Actually, Crysis 2 is a pretty darn good multi player. The problem is.....no run and gun. Crysis 2 is far more of a tactical and stealth oriented game. I have been playing for almost a month now and am just getting in a groove with the game. Being able to monitor your energy level in relation to your stealth use+nano vision.....watch for cloaked players, hide when your energy runs out. The multiplayer aspect of Crysis 2 brings a new dimension to the FPS that, in my opinion, takes the COD et al. FPS to a whole new level.

I absolutely hated the multi-player at first as well, but its because I SUCKED!!! The issue is not the GAME, but rather its design in comparison to other more simple FPS (COD series, all of em, particularly). When I say design, I mean, its not a run and gun multiplayer. You can run and gun but, on the PC with no aim assist, you will get your tail handed to you. You have got to play smart, be quick to react, and anticipate other players weaknesses based on what yours were before you decided to stop with the run and gun BS. I love the run and gunners now....they are easy targets, even when cloked because they run right by you.

When the crysis 2 patch with DX-11, better cheat support, console improvements, and bug work outs (ping, updating stats etc) FINALLY touches down the game will be, in my opinion, the most complicated and best looking FPS multiplayer game on the PC (Until BF3 drops.....maybe). I dont care about consoles....any of them. I have turned into a PC snob and sold my xbox 360, PS3, and Wii. PC games, although it has a smaller selection of them, are far superior to console. They are so much superior in almost every aspect, that the few 8-10 that I do have beat all other console games I have played to date....and I've played A LOT.

Please....all of you keep buying consoles. Most gamers on PC are adults...some are kids, but consoles are for the kids and they should stay that way. I am absolutely amazed at the in game chat quiet I have experienced on the PC for all games. I haven't had to mute anyone yet.

Actually, Crysis 2 is a pretty darn good multi player. The problem is.....no run and gun. Crysis 2 is far more of a tactical and stealth oriented game. I have been playing for almost a month now and am just getting in a groove with the game. Being able to monitor your energy level in relation to your stealth use+nano vision.....watch for cloaked players, hide when your energy runs out. The multiplayer aspect of Crysis 2 brings a new dimension to the FPS that, in my opinion, takes the COD et al. FPS to a whole new level.

I absolutely hated the multi-player at first as well, but its because I SUCKED!!! The issue is not the GAME, but rather its design in comparison to other more simple FPS (COD series, all of em, particularly). When I say design, I mean, its not a run and gun multiplayer. You can run and gun but, on the PC with no aim assist, you will get your tail handed to you. You have got to play smart, be quick to react, and anticipate other players weaknesses based on what yours were before you decided to stop with the run and gun BS. I love the run and gunners now....they are easy targets, even when cloked because they run right by you.

When the crysis 2 patch with DX-11, better cheat support, console improvements, and bug work outs (ping, updating stats etc) FINALLY touches down the game will be, in my opinion, the most complicated and best looking FPS multiplayer game on the PC (Until BF3 drops.....maybe). I dont care about consoles....any of them. I have turned into a PC snob and sold my xbox 360, PS3, and Wii. PC games, although it has a smaller selection of them, are far superior to console. They are so much superior in almost every aspect, that the few 8-10 that I do have beat all other console games I have played to date....and I've played A LOT.

Please....all of you keep buying consoles. Most gamers on PC are adults...some are kids, but consoles are for the kids and they should stay that way. I am absolutely amazed at the in game chat quiet I have experienced on the PC for all games. I haven't had to mute anyone yet.

Actually, Crysis 2 is a pretty darn good multi player. The problem is.....no run and gun. Crysis 2 is far more of a tactical and stealth oriented game. I have been playing for almost a month now and am just getting in a groove with the game. Being able to monitor your energy level in relation to your stealth use+nano vision.....watch for cloaked players, hide when your energy runs out. The multiplayer aspect of Crysis 2 brings a new dimension to the FPS that, in my opinion, takes the COD et al. FPS to a whole new level.

I absolutely hated the multi-player at first as well, but its because I SUCKED!!! The issue is not the GAME, but rather its design in comparison to other more simple FPS (COD series, all of em, particularly). When I say design, I mean, its not a run and gun multiplayer. You can run and gun but, on the PC with no aim assist, you will get your tail handed to you. You have got to play smart, be quick to react, and anticipate other players weaknesses based on what yours were before you decided to stop with the run and gun BS. I love the run and gunners now....they are easy targets, even when cloked because they run right by you.

When the crysis 2 patch with DX-11, better cheat support, console improvements, and bug work outs (ping, updating stats etc) FINALLY touches down the game will be, in my opinion, the most complicated and best looking FPS multiplayer game on the PC (Until BF3 drops.....maybe). I dont care about consoles....any of them. I have turned into a PC snob and sold my xbox 360, PS3, and Wii. PC games, although it has a smaller selection of them, are far superior to console. They are so much superior in almost every aspect, that the few 8-10 that I do have beat all other console games I have played to date....and I've played A LOT.

Please....all of you keep buying consoles. Most gamers on PC are adults...some are kids, but consoles are for the kids and they should stay that way. I am absolutely amazed at the in game chat quiet I have experienced on the PC for all games. I haven't had to mute anyone yet.

Well it appears its only the 3 GB/S sata ports. On the board I ordered there are 6 (2 sata e's) 6gb/s sata ports. Guess I just won't use the 3's.

See below: (great summary)

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4143/the-source-of-intels-cougar-point-sata-bug

In the grand scheme of things it really isn't that big a deal: only the 3Gb/s SATA ports are affected (and even then the estimated failure rate is only 5-15% over time); so unless you need those ports on your 67-series board or are one of the poor bastards who bought an H61 board or Sandy Bridge laptop, the most you'll need to worry about is reorganizing your SATA connections and waiting for Intel to iron-out the recall process.

The real issue is that the 6-series supposively won't be back in good supply until April, with shipments of the revised chipset not taking place until late March. AMD must be positively giddy: not only will this drive people towards Phenom II, but it gives Intel far less of a head-start over Bulldozer.

PBSnipes

Where did you see that it only affects the 3GB/s SATA ports. Am I to assume that the 6 GB/s sports are spared. The reason I ask is I just ordered gigabytes newest board (UD7) and the only thing using the 3 GB/s SATA port is the Blue-Ray burner sooooooooooooooooooooo

Should I refuse the order when it arrives in on Thursday-Friday and wait 1-2 months (guess on my part) until its hammered out....reaping any $$$$ benefits on my components in the system as their price will inevitably go down while I wait for Intel to hammer out the problem

OR.....................

Should I say screw it.......I'll be issued a new board when Its needed......I'm not so concerned at this point and.....ACCEPT THE Shipment ????

Any Advice ?????

What card are you using?

What is your frame rate across the three monitors (with resonablly high graphics settings)

Are you crossfired?

Is crossfire supported on the three monitors?

Sorry guys....lots of noob questions, but thats what I get for jumping into new tech after my last computer build was a Pentium III and a Celeron 1.8 single core almost a decade ago.

I cant wait though. All this new stuff to learn is sweet. I just dont want to hose myself and buy somthing I regret later. Like two video cards if eyefinity doesnt support crossfiring. I just want to make sure performane isn't taking a huge hit with AMD if crossfire is not compatible with eyefinity.

Blu-Ray....Well....all im interested in is the ability to play games in 3d across three monitors. The blu-ray 3d would be watched via the HDMI out to my 3d compatible plasma / lcd anyhow if I even bother.

I want to be clear. My want is to play games across 3 monitors in 3d. Nvidia seems to need sli which would improve frame rates since two cards HAVE to be used. I guess my only question is would two crossfired ATI high end cards (at roughly half the cost of comprable NVIDIA cards) geve me comprable fps to two sli nvidia cards. I guess the questions is.....if both manufactures are capable of 3d across three monitors.........one NVIDIA costs almost a thousand dollars for two cards to SLI........AMD costs half that for two cards crossfired.....why would you spend twice as much for identical functionality. Is there somthing i'm missing here. Is AMD not capable of advantages of crossfire across 3 monitors. In other words.....does crossfire not have any advantage for a three monitor setup...

It seems NVIDIA REQUIRES 2 cards SLI'd to accomplish this and therefore gurantees benefit from the SLI.......I may have to contact an AMD rep....although that is a frightening prospect in and of itself.

Really???? Because, according to their site the monitor I posted above is compatible even though it does not have HDMI 1.4. It has dual DVI but no HDMI and it is 120 hz....seems like its compatible with both cards.

Thanks for the direction. So far so good. I post in here and in 30 seconds, 2 posts pop up.

Good advice, now 3d across AMD's eyefinity....frame rate....performace issues?

-JZ

Its been quite some time since I built a computer and A HECK OF A LOT HAS CHANGED !!!!

I'm looking for some advice from a couple of the guru folks located in here. A friend of mine

just built his computer and got some great advice from folks in here and I'm sure this will be the first of a couple

of questions I will have during this process.

On to it........I want to do a three monitor set up. I've found the three I want to buy (at least I think I have) although I am open to suggestion

from anyone who can give solid advice. The monitor (at the best price for the options and reviews) seems to be the Viewsonic VX2268VM.

The question is:

What video card would be good for either:

A. AMD eyefinity across three monitors (like the ones listed above) WITH the ability to do AMD's HD3D on all three monitors at the same time

B. Nvidia 3d vision across three monitors (similar to eyefinity although im not sure what Nvidia calls it)

I really want the three monitor set up and 3d across all of them. It is not EXTREMELY important to have the 3d on all of them, although it would be optimal if its not extremely cost prohibitive. I guess my main question is:

Do either companies make a card capable of this with just one card or am I going to need to SLI (Nvidia) or Crossfire (AMD) two cards to accomplish this.

If its not possible I dont want to order 3 120hz monitors. Any suggestions on monitors and cards would be sweet as well. The AMD 6950 seems capable on its own Im just worried about frame rate drops on three monitors in 3d. I dont want to be playing games under 60fps on the three monitors in 3d. Is 120 fps on three monitors, in 3d, un-realistic (extremely cost prohibitive). Id be willing to spend 300 or so per monitor and 300 per card (hopefully 2 are not necessary)

Thanks a heck of a lot to whom ever responds to this.

-JZ