AMD Vs Intel

[scrag]

Been a while since I contemplated getting a machine - everything is PCI and I am torn between the two as well as the different video cards - ATI Vs Nvidea (running Nvidea currently). I do not play the amount of games I used to play - frankly SHIII/IV are the most played for now. I know I need to buy enough machine to get me over the next couple of years so I am looking for input (also contemplating Vista but so far I am not impressed with it for gaming)
I am looking for suggestions.

[mookiemookie]

www.tomshardware.com

[Doolittle81]

ASUS P5N32-E SLI, 680i
Dual core E6700 Cpu (Mobo upgradeable to Quad-Core)
2GB OCZ PC2 8800 (1100Mhz) RAM (Mobo upgradeable to 4Gb)
BFG 8800GTX Graphics card (Mobo upgradable to two 8800 cards in SLI
Audigy2 ZS
4 Seagate 400GB hard drives in a 0+1 RAID array
Plextor PX-800A
Samsung 24" Widescreen LCD Monitor 1920X1200 native
Windows VISTA 32bit

[stabiz]

Do NOT buy the 8800GTX when the new 8800GT performs 10% less and costs 50% less. The 8800GTS that is reported to be out in december/january will perform like the current 8800 Ultra, and will cost a little bir more than the new 8800GT. In short, the GTX`s and the Ultras are redundant.

[Torps]

Been a while since I contemplated getting a machine - everything is PCI and I am torn between the two as well as the different video cards - ATI Vs Nvidea (running Nvidea currently). I do not play the amount of games I used to play - frankly SHIII/IV are the most played for now. I know I need to buy enough machine to get me over the next couple of years so I am looking for input (also contemplating Vista but so far I am not impressed with it for gaming)
I am looking for suggestions.

Here you go http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weaves_its_web/page22.html

[silent killer]

i am using ak9ag neo2-digital main board with an amd dual core 6000 cpu, 2gigs of corsair ddr2 ram and a bfg 8800/320oc vidio card on windows vista. no problems running the game.

[Reno]

Do NOT buy the 8800GTX when the new 8800GT performs 10% less and costs 50% less. The 8800GTS that is reported to be out in december/january will perform like the current 8800 Ultra, and will cost a little bir more than the new 8800GT. In short, the GTX`s and the Ultras are redundant.

Might want to do some checking first. More than enough evidence from owners of the 8800GT that there are some serious issues. Overheating's the big one as is incompatibility with some motherboards and the need for bigger and better power supplies. Read the Nvidia forums. Better yet, just google "8800gt problems". Aftermarket cooling is the main topic followed closely by problems with motherboards, power supplies, and inability to run games at higher resolutions. Serious money is being spent on aftermarket cooling, beefier power supplies, and motherboards trying to make these cards perform as they should. Couple this with the frustration and time spent and it's suddenly not a bargain after all. I've had the 8800GTX since they first came out over a year ago and have never had a problem either with overheating or performance. They are still one of the best cards out there and well worth the money spent. I always play at max settings and smile at the results. The GTX has been out for awhile now and is still the card all others are compared too. As soon as I get a higher resolution monitor, (currently 1680 x 1050) I'll probably get another to SLI. Bottom line, don't believe hype. Reviews are only snapshots in time and don't always reflect the real world. I may have paid more but for almost a year now I've played and experienced the games the way they were meant to be. And, like the commercial says, that's "priceless".

[Brenjen]

I play SH4 & many other games just fine on my older machine. I'm not saying it's out of date old; it was top of the line a couple years ago. My specs are:

ASUS A8N SLI Premium socket 939 (mature not ancient)

AMD64 FX-60 dual core CPU (overclocked to 3ghz for my amusement)

2 x 1gig sticks of Patriot DDR (upgradable to 4)

Creative Labs Audigy 2 ZS sound card

eVGA 7950 GX2 (overclocked to 595 core & 1600 memory also for amusement)

Antec 550 watt true power power supply

Windows XP home (I'm cheap like that,I had pro on another machine & it's not worth the extra price imo)

My CPU & GPU(s) are water cooled by Danger Den

My system rips through everything on high settings that I've played so far. I built this system for Aces High & it performed well; if you have ever played that game you'll know how it bogs down systems. I reccomend eVGA strictly on the basis of warranty & customer service; they are second to no one. I'd also stay far away from Vista for a few years & let everyone else test it. The video cards are the real quandry; DX10 is coming sooner than later & video cards are way too expensive. In short whatever video card you get you'll have to live with a while unless you're made out of money & the better the video card the more power it'll need (as a general rule), so do not skimp on your power supply, get a good one - good reputation & high wattage output. Newegg is an excellent place for PC parts & they can sometimes get you your stuff in under 24 hours depending on where you live.

[Wilcke]

I have been building AMD systems for the past 5 years. If I were to build today it would be Intel all the way. They are faster and cooler, less power demands. Video card take your pick thats a more intricate dance.

Wilcke

[Rockin Robbins]

I play SH4 & many other games just fine on my older machine. I'm not saying it's out of date old; it was top of the line a couple years ago. My specs are:

ASUS A8N SLI Premium socket 939 (mature not ancient)

AMD64 FX-60 dual core CPU (overclocked to 3ghz for my amusement)

2 x 1gig sticks of Patriot DDR (upgradable to 4)

Creative Labs Audigy 2 ZS sound card

eVGA 7950 GX2 (overclocked to 595 core & 1600 memory also for amusement)

Antec 550 watt true power power supply

Windows XP home (I'm cheap like that,I had pro on another machine & it's not worth the extra price imo)

My CPU & GPU(s) are water cooled by Danger Den

My system rips through everything on high settings that I've played so far. I built this system for Aces High & it performed well; if you have ever played that game you'll know how it bogs down systems. I reccomend eVGA strictly on the basis of warranty & customer service; they are second to no one. I'd also stay far away from Vista for a few years & let everyone else test it. The video cards are the real quandry; DX10 is coming sooner than later & video cards are way too expensive. In short whatever video card you get you'll have to live with a while unless you're made out of money & the better the video card the more power it'll need (as a general rule), so do not skimp on your power supply, get a good one - good reputation & high wattage output. Newegg is an excellent place for PC parts & they can sometimes get you your stuff in under 24 hours depending on where you live.
My motherboard but I went for two 7600GTs in SLi to see what I could get. I'm not sure that was a great move. I cheaped out and slid in an Athlon 64 3700+ cpu because I spent all that money on the graphix:yep:. I'll have to do something about that someday. No water cooling and overclocking for me, it's not worth it to me to cost myself 2 years of product life for 20% gain. That means I'm likely to get into it for my amusement like you.:rotfl:But later for that too.

Heck, I even got a 550 watt power supply like you, after I melted it down and blew up a graphics card.:damn: But that's the system building game. It's called adventure and it ain't pretty sometimes.:doh:

It's amazing that two unconnected people choosing from thousands of different component combinations can build such similar machines. Gotta love the Asus motherboard. Other than the on-board sound, which we've both deep-sixed, it's great!

I'm happy enough with the AMD chip and I sure saved a bundle. As long as I can run SH4 with graphics settings WFO I'm happy. I do that easily, even with only one card in the machine right now.

[Brenjen]

That Asus board was pretty popular & I'm with you - I love it. My system has been rock solid since day one.....aside from a bad sata cable that caused me some head scratching in the first few months. The Intel Core 2 Duo 6700 system I built for my wife & kids this year boots faster than mine by a few seconds but my machine still out performs it in games so I'm not quite as in love with Intel as the general population seems to be; don't get me wrong it is a good chip & it is technically better on paper. I'm just glad I built my system when I did. By the time it gets too old all the Vista, DX 10 & green vs. red should have stabilized a bit & making a clear choice easier to identify.

As far as my system, my 7950 GX2 might not perform quite as well as a 7800 gt SLI system but it comes close because of the dual GPU set-up & with overclocking it's pretty incredible. As far as overclocking causing shorter life spans; that's still a bone of contention with many. With the watercooling on my CPU & GPU(s) they run much cooler overclocked than they did at stock speeds on air. The water cooling set-up was a little pricey but it was worth it. Especially if you like a quiet system.

[Rockin Robbins]

That Asus board was pretty popular & I'm with you - I love it. My system has been rock solid since day one.....aside from a bad sata cable that caused me some head scratching in the first few months. The Intel Core 2 Duo 6700 system I built for my wife & kids this year boots faster than mine by a few seconds but my machine still out performs it in games so I'm not quite as in love with Intel as the general population seems to be; don't get me wrong it is a good chip & it is technically better on paper. I'm just glad I built my system when I did. By the time it gets too old all the Vista, DX 10 & green vs. red should have stabilized a bit & making a clear choice easier to identify.

As far as my system, my 7950 GX2 might not perform quite as well as a 7800 gt SLI system but it comes close because of the dual GPU set-up & with overclocking it's pretty incredible. As far as overclocking causing shorter life spans; that's still a bone of contention with many. With the watercooling on my CPU & GPU(s) they run much cooler overclocked than they did at stock speeds on air. The water cooling set-up was a little pricey but it was worth it. Especially if you like a quiet system.
/holds hand over eyes and whistles to avoid the evil siren's call :-?

Must........maintain..........cash.............con trol.............:dead:

[De@dMe@t]

wait till january & get an amd. the new quads are going to slaughter intel on performance and price. stay away from nvidia graphics the new ati cards due in january are going to make everything out now wothless, so any money you spend now is wasted. plus nvidia cards cant do dx10.1 properly, they are having serious problems with the chipsets and the drivers, theyre ok on dx10 but 10.1 they cant do it.

[scrag]

I started having issues with heat and now must leave the case open - it did not used to ever have a problem but fin, I understand that as Processors get older they tend to run hotter. I have an old ASP mobo and if I change I need to go to PCI. I am looking for a nice mid-range machine. Spending 3 grand on a gamong rig won't do much for me as I won't use it that much. I would like to go to to a LCD display.
Here is what I have currently.
ASUS P4C-800-E
P4 3.0 (Clocked out to 3.3)
1024 Memory PC3200 Corasir CMX 512 C2
6800 Ultra Video Card

I Could look at updating my video card and update my memory, though I am uncertain what the max speed I could use.

[Rockin Robbins]

wait till january & get an amd. the new quads are going to slaughter intel on performance and price. stay away from nvidia graphics the new ati cards due in january are going to make everything out now wothless, so any money you spend now is wasted. plus nvidia cards cant do dx10.1 properly, they are having serious problems with the chipsets and the drivers, theyre ok on dx10 but 10.1 they cant do it.
ATI has NEVER before come out with a card that made nVidia cards worthless before, why are we supposed to believe that is true now? DX10 and DX10.1 are totally compatible, unlike some nasty rumors earlier. 10.1 is only a bug fix.

I'm going with nVidia's track record of almost always being the best and staying put until ATI actually delivers the goods, which they haven't done yet. If they come out with a good card it will only lower the price on the 8800GT card I'm going to buy. ATI has played poor sister so long I need consistent success on their part to even consider them a contender.

Microprocessors are way ahead of the games and buying the latest quad core will only lighten your pocket and make you a bit faster running 100 yards. It won't help Silent Hunter 4. ANYBODY can spend altogether too much money on their system. It takes skill and experience to assemble something for a reasonable amount of cash that can still play SH4 WFO. I'm convinced it can now be done for about $800, not including monitor, keyboard and mouse. The new quad core is likely to cost that much. Hope lots of rich people buy it and bring the price down to earth. In the meantime my Athlon 64 3700+ plays SH4 fine and if I get a wild hair I'll slam an Athlon X2 in there. AMDs aren't the fastest, but they're plenty good enough and the price is nice!

[Stealth Hunter]

AMD Duo Processors FOR THE WIN!

[mcarlsonus]

First, everyone's got valid points. Second, although an AMD fan, the latest generation of CoreDuo/Quad Intels do perform better. But, wait, before you answer! The new tech AMD Phenom's are supposed to be available for desktops in the December/January timeframe (allegedly - AMD does have a history of announcing new items well before they actuallly appear on store shelves). Phenom's will be available in both dual and quad core configurations. Actual production CPU's have yet to be tested and compared against Intel's latest and greatest.
Frankly, quad core, at this point, is an unnecessary waste of money (IMHO, of course!). And, as previously mentioned, the hardware is FAR ahead of software that can utilize all its resources. But (and there's always a "but"), it's getting to be that there's little price differential between dual and quad, so...
ATI vs. nVidia: I've used both. I prefer nVidia, but, it's not a performance issue. I find the Radeon drivers supplied by ATI fully satisfactory UNTIL the first update. After managing to install new drivers per instruction, the future's a crapshoot...

And y'all (and especially you, RockRob!) that 8600GT card, as also previously posted, is having difficulties. BUT (again) there's also the premium it's currently commanding! On eBay (just checked today), new ones are on "Buy It Now" for no less than $350 to $400! Dang! Maybe as well head on up to the double-wides as, with the rebates, they're currently cheaper!!! And, well, that defeats THAT purpose (you know, the $200-$250 price point)!

Here's me current gig, for those of you viewing at home:
AMD 4600+ x2
4 GB 5300 RAM
320 GB SATA 7200
Antec NeoHE 550 PS
XFX nVidia-based 7600GT (cuz I wanna be just like my hero, RockRob!)
22" widescreen Acer LCD (this was a freakin' STEAL! Not much of a fan of Acer equipment, but this is a MARVELOUS monitor!)
Hand crank (that's a Kansas UPS!)

Methinks this is going to be a semi-disastrous season for the purveyors of hardware. Think I'll wait awhile to do something else video board, CPU-oriented. There's already some good deals on the upper branch of the nVidia tree, but, think if I just wait a little longer, the new nForce drivers/chipsets mature, etc., etc.

[Capt. Shark Bait]

whatever you get, just make sure vi$ta:down: ain't part of it

[Rockin Robbins]

Here's me current gig, for those of you viewing at home:
AMD 4600+ x2
4 GB 5300 RAM
320 GB SATA 7200
Antec NeoHE 550 PS
XFX nVidia-based 7600GT (cuz I wanna be just like my hero, RockRob!)
22" widescreen Acer LCD (this was a freakin' STEAL! Not much of a fan of Acer equipment, but this is a MARVELOUS monitor!)
Hand crank (that's a Kansas UPS!)
Yeah, aint that special. Here we sit pretty with our 7600GTs in no particular hurry, hating those stupid premiums they're getting for the new card. I feel like I can park right here for the time being because I'm in the driver's seat. Don't NEED to upgrade, but for the right price....

I might imitate you and chuck my Athlon 64 3700+ and get your exact CPU. I bought one for my son and it rocks. Still using a 17" CRT, which is nowhere near as big as a 17" LCD. Hey, I'm not spending the big bucks for the latest/greatest. I insist on a good buy while I'm at it. My object was to build the cheapest machine I could to play SH3 wide open. It worked for SH4 too.

So no hero here, just a guy trying to build something that works for what I can afford. Well over half the machines around here can eat my lunch and make me throw away the trash.:rotfl:

[Reaves]

Get:

Intel Quad core (At least 2.4ghz - E6600 I think)

Motherboard - SLI capable with DDR3 is going to be the norm for new ones by Q2 next year so if it's a full upgrade think about the better RAM... Pricey but worth it in the end...

GFX - I have an 8800 Ultra because when I purchased, it was the best. And when I need more power i'll just get anothe Ultra and SLI them.

OS - Vista 64 bit. New games work fine on Vista and I don't have a single problem with SH4 and Vista. Remember XP had the same compatibility problems with older games when it came out. Unless you want a new PC to use OLD software, get Vista 64 bit because what is the point of 32 bit when you have a 64 bit system??


My 2 cents.

[Torps]

First, everyone's got valid points. Second, although an AMD fan, the latest generation of CoreDuo/Quad Intels do perform better. But, wait, before you answer! The new tech AMD Phenom's are supposed to be available for desktops in the December/January timeframe (allegedly - AMD does have a history of announcing new items well before they actuallly appear on store shelves). Phenom's will be available in both dual and quad core configurations. Actual production CPU's have yet to be tested and compared against Intel's latest and greatest.
Frankly, quad core, at this point, is an unnecessary waste of money (IMHO, of course!). And, as previously mentioned, the hardware is FAR ahead of software that can utilize all its resources. But (and there's always a "but"), it's getting to be that there's little price differential between dual and quad, so...
ATI vs. nVidia: I've used both. I prefer nVidia, but, it's not a performance issue. I find the Radeon drivers supplied by ATI fully satisfactory UNTIL the first update. After managing to install new drivers per instruction, the future's a crapshoot...

And y'all (and especially you, RockRob!) that 8600GT card, as also previously posted, is having difficulties. BUT (again) there's also the premium it's currently commanding! On eBay (just checked today), new ones are on "Buy It Now" for no less than $350 to $400! Dang! Maybe as well head on up to the double-wides as, with the rebates, they're currently cheaper!!! And, well, that defeats THAT purpose (you know, the $200-$250 price point)!

Here's me current gig, for those of you viewing at home:
AMD 4600+ x2
4 GB 5300 RAM
320 GB SATA 7200
Antec NeoHE 550 PS
XFX nVidia-based 7600GT (cuz I wanna be just like my hero, RockRob!)
22" widescreen Acer LCD (this was a freakin' STEAL! Not much of a fan of Acer equipment, but this is a MARVELOUS monitor!)
Hand crank (that's a Kansas UPS!)

Methinks this is going to be a semi-disastrous season for the purveyors of hardware. Think I'll wait awhile to do something else video board, CPU-oriented. There's already some good deals on the upper branch of the nVidia tree, but, think if I just wait a little longer, the new nForce drivers/chipsets mature, etc., etc.

If you went to the two links previously posted on this thread, you will find the processors from Intel and AMD have been tested head to head. The difference between production and and pre is hardly anything. I am running a engineering sample of Core 2 Duo not production and in fact my performance is a little better then the production.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weaves_its_web/page22.html

The performance lead by Intels Quad core processors vs AMD's Phenom is between 13.5% and 18%. Intel still has the lead by a good margin just Like Nvidia does over AMD/ATI. There been other sites that tested them and came back with similar results.

[quitefrankly]

First, everyone's got valid points.Not everyone. Some of the posts in this thread are just flat out wrong.

Also, Quad Core is only unnecessary if all you do is browse the web and use MS Word or something. If you are a gamer, you would be crazy to buy a PC today that isn't Quad Core. The Q6600 is excellent value for money, and the CPU situation is only going to improve in January as the Yorkfields start rolling out. The same goes for graphics cards, the 8800GTS looks like it is going to be the best choice for most people, and the Geforce 9800 series will change things drastically when that is released in Q1 08.

Also, do not buy a 22" screen unless you are on a strict budget.

As for DDR3, it's a waste of money at the moment. That will change but not for a while, and in the meantime, you would be mad to buy DDR3 when you consider how cheap DDR2 is. You could buy some DDR2 and then just throw it away when DDR3 becomes a more reasonable price. And in the meantime, you won't have missed out on anything.

As for Vista, I wouldn't bother if I was you. There is no real reason to use it, and many reasons to not use it.

[Rockin Robbins]

First, everyone's got valid points.Not everyone. Some of the posts in this thread are just flat out wrong.

Also, Quad Core is only unnecessary if all you do is browse the web and use MS Word or something. If you are a gamer, you would be crazy to buy a PC today that isn't Quad Core. The Q6600 is excellent value for money, and the CPU situation is only going to improve in January as the Yorkfields start rolling out. The same goes for graphics cards, the 8800GTS looks like it is going to be the best choice for most people, and the Geforce 9800 series will change things drastically when that is released in Q1 08.

Also, do not buy a 22" screen unless you are on a strict budget.

As for DDR3, it's a waste of money at the moment. That will change but not for a while, and in the meantime, you would be mad to buy DDR3 when you consider how cheap DDR2 is. You could buy some DDR2 and then just throw it away when DDR3 becomes a more reasonable price. And in the meantime, you won't have missed out on anything.

As for Vista, I wouldn't bother if I was you. There is no real reason to use it, and many reasons to not use it.
This guy has it all under control. For millionaires!:rotfl:

[quitefrankly]

This guy has it all under control. For millionaires!:rotfl:
Hmm not really, everything I said was very budget minded! None of this stuff HAS to be very expensive. But somebody said that quad core was unnecessary, and that is not really true. Many modern applications (Photoshop etc), and very forward thinking nowdays, and consequently, they make good use of quad core. You can look at benchmarks yourself, and it shows the story. But this is even more true of games. Some games don't take advantage of the extra cores yet, but some do! and as time passes, more and more are becoming multi-threaded and making more and more use of multiple cores.

There are many existing games which already show speed increases on quad cores by the way, and in 2008, there are many games due which are said to be designed with quad core squarely in mind. One of them for example, (Alan Wake), is designed in such a way that a dual core is a requirement to even play the game. And quad core will only make things better.

So it is a sensible choice for the future anyway, unless you are on a strict budget. But even then... like I said, the Q6600 is the low end quad core, but it is still very fast, and it isn't THAT expensive. So it is a very good value chip.

And its a similar story with graphics cards. The 8800GTS is being revised, and the new version is meant to be as fast as the existing top of the line cards, and yet it will be a fraction of the price. So again, it is good value. None of this stuff is cheap.. but still, thats not really what I'm talking about.

So most of what I said was budget minded. You could go out now and spend a fortune on DDR3 and get little or even NO improvement at all. So I said to not do that, and go with DDR2 instead. If I was only thinking about millionaires, I would be saying screw it.. go and buy 8gig of DDR3, a quad core extreme, and an 8800Ultra, and ignore the fact that it will all be superseded in just a few months.


p.s. And by the way, my comment about the 22" screen, is not because I suggest getting a larger screen, but strangely.. I suggest getting a smaller screen. (20"). I won't go into why that is though or it will take forever.

[scrag]

I appreciatte all the replies so far - I am going to have to go with a mid-range machine - I game every few days, use PH CS3 and do the typical things - I definnetly understand about buying ahead (getting the latest tech for the dollar). I wish I had a 3 - 4 grand to put into a machine but I do not. I saw some results on the Phenom and it was 13 percent slower than the quad cores. The battle between AMD and Intel continues. I am concerned (very) about VISTA. When I bought my sons computer he wanted Vista (actually it was Vista or bust). I have read that a number of people are re-installing XP because of all of VISTA's issues. I do know that it is better to run whatever bridge processor (nvidea chipset with nvidea video vice ATI). I saw a number of issues with ATI and SH3/SH4 or am I broke on this?
What is crossfire BTW (Vice SLI)?

[Rockin Robbins]

Hmm not really, everything I said was very budget minded! None of this stuff HAS to be very expensive. But somebody said that quad core was unnecessary, and that is not really true. Many modern applications (Photoshop etc), and very forward thinking nowdays, and consequently, they make good use of quad core. You can look at benchmarks yourself, and it shows the story. But this is even more true of games. Some games don't take advantage of the extra cores yet, but some do! and as time passes, more and more are becoming multi-threaded and making more and more use of multiple cores.

There are many existing games which already show speed increases on quad cores by the way, and in 2008, there are many games due which are said to be designed with quad core squarely in mind. One of them for example, (Alan Wake), is designed in such a way that a dual core is a requirement to even play the game. And quad core will only make things better.
And when more software needs a quad core processor, prices will come down out of orbit and we'll be paying $150 or less for them. Right now, they cost more than half of my $800 system.

Even the Q6600 is $280. That's no value! I run Photoshop. And I run SH4 with graphics settings wide open with my $80 Athlon 3700+. I'd upgrade for the x2 4600+, but $280 is more than I have in both of my pretty respectable graphics cards. Incremental improvements don't interest me. I'm looking for magnitudes of improvement for NO extra price. (Example: the 8800GT, which would more than double my graphics performance will cost $250 for the EVGA KO version in six months: the same amount I have in the two 7600GTs I have now. THATs a sensible upgrade) And of course I have the advantage of not playing the mexican jumping bean 1st person shooter games very much. I did play Unreal Tournament 3 wide open at 1152x864 only a little lag in career mode though (that was microprocessor, not graphics lag). If I could only convince myself the game was worthwhile!:down:

My goal is a good games computer for well under $1000, not including monitor, keyboard or mouse. Granted, if you think you'll die without wringing the last 20% of possible performance from a computer, you'll be very frustrated with my choices. $500 for a microprocessor, $600 for a graphics card and $250 for a motherboard is for the rich people who make my cheap effective strategy work. Sure wish there were more of them. Somebody lower their taxes!:up:

@scrag: SLi and Crossfire are similar systems for nVidia and ATI respectively, that allow you to hook two graphics cards together to work as one for a single monitor. Basically, by dividing the work in half, they are supposed to double to speed. With Silent Hunter 4, the word is out that Crossfire gives no advantage at all. My initial opinion from working with my one surviving member of my SLi team (hats off in respect for the dead one) of 7600GTs is that SLi might not be much better. Caution: this is specifically with SH4 and doesn't reflect on other applications. When I get my replacement card, I'll do some framerate studies with one card vs SLI and publish them here in the immortal thread that never dies.

[quitefrankly]

I appreciatte all the replies so far - I am going to have to go with a mid-range machine - I game every few days, use PH CS3 and do the typical things - I definnetly understand about buying ahead (getting the latest tech for the dollar). I wish I had a 3 - 4 grand to put into a machine but I do not. I saw some results on the Phenom and it was 13 percent slower than the quad cores. The battle between AMD and Intel continues. I am concerned (very) about VISTA. When I bought my sons computer he wanted Vista (actually it was Vista or bust). I have read that a number of people are re-installing XP because of all of VISTA's issues. I do know that it is better to run whatever bridge processor (nvidea chipset with nvidea video vice ATI). I saw a number of issues with ATI and SH3/SH4 or am I broke on this?
What is crossfire BTW (Vice SLI)?I wouldn't bother with Vista if I was you. There are a fair few problems with Vista, which you may or may not come across, but XP is pretty stable nowdays. If you want an easier life, just use XP. I haven't seen any reason to move to Vista yet, and I already own it. I was expecting to have to move to Vista to play Crysis with maximum settings and DX10, but even that didn't end up being the case.

Crossfire is just the ATI equivalent of SLI.

And when more software needs a quad core processor, prices will come down out of orbit and we'll be paying $150 or less for them.So what? Firstly, are you suggesting someone should buy a dual core now and then buy a quad core in 2008? That isn't wise.

Secondly, prices are ALWAYS coming down, so you will always be making a saving by waiting - but you would never buy anything.. The are sensible times to buy hardware though, and we are coming up to that soon. And lastly, there is enough software that uses quad core already, to justify buying it if you are due an upgrade.


Right now, they cost more than half of my $800 system.

Even the Q6600 is $280. That's no value!That is not half your system.. Half your system would be $400. $280 IS good value for the latest technology processor, with 4 cores.. You can't get good stuff for free. If you can't afford it, don't buy it. Get a dual core instead.


I run Photoshop. And I run SH4 with graphics settings wide open with my $80 Athlon 3700+. Yeah but that is you.. I can run tetris on my 10 year old laptop, so what? If you are "a gamer", then you play more than just SH4. And if you play more than just SH4, the chances are, you are going to need all the speed you can get. Download the Crysis demo and see how far you get with your PC. You would have to lower the graphics settings so far to make it playable, you mayaswell just play Far Cry.

(Example: the 8800GT, which would more than double my graphics performance will cost $250 for the EVGA KO version in six months: the same amount I have in the two 7600GTs I have now. THATs a sensible upgrade) I don't know what you mean, and I don't know what this has to do with what I said.

And of course I have the advantage of not playing the mexican jumping bean 1st person shooter games very much.Ahh, it was you who said that about Crysis... That explains everything.

$500 for a microprocessor, $600 for a graphics card and $250 for a motherboard is for the rich people...or for enthusiasts with a decent job. And those price are top end gear. Nobody is suggesting anyone buys that. Infact if you actually bothered to read what I said, and spend a moment to try to understand it... you would see that I suggested NOT doing that.

who make my cheap effective strategy work.It's hardly some super secret uber strategy.. You buy cheap gear and you run less demanding games, and lower the graphics settings.


@scrag: SLi and Crossfire are similar systems for nVidia and ATI respectively, that allow you to hook two graphics cards together to work as one for a single monitor.or multiple monitors...

Basically, by dividing the work in half, they are supposed to double to speed.That is not true.

[Rockin Robbins]

(Example: the 8800GT, which would more than double my graphics performance will cost $250 for the EVGA KO version in six months: the same amount I have in the two 7600GTs I have now. THATs a sensible upgrade) I don't know what you mean, and I don't know what this has to do with what I said. Everyone else understands EXACTLY what I meant and this is the proof of what I said. They understand that too.

$500 for a microprocessor, $600 for a graphics card and $250 for a motherboard is for the rich people...or for enthusiasts with a decent job.
I have a VERY decent job. I just get more pleasure from good value than I do from owning the latest and greatest of everything. I am perfectly willing to give away 30% in performance for 1/4 the price.:p

who make my cheap effective strategy work.It's hardly some super secret uber strategy.. You buy cheap gear and you run less demanding games, and lower the graphics settings.
You are purposely ignoring the conversation and talking to yourself. Very good. I already said with my machine I play both SH4 and Unreal Tournament 3 wide open. You don't need a quad core processor to do that, just balanced cheap components that "gamers" are bored with. Also, there's nothing secret about what I do. I tell exact system composition and where I buy everything with the object of helping people as afraid as I was a year ago to build from scratch. Building a great system for little cash is fun!


@scrag: SLi and Crossfire are similar systems for nVidia and ATI respectively, that allow you to hook two graphics cards together to work as one for a single monitor.or multiple monitors...

Basically, by dividing the work in half, they are supposed to double to speed.That is not true.
Yike we have another troll on our hands! If a graphics card draws x pixels per second with a screen size of y total pixels and you divide the pixels needing to be drawn in half, you double the number of screens per second. You could have said something indicating legitimate thought processes, involving overhead loss, or software not properly using the dual card strategies and made a legitimate observation that no system is 100% efficient, and you would have been right. However...

I've been very clear throughout the thread that I am pessimistic that I gained too much by going for an SLi configuration, so painting me as an ignoramous has to be predicated on the false assumption that no one following the thread has read any of my other posts. That's a most curious tactic. Color me amused.

Stay tuned for the great 7600GT SLi vs non-SLi showdown, scheduled for Thursday. I'm supposed to receive my replacement card Wednesday. Any suggestions as to testing procedures would be welcome. I'm only interested in SH4 for this test to answer the question, "Since SH4 does not use Crossfire very well, or at all, does it treat SLi equally badly?" I'll let you know frame rates in several different circumstances, which should let fence sitters know if they would be happy with an nVidia 7600GT card or cards.

I'm all about making information known to people wanting to build systems. My OPINION is useless. If you have the information, you can conjure up your own opinion, which could well be different from mine.

[John Channing]

Boys, boys, boys... I am just not feelin' the love in the room.

:-?

But while I have the attention of a pair of experts I have a question.

Everything else being equal would I be better off (playing mostly SH4) with a Core 2 Quad 6600 or a Core 2 Duo 6750R?

JCC

[V.C. Sniper]

Intel sinks AMD's battleships with one torpedo.

[Reaves]

As for DDR3, it's a waste of money at the moment. That will change but not for a while, and in the meantime, you would be mad to buy DDR3 when you consider how cheap DDR2 is. You could buy some DDR2 and then just throw it away when DDR3 becomes a more reasonable price. And in the meantime, you won't have missed out on anything.
I know there are mobos that can use DDR2 and DDR3 but TBH if I was to buy a new PC i'd be getting DDR3. I helped a friend build one and while it was more expensive, he will not have wasted money on DDR2 RAM which when you add it up 2gb of DDR2 ram + what 2gb DDR3 will cost when it's a bit cheaper will be a pretty similar price in the end. Now he's got 2gb of DDR3 which runs VERY fast compared to my Kingston DDR2 and all he has to do is buy more DDR3.


As for Vista, I wouldn't bother if I was you. There is no real reason to use it, and many reasons to not use it.
I use it and have no problems whatsoever. Plus it handles new games without a problem. The only thing with Vista is it uses more RAM but that doesn't really phase me. Plus if you are going to buy a new PC, an OEM version of Vista is A LOT cheaper than a retail box. You're going to need Vista sooner or later, I got my Vista Ultimate 64 for about 60% less buying an OEM copy.

Fair enough people don't like it but one day you're going to have to bite the bullet and install Vista or learn how to use linux. :huh:

[Rockin Robbins]

Boys, boys, boys... I am just not feelin' the love in the room.

:-?

But while I have the attention of a pair of experts I have a question.

Everything else being equal would I be better off (playing mostly SH4) with a Core 2 Quad 6600 or a Core 2 Duo 6750R?

JCC
BCC Hardware did a shootout between $1300 processors (wouldn't want anybody thinking we're cheap here:know:), the Intel Core 2 Duo X6800 and Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 sexy bombshells for the conspicuous consumption crowd both! They proceeded to wring them both out benchmarking their performance with theoretical benchmarking software, real life business apps and games. Here's the link: http://www.bcchardware.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3301&Itemid=40.

And when all the smoke and world-shaking testing is over, here is what they concluded:
In reality, most people will not be running multiple instances of video encoding simultaneously at the same time they are compressing files and doing other tasks. The Quad Core QX6700 makes this possible, but it's overkill for many users.



Conclusion:
Unless you are going for pure bragging rights a quad core processor really is ahead of it's time. While there are a few real world applications that take advantage of this processors multi-threaded power, most do not. In theoretical tests, the quad core runs away with the competition, but in reality it's a give and take. Now that the QX6700 is upon us, more software development companies will start taking advantage of multiple cores and then the processors will excel. If you are planning on spending $1300 on a processor that you will trade off in 6 months, I'd have to recommend the X6800 over the QX6700 at this time. Overall performance with the X6800 is marginally better than the QX6700, but I'm sure that will change in time.

Very surprisingly, the games they tested only cared about one thing: clock speed. The faster clock speed core Duo was faster than the slower clock speed Core Quad.

Think about it this way. If a game is running at 200 fps and you have a computer right next to it running 164 fps (the 18% difference between AMD Phenom and Intel Core Quad), by inspection, can you tell me which is which? By playing the game? No you can't. Anything over a certain level way below that is incredible. Comparing ultimate incredibleness is just snobbery. You're just comparing meaningless numbers. Either you can play the game or not.

These two chips were a lot closer than that. I think the comparison would hold true for the two chips you're interested in too. Right now it's all about bragging rights and there is very little substance. The chip manufacturers are seeking a halo effect that paints their entire line as the champions. Intel has AMD down by an insignificant margin now and they're increasing the pressure. Buy the loser and you can't tell the difference without the numbers. And you save money. You want the absolute fastest? It isn't all that much more. We win either way!!!!!:up:

Information, not unsupported conclusions.

[quitefrankly]

Everyone else understands EXACTLY what I meant and this is the proof of what I said. They understand that too.Everyone else? Who have you asked? I don't understand what you mean.

I have a VERY decent job. I just get more pleasure from good value than I do from owning the latest and greatest of everything. I am perfectly willing to give away 30% in performance for 1/4 the price.:pBut other people are perfectly willing to pay a bit more and get more... what makes your way so right and everyone elses wrong?

You are purposely ignoring the conversation and talking to yourself. Very good. I already said with my machine I play both SH4 and Unreal Tournament 3 wide open. You don't need a quad core processor to do thatThat is 2 games... You don't need quad core to play solitaire either, that doesn't mean it is unnecessary for everybody... It is just unnecessary for you because you only play 2 games.


Yike we have another troll on our hands! If a graphics card draws x pixels per second with a screen size of y total pixels and you divide the pixels needing to be drawn in half, you double the number of screens per second. You could have said something indicating legitimate thought processes, involving overhead loss, or software not properly using the dual card strategies and made a legitimate observation that no system is 100% efficient, and you would have been right. However...I told you your statement was wrong. That was sufficient. If you know how SLI works, you wouldn't claim it doubles your performance. Even nVidia or ATI do not claim that. Do not call me a troll for pointing out that you are incorrect, when you are incorrect.

I've been very clear throughout the thread that I am pessimistic that I gained too much by going for an SLi configuration, so painting me as an ignoramous has to be predicated on the false assumption that no one following the thread has read any of my other posts. That's a most curious tactic. Color me amused.I have not painted you as anything, I have told you where wrong, when you where very wrong. If that makes you feel like an ignoramus, that is your decision.

I'm all about making information known to people wanting to build systems. My OPINION is useless. If you have the information, you can conjure up your own opinion, which could well be different from mine.You can have an opinion on something personal to you, you can't have an opinion about plain proven facts.. When something is proven to be the fastest in 100% of situations, for example.... it is the fastest.


Everything else being equal would I be better off (playing mostly SH4) with a Core 2 Quad 6600 or a Core 2 Duo 6750R?

JCCThe 6750 probably. But I doubt it really matters for SH4 because I doubt neither will be maxed out. The graphics card is more of an issue, particularly when the visual range is increased.

I know there are mobos that can use DDR2 and DDR3 but TBH if I was to buy a new PC i'd be getting DDR3. I helped a friend build one and while it was more expensive, he will not have wasted money on DDR2 RAM which when you add it up 2gb of DDR2 ram + what 2gb DDR3 will cost when it's a bit cheaper will be a pretty similar price in the end. But we are talking about the price NOW, not the price of it in 6 months / a year.


Now he's got 2gb of DDR3 which runs VERY fast compared to my Kingston DDR2 and all he has to do is buy more DDR3.It is rated at higher bandwidth, but it is lower latency. The actual speed increase over DDR2 (if any) will be negligable, and yet its something like 6 times the price.

I use it and have no problems whatsoever. Plus it handles new games without a problem.That as a blanket statement is completely untrue, and a very limited view. There are major gaming websites that suggest against Vista for certain games. Not to mention that its compatibility with YOUR hardware will not necessarily be the same as other people with different hardware.

The only thing with Vista is it uses more RAM but that doesn't really phase me.That isn't true either, Vista uses more than just larger amounts. It uses CPU cycles for example. It may not "phase you", but I bet you can't find a single game that doesn't run at a higher frame rate on XP than it does on Vista.

You're going to need Vista sooner or laterLater. Much later.
Fair enough people don't like it but one day you're going to have to bite the bullet and install Vista or learn how to use linux. :huh:It's got nothing to do with not liking it. If you have a piece of software or a peripheral that is not supported or compatible with Vista, then it doesn't matter whether you "like" it or not... You can't use it.

Some people come across quite serious bugs with it too. There is also no real need for Vista now. As I said, I already own it, I have used it a lot, both 32 and 64, and I was prepared to use it for Crysis to enable the DX10 features. But the DX10 features are available in XP... and they run better under XP than they do in Vista.

Until most of this changes, Vista is not a safe choice.


Very surprisingly, the games they tested only cared about one thing: clock speed.That is no consolation to someone who wants to play a game that cares about one other thing: multi threads.


Think about it this way. If a game is running at 200 fps and you have a computer right next to it running 164 fps (the 18% difference between AMD Phenom and Intel Core Quad), by inspection, can you tell me which is which? By playing the game? No you can't. Anything over a certain level way below that is incredible. Comparing ultimate incredibleness is just snobbery. You're just comparing meaningless numbers. Either you can play the game or not. Ok first off... that article you linked was over a year old. There are atleast half a dozen games available today which show speed improvements with a quad core processor, and they where not taken into account in that "analysis". It also does not take into account any of the games due in 2008, because they clearly didn't know about them back then.

It also had nothing to do with the phenom, it was comparing the dual core intel, to the old quad core intel, which is about to be superseded.

Lastly, think about your scenario when a more demanding game shows up.. A speed increase is a speed increase... and the difference could mean the difference between maximum settings and medium settings, all because you favoured a brand name. The important thing is price vs performance with other considerations for temperature, power draw, and upgradeability. The brand is pretty irrelevent.

[Reaves]

I know there are mobos that can use DDR2 and DDR3 but TBH if I was to buy a new PC i'd be getting DDR3. I helped a friend build one and while it was more expensive, he will not have wasted money on DDR2 RAM which when you add it up 2gb of DDR2 ram + what 2gb DDR3 will cost when it's a bit cheaper will be a pretty similar price in the end. But we are talking about the price NOW, not the price of it in 6 months / a year.

-sigh-

So i'm going to buy a new PC with DDR2 now and then go buy a new mobo and more RAM later. When you add up all that wasted money you get close to what DDR3 costs now anyway so why wait if you can afford it? I see no reason to buy a NEW PC that I have to upgrade in 6 months.



Now he's got 2gb of DDR3 which runs VERY fast compared to my Kingston DDR2 and all he has to do is buy more DDR3.
It is rated at higher bandwidth, but it is lower latency. The actual speed increase over DDR2 (if any) will be negligable, and yet its something like 6 times the price.
6 times the price? Well he certainly didn't pay that and his PC runs much smoother than mine does. We both have 2gb btw...


I use it and have no problems whatsoever. Plus it handles new games without a problem.
That as a blanket statement is completely untrue, and a very limited view. There are major gaming websites that suggest against Vista for certain games. Not to mention that its compatibility with YOUR hardware will not necessarily be the same as other people with different hardware.
It's a blanket statement that is untrue? wtf are you talking about? Go to your major gaming sites, i'll experience it on my own PC. The only game I had a problem with was IL2-1946 due to copy protection but since a few updates to vista it now runs fine. And for starters games like FSX will run better on a vista machine, similar for many new games coming out that are built around the Vista platform.


The only thing with Vista is it uses more RAM but that doesn't really phase me.That isn't true either, Vista uses more than just larger amounts. It uses CPU cycles for example. It may not "phase you", but I bet you can't find a single game that doesn't run at a higher frame rate on XP than it does on Vista.

FSX


You're going to need Vista sooner or laterLater. Much later.

I like how you left out where I said if you get an OEM copy now with your new PC you will pay less in the end, but whatever makes your point seem more valid.... :nope:


Fair enough people don't like it but one day you're going to have to bite the bullet and install Vista or learn how to use linux. :huh:It's got nothing to do with not liking it. If you have a piece of software or a peripheral that is not supported or compatible with Vista, then it doesn't matter whether you "like" it or not... You can't use it.

Then i'd say it's also time to update your software or hardware.... You think that didn't happen with XP or something? It happens when a new OS comes out. Either the software developers should patch it or the software needs to be upgraded. I could see this being a problem for large business that has custom software but you are getting ridiculous. It's not Microsofts responsibility to ensure a program written years ago works with the new OS... I have a webcam that doesn't have vista drivers, that's logitechs fault not MS... :88)



Some people come across quite serious bugs with it too. There is also no real need for Vista now. As I said, I already own it, I have used it a lot, both 32 and 64, and I was prepared to use it for Crysis to enable the DX10 features. But the DX10 features are available in XP... and they run better under XP than they do in Vista.

Until most of this changes, Vista is not a safe choice.
May I ask what your system specs are? You shouldn't use Vista if your system isn't built for it. I have Crysis and run it on all full without a problem.... Xp would probably run it quicker I agree but as new games come out Vista will be the better option and you don't need to be a genius to know that.




Oh, and fix your post... You had a quote from me that was posted by RR.

[quitefrankly]

So i'm going to buy a new PC with DDR2 now and then go buy a new mobo and more RAM later.Yes. Or get a motherboard that supports both.
When you add up all that wasted money you get close to what DDR3 costs now anyway so why wait if you can afford it? Its not even close. You can get a couple of gig of DDR2 for less than a night out.
I see no reason to buy a NEW PC that I have to upgrade in 6 months.You don't HAVE to upgrade in 6 months. It's not like DDR2 is going to really hold you back.


6 times the price? Well he certainly didn't pay that and his PC runs much smoother than mine does. We both have 2gb btw...Maybe you are comparing it with high end DDR2? You don't need high end ram unless you are going to do enormous overclocks. You can overclock nicely with PC2-6400 (800), and that is cheap. Or 5400 (667) is even cheaper. The price difference of that compared to DDR3 is enormous.

It's a blanket statement that is untrue? wtf are you talking about?You're the one who doesn't even understand what you said. You said vista handles new games without problem. I said that is a blanket statement and its wrong. What is there to not understand? If just one game has troubles in Vista, it renders your statement wrong, and when you consider some games have major problems, and nearly ALL games take a fps hit... I'd call that a problem.

Go to your major gaming sites, i'll experience it on my own PC. So say Vista handles games without problem ON YOUR PC. Don't make out like it handles every game without problem for everyone in the world, because it doesn't. Far from it.


FSXThats an exception, and I'm not even sure its true.


I like how you left out where I said if you get an OEM copy now with your new PC you will pay less in the end, but whatever makes your point seem more valid.... :nope:
It's valid anyway... It doesn't matter how much it costs. I'm talking about whether it actually WORKS or not. You would be happy to suggest someone to get Vista, and when they come back here complaining about half a dozen things not working properly, I bet you wouldn't give a crap about helping them.

Then i'd say it's also time to update your software or hardware.... You can't update software that doesn't have an update.. And updating hardware isn't always that simple.

You think that didn't happen with XP or something?I never said it didn't... But today, XP is great, and Vista has issues. If you want to suggest people move to Vista and possibly end up suffering with problems they wouldn't have if they just stuck with XP... then you shouldn't be giving advice to anyone, especially considering you are not only suggesting that.. but you are telling them everything will work without problem too. Why you would do that baffles me... Is it just because its shiny and new? Do you think people having an easier time by using XP will affect you one bit?

It happens when a new OS comes out. Either the software developers should patch it or the software needs to be upgraded. I could see this being a problem for large business that has custom software but you are getting ridiculous. It's not Microsofts responsibility to ensure a program written years ago works with the new OS... I have a webcam that doesn't have vista drivers, that's logitechs fault not MS... :88)It doesn't matter whose fault it is... what matters is whether you can get your stuff working or not. It might not matter with a cheap little webcam, but if you own a high end plotter or something, or you use some music creation software which has issues working in Vista, you are screwed, unless they fix it. And if there hasn't been a fix by now.. there may not be one for a long time. And none of this is even taking into account the real bugs people experience.

The fact is, its not a really safe choice, so why tell people to buy it - especially seeing as they don't need it yet.

May I ask what your system specs are? You shouldn't use Vista if your system isn't built for it. I have Crysis and run it on all full without a problem....On full? Do you mean "Very High"? And what is your resolution?

My PC runs it ok on Vista, but I wouldn't say its great. Even with an 8800GTX and a quad core, it's still not a good frame rate. But the point is, other people do not have as much luck getting the game to work in Vista. Search the net and just look at the number of people having problems (not just with that game). So unless you are going to provide support to people, you shouldn't be suggesting it and telling them there will be no problems. And as I said, even big resourceful review sites mention problems.

Xp would probably run it quicker I agree but as new games come out Vista will be the better option and you don't need to be a genius to know that.It also doesn't take a genius to realise you should stick with the hassle free XP until you really need to move. And that time isn't now.

[Rockin Robbins]

@Reaves: We're polluting a good thread for a troll. Please follow my example and put him on ignore. You and I help people understand. He pollutes. Let's change the conversation to something fruitful.

[longam]

Upgrading has become a one-up routine in the gamming world.

I have to agree that I’ll wait until my system is older then 2 years, maybe even 3 or 4 before I will consider an upgrade. Even then I always go with 6 to 12 month old purchase just for the savings. Most of the time I’ll chunk upgrade, just buy this piece now and this one later. I find this to be even more true with the wife holding the check book.

The longer I wait to upgrade the more performance gain I see the more satisfied I am with my purchase, and I don’t have to watch the little bench mark number climb a few points.

[mcarlsonus]

Although humbled to be in the presence of at least one true genius (no, not HIM -RockRob!), might I add my personal impressions?
1. I've seen the reviews for the inital AMD Phenom production chips. Due to glitches the two (?) released are downgrade, slow cycle types. When compared to Intel's latest and greatest, their performance was dismal.
2. Intel will be releasing a new(er) architecture shortly: Penryn. This will undoubtedly increase the performance gap, whether AMD manages to perfect the internal code and get speeds up to snuff or not. Some chat of a "black-box" Phenom in the near term. Intriguing, but I'll believe it when I see it
3. Quad core technology is currently overkill and anyone who claims there's a large pool of software capable of utilizing it is, in a word, WRONG! 64-bit end-user oriented applications are common as lawn weeds - NOT! The MAJORITY of contemporary software is incapable of taking advantage of the presently available enhanced functionality of existing hardware. HOWEVER, as the price points come down, it makes sense to go quad - "future-proofing" (NOTE: did not say "TRI!" I'm unsure if there's truly any benefit or justification for AMD's insistence on manufacturing Phenom TRI-cores). By the way, Is anyone familiar with load balancing between (and within) cores on the same die? The technical term escapes me (I have an excuse - I'm old!). AMD has a spiffy download to enable distributing the workload evenly. In some cases, individuals have had to go so far as to shut down one of the two (two of the three, three of the four...) cores to avoid experiencing the-technical-term-that-escapes-me.
4. DDR3 - not now, maybe later. Just bought two 1GB sticks of DDR2-5300. $15 each, after rebates. 'Nuff said!
5. AMD and the AM2 vs. the AM2+ Phenom-optimized socket. Although Phenoms work just fine in the older AM2 socket, one can (allegedly) only take advantage of ALL its capabilities by utilizing the AM2+ socket. Just saw a recent test with a production ASUS AM2+ board (costing freakin' $350!!!) Guess what! It appears this first generation of Phenoms do not include said "advanced features!" As a result, "smoke and mirrors..." Feel free to laugh in the face of that rich guy down the street who always has to be the "first one on the block" to have the bleeding edge stuff - you know, the one with the $8000 box! Ensure you laugh loudly and maniacally!
6. I have Vista. Most of my problems have had something to do with either the User Rights Manager or memory allocation. HINT: shut down that silly sidebar! Might be cool (to you), but that little sucker - with four "gadgets" uses nearly a gig of my memory! Secondly, on this particular rant: went into a local computer retail store two weeks ago. They are displaying low-end Vista Home Basic machines with only 512MB of RAM. Now, Vista Home Basic is puny in comparison to the other versions, but 512MB is simply not enough for ANY version of this OS! 2GB's+ - MUCH better. In any case, if making a purchase soon, keep an eye out for this "loss leader" approach.
7. I'm certain ALL our brains are full by this time, but my basic approach to all this hardware stuff is as follows: I want maximum bang for the buck. If I can't afford "state of the art," I'll settle for "reasonable facsimile thereof." In terms of video cards: DX10 capabilities are getting cheaper, but, one should know that even a DX9 card will be satisfactory well into the future. Media manufacturers are well aware they'll commit metaphorical suicide should they drop DX9 in favor of catering only to the needs of the DX10 community! Yes, DX10 will become common, but those of us with adequately performing DX9 cards are in no danger of immediate extinction.
8. Don't buy into the hype - which is now, officially, "over the top!" For me, the "ridiculous" mark was reached when I was informed of the presence of a $150 high-performance NIC ("network interface card") Yep, that's right! According to the manufacturer, that built-in 10/100/1000 ethernet connection that came with your computer is completely inadequate and should be replaced. I'm familiar with hi-performance NIC's, by the way, and it does have a place - in large computing environments with huge volumes of data moving regularly to storage units (for example). But, on my home PC?? Well, sir! "A fool and his money..." Further justifying my, "oh, COME ON!" position was a legitimate independent review that noted the piece of the card the manufacturer said gave it its uniqueness and justified the price, didn't even work! To add insult to injury, said "special sauce" is a derivative of a common protocol used in industrial-strength NIC's utilized for such things as mentioned above. Nothing "special" about it; common as dirt. And the manufacturer of the "gotta have" NIC couldn't even get THAT right! I'll bet his mum ain't very proud of him!

Thanks for bearing with me outside our beloved "thread that will never die," y'all!

NECESSARY DISCLAIMER FOR ALL WHO TAKE THIS STUFF W-A-Y TOO SERIOUSLY:
The foregoing is entirely IMHO in nature... If you don't agree, or simply don't like it, I'm sorry - but, really don't care a whit! Hey! Love 'ya - buh bye!

[quitefrankly]

@Reaves: We're polluting a good thread for a troll. Please follow my example and put him on ignore. You and I help people understand. He pollutes. Let's change the conversation to something fruitful.You are indeed polluting a thread, but it's not for a troll. If someone says something that is just plain wrong... I'll tell you it's wrong. You are talking about computer components that are all very expensive, so misinformation will likely result in someone spending a lot of money and maybe not being happy with it, or getting the right thing. If you where reasonable, you would understand why I'd rather prevent that if possible.

To the person who was asking the questions, feel free to ask for help speccing up a decent mid range PC and I'd help if you trust me. Otherwise, I think you would be better getting computer advice from somewhere a bit more reliable. There proper tech forums where the majority of people know hardware, and when someone says something wrong, they get set straight by dozens of people. Without those people here as backup, I doubt you could really be sure about anything.

Although humbled to be in the presence of at least one true genius (no, not HIM -RockRob!),Let me get this straight, are you calling Rocking Bob a genius, and dismissing me?

3. Quad core technology is currently overkill and anyone who claims there's a large pool of software capable of utilizing it is, in a word, WRONG!No, YOU are wrong. If you people don't know something, why do you say it? Are you just assuming that if you can shout loud enough and sound cocky enough, people will believe you and thats all that matters? Do you REALLY prefer to make yourself look knowledgeable on some anonymouse internet forum, EVEN at the expense of giving incorrect information to people? Everything I have stated in the thead is 100% true, and I can back up ANY of it with links from MULTIPLE reliable sources. And I am talking about sources that are up to date... not some stupid link posted to an irrelevant article that is over a year old.. Someone asked this question recently on a different forum, and people found links to atleast 7 popular games that show speed improvements with Quad Core processors. That number is going to rise by a huge amount in 08 and then beyond.

So when you look at the point I joined this "conversation"... it was because someone said Quad core is "unnecessary". That's not true if you want to play these games, with nice quality settings. It is only as unnecessary as a sharp knife is for cutting something tough..

64-bit end-user oriented applications are common as lawn weeds - NOT! Hardware is FAR ahead of the ability of comtemporary software capable of taking advantage of its enhanced functionality!Wrong again. Computer games for one, are contemporary software which can take FULL advantage of its functionaliy.

HOWEVER, as the price points come down, it makes sense to go quad - "future-proofing"So you are agreeing with me now?

By the way, Is anyone familiar with load balancing between (and within) cores on the same die? I am. But I'm sure you would much rather hear from a genius and definitely not from ME.

4. DDR3 - not now, maybe later. Just bought two 1GB sticks of DDR2-5300. $15 each, after rebates. 'Nuff said!Again, that is what I have already said.


7. I'm certain ALL our brains are full by this time, but my basic approach to all this hardware stuff is as follows: I want maximum bang for the buck.Again.. something I've already said atleast once.


NECESSARY DISCLAIMER FOR ALL WHO TAKE THIS STUFF W-A-Y TOO SERIOUSLY:
The foregoing is entirely IMHO in nature... If you don't agree, or simply don't like it, I'm sorry - but, really don't care a whit!Why would you NOT take something seriously when we are talking about stuff that can potentially cost an indivudual, thousands of dollars? Do you not care, because you know you can't defend your opinions with actual proof?

[mcarlsonus]

Obviously, "we" are not sophisticated enough or knowledgeable enough to live up to your expectations and have proven to be a HUGE disappointment to you. Might I suggest that you cease and desist rubbing shoulders with us commoners and go somewhere else? Besides, I'm getting a complex being in the presence of such an obviously superior person! Damn good thing I CAN afford therapy, huh?

By the way, feel free to pop by my office in the Advanced Computing Department at Cornell at any time. I feel the need, nay, OBLIGATION, to be enlightened!

[Brenjen]

I appreciatte all the replies so far - I am going to have to go with a mid-range machine - I game every few days, use PH CS3 and do the typical things - I definnetly understand about buying ahead (getting the latest tech for the dollar). I wish I had a 3 - 4 grand to put into a machine but I do not. I saw some results on the Phenom and it was 13 percent slower than the quad cores. The battle between AMD and Intel continues. I am concerned (very) about VISTA. When I bought my sons computer he wanted Vista (actually it was Vista or bust). I have read that a number of people are re-installing XP because of all of VISTA's issues. I do know that it is better to run whatever bridge processor (nvidea chipset with nvidea video vice ATI). I saw a number of issues with ATI and SH3/SH4 or am I broke on this?
What is crossfire BTW (Vice SLI)?
Do yourself a favor, go with mature hardware not cutting edge or even current top tier if you're on a budget. e-Bay anything you replace because you find something better for not much more money (don't just throw it away!). The performance gap is not that great between year old hardware & current "gotta' have it" hardware but the price gap IS! B.T.W. I can agree with the Acer LCD monitor appreciation someone said earlier, I bought one that was 2ms response time about a year ago & it's been fabulous for the meager $200 price I paid for it, not a single dead pixel; I didn't go widescreen so I can't comment on that though.

Just know this; some people live their computer lives in PC world magazine & on Tom's Hardware running benchmarks & comparing their benchie scores like an E-penis competition & others (like most of us) live it through store shelves & playing the occaisonal game & reading email & browsing. If you go & peruse the local software titles DX9 is still 99.98% of what you'll find & 32 Bit is still predominent. Hardware changes occur too rapidly for the average working person with a family to keep on the bleeding edge. I happen to subscribe to the rule of six month delayed aquisition - wait at least six months for drivers to mature & bugs to be worked out before buying hardware or software. I didn't do that with my video card & got lucky; the reason being is that with video cards, unlike the other components, they are darn near obsolete in six months! (joking a little but not much)

If you build a system & that pricey video card you want is just too expensive; about all you can do is buy a stop gap card & try to sell it off later & upgrade when the prices of the card you originally wanted, drop. You can build a pretty capable dual core system with at least 2 gigs of DDR2 memory for around $800 if you shop wisely; visit Newegg.com & you can compare prices, specs & read customer reviews. That site is set up in such a way that you can actually learn how to build a system if you're new to PC building & their customer service & speed of shipping is top notch.

[mcarlsonus]

...for having my back!

[quitefrankly]

Obviously, "we" are not sophisticated enough or knowledgeable enough to live up to your expectations and have proven to be a HUGE disappointment to you. Might I suggest that you cease and desist rubbing shoulders with us commoners and go somewhere else? Besides, I'm getting a complex being in the presence of such an obviously superior person! Damn good thing I CAN afford therapy, huh?

By the way, feel free to pop by my office in the Advanced Computing Department at Cornell at any time. I feel the need, nay, OBLIGATION, to be enlightened!No need to act like sarcastic like a scolded child... There is nothing wrong with what I have said, all I have done is correct mistakes people have made, and it's only a few people.. It's strange of you to lower yourself to their level and lump yourself in with them.. And by the way, there is absolutely no way in hell you work in any kind of computing department in any significant role.

[Brenjen]

...for having my back!
No problem, I was never a big fan of Acer because my dad bought a complete Acer system a few years back, it was his first foray into the P.C. game, & I hated it ( 70 year old people are prone to buy "off the shelf" :down: ). But this monitor has surpassed my expectations by a long shot. I thought I would be disappointed when I got it & end up selling it off or giving it as a second hand gift to a family member & buying a Samsung or NEC but I was pleasently suprised.

[mcarlsonus]

...that your major problem with "us" surrounds your apparent inability to actuallly READ and INTERPRET CORRECTLY the substance of others' comments. Example:

Me: Quad-core is overkill...
You: (something along the lines of...) wrong! capabilities...utilized...numerous applications, games...

Me: However, considering the price points are reaching the levels of currently available dual-cores, I believe I'd go quad - "future-proofing"
You: So now you're agreeing with me

See what you missed there? I'm not agreeing, nor disagreeing with you. I'm simply stating an economic fact that makes consideration of this alternative realistic. I've seen you do this quite a few times with other posters as well. You take someone's train-of-thought comments, pick them apart, and then treat them like individual statements - which tends to skew context.

Now, on to another topic. I find your comments regarding your negative opinion of the "qualities" of people who frequent this site truly offensive and distasteful. Are you familiar with the psychological term, "projection?" If not, look it up (oops! Just revealed my age! I meant, "Google it...")

I frequent three boards myself, and this is my absolute favorite! And, over the years, I've yet to meet anyone on here with such an overinflated sense of self-importance! Congratulations! In my book, you ARE "unique" - in a very, very BAD way! This is a wonderful community chock full of nice folks from nearly every country in the world. And, in my professional life as "janitor," and due to my involvement in development of naval warfare strat and tac sims, I often get questions I simply can't answer. If said questions have ANYTHING to do with naval capabilities at ANY point in history, I simply post it on here. I get answers quicker'n I could ever Google anything (see my recent post, "Biologicals?")!

Son, you really need to go away.

[mcarlsonus]

...not you, Bren!

[mcarlsonus]

I've also been "victimized" by Acer in the past. I can't forget my experience with a 486 machine some years ago that was using a proprietary motherboard design. I wanted to add cache RAM, and found out only Acer could provide it as the sockets weren't standard. So, instead of $15, I had to spend $80. That REALLY put me off my feed!
Anyway, this monitor: I, too, got it at a phenomenal price and although the LCD technology's on the obsolescent side, I'm very happy with it. I did get the widescreen as I'm a firm believer in as much real estate on the desktop as possible. The alternative, of course, would be to buy another brand, or upgrade to a 24". In at least one of the cases mentioned, I could've bought two of these Acers cheaper!
Nice chatting with you! Look forward to seeing you around!

[quitefrankly]

...that your major problem with "us" surrounds your apparent inability to actuallly READ and INTERPRET CORRECTLY the substance of others' comments. Example:It is not me who fails to understand what is being said.. I doubt you have even read what I have said in my posts. If you did, you wouldn't be arguing with me.


See what you missed there? I'm not agreeing, nor disagreeing with you.No you aren't. I am disagreeing with you, for being wrong.


Now, on to another topic. I find your comments regarding your negative opinion of the "qualities" of people who frequent this site truly offensive and distasteful.?? I only have a negative opinion of people who are negative and dismissive of me. I had no problem with you until you came to this thread and attacked me out of the blue for no good reason... Now I have a very negative opinion of you.


me Are you familiar with the psychological term, "projection?" If not, look it up (oops! Just revealed my age! I meant, "Google it...")I don't need to google it. All you just revealed is your arrogance.


I frequent three boards myself, and this is my absolute favorite! And, over the years, I've yet to meet anyone on here with such an overinflated sense of self-importance! How is it a sign of self importance to correct someone when they are wrong? I don't give a crap what any of you people think of me, and if anything, it is YOU who has an overinflated sence of self importance if you think I care about you. You come here attacking me for no reason, and then you pretend to be something that you aren't.. I really could not care less about you or what you think.

due to my involvement in development of naval warfare strat and tac sims,Haha, ok.. You just keep making those things up kiddo. From the "Advanced Computing Department at Cornell" to your involvement of naval warfare strat.. Wow I havn't seen something like that for a long time. I bet you have done other amazing things too, but they are all top secret eh?! It must be a very sad existance to have to make up such extreme things about yourself like that, not to mention the fact that they are so incredibly unbelievable.

Son, you really need to go away.And again you pretend to be something you aren't. You aren't mature OR old. It is obvious. Its also obvious you only want me to go away because you are utterly incapable of actually debating anything. You come to a thread you have no place in... and start attacking me, probably I was rattling your little buddy, and all you managed to do is put yourself in a discussion that is completely out of your depth, and now you are desperate to get out of it with your honor intact. Good luck with that, professor.

[Teh_Diplomat]

Stick with XP, it's still supported by Microsoft as Service Pack 3 is due out in 2008, and offers some improvement.

Intel's dual cores are the definite way to go, reasonably priced, run cool, have large amounts of cache, and outperform AMD, bar none. I have a E2180 @ 2.7Ghz - the CPU was $87CAD. A good CPu without the need to Overclock would be the E6550

As for a graphics card, the 8800GT is your best choice, at just over 200($207 for an MSI 8800GT 512mb on Dell's website) for something that is 10% less powerful than the GTX, and yet is up to 60% less expensive.

A good compatible motherboard is the Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L. It supports the current core 2 duos as well as having the option to support the 45nm penryn; thus it is in a sense, futureproof(as well as one can futureproof their PC) and support of Quad core processors. It's around $100.

[Rockin Robbins]

Stick with XP, it's still supported by Microsoft as Service Pack 3 is due out in 2008, and offers some improvement.

Intel's dual cores are the definite way to go, reasonably priced, run cool, have large amounts of cache, and outperform AMD, bar none. I have a E2180 @ 2.7Ghz - the CPU was $87CAD. A good CPu without the need to Overclock would be the E6550

As for a graphics card, the 8800GT is your best choice, at just over 200($207 for an MSI 8800GT 512mb on Dell's website) for something that is 10% less powerful than the GTX, and yet is up to 60% less expensive.

A good compatible motherboard is the Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L. It supports the current core 2 duos as well as having the option to support the 45nm penryn; thus it is in a sense, futureproof(as well as one can futureproof their PC) and support of Quad core processors. It's around $100.

Woooooooooo hooooooooo! Solid info!

See, here's what happens. Joe buys Silent Hunter 4 and installs it. It won't run! Here he comes to SUBSIM for info, and instead sees a bunch of chest beating and "IS TOO!!!!" "IS NOT!!!!" stuff. But at the end of the thread is this great recipe that tells him that these particular unscarily-priced items can go into his box and make him (or her) a computer than runs SH4 great!

The result is a new happy player of Silent Hunter 4.
That's why we're here.

Recipe for peace and quiet (ahhhhhh! I love it). Left click the underlined name quitefrankly. Choose view public profile. Choose Add quitefrankly to your ignore list. His posts now are consise, make sense and look like this:
quitefrankly (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=231808) This message is hidden because quitefrankly is on your ignore list (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/profile.php?do=editlist).
Peace returns to the valley. :up: When we respond to him we contribute to a problem which should be his alone.

[Zantham]

I play the following games:

Silent Hunter 4 (incl ROW and Trigger Maru)
Supreme Commander
SupCom Forged Alliance
Call of Duty 4
Crysis
Timeshift
Company of Heroes (and expansion)
Command and Conquer 3

I run Windows XP.

I play all of these games at 2560x1600. I have used both an e6600 and a q6600 in the same machine to play these games. I have monitored closely the CPU usage of each core, as well as total CPU usage. My quad core NEVER went over 50% total usage, even tho all 4 cores were being used to some degree. With the dual core, my CPU would run at 75-100% total usage in the same games. What does this mean? It means that currently, in these particular games, there is ABSOLUTELY NO BENEFIT to going quad core. I thought SupCom at least would benefit...but no. Frames per second remained virtually identical, and even Supcom still experienced the same amount of time slow-down. I have a minimum of background tasks running (not even antivirus).

So then I took my e6600 and ramped it up to 3.6GHz at 400FSB. Well....that made a lot of difference. Games ran on averge 15-20% faster (especially SupCom). Gigahertz counts in these games more than quad CPU's. I left RAM at stock DDR2-800 speeds.

Then I took my q6600 and ramped it up to 3.0GHz at 333FSB (couldnt reach 3.6 with it). Games improved over the stock 2.4GHz, but still ran faster on the 3.6GHz dual core.

What does this all mean? It means 'at this time' there is no benefit to buying a quad-core CPU for gaming purposes. If you have $300 right now to spend on a CPU for your gaming system, getting a faster dual core will get you more bang for your buck. However, if you do not plan on buying another CPU for a while....go quad. The quad is more future-friendly, and you can count on there being games in the near future that will directly benefit from more CPU's.

One other finding: Need for Speed Pro Street pushed my quad up to 65% total usage at stock speed. This would indicate that this game could benefit from quad core, tho I did not install my dual core to compare. A quad running at 65% total usage means more CPU is being used than a dual core running at 100% total usage.

[mcarlsonus]

Pricing on "real-world" quads has reached the point where they ARE a valid choice. Again, "future-proofing," - and I'm so SICK of spending the money to build as close to the edge as I can afford, only to be completely obsolete within 12 months (has anyone else noticed the old "18-month" cycle is contracting?)

Rob: you're right, but it's really deteriorated to the point where I feel I'm doing society a favor by allowing the guy to vent. If this avenue is closed, time to get out the body armor (IMHO!!) But, again, you're right... and I'll act accordingly. I'm actually frightened to look over at the "thread that will not die!"

In general: AMD used to be so innovative and refreshing! What's going on? I haven't used an Intel CPU in 10 years (or so...), but, I'm wondering if their reign is over.

[Brenjen]

Comparing actual use; not benchmarks, my AMD FX-60 performs as good or IMHO better than my Intel E6600 Conroe in games. The E6600 smokes the FX-60 in 3DMark06 benchies & certain applications as highlighted by Tom's Hardware that I don't have & am not interested in getting (scientific & business apps). Apparently the Intel chip will shred the AMD in certain applications; if it was better for me in games I'd play on the Conroe system but the truth is, my AMD system runs my preferred games better & it's only advantage over the Conroe system is a slightly better video card.

[Reaves]

Pricing on "real-world" quads has reached the point where they ARE a valid choice. Again, "future-proofing," - and I'm so SICK of spending the money to build as close to the edge as I can afford, only to be completely obsolete within 12 months (has anyone else noticed the old "18-month" cycle is contracting?)


I've certainly noticed that and is why I was suggest buying the newest components available if you can afford it. By next year there will be games out that make Crysis look light weight. To get the longest life cycle out of a new PC you really shouldn't be going for middle range equiptment if you can avoid it. My last few PC's i've purchased cheaper mid-range procs and GFX cards and have regretted it in the end because it doesn't take long to need an upgrade. If your going to spend a lot of money, you might as well spend a bit more to ensure you have one kick-ass beast of a rig.

The main thing is budget though, you can only get what you are willing to pay. If you can afford it, why not go the best? SLI capable DDR3 mobo + Quad Core + 8800 gfx card. Expensive but you won't need to upgrade for a LONG time and when 8800's are cheaper you can buy another and SLI them.

My advice, nothing more.

[Brenjen]

I agree with that 100% - get the best you can afford; It'll serve you better in the long run. :up:

[mcarlsonus]

Believe I'll wait until after the first of the year to see what emerges from this glob of techno-goop currently on the table. There's certainly a lot of new and interesting stuff, but, like the VCR wars of old (and possibly the HD vs. Blu-Ray DVD wars of today), who knows what'll come of it all?
I do know this: I will NOT be tossing bucks on the counter for any high performance NIC, fer cryin' out loud!
No luck downloading 1.4 earlier, by the way. Must be busy over there! And they say sub simmers are only a small percentage of a dying breed...

[quitefrankly]

As for a graphics card, the 8800GT is your best choice, I agree with everything you said, except the new 8800GTS is probably going to be the best choice.

I'm not replying to anyone else because most of them make stuff up and its mostly all wrong. I think if you come here for hardware advice, you shouldn't have.

[Nightmare]

Comparing actual use; not benchmarks, my AMD FX-60 performs as good or IMHO better than my Intel E6600 Conroe in games. The E6600 smokes the FX-60 in 3DMark06 benchies & certain applications as highlighted by Tom's Hardware that I don't have & am not interested in getting (scientific & business apps). Apparently the Intel chip will shred the AMD in certain applications; if it was better for me in games I'd play on the Conroe system but the truth is, my AMD system runs my preferred games better & it's only advantage over the Conroe system is a slightly better video card.
It's true that the E6600 Conroe is slightly better stock than an AMD FX-60. Where the Conroe series really shines over the AMD FX-60 is that they are better overclockers and you are able to push them a lot harder. Very common to see a 3GHz E6600 on stock air cooling.

[Brenjen]

Comparing actual use; not benchmarks, my AMD FX-60 performs as good or IMHO better than my Intel E6600 Conroe in games. The E6600 smokes the FX-60 in 3DMark06 benchies & certain applications as highlighted by Tom's Hardware that I don't have & am not interested in getting (scientific & business apps). Apparently the Intel chip will shred the AMD in certain applications; if it was better for me in games I'd play on the Conroe system but the truth is, my AMD system runs my preferred games better & it's only advantage over the Conroe system is a slightly better video card. It's true that the E6600 Conroe is slightly better stock than an AMD FX-60. Where the Conroe series really shines over the AMD FX-60 is that they are better overclockers and you are able to push them a lot harder. Very common to see a 3GHz E6600 on stock air cooling.
Both the AMD & the Conroe I mention are OC'd to 3.0 (actually 3.06 on the AMD & a little less on the Conroe - 3.02?) it's true the Conroe runs much cooler & can achieve that on air where my FX-60 is topped out there on water; that leads me to believe I could get even more with a couple hundred dollar investment in water cooling on the Conroe. I'm running last years technology & I think they are much more comparable in actual performance than people give/gave them credit for. I don't go all ga-ga until I can see a difference in my usage, if I went strictly by bench marks the Conroe is the undisputed winner for certain...no doubt about it - case closed. I mention the older tech because of the context of the discussion IMO it's mature & that usually equals less problems & it's generally cheaper & still 100% viable with current software.....video cards on the other hand are a little more of a challenge & each person must decide what's right for them & is a headache I'm thankful I don't have to go through for another year or two.

As far as CPU's; people I know put too much emphasis on slight percentage increases that you really can't see in everyday use. I see numbers like 20% increase etc. but it's simply not true when you look at actual usage & that's a quandry I think a lot of people find themselves in to be honest. They hear these numbers bandied about & they have a decent system but want to be on the bleeding edge, spend thousands only to discover the difference between a $1,500 system & a $3,000 system isn't 100%, not even 20% but the price is easy to see....DOUBLE.

I'm a little more pragmatic about it all; for instance the glass half full or half empty debate never gave me pause because I see it like this - If you just filled it half way, it's half full. If you just poured half of it out, it's half empty.

P.S. all that said I fully acknowledge that there are people out there who are much more tuned in to fine differences in performance than the average user (like an audiophile is with sound) & the slight increases they experience give them serious wood & they will see an actual need for quad core, bleeding edge tech of all types where I & most average users do not.

[Rockin Robbins]

P.S. all that said I fully acknowledge that there are people out there who are much more tuned in to fine differences in performance than the average user (like an audiophile is with sound) & the slight increases they experience give them serious wood & they will see an actual need for quad core, bleeding edge tech of all types where I & most average users do not.
And it's good that those people who have the financial means and the desire for that last few percentage points of performance are out there, because next year I'll be using their bleeding edge equipment for less than half price. Those performance enthusiasts (most are "gamers") finance the research and development that keeps our equipment progressing quickly at a price that's nice. Sure wish there were more of them. Somebody give 'em a raise and more time off!:up:

[TDK1044]

All of this has little to do with SH4. It belongs in the General Topics Forum. Moving thread.

[Rockin Robbins]

All of this has little to do with SH4. It belongs in the General Topics Forum. Moving thread.
Well, it DID have a lot to do with SH4 as I explained above. Should have been edited, troll posts removed and stickied in the SH4 forum, labeled hardware hints for those whose machines can't seem to run SH4. It answered all the questions of "can my machine run SH4" and most of the "why can't I run SH4." Oh well....:shifty: the thread now dwells in the dungeon: the armpit of subsim.