|
Intel vs. AMD
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
8. July 2007 @ 20:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well, either way I'm pretty future proof for the next 2+ years.
Only when Intel releases a complete successor to the Core 2 Duo and Nvidia releases a successor to the GeForce 8 will I feel the need for a major upgrade. And the way things are going it'll be a while. Even the new 45nm Intels are only going to be an improvement to the existing Core 2 Duo.
And for new games. Well, just look at what sam said. Even his slightly dated X1900XT can handle most new stuff with absolutely no problem at all.
I can run anything in the next 2 years with absolute top settings for sure. And anything after that will still run well at decently high settings. Even the 6800Ultra is still considered a decent mid-range card after 2 generations.
The Core 2 Duo was another ground-breaker. It currently blows away all other processors ever made. So it'll be atleast as good as the P4 was after a new generation. Not the best anymore but more than adequate to still get the job done.
So I'm confident my brand-new top-of-the-line 8800GTX will have some amazing longevity. It completely decimates every other card out there even from ATi's new high-end. So it'll be at least another generation before it's even slightly dated. It'll require new technology and some amazing clock speeds to top it.
And if AMD's newest line is really as good as they say. And if it's backward compatible. I got a nice high-end AM2 mobo to throw it in and an 8800GTX to back it up.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. July 2007 @ 20:19
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
9. July 2007 @ 09:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
lol, slightly boastful Estuansis? :P
Love the signature quote btw
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
10. July 2007 @ 05:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
Boastful? Definitely :)
True? If not, what the hell did I just spend my money on? lol
I built this with the plan to future proof myself and to play my games well for a few years. I figure if the Pentium 4 and 6800 Ultra can remain popular for as long as they have and still perform adequately then the Core 2 Duo and 8800GTX can too. Besides, now that I have my system pretty much complete I can save my money for a while(a side fund anyway) and be ready for the next generation when it rears its ugly head >.>
It's not like I'm loaded and have multiple systems(just two... and my parents Dell). And both of those systems evolved from super budget builds even using older parts laying around(still have my X850XT). I built using cheaper parts and bought piece-by-piece the rest of my system.
The biggest purchase I've ever made was my 8800GTX and my e6600 together. And I had to save every penny earned for 3 1/2 months to do it.
So I suppose I deserve some bragging rights, no?
And yes, I love my sig quote. Funny enough I found it in another sig :P
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
10. July 2007 @ 06:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well that's what it's all about for you, futureproofing, since you can't use anywhere near all the power of an 8800GTX with a small monitor, so it will last you ages.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
10. July 2007 @ 07:36 |
Link to this message
|
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. July 2007 @ 07:50
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
10. July 2007 @ 07:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
Most of the films I have are widescreen now, I'm at a disadvantage with 5:4 monitors (which 17" and 19" LCDs are, not 4:3 like 15" and 20") and games actually look better in widescreen, when you figure out how to get them working (it's usually not too hard)
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
10. July 2007 @ 07:58 |
Link to this message
|
Just bumming around and saw this baby :)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001234
Not a bad unit if I do say.
The lowest price I found for the huge 2560 x 1600 displays like you have is $1200-$1300. Kinda not worth my money for a monitor that costs as much as a fairly high-spec PC.
Unless you or I can find me one for the <$900 range I either have to start saving or just take a step up to something like that Samsung there. Honestly, though, I don't have desk space for a 30" cinema display.
Edit: yes, you're right. 5:4. I was thinking TV aspect ratio.
Now I am starting to wonder about operational life. Is there a particular brand known for longevity or durability?
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. July 2007 @ 08:29
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
10. July 2007 @ 08:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
10. July 2007 @ 08:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'm looking at it but then I see the resolution. Now I ask you. Is it that much improvement if I get a bigger monitor but stay at the same resolution? Mind you that's a very nice monitor.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
10. July 2007 @ 09:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
1920x1200? Same as the Samsung you posted, and the same size.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
10. July 2007 @ 09:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
No, the one on eBay says 1280 x 1024. Was the one you had 1920 x 1200?
I was looking through some old links and stuff. I found out before the old X2s were stopped for AM2 the 1MiB L2 models came with heatpipe coolers as opposed to heatsinks. But my 4400+(lucky to get it) came with the heatsink cooler. Can anyone confirm this and the fact I got a weird one?
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. July 2007 @ 09:15
|
Senior Member
|
10. July 2007 @ 09:22 |
Link to this message
|
sorry, off topic i know but...well...:)
@sam
what kind of fps range can you get with your 1900xt @ full res on your screen?
i cant imagine an 88gtx has enough power to push out enough pixles to fill that screen much more than 30 times a second, never mind an older tech card or do you drop the res when your playing games? more to the point i guess it depends on the game you play, most rts style games could be played at 15 fps nevermind 60+.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
10. July 2007 @ 10:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
The one on ebay says 1920x1200, look closer.
Marsey: Depends what game, Doom 3 around 50, UT2004 around 80, Counter Strike between 60 and 200, Supreme commander about 30, FEAR around 25. This includes max detail and anti-aliasing if it's in the options.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
10. July 2007 @ 11:56 |
Link to this message
|
Estuansis,
Quote:
I kinda want to avoid widescreen if I can.
Why? I would never go back to a 4:3. Games, Movies and everything else are so much better on the widescreen. Nothing gets stretched except maybe a desktop screen, and there's ways around that (to a degree)! The biggest thing I don't understand is why they keep putting a crappy amp and crappy speakers in them. I don't even know if mine work! LOL!! I've never connected them! LOL!!! Lose the damn speakers and amp and save us some money!!
As far as games go, Quake Arena looks magnificent in widescreen, and if anything it's too fast! Most games I've seen all seem to have a widescreen setting.
Clock On,
theone :>}
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
 |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
10. July 2007 @ 12:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
All games except for those made by EA now support Widescreen. it's EA's policy explicitly not to provide widescreen support for games. Nobody really knows why that is, you have to use programs that edit the game code in order to do it, a bit dodgy. So if you're a Need for speed fan, best avoid widescreen, but for anything else, go for it!
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
10. July 2007 @ 13:02 |
Link to this message
|
Sam & Estuansis,
I would rather have this one!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824112009
Twice the contrast ratio at 2000 to 1, and 2ms for the same price. I've had mine for over a year now and still love it as much as I did when it was new. I don't know how they do it but even this forum page isn't stretched, it's just wider!
Clock On,
theone :>}
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
10. July 2007 @ 13:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
1680x1050? Bah, that's low res!
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
10. July 2007 @ 14:31 |
Link to this message
|
sammorris,
Quote:
1680x1050? Bah, that's low res!
OK wise a$$! LOL!! We're not all rich like you! ROFL!!
Actually, I was just pointing out that the Sceptre has better specs and is faster for the same money as the 22" Samsung!
Clock On,
theone :>}
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
10. July 2007 @ 14:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
yeah but we were discussing the 24" monitor, that's why I commented such.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
10. July 2007 @ 15:03 |
Link to this message
|
sammorris,
Quote:
yeah but we were discussing the 24" monitor, that's why I commented such.
Besides, as the screen gets larger you have to go higher on the resolution to maintain the same pixel pitch (dot pitch on CRTs)! Far more important to picture quality than just resolution! That's why my old Dell 19" CRT is still around, it's .26 dot pitch makes the picture quality so good, it's worth keeping! My roomie loves it!
Clock On,
theone :>}
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
10. July 2007 @ 15:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
The dot pitch of a 22" 1680x1050 is far worse than both a 24" 1920x1200 or a 20" 1680x1050, so that would be the worst size to choose!
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
10. July 2007 @ 18:38 |
Link to this message
|
sammorris,
Quote:
The dot pitch of a 22" 1680x1050 is far worse than both a 24" 1920x1200 or a 20" 1680x1050, so that would be the worst size to choose!
The most decerning eye could not tell the difference. Don't forget that we are talking diagonal measurement here so the difference between the 20.1 and the 22 would be maybe 1/2" all around in width and height. Technically the 22 would be slightly worse at 1680x1050. I doubt that anyone could readily see the difference, even side by side! At 1920x1200 on a 24 they would be about equal picture quality wise as it would need that resolution to fill the 24" screen at roughly the same pixel pitch. It would be larger but about the same in quality. That's why the native resolution is recommended, to maximize the picture quality, because it maximizes the effect of the pixel pitch, which is optimized for the native resolution. CRTs usually do a better job with different resolutions for that very reason. That and phosphor persistence which you don't get with the flat screen LCDs. That's why the older laptops like a Dell C810 make the screen smaller when you raise the resolution. It would look like crap at full screen if it didn't. Text and things like that would look horrible!
Clock On,
theone :>}
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. July 2007 @ 18:40
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
11. July 2007 @ 00:49 |
Link to this message
|
I like the Sceptre. In fact, it's one of the first I looked at. But it's just too low res for gaming with an 8800GTX. I'm looking at 1920 x 1200 or 1600 x 1200 at the very least.
I like the Dell but I'm not going to trust an eBay page with two different resolutions listed. It says 1280 x 1024 on top and 1920 x 1200 on the bottom :(
I'll take a look at the official Dell page.
EDIT:
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/produ...19&sku=320-4335
Look about right? I see now that it is indeed 1920 x 1200.
Price isn't a huge issue as I'm planning on using credit... but I need to watch it precisely because I don't have the cash on-hand.
I usually get all my newegg stuff paying fully right away or paying most of it and then finishing up the payments on the next payday. Just right now I haven't been a penny pincher lately so I only have about $300 or so. It's wicked hard to save up a lot when you earn minimum wage for 20 hours a week :P
sam,
I dunno why I waited for you to mention it before I started seriously looking at monitors. I want to buy soon so I'm glad I already have a credit line with Dell :)
The UltraSharps are some of the best made. So I know I'm grtting quality. And, honestly *looks at sam's monitor* isn't 2560 x 1600 a bit overkill for most games? Only one I can think of with good enough graphics to justify that size is Oblivion or BF 2142(borderline).
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. July 2007 @ 01:17
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
11. July 2007 @ 02:34 |
Link to this message
|
Estuansis,
Quote:
I like the Sceptre. In fact, it's one of the first I looked at. But it's just too low res for gaming with an 8800GTX. I'm looking at 1920 x 1200 or 1600 x 1200 at the very least.
Let me see if I can explain this properly! It's not the resolution, but rather the definition within the given resolution. To take the 1680x1050 of the 20.1" widescreen and duplicate the definition of it on a 24 inch screen, you have to increase the resolution to maintain approximately the same density. It's not like blowing up a photograph with an enlarger! There, the definition falls off the larger you go. With an LCD monitor, the opposite is true! That's why they recommend using the native resolution. as you lower the resolution of any LCD monitor, the visual quality goes down! In essence you have to fit the foot to the shoe, not the other way around. It's the only way you can maintain the quality of the definition! That's the reason that 17" widescreens are just as clean and crisp as a 20.1, a 22 or any larger size. It's not an enlargement but rather a larger version of the same definition.
The reason flatscreens look so bad at lower resolutions is because it's a fixed matrix you are seeing. X amount of pixels x X amount of pixels for a given screen size. That's why CRTs do more resolutions better than LCD flatscreens do. With any LCD monitor the native resolution does nothing more than fill the pre-defined size of the field. The detail remains pretty much the same as pre-defined by the pixel pitch of the given monitor, which has to work within the area defined by the screen size. On a CRT, the dots are fixed just like the LCDs, but the LCD doesn't scan in the traditional way that the CRT does. There is no Phosphor persistence to help smooth out the picture as in a CRT, which is what helps make the lower resolutions look better on a CRT than they do on a LCD! The CRT's still lack detail, but the lack of definition is not as harsh on the eyes as with an LCD!
Simply put, it's not the resolution that dictates picture size, it's the picture size that dictates the resolution needed for maximum picture quality at a given screen size. The larger the screen, the higher the resolution needed to maintain the same picture quality of a smaller one! That's why lower rez games have such crappy looking text on an LCD monitor! It can't smooth out the screen the same way a CRT can. There's no more picture quality with a 24" than a 17", the picture is just physically larger! It's just more of the same! The two things that most determine picture quality on an LCD monitor are the Pixel Pitch and the Contrast Ratio. The lower the pixel pitch and the higher the contrast ratio, the better the picture quality!
I'm sure you've noticed that the native resolution of all LCD Flatscreens is determined by the size of the screen. There are no 1680x1050 19" lCD monitors! Why? Because it's too large to fit the 19" screen! Again it's like the foot and the shoe! The whole thing is dictated by the design of the screen and what sort of matrix the designer uses. That's why most 20 to 22" widescreens are 1680x1050, most 17" and 19" are 1280x1024. You will find some different resolutions for 19" like 1440x900. I guess they display certain widescreen DVDs better. I don't know! This is because the design matrix is completely different. You used to see some 20" flatscreens with lower native resolutions, but if you checked the specs, they had a larger Pixel pitch because they had to spread the pixels out more so the picture quality was worse!
Anyway, I hope that explains it!
Best Regards,
Russ :>}
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
11. July 2007 @ 06:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
The Dell line of monitors are brilliant, I know of 6 or 7 around at my LAN party, and not a single one has a sole dead pixel. The image quality is superb.
Russ, trust me, I think the picture on 22" monitors looks rubbish compared to 24s for that reason, maybe it wouldn't to you, but for me it seems a big difference.
Also note that there are 1920x1200 17" laptop screens. They look AMAZING.
Estuansis: Overkill? Perhaps, but far from unnecessary. The vast resolution even makes games that look rubbish look good! I was amazed when I started running games I'd been using at 1280x1024 at 2560x1600. Even Worms Armageddon looks good!
|
