That makes no sense on Intel's part for releasing the i7 8xx series on that socket. Why waste the money developing that socket only to kill it off in a year. 775 lasted a good time and I think that both the 1366 and the 1156 will last about as long.Angry_Mushroom

They plan on using LGA 1156 as their >$499 CPUs.

First this belongs in the PC Games section of the forums.

Second, have you searched the dev/pub's FAQ on the game to see if anyone else has experienced this problem?

For those who are planning on POSSIBLY getting an i9, just remember this.

Most people are expecting a $1,000 price tag atm.

Intel is most likely going to launch the i9s with a $500-$1,500 price tag.

First and foremost, your internet speeds determines how fast you receive data from a website.

Second, a better video card is not going to help websites load faster. They are working on options like that that will help increase website animation, but not loading speeds.

Third, multitasking on a single core CPU or a slow clocked dual core can effect page loading times since the browser is handled by the CPU and if your doing a lot of CPU based stuff that will cause whole system slow down.

Fourth thing that can cause it is your hard drive/RAM. If you are running low on available RAM than your PC will start paging information to the HDD. Also, when you go to websites that you frequent the HDD has to read the local cache(from your PC) on those websites. So if you have a slow hard drive and are trying to visit multiple websites this can effect loading times.

Check the manual for anything on the OC switch. See if it might lock out overclocking options if some kind of setting is activated on it.
-----------
Okay, just looked over the manual and nothing on the OC switch would do that. I'm looking at BIOS options right now as well and so far I'm not finding anything on way the voltages are locked out.
-----------
I looked over the forums and the manual and I'm not finding anything useful. Mods on the MSI forums are saying trying to use Page Up and Down, but I don't know if that'll work.

You should look at, IMHO, upgrading your CPU and motherboard as well as your PSU. You still have a decent GPU for games that are being released.

Most any computer that meet the recommended specs of Crysis can RUN the game at max settings.

Just because you can run it at max doesn't mean you can PLAY it at max.

Please stay away from Crysis, it's coded badly which is why it runs so bad even on the HD 5870 and 5970 cards.

I think I saw one benchmark where it took 4 HD 5870s to run Crysis at MAXIMUM settings including AA and AF at 1920x1200 at a stable 60+ FPS.

Thats over $1,600.

Stay away from Crysis

ll my games look fantastic when put on the highest settings, but on certain games it slows down on frames when either a lot is going on or i'm looking at a vast distance. is this something a upgrade to the 965 will fix?KGB32

Just because the GTS 250 is a rebadged 9800 GTX+ doesn't mean that it is capable at playing all games at max. I suggest you start playing with textures, resolutions and viewing distances in your games to see what works best for you. Also, look at lowering AF and AA qualities as well since these can take up GPU usage as well.

I try to stick with 16xAF, since it doesn't require anything really in any game, and around 2xAA to 4xAA in most games. Even if the games has options for 8xAA I find it best to stick with a lower option so that I can max other settings and have playable FPS.

That's about 10% more :?.MaoTheChimp

It's about resolution, not size.

Also, laptops, not good for gaming.

A 24" 1920x1200 monitor is going to be harder to run for hardware than a 50" 1080p or 720p HDTV.

1920x1200 vs 1080p is a difference of 230,400 pixels.