|
The Ultimate Dream Computer
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
17. November 2008 @ 20:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
You can't overclock dells, not in the normal sense. You can try using CPUFSB but I doubt you'll get very far.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
17. November 2008 @ 23:56 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
justifing fanboyism....
To be honest, I'm still a major AMD/ATi fanboy. But I buy what is most worth my money. It just so happens that the Q6600 gives me stellar performance within the range of a $600 Core i7 and pushes a considerably high end ATi system quite adequately.
Core i7 is not even that much of an upgrade to Core 2 Duo. The hardware is ludicrously expensive and nowhere near justifies the extra performance, especially when we don't really need it at all.
And as far as ATi vs Nvidia. I like Nvidia. My 8800GTS G92 is probably one of the best cards I've ever used. But the fact remains that they hold most of the gaming world by the throat. It was a nice change of pace to see ATi deliver the better product this time around.
Hmm, $250(HD4870) vs $450(GTX280). You tell me which one you're getting considering both are massive overkill cards. I sure don't have $200 a card extra for power I don't need. Even my application of the dual HD4870s was questionable because just one is fast enough to max everything but Crysis adequately.
The GTX280, X58, Core i7, DDR3 and the like may be impressive. But it's really just a huge ass-load of wasted money for minimal gain and no real noticeable improvement.
Quote:
My girlfriends Dell is running a 4400+ and I'm thinking of OC'ing it if the mobo allows. How far did you get yours to and what cooling were you running on it?
I got mine stable at 2.6GHz, but could have possibly gone higher had I been using a different motherboard at the time. I was using an Arctic Freezer 64 Pro. But all this is irrelevant. You can't overclock Dells.
EDIT: Sam, I'm trying Vista Ultimate X64 on an 80GB drive tomorrow. I'll use it for a while and see if I like it. If I do decide to switch over, will an upgrade install go smoothly, or am I better off reformatting?
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 18. November 2008 @ 00:03
|
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
18. November 2008 @ 01:01 |
Link to this message
|
well i had the money so i bought a 4870x2.
but had i more money i certainly would have gone gtx280 in sli and x58.
i just made a statement that sli was scaling better than cf (didnt mention quad) and i7 helps ALOT with dual GPUs vs core 2.
i didnt tell anyone to buy it.
and no it isnt over kill ask sam, we killed his system trying to run crysis 2560 dx10 very high 8xaa.
its needed. if a 4870 was overkill it would easily play crysis or warhead or FC2 or even FSX, but really it cannot.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
18. November 2008 @ 01:47 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
and no it isnt over kill ask sam, we killed his system trying to run crysis 2560 dx10 very high 8xaa.
its needed. if a 4870 was overkill it would easily play crysis or warhead or FC2 or even FSX, but really it cannot.
Yeah, but games have come out after Crysis with similar graphical goals and triple the performance. Also consider that Sam is using 2560 x 1600 and he is the only home user I know that does. So yes, Core i7 can be useful with multi-card graphics at high res. But 95% of us will never ever push a system that hard.
The performance hardware I am using is more than adequate. If there is a CPU bottleneck in my system, I haven't found it yet. And my single 4870 could do Far Cry 2 quite adequately with all Very High at native res. And 2 together does all Ultra with 4xAA smoothly. At 1920 x 1200, that's impressive.
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
|
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
18. November 2008 @ 02:12 |
Link to this message
|
right but i never recomend anyone buy it, or that its good for the home user, all i said was that SLI>CF in i7....
what game is remotely as good looking as crysis, yet works decent?
and by smooth and decent i mean 60FPS, not 25 or 30. what are your frames per second?
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
18. November 2008 @ 02:45 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
right but i never recomend anyone buy it, or that its good for the home user, all i said was that SLI>CF in i7....
No you didn't say that. But I'm dissing it for the straight fact that it's way overpriced and only beneficial to the few super high res gamers like Sam. I'm not arguing against you. I'm arguing against Core i7 and the ridiculous amount of money you have to spend to even USE it. Let alone the relatively minor performance gains compared to the insane prices.
Quote:
what game is remotely as good looking as crysis, yet works decent?
and by smooth and decent i mean 60FPS, not 25 or 30. what are your frames per second?
I get 45-60FPS maxed at 1920 x 1200 w/ 4xAA in Far Cry 2. I daresay that's quite SMOOTH. And it's a visual rival to Crysis easily.
And Deadspace is another one. It has comparable quality textures and models and performs like a dream. I get 100+ FPS in most cases.
And what about Left 4 Dead and Episode 2? Those are both superior in overall quality and art direction(IMO) but give blistering performance as well.
And Call of Duty 4. That game looks seriously nice all maxed and also performs like a champ.
Don't get me wrong. Crysis is an excellent game with technically superior graphics. But many games manage to look even nicer IQ-wise for the sheer fact that you can use AA and AF without destroying your performance. Not only that, but the AA in Crysis gives that performance hit without really DOING anything. There is a noticeable effect, but compared to something like CoD4, the AA in Crysis is practically useless. I don't even bother to use it.
I didn't upgrade for Crysis. I upgraded to play future games. We're at a point where all the best looking games get awesome performance on even budget rigs. But Crysis breaks that trend by running like crap, being extremely system intensive, and glitchy to boot. You can't base your hardware purchases on one game that is already unanimously decided to be a poorly coded system hog.
Crysis may be cutting edge, but if you only worry about your Crysis performance, you may as well buy an Xbox 360 and save yourself the headache.
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
|
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
18. November 2008 @ 02:56 |
Link to this message
|
ok well, tbh i hate crysis as it is, but really, now a days (well as soon as my thermochill PA 120.3 gets fixed, i will most likey buy components for 3dmark :D.
deadspace scares me too much to play, and IMO lush jungle>barren desert any day. also i may hate crysis but my god FC2 is boring lool. on DX10 you will see why crysis looks better than anygame. just go under water or look in the trees toward the sun.
cod4 looks no where near crysis. and trust me to know, i have put over 900 hours into that game.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
18. November 2008 @ 03:04 |
Link to this message
|
Seeing SLI scale better than crossfire goes against what I've seen with 775 for several months.
Crysis never came out on the xbox, it's too demanding.
|
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
18. November 2008 @ 03:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
exactly, was the reason i posted it hehe.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
18. November 2008 @ 12:41 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
deadspace scares me too much to play,
LOL it's not THAT scarey ;P
Quote:
and IMO lush jungle>barren desert any day. also i may hate crysis but my god FC2 is boring lool.
That's definitely a matter of opinion. I think the African setting is a refreshing change of scenery. The deserts and plains have a beauty of their own. I'm kinda sick of nothing but jungles. And I think Far Cry 2 is fun as hell. It all depends on what kind of gamer you are. I really enjoy the immersion in the world. Real weapon fatigue, get tired after running, fix your vehicle, use a map to find your way to the next location. I thought that was the POINT of an open ended shooter. This is the kind of game I was hoping Crysis would be. Though I think Crysis IS the better game overall. Much more thrilling action and a better story.
Quote:
on DX10 you will see why crysis looks better than anygame. just go under water or look in the trees toward the sun.
LOL it's called hacked very high. I get all the light beams and god rays and translucent leaves and color grading and POM and everything else. DX10 is a fricking farce. EVERYTHING for the very high settings can be hacked in except for the more subtle blur shaders. DX10 was tacked on to sell more copies of Vista. Crysis was originally developed as a Dx9 native game.
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
|
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
18. November 2008 @ 12:45 |
Link to this message
|
i know, but still..... (stop proving me wrong :p)
tbh i prefer a faster paced game, ala COD and RA, (hell even rollercoaster tycoon) over a slower mroe immersed FC game :)
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
18. November 2008 @ 13:05 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
i know, but still..... (stop proving me wrong :p)
No, I see exactly what you mean. Crysis is extremely impressive all maxed out. It's definitely the most graphically stunning game to come out yet. But the fact that most systems can't even run it decently maxed at any res, the sometimes heavy glitching, and the lack of AA puts something like CoD4 or Episode 2 far ahead of it in my eyes.
It's not just about eye candy for me. IQ and performance play a HUGE role in graphical quality. Consider that I can run Far Cry 2 MAXED WITH AA and it still performs better than my tweaked Crysis config with NO AA. And Far Cry 2 does all the same tricks from lightbeams to HDR to volumetric foliage. Granted, Crysis does everything with much higher fidelity. But when you can't even properly utilize AA, most of the the fidelity is lost unless you are right up close to what you're looking at or are using a high res monitor.
Quote:
tbh i prefer a faster paced game, ala COD and RA, (hell even rollercoaster tycoon) over a slower mroe immersed FC game :)
Yes. It all depends on what kind of gamer you are. I personally prefer both kinds of games. Slow-paced and immersive as well as fast-paced and flashy. And don't even get me started on a classic like RC Tycoon. I've been playing that off and on for years XD
Also, sadly, I've played the original Stronghold more than any other game XD Some said it was mediocre. But, I dunno, it just clicked with me and became one of my favorites instantly. Must be the excellent environmental/sound design and excellent castle building mechanic.
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 18. November 2008 @ 13:12
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
18. November 2008 @ 14:46 |
Link to this message
|
Maxed out, Far Cry 2, as far as realism goes, is far better than Crysis (the first one or Warhead) simply because the outdoor textures are much higher quality, and the game has proper vegetation rendering. The downside is that the indoor graphics quality is comparatively very poor, on par with typical games of this era.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
18. November 2008 @ 16:09 |
Link to this message
|
Yeah, the game seems to maintain a higher standard of quality than Crysis. The Indoors don't look as sharp but the world looks more natural and cohesive. Even then the Indoors get the quality of maybe Quake 4. Which isn't that bad.
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
15 product reviews
|
19. November 2008 @ 00:09 |
Link to this message
|
Ok so I have Vista Ultimate X64 Service Pack 1 installed. I now admit I was wrong about it. It's extremely similar to XP but with a much better UI and a slightly different folder hierarchy. Aeroglass looks sweet :D The updates are much less intrusive and all of my favorite programs install and run fine. I don't think 2GB vs 4GB makes much of a difference for RAM. Vista disables the UI and such when you run games. Plus it only takes like 850MB of RAM with a few apps open. Compare to XP where it took like 600MB with a bunch of apps open. My game performance is largely the same or better. I have no cases yet where I get worse performance due to not enough RAM or Vista issues. Even Crysis runs like the same give or take 2FPS. No stuttering or anything tells me Vista gives most of the RAM back when you game. I think Service Pack 1 largely fixes most of the immediate issues. If there's anything wrong with Vista, I don't see it. It's just a newer, shinier XP with Direct X 10. I like it :D
More impressions later but it seems Vista gets a bad rap for no reason. It's as decent and stable as XP as far as I can tell. Remember XP wasn't that great either, but updates smoothed it out and made it good. I think their sales are so poor compared to XP because so many more people have computer access now. That means that more people are exposed to the negative press.
It DOES use much more RAM, so 4GB can be beneficial. But 2GB seems to be working just fine for games and everything.
Anyway. Try it before you judge it. It's not really any worse than XP at all. If I run into issues, I'll be sure to update. But it's perfectly usable so far.
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 19. November 2008 @ 00:17
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
19. November 2008 @ 00:18 |
Link to this message
|
Also, a lot of the ram is used in SuperFetch. This was your programs that you use most often start up more than twice as fast compared to XP!
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
19. November 2008 @ 00:36 |
Link to this message
|
Yeah, superfetch is already working as my E mail and Firefox opened lightning quick after the first few times. At first it took the usual second or two to load, but now it's just instant. Very cool. I wonder how it applies to everything else and what programs it affects.
And yeah, superfetch is the main cause of all the used RAM. It gives the RAM back the second you need it though so it's a decent utility. Vista is impressive so far.
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
|
19. November 2008 @ 05:14 |
Link to this message
|
I've not checked my RAM usage since disabling all the useless stuff like Superfetch, Indexing and Malware scans, but I do know that without opening any programs other than the tray icons automatically loaded for me, using a real memory monitor (not the task manager) my idle usage was 1400MB. With XP it's about 600.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
19. November 2008 @ 05:25 |
Link to this message
|
So would you say that 2GB of RAM is serviceable or is 4GB really necessary for smooth gaming? Memory is cheap, so It's not that big an issue to get a 4GB kit. But do I NEED it to get smooth performance? Vista seems pretty responsive to me with 2GB. Maybe 4GB will be a big difference and I just don't know it yet??? Because, TBH, I've only spent about 5 minutes checking out my games.
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 19. November 2008 @ 05:27
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. November 2008 @ 05:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
Depends what games you play, but realistically, I'd recommend 4GB for any game I'd consider 'demanding' on the CPU and GPU.
|
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
19. November 2008 @ 12:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
yey another vista convert :)
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
19. November 2008 @ 12:59 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Depends what games you play, but realistically, I'd recommend 4GB for any game I'd consider 'demanding' on the CPU and GPU.
So far, CoD4 and Episode 2 are stutter free. Crysis does have some increased load times and some minor stuttering but nothing I'd consider bad. FEAR also stutters a bit now and then, but also not anywhere near bad. As far as I've seen, my actual framerates are largely the same +/- ~5%. Anyone worried about game performance either has a seriously weak system or has nothing to worry about.
4GB it is then. Can you recommend a kit? Are there any 4GB kits with the Micron D9 chips anymore? My Mushkin sticks use them and the latencies and OCing are incredible.
Quote:
yey another vista convert :)
Yeah. It's nowhere near as bad as people make it sound. It IS a bit different than XP. But the file system is MUCH more intuitive and feels very "natural" to navigate. It's easy to get used to, and when you do, everything goes much quicker and with less mouse clicks than XP.
I'd rate Vista like an 8.5/10 and XP like a 9/10. Only for the fact that Vista has much higher requirements to run smoothly. In fact, that's my only major complaint so far. But if you have the system to run it, Vista is every bit as nice as XP and then some.
Again, I feel a powerful urge to say: TRY IT BEFORE YOU JUDGE IT. You might like it.
Of course, some are bound to genuinely not like it at all. Matter of opinion I guess...
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
|
19. November 2008 @ 13:32 |
Link to this message
|
The reasons I don't like Vista versus XP are due to personal experience, the number of issues I've had with Vista due to bugs or incompatibilities is around 30, and so far only around 20 of those have either been fixed or have 100% workarounds. However, that said, there are almost a dozen things I can't do with XP that I need Vista for, so the only real option for most people is to have both.
Estuansis: FEAR microstutters in CF. Disable it and the game will run better, I can max the game out at 2560x1600 on one card, let alone your res.
As far as RAM goes, I use 2x2GB Corsair XMS2 PC2-8500. Works well, haven't really tested overclocking much as I don't have the right chipset to do it.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
19. November 2008 @ 14:01 |
Link to this message
|
LOL disabling Crossfire did the trick. Silky smooth now ;P
So what issues does Vista have for you that XP doesn't and vice versa? For the record, I backed up all my stuff and completely reformatted and reinstalled with a clean Vista installation. Still no issues to speak of. Maybe that my X-Fi Xtreme Music doesn't work with Vista. But it went back into my dual core build anyway :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
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. November 2008 @ 14:16 |
Link to this message
|
Sound card related stuff was epic until I figured out how to fix most of the issues, only remaining problem now is that not all games that supported surround in XP do in Vista.
|
