Its scary to think if Sony was a PC company (so to speak) how good their games would look.

Imagine God of War 3 on a PC for instance? or Uncharted 2/3 or Killzone 2/3. I still think GOW3 would be the most epic. Doing all that sh!t but in 1080p, 8 X AA and Dx11 textures, zomg

Mozelleple112

Will there even be a PS4?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324352004578134442734112194.html

Junk status is pretty much a death sentence in the investment world, and unless Sony liquidates some of their assets, I'm not sure how they're going to acquire the operating capital to fund the development, production, and advertisement of the PS4.

They'll probably find a way, I'm sure, but if gamers think the PS4 is going to be some powerhouse with a high frontend manufacturing cost that Sony will have to wait a decade before they can sell it at a profit, they're kidding themselves.

The keyboard is very cumbersome and unergonomic for movement and action. Anyone who says it's an instrinsically better method for control than a joystick is a fanboy. But the mouse is worlds better for aiming and torso/camera movement than a joystick. I solved this problem by buying a Nostromo TE gameboard with its handy joystick, on which I put an FPS freak. Best of both worlds.

Does anyone in this thread have a sense of humor?

Thinking of picking up the Dell U27, but before I drop the cash on one, I'm curious to hear other people's experiences with them (or any WQHD monitor for that matter).

I'm not a competitive FPS player, so the slower response time of IPS panel displays isn't an issue. My biggest concern is that the monitor will fail to impress, and at 3 times the cost of your average 1080p monitor, I expect to be picking my jaw up off the floor. With that said, how drastic is the difference between 1440p (or 1600P) and 1080p? When you first fired it up and loaded a game, did the differences in resolution, color accuracy, etc, smack you in the face or were they something you had to consciously look for?

Thanks!

True that the CPU really isnt the weakest point in most games, but a 1.8Ghz C2D is too slow, would you be ready to OC the CPU?

Oc'ing the CPU over 2.5Ghz would mean it isn't a bottleneck in most games.

If you dont OC it I wouldn't reccomend you getting a HD4850/gts250/HD5750 but a lower budget card such as HD5670.

swehunt

I would really like to OC it, since I've read that E4300 is a good overclocker, but since this is a Hewlett Packard, its mobo doesn't support overclocking. Thanks for recommending the HD5670. Looks like a solid performer, and the price is right.

[QUOTE="ipwnzthaish"]

Hi all. Looking to upgrade my Hewlett Packard computer that has 1.8 ghz Core 2 Duo under the hood (as well as 3 gb of DDR2 Ram). Since this is a relatively old processor, my concerns are getting too powerful a card that will bottleneck the CPU, however, I've also read on various forums (overclock.net, etc) that video cards bottlenecking CPUs is uncommon when gaming, since the CPU is resposible for only around 20% of the load.

The kind of games I'm looking to play are Bad Company 2, Crysis, etc, running, at say, medium settings.

Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

(currently looking at the Radeon 1gb 4850)

ionusX

the 4850 will do what you asjk a gts 250 is also a wise choice but since this is a prebuitl and one with such a poor cpu if i may make a suggestion..

how about you drop the gpu down to an hd 5670 or 6670 and sue the extra money to get your ahnds on a new cpu.. a replacement core 2 duo of a better clock speed can be ahd for a fair price..

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115056

BC2 & crysis 1 would run jsut fine at smaller resolutions such as say 1440 x 900 or 1366 x 768 on medium or so.. and with that better cpu on your side you may e able to pull off high

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=666H6ZWy34c

Thanks for the reply. Appreciate it.

Hi all. Looking to upgrade my Hewlett Packard computer that has 1.8 ghz Core 2 Duo under the hood (as well as 3 gb of DDR2 Ram). Since this is a relatively old processor, my concerns are getting too powerful a card that will bottleneck the CPU, however, I've also read on various forums (overclock.net, etc) that video cards bottlenecking CPUs is uncommon when gaming, since the CPU is resposible for only around 20% of the load.

The kind of games I'm looking to play are Bad Company 2, Crysis, etc, running, at say, medium settings.

Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

(currently looking at the Radeon 1gb 4850)

I love VF so much, I would pay full price if they just fixed the lobby system, making it more like Street Fighter where people "quarter up" and play the winner of any given match. Not to mention adding in the feature to watch the ongoing match.

As it is, it's such a pain to coordinate multiplayer games if you have more than one friend willing to play.

It doesnt actually turn anything HD. N64 game resolutions average between 320x240 or 640x480, but there has been some smaller. Ur TV upscales the signal to begin with. Basically upscaling stretched the image to the maximum resolution. Lets sat for example u have a 720x480 signal. ur HDTV will upscale it to 1080p. From that point on ur game is in 1080p. now the reason it looks bad is because it has been stretched without anyfiltering done. That converter probably has a worse upscaler than ur TV. If u want filtered/proccessed video feeds to make it look clearer u need to buy a reciever with a high quality proccessor to actually strtch the video and fill in extra pixels to make it true 1080p.

painguy1

Thanks for the reply. When you say receiver are talking of an audio receiver with video inputs and the like?

Also, the reason the product was appealing to me is because it has an S-video input, something my HDTV doesn't have. Right now, I'm running my older consoles through an RF modulator. Looks okay, but I would venture to guess it would look much better running through the s-video input on that device.