze

lol you certainly can with that pc :P

im actually thinking about getting 2x8800gtx just for the fun of it, even though i have no need for it at 1680x1050.

[QUOTE="salzdaprinze"]I can run maxed.jt8b2z

lol you certainly can with that pc :P

im actually thinking about getting 2x8800gtx just for the fun of it, even though i have no need for it at 1680x1050.

talking about overkill :P What kind of processor you got running with that? You would need atleast Quad not to have the processor bottleneck you.

[QUOTE="jt8b2z"]

[QUOTE="salzdaprinze"]I can run maxed._Pedro_

lol you certainly can with that pc :P

im actually thinking about getting 2x8800gtx just for the fun of it, even though i have no need for it at 1680x1050.

talking about overkill :P What kind of processor you got running with that? You would need atleast Quad not to have the processor bottleneck you.

na im not going to do it, the gtx is sufficient for now. My next buy is a penryn quad, to replace my temporary £80 cpu that is clocked higher than a core 2 extreme :D.

An interesting poll, but I just wanted to point out some things that may have been noted already, or obvious to some...

First off, this isn't a representative sample of computer owners. At the very least, people who come here are pretty interested in gaming, so this sample of users is both savvy to what is needed for performance, and interested in getting that performance from their machines.

And also, do not discount the e-peen factor. Some people will probably overrate their systems, just because.

[QUOTE="_Pedro_"][QUOTE="jt8b2z"]

[QUOTE="salzdaprinze"]I can run maxed.jt8b2z

lol you certainly can with that pc :P

im actually thinking about getting 2x8800gtx just for the fun of it, even though i have no need for it at 1680x1050.

talking about overkill :P What kind of processor you got running with that? You would need atleast Quad not to have the processor bottleneck you.

na im not going to do it, the gtx is sufficient for now. My next buy is a penryn quad, to replace my temporary £80 cpu that is clocked higher than a core 2 extreme :D.

hehe sounds nice :) I myself am saving a little more money to do a full upgrade. I unfortunately chose AMD so I need to get everything new for Quad :(

na im not going to do it, the gtx is sufficient for now. My next buy is a penryn quad, to replace my temporary £80 cpu that is clocked higher than a core 2 extreme :D.

jt8b2z

If you want a nickle's worth of free advice, don't buy a quad just to say you own one. Most games won't properly use it, and perhaps more important, some of the new quads are the Pentium-D equivalent of the Conroy chipset. Better to get a nice, solid performing C2D or Opteron with a healthy L2 cache and take it from there, either overclocking as you'd like, or just leaving it be and enjoying the ride.

Just remember, if you go with an Athlon processor, you want to get one that has a speed in multiples of .4 (i.e. 2.4 ghz, 2.8 ghz, or 3.2 ghz [when they happen]) in order to take full advantage of 800 mhz memory, because the memory controller for AMD chips is on the processor itself (as opposed to the motherboard) and is therefore limited by the chip's clock speed.

[QUOTE="jt8b2z"]

na im not going to do it, the gtx is sufficient for now. My next buy is a penryn quad, to replace my temporary £80 cpu that is clocked higher than a core 2 extreme :D.

BudgetMessiah

If you want a nickle's worth of free advice, don't buy a quad just to say you own one. Most games won't properly use it, and perhaps more important, some of the new quads are the Pentium-D equivalent of the Conroy chipset. Better to get a nice, solid performing C2D or Opteron with a healthy L2 cache and take it from there, either overclocking as you'd like, or just leaving it be and enjoying the ride.

Just remember, if you go with an Athlon processor, you want to get one that has a speed in multiples of .4 (i.e. 2.4 ghz, 2.8 ghz, or 3.2 ghz [when they happen]) in order to take full advantage of 800 mhz memory, because the memory controller for AMD chips is on the processor itself (as opposed to the motherboard) and is therefore limited by the chip's clock speed.

mate ive allready got a e6320 clocked at 3.1ghz. Seen supreme commander benchmarks? quad fps is alot more than dual. I reckon crysis will fully take advantage of 4 cores too and so will more games that are released by the end of the year i believe. Ofcourse this all depends on the price and clockability of the penryn's.

[QUOTE="BudgetMessiah"][QUOTE="jt8b2z"]

na im not going to do it, the gtx is sufficient for now. My next buy is a penryn quad, to replace my temporary £80 cpu that is clocked higher than a core 2 extreme :D.

jt8b2z

If you want a nickle's worth of free advice, don't buy a quad just to say you own one. Most games won't properly use it, and perhaps more important, some of the new quads are the Pentium-D equivalent of the Conroy chipset. Better to get a nice, solid performing C2D or Opteron with a healthy L2 cache and take it from there, either overclocking as you'd like, or just leaving it be and enjoying the ride.

Just remember, if you go with an Athlon processor, you want to get one that has a speed in multiples of .4 (i.e. 2.4 ghz, 2.8 ghz, or 3.2 ghz [when they happen]) in order to take full advantage of 800 mhz memory, because the memory controller for AMD chips is on the processor itself (as opposed to the motherboard) and is therefore limited by the chip's clock speed.

mate ive allready got a e6320 clocked at 3.1ghz. Seen supreme commander benchmarks? quad fps is alot more than dual. I reckon crysis will fully take advantage of 4 cores too and so will more games that are released by the end of the year i believe. Ofcourse this all depends on the price and clockability of the penryn's.

I play Supreme Commander, and have read detailed posts by people who have studied its multithreading capabilities, and even written optimizers to improve its multithreading capabilities (the game is quite poorly optimized out of the box, and even with the big "performance" patch).The evidence all points to dual core being the most performance bang for your buck.

I doubt Crysis will take much advantage of Quads, either. First off, the difficulty in threading a game like that doesn't justify the extra development time vs return in performance given the market share of quad processors. Also, as I mentioned before, some of the newer quads (yorkfield, I believe) aren't true quads, but 2 wolfdale duos sharing the same FSB (i.e. they don't truly work as a "quad" in the same sense that the C2D's cores work together), so we're talking even less motivation for making "true" quad threaded games.

Save your money and/or invest it in other aspects of your computer instead. Duos are very potent, and plenty good enough for the near future.

[QUOTE="jt8b2z"][QUOTE="BudgetMessiah"][QUOTE="jt8b2z"]

na im not going to do it, the gtx is sufficient for now. My next buy is a penryn quad, to replace my temporary £80 cpu that is clocked higher than a core 2 extreme :D.

BudgetMessiah

If you want a nickle's worth of free advice, don't buy a quad just to say you own one. Most games won't properly use it, and perhaps more important, some of the new quads are the Pentium-D equivalent of the Conroy chipset. Better to get a nice, solid performing C2D or Opteron with a healthy L2 cache and take it from there, either overclocking as you'd like, or just leaving it be and enjoying the ride.

Just remember, if you go with an Athlon processor, you want to get one that has a speed in multiples of .4 (i.e. 2.4 ghz, 2.8 ghz, or 3.2 ghz [when they happen]) in order to take full advantage of 800 mhz memory, because the memory controller for AMD chips is on the processor itself (as opposed to the motherboard) and is therefore limited by the chip's clock speed.

mate ive allready got a e6320 clocked at 3.1ghz. Seen supreme commander benchmarks? quad fps is alot more than dual. I reckon crysis will fully take advantage of 4 cores too and so will more games that are released by the end of the year i believe. Ofcourse this all depends on the price and clockability of the penryn's.

I play Supreme Commander, and have read detailed posts by people who have studied its multithreading capabilities, and even written optimizers to improve its multithreading capabilities (the game is quite poorly optimized out of the box, and even with the big "performance" patch).The evidence all points to dual core being the most performance bang for your buck.

I doubt Crysis will take much advantage of Quads, either. First off, the difficulty in threading a game like that doesn't justify the extra development time vs return in performance given the market share of quad processors. Also, as I mentioned before, some of the newer quads (yorkfield, I believe) aren't true quads, but 2 wolfdale duos sharing the same FSB (i.e. they don't truly work as a "quad" in the same sense that the C2D's cores work together), so we're talking even less motivation for making "true" quad threaded games.

Save your money and/or invest it in other aspects of your computer instead. Duos are very potent, and plenty good enough for the near future.

likewise i could have said that a gts is sufficient rather than a 8800gts, i.e. would be better bang for buck., but i went ofr the gtx.It is quite fun having the newest parts and the very best performance. I thought oenryn quads would be 'true' quad cores unlike teh current batch we have now.

AMDAthlong 64 3500 + (939), 1 Gb of Ram, Nvidia 6800GT

It's about 2 - 2.5 years old and it's struggling on most new games

likewise i could have said that a gts is sufficient rather than a 8800gts, i.e. would be better bang for buck., but i went ofr the gtx.It is quite fun having the newest parts and the very best performance. I thought oenryn quads would be 'true' quad cores unlike teh current batch we have now.

jt8b2z

Penryn is actually a notebook dual core with a smaller process size, and I believe, a slightly larger shared L2 cache.

And I have a GTS overclocked to GTX speeds (benchmarks show that in games like SupCom, I get GTX level performance ;) ). I decided to do this so that, in a few months, I can more affordably go SLI, which will be comparable in price to a GTX and completely bury it performance wise. It's also quite fun knowing I saved about $250 and get the same performance as people who bought a GTX. :lol:

Price/value my friend. Don't throw good money after bad.

[QUOTE="jt8b2z"]

likewise i could have said that a gts is sufficient rather than a 8800gts, i.e. would be better bang for buck., but i went ofr the gtx.It is quite fun having the newest parts and the very best performance. I thought oenryn quads would be 'true' quad cores unlike teh current batch we have now.

BudgetMessiah

Penryn is actually a notebook dual core with a smaller process size, and I believe, a slightly larger shared L2 cache.

And I have a GTS overclocked to GTX speeds (benchmarks show that in games like SupCom, I get GTX level performance ;) ). I decided to do this so that, in a few months, I can more affordably go SLI, which will be comparable in price to a GTX and completely bury it performance wise.

Price/value my friend. Don't throw good money after bad.

but likewise i overclock my gtx to beyond that so your point is mute. Also many games have proven that the extra stream proccesors of the gtx do give a good hike in performance. A gts will not beat a gtx if they are clock for clock. plus your talking to me about value and being inteliigent with money, and your considering sli? seriously in november nvidia will probably have a single card solution that will run faster than 2xgts's and will be smaller,quiter,cooler , easier to power than too gts's.

[QUOTE="BudgetMessiah"][QUOTE="jt8b2z"]

likewise i could have said that a gts is sufficient rather than a 8800gts, i.e. would be better bang for buck., but i went ofr the gtx.It is quite fun having the newest parts and the very best performance. I thought oenryn quads would be 'true' quad cores unlike teh current batch we have now.

jt8b2z

Penryn is actually a notebook dual core with a smaller process size, and I believe, a slightly larger shared L2 cache.

And I have a GTS overclocked to GTX speeds (benchmarks show that in games like SupCom, I get GTX level performance ;) ). I decided to do this so that, in a few months, I can more affordably go SLI, which will be comparable in price to a GTX and completely bury it performance wise.

Price/value my friend. Don't throw good money after bad.

but likewise i overclock my gtx to beyond that so your point is moot. Also many games have proven that the extra stream proccesors of the gtx do give a good hike in performance. A gts will not beat a gtx if they are clock for clock.

Hey, good luck on that. Mine's factory overclocked, so that when your GTX (already running close to max speed/heat dissipation with the current proc size) burns out, I can return mine. My point stands. I saved money and get the same performance as people who paid too much, and when I opt in to spend as much as people did for a GTX, I'll be squeezing out frames that single GPU solutions won't be able to touch for 2 years.

I just don't need to spend that money at this point, because I'm seeing 80 fps on maxed settings on everything I play, so I'm fine with it.

Edit: I notice you honed in on my specs like a laser, and totally missed that Penryn is nothing like what you thought it was. Please take a look at that before you throw money at it.

[QUOTE="jt8b2z"][QUOTE="BudgetMessiah"][QUOTE="jt8b2z"]

likewise i could have said that a gts is sufficient rather than a 8800gts, i.e. would be better bang for buck., but i went ofr the gtx.It is quite fun having the newest parts and the very best performance. I thought oenryn quads would be 'true' quad cores unlike teh current batch we have now.

BudgetMessiah

Penryn is actually a notebook dual core with a smaller process size, and I believe, a slightly larger shared L2 cache.

And I have a GTS overclocked to GTX speeds (benchmarks show that in games like SupCom, I get GTX level performance ;) ). I decided to do this so that, in a few months, I can more affordably go SLI, which will be comparable in price to a GTX and completely bury it performance wise.

Price/value my friend. Don't throw good money after bad.

but likewise i overclock my gtx to beyond that so your point is moot. Also many games have proven that the extra stream proccesors of the gtx do give a good hike in performance. A gts will not beat a gtx if they are clock for clock.

Hey, good luck on that. Mine's factory overclocked, so that when your GTX (already running close to max speed/heat dissipation with the current proc size) burns out, I can return mine. My point stands. I saved money and get the same performance as people who paid too much, and when I opt in to spend as much as people did for a GTX, I'll be squeezing out frames that single GPU solutions won't be able to touch for 2 years.

lol no you don't get the same performance as a gtx with a oc gts especially at 1680x1050 and above. I'm sorry but your wrong. Again i will reiterate that the next high end single card solution from nvidia will be a much more intelligent and fasteroption than 2x gts's'.

oh and ive seen my temps raise about1 degree after overlcocking it to 648/2000. Works perfectly and bfg wouldnt be able to tell if i've overlcocked it anyway seen as its done through software.

lol no you don't get the same performance as a gtx with a oc gts especially at 1680x1050 and above. I'm sorry but your wrong. Again i will reiterate that the next high end single card solution from nvidia will be a much more intelligent and fasteroption than 2x gts's'.

jt8b2z

Dude, you were wrong about SupCom's multithreading, and didn't even know what Penryn was going to be. I guess you're moreright about the performance I get out of my own rig. Benchmarks speak for themselves. Thanks for playing.

[QUOTE="jt8b2z"]

lol no you don't get the same performance as a gtx with a oc gts especially at 1680x1050 and above. I'm sorry but your wrong. Again i will reiterate that the next high end single card solution from nvidia will be a much more intelligent and fasteroption than 2x gts's'.

BudgetMessiah

Dude, you were wrong about SupCom's multithreading, and didn't even know what Penryn was going to be. I guess you're moreright about the performance I get out of my own rig. Benchmarks speak for themselves. Thanks for playing.

quad core, nice advantage in supreme commander? check

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMwNiw2LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

gtx faster than gts over clocked? check

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/03/21/matchless_muscle_overclocked_8800/page7.html

stock gtx pulls away from gts's at resolutions 1280x1024 and upwards

Also penryn is the new name for all the new 45nm cpu's. sure they are making mobile ones to but also high performance xtreme editions for desktops too.

so um...you're wrong about everything you have posted basically.

quad core, nice advantage in supreme commander? check

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMwNiw2LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA

jt8b2z

Wrongbuild (March? lulz). Try reading up.

gtx faster than gts over clocked? check

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/03/21/matchless_muscle_overclocked_8800/page7.html

Wrong card. Mine's an EVGA (the same mfgr. whose card edged out the others). Didn't you notice that even different cards produce different results? The EVGA model edged out their reference model, mine edges out those other cards. I've compared benchmarks on my machine to those to know. Cry?

You also didn't look at this. What's that? SLI GTS OC beats SLI GTX? Cry more?

Also penryn is the new name for all the new 45nm cpu's. sure they are making mobile ones to but also high performance xtreme editions for desktops too.

Yes, and they don't call it Penryn. You already said that it was quad when it's not. Please stop regurgitating stuff I told you about and you googled to damage control. It's transparent.

so um...you're wrong about everything you have posted basically.

:lol:

I think I'm done here.

[QUOTE="jt8b2z"]

quad core, nice advantage in supreme commander? check

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMwNiw2LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA

BudgetMessiah

Wrongbuild (March? lulz). Try reading up.

gtx faster than gts over clocked? check

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/03/21/matchless_muscle_overclocked_8800/page7.html

Wrong card. Mine's an EVGA (the same mfgr. whose card edged out the others). Didn't you notice that even different cards produce different results? The EVGA model edged out their reference model, mine edges out those other cards. I've compared benchmarks on my machine to those to know. Cry?

You also didn't look at this. What's that? SLI GTS OC beats SLI GTX? Cry more?

Also penryn is the new name for all the new 45nm cpu's. sure they are making mobile ones to but also high performance xtreme editions for desktops too.

Yes, and they don't call it Penryn. You already said that it was quad when it's not. Please stop regurgitating stuff I told you about and you googled to damage control. It's transparent.

so um...you're wrong about everything you have posted basically.

:lol:

I think I'm done here.

lol? so a GTSOC sli beats a 8800gtx in sli at 1024x768....big woop:|. Do you play at 1024x768 with your gts? what a waste of money mate to be honest.

Its been shown that a gtx is much better than a gts oc or not as the resolution goes up. A 1024x768 benchmark is useless.

At 1600x1200 with aa and af:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_sli2007.html?modelx=33&model1=812&model2=819&chart=338

gtx gets a huge performance margin, so thanks for that site to reinforce my point even more :)

please admit you're wrong as i could post these all day from a multitude of sites.

Also march build? who care what build it is. That benchmark clearly shows a 50% increase in performance with the quad core cpu's, taking it from 20fps average to 30fps average which in my opinion is a very nice performance hike.

Penryn IS what the next batch of quad core/dual corecpu's are called reagrdless of what you think. The cores will ahve differnet names but they all come under the penyrn name i.e. 45nm.

Anymore words of wizdom, or are you going to admit you are wrong.

Its been shown that a gtx is much better than a gts oc or not as the resolution goes up. A 1024x768 benchmark is useless.

please admit you're wrong as i could post these all day from a multitude of sites.

jt8b2z

K.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_sli2007.html?modelx=33&model1=812&model2=819&chart=362

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_sli2007.html?modelx=33&model1=812&model2=819&chart=366

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_sli2007.html?modelx=33&model1=812&model2=819&chart=352

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_sli2007.html?modelx=33&model1=812&model2=819&chart=343

(Note, that last one wasn't OC'd)

So, yeah...minimal performance gains at that resolution under most circumstances. Is a 2% performance gain worth it to most people? Definitely not, you can't even detect that, hell the benchmarks could barely detect it. And it certainly isn't worth $500.

You're also comparing GTX SLI to GTS SLI, which obviously on a few benchmarks will be better. YOU'RE PAYING MORE THAN TWICE AS MUCH FOR IT!! My point is that undermost benchmarks, the GTS OC SLI is as good or better than GTX SLI so that a smart reader can abstract from it that a GTS OC is just as powerful. You're also comparing a GTS with HALF the texture memory. Apples and oranges, kid. Compare an OC'd GTS with the same texture memory, and you'll have a comparison that is more favorable, though admittedly closer in price (GTX is still significantly more expensive, and would offer only the 1-2% gains, if not a 1-2% loss as seen in the 1024x768 benchmark which is why I used it to begin with, smart guy...because at that level it's raw power, not amount of texture memory, that you're looking at.)

And finally, my point was that, per price point, the SLI GTS OC, which costs about as much as a single GTX, will clearly outperform. But you either couldn't understand it, or the tears from having your argument ripped up are clouding your vision. Wanna post pages all day? Okay kid...

Compare your GTX under your preferred benchmark to a comparable amount of money spent in OC'd GTS. Uh oh!

Of course, we could look at other benchmarks, but I'm a nice guy and I wouldn't want to keep rubbing your nose in the painfully obvious.

Also march build? who care what build it is. That benchmark clearly shows a 50% increase in performance with the quad core cpu's, taking it from 20fps average to 30fps average which in my opinion is a very nice performance hike.

Did you even bother to read that thread? Did you understand what was being said? Do you realize that what was benchmarked in your link was the equivalent of a Beta build compared to the analysis that was done on the more recently patched build in June?

I guess if you want to start omitting facts, your argument looks good. But to any non-idiot, facts are usually important to consider.

Penryn IS what the next batch of quad core/dual corecpu's are called reagrdless of what you think. The cores will ahve differnet names but they all come under the penyrn name i.e. 45nm.

Wolfdale is the name of the desktop version of Penryn, and Yorksfield is the doubled-up almost-quad version of that. Go ahead. Don't believe me. I really don't care. I'm totally uninterested in continuing a flame war, so I am definitely done with you now. Good luck with your computer, and take my advice, sometimes the bleeding edge isn't worth it if you know what to look for.

I can run BF2 on max settings and AA..... :shock:Magical_Zebra

that doesn't take anything special. :lol:

[QUOTE="jt8b2z"]

Its been shown that a gtx is much better than a gts oc or not as the resolution goes up. A 1024x768 benchmark is useless.

please admit you're wrong as i could post these all day from a multitude of sites.

BudgetMessiah

K.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_sli2007.html?modelx=33&model1=812&model2=819&chart=362

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_sli2007.html?modelx=33&model1=812&model2=819&chart=366

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_sli2007.html?modelx=33&model1=812&model2=819&chart=352

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_sli2007.html?modelx=33&model1=812&model2=819&chart=343

(Note, that last one wasn't OC'd)

So, yeah...minimal performance gains at that resolution under most circumstances. Is a 2% performance gain worth it to most people? Definitely not, you can't even detect that, hell the benchmarks could barely detect it. And it certainly isn't worth $500.

You're also comparing GTX SLI to GTS SLI, which obviously on a few benchmarks will be better. YOU'RE PAYING MORE THAN TWICE AS MUCH FOR IT!! My point is that under some benchmarks, the GTS OC SLI is as good or better than GTX SLI so that a smart reader can abstract from it that a GTS OC is just as powerful. You're also comparing a GTS with HALF the texture memory, kid. Apples and oranges.

And finally, my point was that, per price point, the SLI GTS OC, which costs about as much as a single GTX, will clearly outperform. But you either couldn't understand it, or the tears from having your argument ripped up are clouding your vision. Wanna post pages all day? Okay kid...

Compare yourGTX under your preferred benchmark to a comparable amount of money spent in OC'd GTS. Uh oh!

Of course, we could look at other benchmarks, but I'm a nice guy and I wouldn't want to keep rubbing yournose in the painfully obvious.

Also march build? who care what build it is. That benchmark clearly shows a 50% increase in performance with the quad core cpu's, taking it from 20fps average to 30fps average which in my opinion is a very nice performance hike.

Did you even bother to read that thread? Did you understand what was being said? Do you realize that what was benchmarked there was the equivalent of a Beta build compared to the analysis that was done on the more recently patched build in June?

I guess if you want to start omitting facts, your argument looks good. But to any non-idiot, facts are usually important to consider.

Penryn IS what the next batch of quad core/dual corecpu's are called reagrdless of what you think. The cores will ahve differnet names but they all come under the penyrn name i.e. 45nm.

Wolfdale is the name of the desktop version of Penryn, and Yorksfield is the doubled-up almost-quad version of that. Go ahead. Don't believe me. I really don't care. I'm totally uninterested in continuing a flame war, so I am definitely done with you now. Good luck with your computer, and take my advice, sometimes the bleeding edge isn't worth it if you know what to look for.

I only posted sli, because you did... ? :|

As of the cheapest prices in the UK:

Um 2 stock gts's = £460

single gtx = £325

Big price difference, not the same price at all as you make out. Especially if you want two of your overclocked versions, that would be £560.

Here is a benchmark comparing my card (bfg 8800gtx Oc) versus yours, the 8800gts acs3 ko:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2945&p=9

read through all thebenchmarks they all show the same thing :)

As you can see performance from the gtx is 15-25% or more. My card = £350 (although i got it for £330 but seen as you prob wont believe me we will take the price it is now):

Cheapest available:

your card:

http://www.google.co.uk/products?q=evga+8800gts+640mb+acs3&hl=en&show=dd&scoring=p

my card:

http://www.google.co.uk/products?q=Bfg+8800gtx+Oc&hl=en&show=dd&scoring=p

So i spent 50(£70) more to get a card that performs better. In fact when aa and af are enabled the gtx's show huge gains.

It seems you made a mistake and bought a card that you thought performs on a par with the gtx when in fact the gtx is much better at higher res's and even better then,with more AA/af, making it the more powerful video card. END OFF.

p.s. i wondered how long it would take you to resort to calling me a kid :roll: , no need to start belittling people.

As for the quad core benchmarks both show performance gains so quad core is worth it if you have the money.

"wolfdale is the name for the dektop version of penryn" - thankyou thats what ive said all along, penryn is the collective name for the 45nm cpu's but there are different versions/cores.

cheers :)

I can run BF2 on max settings and AA..... :shock:Magical_Zebra

that doesn't take anything special. :lol:

For once consoles like the PS3 and XBOX 360 way better graphics than PC games (excluding the Wii lol, don't get me started on that one lol).iMacBot

eh....what?

have you seen crysis?

You know, games like Crysis and Supreme Commander were made for PCs that don't even exist on retail. They are scaled so far in the future that even a dual 8800 ultra SLi with quad core conroe won't run it at max.NobuoMusicMaker

i play supreme commander maxed and plays smooth enough, ofcourse there is some slowdown in big 1000's of unit matches but its a strategy game so it doest matter too much. Plus crysis has been shown running maxed at above 720p on a single 8800gtx...Ofcourse there will be new graphical feature asses on as cards get better like their was with far cry (i.e. shader model 3.0/hdr e.t.c.)