Search results

Get yourself a nice 37-46" full HD lcd tv for the same price. If you don't really need the resolution for anything else than gaming, the it aint worth it. I had a 3065 for about 16 months and while it's sure a nice monitor, not worth the price imo.. And besides that video card sure as hell...

I have this mobo and asrock web page says max supported memory is 4gb. I wonder if that's 2x2gb or 4x1gb, any clues?

rthdribl doesnt heat up a video card anything like this does.

What about this program?

This program is much more effective than atitool fur cube. Like 3-5c more temps..

I don't know if this is common knowledge here, but I came across an application that heats up a graphics card like no other. Great for testing OC stability. My 8800 gts 512 heats up to about 80c with fan ~65%. Furmark

I don't see what the problem is here.. Why RMA it now? Use it for as long as it works and THEN rma it. If it has a 1 year warranty the rma it 364 days from now if it still works then. By then you'll be so bored at the card anyway you won't care if it took 1 month to get a new one..

IMO 1680 x 1050 and up looks fine.

75hz is possible on some screens with vga input. DVI is 60hz only.

Xenozx, here you can see the actual fps in which videos like this are rendered. And this is far from thousands of objects: click

90 degrees is just so goddamn much! I remember everyone shitting their pants when g80s hit 80 degrees, now it seems like 95-100 is still acceptable. maybe in 2010 the "norm" will be 150 degrees. Who knows?

Crysis is really the only game that requires more powah. Everything else runs perfectly fine with g80/g92 and hd38xx.. So it's not that the videocard companies are in that much a hurry. I wouldn't mind being able to play crysis at 2560 x 1600, 16x aa & 16x af with all settings at "very high"...

That P4 is definitely holding you back alot. You should get like 5500 in those 3dmark06 sm 2.0 and 3.0 tests.

I made a short video in sandbox 2 and left the fps counter on. It demonstrates that videos like this are definitely not real time. My sandbox experiment in 720p: HERE And this was done with a core 2 duo e4300 running at 3204MHz.

You knew what you were paying for (a single slot cooler). So stop bitching.

This game isn't so bad (with a logitech g25 atleast), but it does get very boring very quickly. Same shit over and over and over again a million times. No real goal to speak of. Handling isn't so bad (don't know about keyboard) and drifting is ok too.. But I grew tired of this game very fast...

Vista x64 Ultimate is the best! Awesome for gaming as well. The ~3gb memory limit for 32bit just won't cut it for long. Crysis in vista with 2gb of memory really stuttered alot for me. Now with 4gb and the 64 bit version there's no stutter at all. :)

Yeah well it all depends on how many objects in crysis are reacting to each other. The more objects the less fps. :D

Paulo Narciso: What are your system specs? When I changed to vista a few months ago from XP, it wasn't slower or less responsive in any way. It does propably require a somewhat modern system to be as responsive as xp, but anyway.. vista runs very well and with 4gb of memory it's more responsive...

These kind of videos are supercool. I tried something similar myself and it's PAINFULLY slow to render. I think I played around with about 5000 objects and the rendering goes to speeds of about 1fp10s or 0.1fps. So it takes several minutes to render 1 second of real time footage (30fps). And...

I used fraps. BTW here's another comparison. There's clearly a difference:

It may be the jpeg compression. Here's a 200% image of the mountain. See any difference now?

Both screenshots are taken in "high" details. So why does the 64bit version look so much better? Look at the mountains for example.. 64: 32:

Don't do it. There isn't a single card out there that can run crysis with high or very high detail settings at decent resolutions. Wait for new cards to come out or something. 320mb isn't going to get you far.

Still no reason to upgrade my G80 A3 8800 GTS 640, which runs with default fan settings at 650(core)/1620(shaders)/1000(mem). Why can't they just make a card that's significantly faster than the 8800 GTX. All this 8800 gt and gts 512 nonsens just pisses me off really. Is it really that hard to...

28 and 30 ar both too small. I have a hp lp3065 and I'd gladly upgrade for a 35-40" screen with the same resolution (if there were such a thing).

"In 2006, more than 69 million motor vehicles, including cars and commercial vehicles were produced worldwide." (wikipedia) 1% of that would make 690 000 ferraris IN A YEAR! Every 1 car out of 100 that drive past you would be a ferrari! I WISH!!!!

I'm kind of surprised that most vote for the aliens. Sure the mutants were annoying and tough buggers to kill, but I think they had more personality than the dull-ish aliens in crysis. Those mutants could give you one hell of a fright in the dark indoor levels. I hope they'll add some different...

So, which did you enjoy more? The mutants in Far Cry or aliens in Crysis? Personally I liked the mutants in Far Cry better, but the aliens weren't that bad either.

Agreed. The gravity less cave level was pretty boring and not fun to play. It wasn''t that bad the first time, but the second time I played through the game I was just like please let's get out of this crappy cave.. The levels following (with aliens) weren't that bad, but I did enjoy the first...

I don't mind sacrificing a little resolution to get better fps / more eye candy. I can't do my monitors native 2560 x 1600 anyway, and everything above 1680 x 1050 is fine for me. I did have to drop to 1280 x 800 to play crysis with details at high, and that resolution is a little horrible. When...

Here's some crysis vs Far Cry screenshots taken at 1280 x 720. In both cases every detail setting is maxed out and in crysis I had 16x qaa and far cry 8x aa. 1. 2. 3. 4. And just for the fun of it..

Pentium 4 sucks BALLZ, there's your problem. My c2d @ 3.2GHz and a GF 8800 GTS 640 (650/1600/1000) runs this game everything on high at about 35-40 fps @ 1280 x 1024.

Wow, that's some really cool shit. Would be nice to see even bigger structures get pounded.

Why the hell are you taking your monitor to school?:confused:

I have it on "king" and all the assists off, like the stupid corner markers. TC is off but ABS I keep on. I guess there isn't much to do anymore?

Am I doing something wrong or is this game ridiculously easy? I'm playing it on a Logitech G25 steering wheel, and I'm using the H -shifter and clutch. I don't have a problem with the gameplay, just that there is literally 0 challenge. I haven't played through the whole game yet, but it's just...

Yep, like said, there isn't any card or even sli/cf setup that'll run current games maxed out at 2560x1600. I'm lucky to run games at decent detail settings at 1280 x 800 on my 30" screen. COD4 is a positive exception though, since it runs fine at 2560x1600 maxed out.

Think of it in generations. Ut was the first generation, 2003 and 2004 were both second (technically almost identical) and now ut03 is the third generation game of the series.

I wouldn't say a higher resolution does much for the gaming experience really. I like big monitors just because of that - they're big, and bigger is better! I have a 2560 x 1600 screen and I'm perfectly happy with gaming at lower resolutions like 1920 x 1200 or 1680 x 1050, I like the big 30"...