The 8600, I know isnt strong like the 8800 but I love the core = 730 OMFG! And the memory speed is something like 2.6 ghz... The problem is that it's only 36 pixels pipelines....

The 8800 320mb, stock speed im getting is at 580, and 1800 memory clock.. This is where I cant understand that the 8600 kills this thing in the core and memory speeds badly. This card has 96 pixels.. so basically 3 times the pixels..

I just saw this site and im wondering if they re judging the crappy versions of the cheap 8600 models to the other 8800 gts models. Im not broke or anything, but if I can get a card for a 100 bucks cheaper I ll jump all over that! This review scared me... I wouldnt mind 4-5 fps difference but when its 30 fps difference ill spend the extra 100 lol for the card! What would u guys do? Do u think the 8600 is that poorly?

This is the comparisons

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=3&id=2231&pg=4

I can afford it but I would love to know if it will run Crysis on the highest settings? and is it worth it ?henri1960

 yes sir!! The game is made to run for the 7900 and 1900 video cards... yes the I know it's not a dx10 card but if u look for the recommened specs for crysis its really made for the 7900 and 1900 cards.. Basically the stock speeds, If u have a 7900 or a 8600 or a any 8 series ull max out crysis. Not many people realize this but, DLP,LCD and plasma are gonna die next year. There's a new type of tv coming out called lazer TV. WHere i'm going with this is that the new video cards like the 8 seroes have so many pixels, mostly the 8800 series and up. Will play crysis in something like 2300x1600 resolution, now u will need an 8800 to play at this resolution. But 1900x1200 is fine for me, but to ur question... yes a 7900 can max out crysis on a 1024x1024 resolution.

I know I made this kinda long but I want ppl to hopefully realize this cuz ppl said u needed all kinds of crap for doom3.. Saying u needed all of this stuff just to run the game maxed.. I had a cheap radeon 9600 SE and ran that game on what High? I also had only a 2.5 amd 64 xp, also only 512 of ram. I think if u have atleast these specs u should be good to go

Medium to high - 7600

high with good resolution - 7800

max - 7900

max with good resolution - 7950 for dx9

ANd of course 8 series will kill these game...

Ram -1.5-2 gbs

CPU -atleast a 3200 amd or higher, If i were u... athlon 64 dual or heck even a AM2 socket 6000 plus is only  150. I say atleast get a dual cpu to see the awesome physics... Hope this kinda helped some of the struggling people with a low understanding of the specs for the game.

   Im in the military, I know gamez and the real thing is completely different but I like somewhat a realistic start. u know what I mean? JUst this game is so hard to figure out for me right now cuz im so use to other games where u can build units and a d. I just wish they would like the base D do a better job of knocking off the first couple of waves of units(strong tanks).. so ppl would panic and think of something else to do. The game like I said is awesome but needs to fix the base guns.

   What i mean is here is that..... i played a tiny bit of supreme commander.. I never really got into it vuz im not a rts fan. So games like this and  starcraft cant compete with it. In starcraft what I loved was u having a good base d.. if u werent fast enough u relied on ur units to somewhat protect u. I think my biggest down fall is trying to do this in command and conquer3 cuz the buildings are like 2200 bucks.But, if u like sp in games this a good buy or download! im gonna boycott EA. They make good gamez and ruin them somehow, most of my favorite games they ruined like.... madden series,mvp series,c&c series,battlefield series... they ruin the games by rushing the programmers so they have ton of bugs on release and play catch up till something new.

   Look at bf2, that game was modded and cut so much that its hopeless.. they ditched it and made 2142.. with even worse bugs.

   you know at first I loved this game for the sp and usually I hate living a story through an RTS game. I barely buy gamez cuz non please me anymore online. I have css,bf2, 2142 if its ever done being buggy,cod series... so some to keep me busy but I played the demo and loved cc3. Like I stated before Im not a rts fan but like some like starcraft, starcraft still from 93 nobody can beat it. Command and conquer 3 was good at first and it just wears off, the ppl just do the samethings over and over and over. Nobody ever uses air in that game, its all about who has the I cannon and the mammoth(powerful tank)..

   The maps are way to small for this type of game where one i was playing the guy was like right there on me where I had no room, u run out of money so quick to mine. I just dont know what happened to the RTS genre, all I want in a game is where air and ground can be balanced. The air is so weak to the stronger tanks cuz it anti air,and a massive 2 shots kills a building. The infantry is quite horrible, all of this is fine not being good but when u have a wall of gunz to guard barely 1 will hold off tanks. I just feel CC3 is about how many units a team has than building structures,guns,etc. Somethign is lop sided in this game and i cant put my finger on it. Its way to fast paced for me way to fast having a game 6-10 mins is to quick, way to quick.

   what do u think bout cc3? it's not a bad game just nothing will ever conquer starcraft\war craft for an RTS style game. I will agree having 6 man squads is awesome that bunch together,having men going in buildings and holding off enemies is quite awesome. This game is so quick to learn strats its unreal.