[QUOTE="Tech_Guy_2"]

The ps3 version does not run in 1080p i know that.However it runs it in a way that even if you have a 1080p display you are NOT getting inferior image quality to those who have a 720p TV.

Whereas with the PC you HAVE TO play in the native res of the LCD or else you are doomed.With the ps3 and 360 that is not the case.You know it man it's an essential flaw in PC gaming which nvidia and ATI dont seem to care for cuz they know they will kepp milking the hermits to upgrade to play in higher res.

Just answer me one question.I want to be able to get the same graphics as the ps3 version on the PC playing in 600p on a 1080p HDTV?Can i?

skrat_01

You dont HAVE to play in the native res of the LCD with PC games. Where did you get that argument from? You can simply play at a lower resolution. I dont see Nvidia putting a gun to my head demmanding me to play games at the native resolution on high res monitors / screens. Its the same with console games, many of which are outputting at lower res.

As for your final point, no the PC version is running at the native res, you would be better off just running the game at 720p, which would have a better image quality (on a 1080p TV), and keep the high FPS and maximum detail settings, with some anti analysing for good measure.

Either way the PS3 version looks worse, so I dont see why you keep trying to prove otherwise.

Its just fact, as a 'tech guy' you should (hopefully) know that.

System wars see for yourself.PC gaming FAILS.Period.Tech_Guy_2

If anyone is failing right now its certainly not PC gaming. Period.

Ironic much?

If you deny this then well you dont know what you are saying.

[QUOTE="Tech_Guy_2"][QUOTE="Wesker776"][QUOTE="Domobomb"]

Now, this is the part where I show the benchies where the 6400+ wins, right?

Sorry, but I'm not as dedicated as you.

Thanks for re-posting stuff I've already seen, I guess.

Wesker776

No, this is the part where you're supposed to make an arguement that shows the 6400+ being more competitive in terms of price/performance.

I'm not stupid enough to expect someone to post benches showing the 6400+ beating the QX9650, for example.

It doesn't even have to be the 6400+, just show me where AMD is competitive in terms of price/performance against Intel. I already stated that AMD mops Intel at the low end (the 3600, 3800 and 4000+ are a must for their price), but you stated that they competed in higher segments.

...and you can't overclock AMD CPU's?

The E2000 series has to be aggressively clocked just to make up for its shortage of cache.

Actually the E6750 easily outperforms the 6400+.Dont know whether both are similarly priced though.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/13/wolfdale_shrinks_transistors/page5.html

Tech_Guy_2

Tech_Guy_2, can I ask you a few questions:

HD2900 XT > 8800 GTS 640MB?
HD3870 at $220 or 8800 GT at $260?
LCD or CRT?
Low resolution w/AA or high resolution without AA?

I dont really know which card is better so sorry and i dont feel like googling.:P

Well i will definitely take the 8800GT.

As much as i like my 21" CRT,it's a no match to my 42" LCD.The defining point in this argument i would say is the stress which CRT's bring.Heck sometimes while browsing i feel the heat of a CRT so i would say LCD cuz it really can affect the playing experience IMO like sometimes while gaming on the CRT i pause to give my eyes a break.That really breaks the rithum.

Well it all depends on the siz of the monitor.Well i would say high resolution with 2xAA.No AA feels pretty bad to me.I would also like to point out that "supersampling" can really make up for a low res.And the insane amounts of AA that you can nowadays put also helps in it but make no mistake no matter what the experience of playing in a high resolution is unmatched or atleast different i would say.

Now may i ask you a question.Why are you asking these questions in the first place.:)

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="Tech_Guy_2"][QUOTE="skrat_01"]

You do realise that the PS3 is outputting at a 600p resolution native (1024x600), while the PC is outputting at 1920×1080 native

right?

Even outputting at a lower resolution on the PC would look just fine.

Seriously this is an epic fail.

Tech_Guy_2

Unless ofcourse you want to burn your eyes and play on some CRT monitor.LOL.

Hell it proves how right 'hermits' were all along.

And what are you talking about VGA res quality on a LCD of higher output? That makes no sense whatsoever. If you mean it wont display at full 1080p well, neither does the PS3.

Damn the ignorance of your own words is laughable.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

[QUOTE="Tech_Guy_2"][QUOTE="bindip"]lol 8600 ??? bad card. The ps3 has basicly got a nvida 7900, or on the same level and that beats the 8600. The 8600 is a mid range card. So you compare it with the ps3 which is made just for games with a pc running a 8600 which deals with a ton more stuff. Yup sounds fair to me.Tech_Guy_2

8800GT is mid range, 8800GTX/Ultra is high end.

Not to mention the PC version of COD4 has much higher texture details ect.

Hell i know this all first hand I played through half of COD4 on my 360, and own COD4 on PC.

Sorry man but what you are saying is the point that hermits always deny about upgrading.

Everyone is quite aware that Crysis is pushing the boundaries of hardware, and that the 8800 ultra is a monster card (let alone 8800 series) and only Crysis stresses them graphically.

Who wants to play just Crysis at full 1080? Its an unrealistic expectiation.

You are sounding like a lost cause. First it was COD4 and upscaling, now its pc upgrading.

For a 'Tech Guy' you seem to be a complete contradiction of yourself.

Whereas with the PC you HAVE TO play in the native res of the LCD or else you are doomed.With the ps3 and 360 that is not the case.You know it man it's an essential flaw in PC gaming which nvidia and ATI dont seem to care for cuz they know they will kepp milking the hermits to upgrade to play in higher res.

Just answer me one question.I want to be able to get the same graphics as the ps3 version on the PC playing in 600p on a 1080p HDTV?Can i?

I know its tinternet but you guys are being complete A holes. With that money yeah he maybe could have done better in your opinions, but thats no reason to dis someone so much. I for one hope you enjoy your system because its clearly quite a good one .hongkingkong

Speaking about amd and intel as a processor only, intel wins. Because intel has the high performance processors (talking about their cores and 'ghz') out there.

But speaking about amd and intel in a system, amd wins. You can really see the performance of your processor when you pair it with your RAM. Intel has the high performance processors but no RAMs can support it fully..

And also, amd is cheaper..

justin4444

I hope you dont mind me asking but what are you trying to prove here?... because if your trying to say that COD4 looks worse on PC than a console your sadly mistaken and from what you have done I formaly strip you of your rights to compare games since you clearly show know sign of logic when doing so, this is mainly to prevent future arguements of which will occur shortly after you submit your next topic.

I dont actualy believe there's an arguement here... unless you want me to perform a comparision of UT3 using a PC monitor for both PC and console versions of the game and using full AA and the highest most possilble resolution an ULTRA can use on a 24" widescreen monitor.

Your comparison is flawed and I highly doubt that for one minute its unbias.

sadikovic

[QUOTE="Tech_Guy_2"][QUOTE="bindip"]lol 8600 ??? bad card. The ps3 has basicly got a nvida 7900, or on the same level and that beats the 8600. The 8600 is a mid range card. So you compare it with the ps3 which is made just for games with a pc running a 8600 which deals with a ton more stuff. Yup sounds fair to me.skrat_01

8800GT is mid range, 8800GTX/Ultra is high end.

Not to mention the PC version of COD4 has much higher texture details ect.

Hell i know this all first hand I played through half of COD4 on my 360, and own COD4 on PC.

Sorry man but what you are saying is the point that hermits always deny about upgrading.

You do realise that the PS3 is outputting at a 600p resolution native (1024x600), while the PC is outputting at 1920×1080 native

right?

Even outputting at a lower resolution on the PC would look just fine.

Seriously this is an epic fail.

skrat_01

Unless ofcourse you want to burn your eyes and play on some CRT monitor.LOL.