i would just run it overclocked always, i did with my x800 and it didnt run much warmer on idle (mabey 1-3 degrees) and i pushed it about 10% above stock, got between 2-10 fps increase on that, and never really pushed it past that. loading settings is just a pain thats going to make it run abit cooler.

but agian, if you OC it and it runs over 5 degrees warmer on idle, then loading profiles might be a good idea, i havent heard of any issues loading profiles and having an impact on card lifespan.

sorry, guess we were both writting replies at the same time, for your CPU you will probably see the most fps increase, and depending on the game 5-25 fps, usually in between, but there are always some that it doesnt impact as much, and some that it impacts alot, also, the lifespan shouldnt be deceased by anthying noticable, i ran a sempron 2500+ (1750) at about 2.4 ghz for 3 and a half years, its still running strong, but passed it off to my family when i got my new rig.

as for your graphics cards, the fps increase really begins to shine with AA turned on and at higher resolutions, in my mind i wouldnt push it past something around 50mhz over stock core speed, and mabey 80 mhz mem speed, 10% is usually a safe bet, after that you may have to play with the voltage, and thats just getting to the point where you may cause it run alot wammer and have a significantly shorter lifespan.

from what i gatherd, the stock speeds for the 1900gt are 500/800, i saw people who gott he core up to 800, it was running warmer, and they didnt post any benchmarks to see what kind of practical performance gain there was, if you were to OC, i would try a self test and run ATI tool, OC to mabey 550/880, see how much warmmer it runs then it did stock, if its a few degrees, great, stay with it, if its more then 7-10 degrees and no real performance gain, i would say screw it and run with stock speeds, hope that helped.

ciao

overclocking to 2.2 or 2.4 should be absolutly fine with a 6300 and stock cooling, its a decent processor, same as with my Q6600, and my 6600 is rated for 105W, the 6300 is no where near that, same with the E6600, you should be fine with the stock cooling, if you do use ATI tool to OC your graphics card, i would try finding some fourms or post on how well it OCs, im going to take a look now and repost in abit.

but agian, your CPU will be fine running 2.2 or 2.4ghz with the stock cooler.

some people do OC just to get high benchs marks, right now im running at stock speeds with my stock cooler, only because i have te B3 stepping of the q6600, from what i have heard people have got the e6300 up past 3ghz stable on stock cooling, i wouldnt recomend pushing it past 2.6 if you arnt to comforable OCing, i preffer to run my CPU nice and cool for longevity, and i will OC once i get a nice aftermarket cooler.

and as OCing a graphics gard goes, im not a huge fan, i sometime tweak it abit, but graphics cards run so hot as it is, i dont like pushing it any higher, and im not to familiar with OCing the 1900gt, i dont think that the xt was very good at overlcocking, but agian, im not to sure about your model.

cheers.

i disagree, you would see some reasonable FPS increase, that would roughly bring it up to the performance with a 6600, and on some supreme commanders bench, and UT2004, it was about 15 fps, and thats significant when SPC was only 25fps to begin with, here are some links to the benchs i was looking at

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=881&model2=877&chart=421

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=881&model2=877&chart=422

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=881&model2=877&chart=425

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=881&model2=877&chart=424

peace.

wait, you are spending 300 on a video card so you can play games at 800*600?

why not just get a card like the 8600 or a 7600?

doesnt make much sense to me, but be assured that the 320 meg version is more then enough, the 640 doesnt begin to shine until resolutions above 1600*1200, and even then its only noticable with AA turned up, your vram does not impact the performance that much, hence why a 8800 with 320 is a much better card then the 8600 with 512.

[QUOTE="SuzumiyaU1"]

but the memory is too small...

if u compared 8800gts-320mb and 8800gts-640mb,u would find out that 88gts-640 is much better than 88gts-320 cuz the memory...

i wonder why DX10 games need at least 512mb if u run them on MAX......

RayvinAzn

More reading, less posting. The 320MB of VRAM has zero effect at resolutions below 16x12, especially without high levels of AA and AF.

In regards to your other posts, what do you mean that you can't get any DirectX 10 games to run over 10FPS? At what resolution? You show me a serious gamer playing at 19x12 (24" monitor) with an 8600GT that's not a temporary card, and I'll show you a guy who really don't know how to spend his money. I'll also mention that most of the "DirectX 10" games on the market right now are a very poor example of what DirectX 10 has to offer - the games weren't designed for them, they just had some effects thrown in as more of an afterthought than anything. With a card like the 8600GT, you should be able to get most upcoming DirectX 10 games playable at 12x10, or 10x7 if it's a really heavy game, which is probalby the resolution most 8600GT users will be playing at anyway.

As for DirectX 10 games requiring 512MB of Video RAM, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion - but I'll bet that next gen we'll see a 256MB card that will outperform some of the 512MB+ cards on the market today. I'd also love for you to find me where in the papers on DirectX 10 that it "requires" 512MB of RAM to run games on Max.

Edit: Oh, and I've got a 256MB X1900XT.

thank you,i was reading through this and thought that someone had to correct this person posting with no idea what they are talking about, i run the 8800gts320 meg, for 100 bucks less its perfect for me, i play at 128081024 on my 19 inch monitor, and i can run WiC maxed out no problem, so i dont know where he got this 512 was a minimum idea, also, why would they offer a 8600 with 512 megs of vram, and an 8800 with 320, if the 8600 with its 512 was a better card, please, do some reseach before you post next time.

And like RayvinAzn said, the current DX10 games have not been designed for DX10, but DX9 with some of the new features that 10 offers, we have yet to see what DX10 can really do.

[QUOTE="Dopemonk736"]I laugh at the thought of the people hyping this game, because obviously they are new to pc gaming. This game brings nothing new to tthe table besides the graphics. The real game to hype here will be starcraft 2, that will be the pc's flagship title. So you newbie pc gamers need to stop hyping crysis and let us vets do all of the hyping.CubePrime_basic

lol like starcraft 2 brings anything new, n00b. Crysis brings the most advanced 3d software engine to date, not just for visuals, but physics and interaction.

Not saying I'm not awaiting SC2. >_>

Thank you, about time someone excited about the game not just because of the graphics, but the newgame engine for the game, it looks spectacular and the physics is supposed to be excellent. ButI agree, altough SC2 probably doesnt bring much (if anything) to the table, im very excited for it.