I disagree with a lot that has been posted. I have had 3 HDMI cables fail on me, and 2 that looked worse then sturdy Componnent Cables. The 3 that failed on me where the same brand (philips) from wal-mart. One lasted a day, the other two, two weeks. I agree price does not determine value, but build quality in an HDMI cable is essential. I now have 3 HDMI cable from http://www.bluejeanscable.com/ that weren't over priced, and better then any cables i have seen or found in all but specialty audio stores.

My advice, buy a good cable that is right for you. Impedance should be the main factor when deciding what you need. Some cables are designed to go 50' or even more. if your going 5' from your player to your receiver that cable is clearly overkill for you. A well made $10 cable will be perfectly fine.

i draw what i know of sc2 from sc, which if you look nowadays at online, it is always fastest and people who don't always peform perfectly are called noobs and basically are rejected from the team or match. blizzard has made no attempts at solving any problems with previous games and does a good job of trying to suck every little penny out of games that they can. that is just my opinion, and most of you may not agree.

but anywyas i think the popularity is one plus for sc2, though personally i would rather have something other than sc or wc. thanks for your suggestions again

masterbreti

Fastest maps are custom melee... some are normal maps and min but a lot aren't and without battle.net placing you with people around your skill level your gonna join a game with a bunch of SC vets. league matches are a deffrent game altogether. before your placed in a ladder you play placement matches that put you in a league. bronze, silver, gold, platnum, or diamond. battle.net will pit you agianst poeple around your skill level for the most part, though if you do go on a win streak you are likely to face and opponent in a higher league then yourself, which can suck, but shows you your weaknesses, when that happens i save the replay and watch what they did.

As other people said SCII has everything you are looking for. the main legitimate complaint people have with SC isn't a flaw but a prefrence... the game is fast, obcenely fast in the world of RTS's im in gold league and matches are never longer then 25 minutes, and platnum / diamond league matches are even faster.

[QUOTE="Riaz85"]

[QUOTE="artiedeadat40"]

Those effects could easily be done on the cpu if properly coded for x86.

artiedeadat40

ok that is not true, a CPU can do some really convinceing physics dont get me wrong, but they dont compare to the physics that GPU's can reproduce. its not the quality of physics that is the issue, its the quantity. A quad-core CPU dedicated to calculating physics for objects would most definetly fail to handle over 200 objects, PhysX was close to manufacturing PPU's that could calculate physics for 50,000 objects, the architecture for their PPU's are very simular to the GPU's nVidia is releasing, they do large number crunching calculations perfect for physics. GPU's were already well suited for physics calculations long before their was a need. CPU's need to stay flexible and versatile, why would you want them getting bogged down running your physics anyway? my point is if you do the research its clear, GPU's are far superior at physics then CPU's.

I have yet to see any proof to these claims and don't give me the Physix on Mirrors Edgesince those effects are not coded to run on x86.Cryengine 2 can pull off some amazing physics with only 2 cores/threads.

when half-life 2 came out they were limited to calculating 10 physics object simultaneously on a P4 EE, the dev said if the CPU was dedicated to physics it could calculate for 46 objects. its the same x86 framework they use today, and im being genrous, the core for a P4EE was more powerful then a core in a quad-core. this is old news and i wish i could cite the source but it was released forever ago. and if they could why wouldn't they code those physics for x86, think about it. thats proof right there, in Mirrors Edge they accomplish with GPU physics what they couldnt for CFPU physics. and its not a theory the GPU's are better at number crunching then CPU's it is a fact.

[QUOTE="DanielDust"]Yep but I said just a few games that use it are actually better with physx and yeah thanks :P I forgot about Sacred 2, it's way better with physx. artiedeadat40

Those effects could easily be done on the cpu if properly coded for x86.

ok that is not true, a CPU can do some really convinceing physics dont get me wrong, but they dont compare to the physics that GPU's can reproduce. its not the quality of physics that is the issue, its the quantity. A quad-core CPU dedicated to calculating physics for objects would most definetly fail to handle over 200 objects, PhysX was close to manufacturing PPU's that could calculate physics for 50,000 objects, the architecture for their PPU's are very simular to the GPU's nVidia is releasing, they do large number crunching calculations perfect for physics. GPU's were already well suited for physics calculations long before their was a need. CPU's need to stay flexible and versatile, why would you want them getting bogged down running your physics anyway? my point is if you do the research its clear, GPU's are far superior at physics then CPU's.

52" samsung lcd 1080p. crazy rediculous

edit: i also use it as my pc monitor, also crazy rediculous

oh, i am serious

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/support/systemuse/xbox360/console/datamigration.htm