7900 Gtx - Page 4 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > New Systems | Building and Buying
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 07-18-2006, 02:40 AM   #31 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 969
Default

Whenever I change any big part like that, I reformat. There are ways around, but I find there to be better performance when I reformat it.

Quote:
Originally posted by NosBoost300
hehe the compaq i sold to him! hahaha
How nice of you.
__________________

__________________
<br><br><font color=\"black\"><b>There's No Place Like </b></font><font color=\"red\"><b>127.0.0.1</b></font><br>
AnthraX is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 02:43 AM   #32 (permalink)
Hard Gay Nahalem! Fooo!
 
NosBoost300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bellflower, CA
Posts: 10,154
Send a message via AIM to NosBoost300
Default

haha... well its a long story but i got horribly jipped off there....

anyway... its odd, cuz i had put a 7300gt in there and it worked just fine.. but some reason, when i install the 7900gtx it goes to poop... he got a new psu as well so i know thats not the problem.. antec truepower tp2... so we're gonna try reformatting hopefully that does it

to get back on topic of a 7900gtx

from what i've had with it (which isnt alot) its very nice.. it pushes air far better than a 7900gt heatsink.. i can barely feel the air pushing from the gt.. but this 7900gtx gets it out nicely... i'd recommened without a 2nd thought
__________________

__________________
Current Build:
Intel 3770k @ 4.4 GHZ | Galaxy GTX 770 SLi | 16 GB G.Skill Sniper | ASrock z77 Extreme4
2xSamung 840pro 128GB in Raid | 2x1TB Seagate | Antec 750 Watt GamerSeries
Media Build:
Intel Core i3 3220 | Galaxy GTX 650 | 8 GB Corsair Vengeance | ASrock B75M | Samsung 840 120GB
NosBoost300 is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 02:48 AM   #33 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 969
Default

Just get an aftermarket heatsink, like one from Zalman.
__________________
<br><br><font color=\"black\"><b>There's No Place Like </b></font><font color=\"red\"><b>127.0.0.1</b></font><br>
AnthraX is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 02:50 AM   #34 (permalink)
Hard Gay Nahalem! Fooo!
 
NosBoost300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bellflower, CA
Posts: 10,154
Send a message via AIM to NosBoost300
Default

i wanna get me a gtx heatsink.. it looks nicer.. i just don't like that it takes 2 dang slots.. i wanna get a zalman.. maybe it'll help me reach 10,000 in 05 with my gt... im at 9500 right now thats at 550/850.. and since i am on a budget.. and can't get another gpu (again.....) then a zalman sounds good
__________________
Current Build:
Intel 3770k @ 4.4 GHZ | Galaxy GTX 770 SLi | 16 GB G.Skill Sniper | ASrock z77 Extreme4
2xSamung 840pro 128GB in Raid | 2x1TB Seagate | Antec 750 Watt GamerSeries
Media Build:
Intel Core i3 3220 | Galaxy GTX 650 | 8 GB Corsair Vengeance | ASrock B75M | Samsung 840 120GB
NosBoost300 is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 03:55 AM   #35 (permalink)
Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 56
Default

It is very interesting that in all of our testing, both “what is playable” testing and “apples-to-apples” testing, the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 and Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 are very close in performance. In fact, in some games they are dead even. The price difference between the two is very extreme with the Core 2 Extreme X6800 costing $999 and the Core 2 Duo E6700 at $530. Does it look like the price is justified between the two for gaming? We can safely say “no” as far as gaming goes with this gameplay testing we have performed.

As for the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62, all of our testing shows that it does trail the two new Intel CPUs in gameplay performance. So, if you wanted to point one out as being a “winner” then for sure it is the new Intel Core 2 X6800 and E6700. But, if you look at the amount of difference between the AMD and Intel CPUs, you will see that it isn’t enough to amount to anything. The only game that we saw any real-world difference in was Oblivion, and even that was tiny. A little overclocking would clear that difference up. Overall, the performance difference isn’t enough to amount to any gameplay experience differences in these games. One thing is certain: these are very fast platforms and they all provided a very enjoyable high-end gaming experience in every game.


http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...VudGh1c2lhc3Q=
deaduar3 is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 04:07 AM   #36 (permalink)
Hard Gay Nahalem! Fooo!
 
NosBoost300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bellflower, CA
Posts: 10,154
Send a message via AIM to NosBoost300
Default

very well said... i too am with the conroe's all the way.. but not with having to change my ram and mobo
__________________
Current Build:
Intel 3770k @ 4.4 GHZ | Galaxy GTX 770 SLi | 16 GB G.Skill Sniper | ASrock z77 Extreme4
2xSamung 840pro 128GB in Raid | 2x1TB Seagate | Antec 750 Watt GamerSeries
Media Build:
Intel Core i3 3220 | Galaxy GTX 650 | 8 GB Corsair Vengeance | ASrock B75M | Samsung 840 120GB
NosBoost300 is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 02:42 PM   #37 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 969
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by deaduar3
It is very interesting that in all of our testing, both “what is playable” testing and “apples-to-apples” testing, the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 and Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 are very close in performance. In fact, in some games they are dead even. The price difference between the two is very extreme with the Core 2 Extreme X6800 costing $999 and the Core 2 Duo E6700 at $530. Does it look like the price is justified between the two for gaming? We can safely say “no” as far as gaming goes with this gameplay testing we have performed.

As for the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62, all of our testing shows that it does trail the two new Intel CPUs in gameplay performance. So, if you wanted to point one out as being a “winner” then for sure it is the new Intel Core 2 X6800 and E6700. But, if you look at the amount of difference between the AMD and Intel CPUs, you will see that it isn’t enough to amount to anything. The only game that we saw any real-world difference in was Oblivion, and even that was tiny. A little overclocking would clear that difference up. Overall, the performance difference isn’t enough to amount to any gameplay experience differences in these games. One thing is certain: these are very fast platforms and they all provided a very enjoyable high-end gaming experience in every game.


http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...VudGh1c2lhc3Q=
I don't really want to start an arguement, but you are wrong. You have to remember that there is more to computers than just gaming. Gaming is just a small percentage of what processors can do. You probably wouldn't notice much of a difference with the Conroe in real world test, true. However, you would notice a huge difference in your wallet. Even the E6600 can beat the FX-62. The E6600 is ~$315 vs. the FX-62's $1200+ pricetag. It isn't always the performance that counts, it is the price/performance ratio. And Conroe shows that Intel has a much better ratio than AMD, currently.

Go visit some places that have Core 2 Duo benchmarks and look at more than just gaming.
__________________
<br><br><font color=\"black\"><b>There's No Place Like </b></font><font color=\"red\"><b>127.0.0.1</b></font><br>
AnthraX is offline  
Old 07-19-2006, 02:29 AM   #38 (permalink)
Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 56
Default

1.im talking about gaming,

2.after the amd price cuts you will be able to get something like a 4800+ or better for like 315.

3. gaming wise there would be pretty much less than 5fps diference between the two.

4.in non gaming benchmarks the 4800+ would still be about the same than the conroe

5. i am trying to figure out what the point of this big "OMG conroe!!! R0x0rx teh b0x0rz' was all about..it sounded like people where paid by intel to spam the boards with 'ConROE R0X~!!!! itz going to crush everything!!!' talk.

6. im just aksing these questions because they have been bugging me ever since i saw the benchies..and the news of how much amd is going to slash the price on the beast that the high end 939 socket cpu's still are.

thnx
deaduar3 is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 12:31 AM   #39 (permalink)
Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 56
Default

1.im talking about gaming,

2.after the amd price cuts you will be able to get something like a 4800+ or better for like 315.

3. gaming wise there would be pretty much less than 5fps diference between the two.

4.in non gaming benchmarks the 4800+ would still be about the same than the conroe

5. i am trying to figure out what the point of this big "OMG conroe!!! R0x0rx teh b0x0rz' was all about..it sounded like people where paid by intel to spam the boards with 'ConROE R0X~!!!! itz going to crush everything!!!' talk.

6. im just aksing these questions because they have been bugging me ever since i saw the benchies..and the news of how much amd is going to slash the price on the beast that the high end 939 socket cpu's still are.

thnx
deaduar3 is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 12:34 AM   #40 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by deaduar3
It sounded like people where paid by intel to spam the boards with 'ConROE R0X~!!!! itz going to crush everything!!!' talk.
Don't I wish.

The X2 4800+ would be no match for the similarly-priced E6600 in non-gaming, or GPU-unlimited situations. No competition.
__________________

Outofwords is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.