Peter.Cort
TF's First Dry Ice User!
- Messages
- 5,018
- Location
- Boston, MA
precisely on both accounts.
New Computer Plans:
- Thread starter Kisskerven
- Start date
- Status
Kisskerven
In Runtime
- Messages
- 224
Ive already decided against SLI and probably to go with the blood iron board mentioned- it only has 1 x16 slot anyway so sli is out. but with the fatal1ty gts card.. iam on par with 8800 ULTRAs- and since Iam not in it for "my computer is better then yours" bragging rights- it really didn't matter- i found out sli only improve UP TO 43% - so you pay 2x for 2 cards to only get 143% performance- when theorehtically it should be 2x for 2 cards to get 200%= but its NOT.
If you hit the 8800 Fatal1tys site linked earlier and watch the lil movie it shows benchmarks of it vs the Ultra- and in a couple of catagories it actually OUT PERFORMS the twice as expensive Ultras. not to mention thats stock and not overclocked.
and for the slots I dont like I think I'll disable them in bios (so resources arent wasted on them) and since Ill "never" use them hot glue them shut and colour the glue. that way my Power wont be hit in some LED Ill 90% never see anyway. and the RAM's wont really be seen with the ram in anyway, so it's just the IDE (and hot glue can be peeled off if I need them or sell the board to someone that might) and I even might make a little "ide slot clip" by molding another ide (off another board) and design a clip on colored plastic (maybe with LED for you flashy types) to clip over unused IDE slots. hey wait.. thats a good idea.. it might sell.... NO one steal that! its mine! Iama draw it out now
If you hit the 8800 Fatal1tys site linked earlier and watch the lil movie it shows benchmarks of it vs the Ultra- and in a couple of catagories it actually OUT PERFORMS the twice as expensive Ultras. not to mention thats stock and not overclocked.
and for the slots I dont like I think I'll disable them in bios (so resources arent wasted on them) and since Ill "never" use them hot glue them shut and colour the glue. that way my Power wont be hit in some LED Ill 90% never see anyway. and the RAM's wont really be seen with the ram in anyway, so it's just the IDE (and hot glue can be peeled off if I need them or sell the board to someone that might) and I even might make a little "ide slot clip" by molding another ide (off another board) and design a clip on colored plastic (maybe with LED for you flashy types) to clip over unused IDE slots. hey wait.. thats a good idea.. it might sell.... NO one steal that! its mine! Iama draw it out now
Akubane
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 2,215
- Location
- NB, Canada
theres no way your 128 meg radeon plays fear flawlessly lol. ive got a 128mb radeon and it plays flawlessly. but on the lowest minimum specs possible >.> almost better to not play it at all. and yeah if you want to save money the 8800gts is the best card to get, hands down. unless your one of the ati fanboys but youd have to ask them, i stopped following ati so i don't know about the gts equivilant. and your paying for the future games on the ultra. and if you want huge resolutions. i bought an ultra, just cant use it yet. need the MOBO comin in next week XD imo it was worth the 300$, but thats me. Just means i had to wait an extra week for the money, no big deal.
Vaanish
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 1,693
- Location
- Yorkshire, UK
I fail to justify how one can say that the 8800GTS is the absolute best card for him to buy without even having a clue about the equivalent ATi offering.
I would personally suggest the 2900PRO if you can find it in stock. If not, get the 2900XT or wait for HD3800 series next month.
Akubane
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 2,215
- Location
- NB, Canada
thats why i said ask someoen who knows the ati equivilant. simply meant the best bang for buck geforce 8 series card. sorry for not specifying. >.>
NosBoost300
I poop on the rug
- Messages
- 10,220
- Location
- Bellflower, CA
i just read... 8800gts ON PAR with the ultra... no way in freakin **** are they on par in any kind of way.... the 8800 ultra will far surpass the 8800gts.. both stock and in overclocking, the extra shaders can go a long way....
i myself would get a gtx if you could afford it.. they have it for 499 on newegg which isnt too bad at all....
i myself would get a gtx if you could afford it.. they have it for 499 on newegg which isnt too bad at all....
Kisskerven
In Runtime
- Messages
- 224
you need to do more research- the fatal1ty one is on par - none other. its even in pc mag.
as for your 128- try overclocking it and gettin rid of junk off your computer you dont need.. like printer ports.
as for the rest your starting a war(except Vaanish thanks for some non GeForce info) - don't do it. leave your opinions as "in my opinion" not "this is better cuz i say so"
Benchmarks dont lie- live play doesnt lie Ive seen the fatal1ty card play now- and ive watched the ultra- I notice NO difference at all. FPS is slightly higher on the Ultra (around 30 gain) but the human eye only catches 50-60 anyway the rest is just for smooth lag free gravy.
Both games were testing Hellgate London (a closed beta Iam in) and both cards were set to normal stats -aka out of the box. Each card loaded hellgate in a whopping 3 seconds and began play - the fatal1ty did stutter for about a blink of an eye when logging the charecter in- however during actual game play neither one missed a frame. graphics were astounding and the gore intense- after about 3 hours of playing we ran some tests- the Ultra was running over 8 degrees hotter for an unknown reason- they are inspecting the PC to see if a fan failed to kick in.
I look at it this way- if I can't tell- in real life- right in front of me which card is better for play (I wasnt told which had what in- just "here watch these 2 play" so I couldnt get biased on it.) then what difference does it make?
"Preparing for the future" ha. thats funny.. name one game that reccomends over a 128mb vid card out right now. Answer... none. (or at least none I will ever play) 128s are "above the curve" right now still- they are STARTING to lose there edge as games become more intensive- but they still work for them so to spend over double for a card now- that will drop to at least 200 dollars when "you need it" later is kinda stupid. IF the day comes when games require 512 min vid 7xx reccomended- then look for it- otherwise.. stop being biased because you like one company better, or the style, or are going with the hype. all of you FPS madmen out there.. your wasting your money. 150 is about the best youll ever need. its over double what your silly eyes can see and if your lagging then - its your ISP or other computer problems- NOT your video card.
You guys put too much into the vid card.. yes it's important but RAM speed and CPU is just as important. Without them loading windows can take over 15 mins. Then you get your game running laggily- then finally your graphics kicks in for lag free gaming - but when you shut it down your back to "normal stats" where video isnt important. Video helps yes- but you can run myspace, email and everything non game just fine ona 32 mb video card with no stats or specs or speed, as long as you have ram and cpu power. and that includes windows XP.
I told you I really didn't care for "my computer is better then yours" so why are you trying to push your hyped up geek parts over parts that will do what I want? Your being childish- I suggest you grow up and get over it.
and for clearification- Iam not ****ed- just rather dissapointed you guys posted the way you did- you can easily get your point accross without involving your emotions- regardless of what you gusy think or say- Its ME who purchases my computer- not you. So unless you wanna pitch in for this beast- keep your emotions in check- if you do want to donate feel free- and ill use whatever part you "so highly reccomend" regardless of my other feelings and info I was going by. (and no giving me 1$ wont convience me to use your 500 dollar card.)
as for your 128- try overclocking it and gettin rid of junk off your computer you dont need.. like printer ports.
as for the rest your starting a war(except Vaanish thanks for some non GeForce info) - don't do it. leave your opinions as "in my opinion" not "this is better cuz i say so"
Benchmarks dont lie- live play doesnt lie Ive seen the fatal1ty card play now- and ive watched the ultra- I notice NO difference at all. FPS is slightly higher on the Ultra (around 30 gain) but the human eye only catches 50-60 anyway the rest is just for smooth lag free gravy.
Both games were testing Hellgate London (a closed beta Iam in) and both cards were set to normal stats -aka out of the box. Each card loaded hellgate in a whopping 3 seconds and began play - the fatal1ty did stutter for about a blink of an eye when logging the charecter in- however during actual game play neither one missed a frame. graphics were astounding and the gore intense- after about 3 hours of playing we ran some tests- the Ultra was running over 8 degrees hotter for an unknown reason- they are inspecting the PC to see if a fan failed to kick in.
I look at it this way- if I can't tell- in real life- right in front of me which card is better for play (I wasnt told which had what in- just "here watch these 2 play" so I couldnt get biased on it.) then what difference does it make?
"Preparing for the future" ha. thats funny.. name one game that reccomends over a 128mb vid card out right now. Answer... none. (or at least none I will ever play) 128s are "above the curve" right now still- they are STARTING to lose there edge as games become more intensive- but they still work for them so to spend over double for a card now- that will drop to at least 200 dollars when "you need it" later is kinda stupid. IF the day comes when games require 512 min vid 7xx reccomended- then look for it- otherwise.. stop being biased because you like one company better, or the style, or are going with the hype. all of you FPS madmen out there.. your wasting your money. 150 is about the best youll ever need. its over double what your silly eyes can see and if your lagging then - its your ISP or other computer problems- NOT your video card.
You guys put too much into the vid card.. yes it's important but RAM speed and CPU is just as important. Without them loading windows can take over 15 mins. Then you get your game running laggily- then finally your graphics kicks in for lag free gaming - but when you shut it down your back to "normal stats" where video isnt important. Video helps yes- but you can run myspace, email and everything non game just fine ona 32 mb video card with no stats or specs or speed, as long as you have ram and cpu power. and that includes windows XP.
I told you I really didn't care for "my computer is better then yours" so why are you trying to push your hyped up geek parts over parts that will do what I want? Your being childish- I suggest you grow up and get over it.
and for clearification- Iam not ****ed- just rather dissapointed you guys posted the way you did- you can easily get your point accross without involving your emotions- regardless of what you gusy think or say- Its ME who purchases my computer- not you. So unless you wanna pitch in for this beast- keep your emotions in check- if you do want to donate feel free- and ill use whatever part you "so highly reccomend" regardless of my other feelings and info I was going by. (and no giving me 1$ wont convience me to use your 500 dollar card.)
Vaanish
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 1,693
- Location
- Yorkshire, UK
I dont know what you are talking about when you slam the Abit Fatal1ty: it is actually a decent good value board:
Abit Fatal1ty FP-IN9 SLI | Motherboards | Reviews | Custom PC
And if it is agreable to Kisskerven's tastes of colour then that is another reason for him to go for it.
CustomPc said:
Abit Fatal1ty FP-IN9 SLI | Motherboards | Reviews | Custom PC
And if it is agreable to Kisskerven's tastes of colour then that is another reason for him to go for it.
Kisskerven
In Runtime
- Messages
- 224
Vaanish- it was my original plan- however I won't be utilizing sli- so lots would be wasted in buying the board- and the blood iron does support 1333 cpu which are cheaper. (And please, just call me Kissker. ^.^)
and not just the board, the fatal1ty card is wonderful and greatly priced... people just don't like it for "x" reason where there pride gets in the way.
For whatever reason "Fatal1ty" is liked by some gamers and despised by others.. the products are high quality and reasonably priced- yet they aren't as popular as you might think. People don't want it for whatever there reason and base it off of things like "the 8800 ultra is much better" How? Have you seen the ultra play vs the gts? how bout gts vs gtx? In most cases these kids have never seen it- just read biased reviews on wiki or myspaces or whatever else and "went with the flow" Ive seen the Fatal1ty Gts VS the Ultra and In my (and the guy who bought the ultra) opinion(s) the Gts is a better buy. (The guy who bought the ultra said "at least I didn't blow more then 300 dollars" after he found out how much he overpaid for what little differnce in gaming there was.) You have to remember that benchmarking is not game play- its a good way to start your base- but until you play you don't know how it will react to lag/other players/online play/etc.
Now in defence for the Ultra- it IS a good card- however its just new technology. The price will fall dramatically on it pretty soon when the "next new thing" comes to rev up you hypers. Just because it costs more, or is newer, does not mean its better. You should all know that when Vista first popped out at us.. was hyped up to be the best thing for gamers and general computer users alike- and yet gamers who bought it took it off there game computers and put XP back on from is problems. Hype is hype- its not fact.
and not just the board, the fatal1ty card is wonderful and greatly priced... people just don't like it for "x" reason where there pride gets in the way.
For whatever reason "Fatal1ty" is liked by some gamers and despised by others.. the products are high quality and reasonably priced- yet they aren't as popular as you might think. People don't want it for whatever there reason and base it off of things like "the 8800 ultra is much better" How? Have you seen the ultra play vs the gts? how bout gts vs gtx? In most cases these kids have never seen it- just read biased reviews on wiki or myspaces or whatever else and "went with the flow" Ive seen the Fatal1ty Gts VS the Ultra and In my (and the guy who bought the ultra) opinion(s) the Gts is a better buy. (The guy who bought the ultra said "at least I didn't blow more then 300 dollars" after he found out how much he overpaid for what little differnce in gaming there was.) You have to remember that benchmarking is not game play- its a good way to start your base- but until you play you don't know how it will react to lag/other players/online play/etc.
Now in defence for the Ultra- it IS a good card- however its just new technology. The price will fall dramatically on it pretty soon when the "next new thing" comes to rev up you hypers. Just because it costs more, or is newer, does not mean its better. You should all know that when Vista first popped out at us.. was hyped up to be the best thing for gamers and general computer users alike- and yet gamers who bought it took it off there game computers and put XP back on from is problems. Hype is hype- its not fact.
NosBoost300
I poop on the rug
- Messages
- 10,220
- Location
- Bellflower, CA
okay 1... the human eye can far surpass 60fps, but refresh rates of monitors, usually 60-75hz limites the screen to only displaying 60-75 fps... the rest being dumped.... and 2. that 30fps is gonna make a HUGE difference in games in the future when that 320mb can't take it.... dx10 performance already shows the 8800gts 640mb pwns the 320 mb (dx10 benches at least)...
now i'm not saying the 8800gts is a bad card, i have owned an 8800gts 640mb myself, and it in fact did play games flawlessly... but me being a person who needs games in the future to run well.. i wouldnt go for the 320mb.... the way crysis is running for me on this 2900xt/pro i'm not satisified! so i'm hoping it is just beta fault... but i am gonna go crossfire anyway.. lol
if been on every side of the field of graphics card... low end (7300gt) mid ranged (8600gts) and high end (x1950xtx, 8800gts 640mb, and now 2900xt/pro)... i would say i'm pretty knowledgable in the field of graphics card in some sort of way, due to actual hands on experience, and not just basing it off some stupid websites....
but if i were to suggest anything.. it would be the 2900pro as stated earlier.. these things overclock easily to 2900xt speeds for less than 300 dollars! i've never been so satisfied with a graphics card
and as for games not using more than 128 mb... HA, you make me laugh that is hilarious.. oblivion uses well over 500mb's of texture... let me take you over to xtreme systems... and i'll show you many games under different circumstances that'll use far more than 128mb (and as a side note, i am not saying that the amount of ram is going to make a huge different.. only stating that games can go far beyond 128mb use....) and the ram of the 8800gtx's and ultra's can clock far beyond that of an 8800gts
now i'm not saying the 8800gts is a bad card, i have owned an 8800gts 640mb myself, and it in fact did play games flawlessly... but me being a person who needs games in the future to run well.. i wouldnt go for the 320mb.... the way crysis is running for me on this 2900xt/pro i'm not satisified! so i'm hoping it is just beta fault... but i am gonna go crossfire anyway.. lol
if been on every side of the field of graphics card... low end (7300gt) mid ranged (8600gts) and high end (x1950xtx, 8800gts 640mb, and now 2900xt/pro)... i would say i'm pretty knowledgable in the field of graphics card in some sort of way, due to actual hands on experience, and not just basing it off some stupid websites....
but if i were to suggest anything.. it would be the 2900pro as stated earlier.. these things overclock easily to 2900xt speeds for less than 300 dollars! i've never been so satisfied with a graphics card
and as for games not using more than 128 mb... HA, you make me laugh that is hilarious.. oblivion uses well over 500mb's of texture... let me take you over to xtreme systems... and i'll show you many games under different circumstances that'll use far more than 128mb (and as a side note, i am not saying that the amount of ram is going to make a huge different.. only stating that games can go far beyond 128mb use....) and the ram of the 8800gtx's and ultra's can clock far beyond that of an 8800gts
- Status
