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.bindip

[QUOTE="Tech_Guy_2"]

[QUOTE="hamidious"]Is there any CPU in the market out there that won't bottleneck 3 X 8800GTX? Man, I would say that's a great setup, but you must be willing to squeeze that wallet for that 1 extra frame per sec.ROCKINGFOOL

And well who told you that 3GTX's will bring you 1 more fps over a more traditional setup.You tell me can a single card run games flawlessly with supersampling?No even an 8800 ultra cant do that and you really have to experience super sampling to appreciate it's wonder.

why dont you take a picture of your setup and show us .

So i took my secondary PC with an 8600GT to my friends place who has a 42" 1080p HDTV and ps3.So we first loaded the ps3 version and played the first level for some time.Then we connected the PC to the HDTV and loaded up 720p resolution cuz 1080p is too high for the card just like the ps3 with 2xAA and god it looked so bad simply terrible.

You know why?Because PC's lack a scaler chip.LMAO:lol: .So for the game to be played on that PC i would have to buy a 720p HDTV or a lower res LCD whereas with the ps3 you dont have to worry about this matter.

Hermits that is simply epic FAILURE.Sorry.:(

[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.

[QUOTE="Threesixtyci"]

[QUOTE="Wesker776"] ...in a PC hardware forum.

Not everything is limited to games here.

Wesker776

Hmm... a HD3870 in crossfire mode? I suppose you got that setup just for word processing or video editing, huh.

...and what does that have to do with the topic at hand? :roll:

[QUOTE="yoyo462001"][QUOTE="Domobomb"]

[QUOTE="X360PS3AMD05"]Whoever gives me more for my money.Domobomb

That would be AMD ATM.

Everything up to, and including the quads. Pretty much every AMD CPU is a better value against its Intel counterpart. There are a few exceptions though, like the Phenom 9600, which is $60 more then the 9500 for .1GHz.

You're starting to green with fanboyism.

Care to give examples on all fronts where AMD offers better value for money? I know that AMD offers exceptional value on the low end market (e.g. 4000+), where Intel shoots itself in the foot by cutting L2 cache density to very low levels.

On the dual core front, AMD can only compete up to the Core 2 Duo E6750, before the 6400+ gets completely outperformed by the E6850, E8190, E8200, E8400 and E8500. Price wise, AMD offers EQUAL value for money (up to the E6750 vs 6400+) here and there compared to Intel, but one could argue that the higher power consumption of AMD CPU's and the lack of a HSF with BE CPU's pushes them out of competition in some cases.

On the quad core front, AMD is hardly competitive. No AMD Phenom X4 CPU can outperform or match the Q6600, let alone the Q9300, Q9450 or Q9550. BUT, it should be noted that the 9500 X4 offers good value for money for those wanting to get into multithreaded apps like 3D rendering.

I'm not going to include Extreme Edition or Skulltrail CPU setups, as they don't offer good value for money (well, actually, Skulltrail would be a dream for digital media content creators). But the fact is that AMD is lacking on the CPU halo front.

Phenom needs to scale to higher clock speeds (3.2GHz+), but it looks like that won't happen on AMD's 65nm process. That, or the architecture itself isn't efficient enough in comparison to Core 2.

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

Is there any CPU in the market out there that won't bottleneck 3 X 8800GTX? Man, I would say that's a great setup, but you must be willing to squeeze that wallet for that 1 extra frame per sec.hamidious

And well who told you that 3GTX's will bring you 1 more fps over a more traditional setup.You tell me can a single card run games flawlessly with supersampling?No even an 8800 ultra cant do that and you really have to experience super sampling to appreciate it's wonder.

Tech_Guy_2 just got pwnd in the face for being a troll.

also, lol @ a person that would make a system with those specs with vista and ONLY 2 gig of ram:lol:.

bumsoil

[QUOTE="zache86"]ah at 6:09pm there was a my C2D is better than your Q6600 comment.Killfox

I cant believe he said that.

Nice one killfox. iqt786 where did you see this or are yo making it up cause I didn't see that anywhere.blackleather223