hi. i was thinking about upgrading my graphics card from an 8500 gt to an 8800 gts. i have 2 questions about that. 1, if i leave both the 8500 gt and the 8800 gts in there, will sli work? i mean does sli only work if the graphics cards are the same models? 2, i have been searching amazon, and there are about 5 different brands of what appears to be the same graphics card and the prices range from about 260 to 450 dollars. is there a reason for this or should i just get the cheap version? thank you.
That cheap video card will rob your system of decent game performance. Why you people persist at being stingy about the most important part of the PC when you want to play games is beyond me ! Kiwi_1
ok, i'm on a budget so i can't afford a better card than that. but i can afford another one to put in the available pcie slot. if i put 2 of them in there, will that improve performance in any way?
my pc has an intel quad-core running at 2.4 ghz, 3 gigs of ram, and an geforce 8500 gt. my vista rating for these specs is 5. is this enough to run some of the newest games like bioshock and gears of war at the highest specs? i mean max out the graphics options in the games and usee full x8 aa and x16 af?
pretty much the same for me. except i don't believe we need a ps originals service. it should be very easy for them to make it compatible with the games we can already download from the ps store, including ps1 games. next, i know that most people like to have physical copies of games, movies, etc.,but i believe there is an exception in the portable realm. people are beginning to buy into digital distribution, and portable devices(the ipod, for example)will spearhead the penatration into the true mainstream. simply because there is nothing more portable than having themedia built into the system and no longer having to carry around external forms of memory. for this reason, it is a must for ALL next gen portables to have a very sizeable amount of flash memory. this will also have a positive effect on battery performance.
http://wii.ign.com/articles/771/771051p1.html. not that any of this guy's comments are valid, but one of them stood out to me.
"Hecker also took Nintendo to task for not taking games seriously enough. "It's not clear to me that Nintendo gives a s*** about games as an art form," he said. To illustrate his point, he searched for references to games as art on all three console manufacturers web sites. While he found numerous such references on both the official PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 sites, Wii.com had none at all. He then shared quotes from executives at Sony and Microsoft talking about games as a serious artistic medium, and then a quote from a Nintendo executive saying the company only wanted to make "fun" games".
i'm taking nintendo's side here. i don't care how artistic a game is, if it is not fun (which should be the number 1 goal of all games), i'm not wasting my time or money on it.
Log in to comment