I am not getting the Mouse and Keyboard just yet, as i need every penny. Everything else on there i shall be getting. HELL YES!
No it isnt, it smokes anything on the market bar the GTX and UltraZimmer wrote:
GTS is shit, either get the GTX or a high end DX9 card. Not the GTS, its a waste of money and time.Bell wrote:
Can I suggest this? What I have, (well nearly, diff graphics card, ordering that on tuesday and tis complete ftw!).
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/8480/777jx6.png
Martyn
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php … amp;card2=
Pit any card (appart from them two ^^^) against it and the results speak for themself.
Martyn
Well then, you are all geared up and ready to go...wait....sound card? You need a good sound card.White-Fusion wrote:
Thats for Vista and all my games (aka Battlefield and Morrowind)Zimmer wrote:
74GB hard drive? You must be shitting me.... That isn't big enough to hold all my PSDs, not counting programs.
Everything else is pretty nice, although that processor...I wonder how long it will last with all the new 64-bit games and DX10 games coming out...
and i have a 200 gig one here i will be using.
Wait, why do you want a 74GB hard drive then? What is the point?
Are you telling me you are going to be running Vista from 74GB just to play your games?
74? woops... should be the 32 gig one in there, yeah ill add a sound card inZimmer wrote:
Well then, you are all geared up and ready to go...wait....sound card? You need a good sound card.White-Fusion wrote:
Thats for Vista and all my games (aka Battlefield and Morrowind)Zimmer wrote:
74GB hard drive? You must be shitting me.... That isn't big enough to hold all my PSDs, not counting programs.
Everything else is pretty nice, although that processor...I wonder how long it will last with all the new 64-bit games and DX10 games coming out...
and i have a 200 gig one here i will be using.
Wait, why do you want a 74GB hard drive then? What is the point?
Are you telling me you are going to be running Vista from 74GB just to play your games?
£100 difference and you think it is worth it? Nu uh.Bell wrote:
No it isnt, it smokes anything on the market bar the GTX and UltraZimmer wrote:
GTS is shit, either get the GTX or a high end DX9 card. Not the GTS, its a waste of money and time.Bell wrote:
Can I suggest this? What I have, (well nearly, diff graphics card, ordering that on tuesday and tis complete ftw!).
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/8480/777jx6.png
Martyn
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php … amp;card2=
Pit any card (appart from them two ^^^) against it and the results speak for themself.
Martyn
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/05/01/ … rd_for_380
For £100 more you get the most powerful card on the market + a guaranteed sailing through of playing games on uber high for the next 3 years.
I was implying that you could just... Use the 200gb one for everything.... Or do you have too much porn?White-Fusion wrote:
74? woops... should be the 32 gig one in there, yeah ill add a sound card inZimmer wrote:
Well then, you are all geared up and ready to go...wait....sound card? You need a good sound card.White-Fusion wrote:
Thats for Vista and all my games (aka Battlefield and Morrowind)
and i have a 200 gig one here i will be using.
Wait, why do you want a 74GB hard drive then? What is the point?
Are you telling me you are going to be running Vista from 74GB just to play your games?
Porn, Movies and music = 200 gigZimmer wrote:
I was implying that you could just... Use the 200gb one for everything.... Or do you have too much porn?White-Fusion wrote:
74? woops... should be the 32 gig one in there, yeah ill add a sound card inZimmer wrote:
Well then, you are all geared up and ready to go...wait....sound card? You need a good sound card.
Wait, why do you want a 74GB hard drive then? What is the point?
Are you telling me you are going to be running Vista from 74GB just to play your games?
Vista and games on Raptor - fast as hell.
/bad link?Zimmer wrote:
£100 difference and you think it is worth it? Nu uh.Bell wrote:
No it isnt, it smokes anything on the market bar the GTX and UltraZimmer wrote:
GTS is shit, either get the GTX or a high end DX9 card. Not the GTS, its a waste of money and time.
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php … amp;card2=
Pit any card (appart from them two ^^^) against it and the results speak for themself.
Martyn
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/05/01/ … rd_for_380
For £100 more you get the most powerful card on the market + a guaranteed sailing through of playing games on uber high for the next 3 years.
What a lot of bullshit. No way has nvidia ever said it would play every game for the next three years on all high settings, knowone offical has ever stated that. Look back a few years to when doom3 came out, they said you need a 6800ultra for the best performance, and how will a 6800 play crysis, not uber high me thinks. Same will happen to the GTX.
I think the £100 difference is totally justified, GTS will run bf2/2142 as silky smooth as a GTX can (granted, the higher the resolution the gap begins to enlarge). Also it isnt the most powerful card on the market, technically that is the ultra .
Anyone who knows what there talking about would consider a GTS even if money wasnt an issue.
Martyn
Last edited by Bell (2007-05-13 14:33:43)
When you look at graphics cards, besides the ram, what else you you look at? I ask because I have no idea what to look for in a card. If I see that it has... oh I don't know, 512mb ram I think it must be a great card.
Oh, and on ram chips or what the name is...
Oh, and on ram chips or what the name is...
Last edited by SteikeTa (2007-05-13 14:33:13)
Im going for the GTS personally.
But to put an end to the debate, White Fusion, what resolution will you be running at?
As a GENERAL,
1280 x 1024 = GTS
1900 x 1200 = GTX
GTX only comes into its own in uber high resolutions with a bazillion x AA
But to put an end to the debate, White Fusion, what resolution will you be running at?
As a GENERAL,
1280 x 1024 = GTS
1900 x 1200 = GTX
GTX only comes into its own in uber high resolutions with a bazillion x AA
Last edited by =Karma-Kills= (2007-05-13 14:51:33)
As high as i can, my monitor is 1024 x 768 i think, so it wont be much diffrence, until i get a nice new 22"=Karma-Kills= wrote:
Im going for the GTS personally.
But to put an end to the debate, White Fusion, what resolution will you be running at?
As a GENERAL,
1280 x 1024 = GTS
1900 x 1200 = GTX
GTX only comes into its own in uber high resolutions with a bazillion x AA
[leeches onto topic]
With there being at least 4 different varients of the GTX (which I'm planning on getting) does it matter which one?
Or are they all pretty much the same?
With there being at least 4 different varients of the GTX (which I'm planning on getting) does it matter which one?
Or are they all pretty much the same?
I like exaggerating as you can see.Bell wrote:
/bad link?Zimmer wrote:
£100 difference and you think it is worth it? Nu uh.Bell wrote:
No it isnt, it smokes anything on the market bar the GTX and Ultra
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php … amp;card2=
Pit any card (appart from them two ^^^) against it and the results speak for themself.
Martyn
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/05/01/ … rd_for_380
For £100 more you get the most powerful card on the market + a guaranteed sailing through of playing games on uber high for the next 3 years.
What a lot of bullshit. No way has nvidia ever said it would play every game for the next three years on all high settings, knowone offical has ever stated that. Look back a few years to when doom3 came out, they said you need a 6800ultra for the best performance, and how will a 6800 play crysis, not uber high me thinks. Same will happen to the GTX.
I think the £100 difference is totally justified, GTS will run bf2/2142 as silky smooth as a GTX can (granted, the higher the resolution the gap begins to enlarge). Also it isnt the most powerful card on the market, technically that is the ultra .
Anyone who knows what there talking about would consider a GTS even if money wasnt an issue.
Martyn
But when the high end DX10 games come out, you will start to see the real difference between the GTS and the GTX, that is the only reason why I was advising him to go for it. Because he wants a high end computer, and in a few years games such as Crysis and stuff will be high end DX10 games and the GTX will show its prowess.
Drop the RAM to DDR2 800mhz and it'll save you some cash.
Get a 150GB raptor... 36GB will only last you about 2 games and that's it...
Get a 150GB raptor... 36GB will only last you about 2 games and that's it...
Thats what i do i have an 80 gb hard drive just for OS and games and i never go over 25 gig runs soo much better. Also i would look into getting an external usb drive case can pick em up on Ebay for about £10 that way your pc wont be using as much power and resources as you will only turn it on as and when you need it.
As for the graphics card the difference between a gts and gtx will be about 20 fps anything over 50 frames per second and your eyes cant tell the difference and considering you will get a steady 100 fps on a GTS at 1680x1050 (20/22 inch widescreen) i personaly can see why you would want to pay double the money, A GTX will be put to better use on a 24 inch+ monitor or a multi screen setup.
Its neerly getting to the point where i have to upgrade my GFX card 7800GTX all settings on high with a resolution of 1680x1050 getting 40-60 FPS, be lucky to get 20FPS when Crysis comes out
As for the graphics card the difference between a gts and gtx will be about 20 fps anything over 50 frames per second and your eyes cant tell the difference and considering you will get a steady 100 fps on a GTS at 1680x1050 (20/22 inch widescreen) i personaly can see why you would want to pay double the money, A GTX will be put to better use on a 24 inch+ monitor or a multi screen setup.
Its neerly getting to the point where i have to upgrade my GFX card 7800GTX all settings on high with a resolution of 1680x1050 getting 40-60 FPS, be lucky to get 20FPS when Crysis comes out
Last edited by Profitteroles (2007-05-14 03:31:02)
Ok take away the FPS consideration, what about running at uber high settings? that will drag down the FPS.Profitteroles wrote:
Thats what i do i have an 80 gb hard drive just for OS and games and i never go over 25 gig runs soo much better. Also i would look into getting an external usb drive case can pick em up on Ebay for about £10 that way your pc wont be using as much power and resources as you will only turn it on as and when you need it.
As for the graphics card the difference between a gts and gtx will be about 20 fps anything over 50 frames per second and your eyes cant tell the difference and considering you will get a steady 100 fps on a GTS at 1680x1050 (20/22 inch widescreen) i personaly can see why you would want to pay double the money, A GTX will be put to better use on a 24 inch+ monitor or a multi screen setup.
Its neerly getting to the point where i have to upgrade my GFX card 7800GTX all settings on high with a resolution of 1680x1050 getting 40-60 FPS, be lucky to get 20FPS when Crysis comes out
If i can run at uber high settings on my 7800 and still get 50 fps then an 8800 gts wont even break a sweat doing 100
Last edited by Profitteroles (2007-05-14 04:45:55)
The ram is cheap for what it does, i only play BF2 and Morrowind.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Drop the RAM to DDR2 800mhz and it'll save you some cash.
Get a 150GB raptor... 36GB will only last you about 2 games and that's it...
My bad, I shouldn't have put that. DAMNIT, it's hard to detect sarcasm over the internet, right?motherdear wrote:
quad core doesn't work on the bf games even through ea advartices with that it does, it simply can't start the maps.rabee2789b wrote:
That sucks, get Quad core and at least 4GB of ram and maybe 4x GFX 8800(if that's possible). Only kidding, that's pretty cool setup. xD
Whats this 'sarcasm' you speak of?rabee2789b wrote:
My bad, I shouldn't have put that. DAMNIT, it's hard to detect sarcasm over the internet, right?motherdear wrote:
quad core doesn't work on the bf games even through ea advartices with that it does, it simply can't start the maps.rabee2789b wrote:
That sucks, get Quad core and at least 4GB of ram and maybe 4x GFX 8800(if that's possible). Only kidding, that's pretty cool setup. xD