[bowei006]

Ehh, im fine with it

 

[MorbidToaster]

Crysis set a standard for being pretty, but the gameplay was generic and boring. Looks aren't everthing.
 
Quote:

Hahaha that sucka a lot
I am intereste in Far Cry 3 and the next Crytek games. Hopefully Crytek can bring Homefront from the dead and Crysis 3 comming back to redefine our master race like it did 6 years ago.

 
I'm happy they're setting it more like Far Cry 1. Considering how much I disliked Far Cry 2 (BROWN GALORE, bad map maker, etc) I really have high hopes for 3. The snowy environment sounds interesting, but I can't complain about another tropical set game. At least we'll get green instead of brown.
 
Quote:

I think it's going to take a lot for me to get interested in Far Cry 3. Right after Far Cry 2 was released they mentioned that they really wanted to set the next game in Alaska, or some other snowy place, and that got me really excited. Now it's just generic tropical environments.

 

[OJNeg]

So, last time I upgraded my graphics card was back in '09(ish). I'm thinking about grabbing a new one sometime soon to mull me over until I replace the other components.
I'm currently running:

CPU: Intel QuadCore Q9450 (not "i" series) @ 2.66GHz
GPU: Radeon HD 57xx
RAM: 4GB
PSU: 550W

I'm not big on overclocking or dual GPUs, and I don't want to break the bank. And as I understand, PCI-Express 3.0 cards are still compatible with 2.0 slots, correct? The Asus HD 7770 looks very appealing to me right now, but if someone can convince me to spend more on a 7870 or the likes, I might be willing to do so. I think I'll also move to 8GB of RAM while I'm at it.

Any thoughts?

 

[Kirosia]

Sit on slickdeals.net, I'd expect at least a few more mid-end cards to go on sale considering the time.

 

[bowei006]

@morbid
Yeah, snowy places have nothing

@ojneg
I am running a 5770 and can run most games on high at 1080p

Why not wait for next year

 

[OJNeg]

@morbid
Yeah, snowy places have nothing
@ojneg
I am running a 5770 and can run most games on high at 1080p
Why not wait for next year

I run most games at 1920x1080 with no problems, but some games I can't push into the higher settings without dropping below 30 FPS. Specifically some shooters and strategy games. Maybe my CPU/chipset is bottlenecking, but that's not worth upgrading at this point.

My reasoning is if I get some extra graphics muscle right now, I'll always be able to drop it into a next-gen build.

 

[bowei006]

Quote:

I run most games at 1920x1080 with no problems, but some games I can't push into the higher settings without dropping below 30 FPS. Specifically some shooters and strategy games. Maybe my CPU/chipset is bottlenecking, but that's not worth upgrading at this point.
My reasoning is if I get some extra graphics muscle right now, I'll always be able to drop it into a next-gen build.

Yeah same. But the thing is, I can wait. My next rig is comming in 2013. As long as I can run on high at 1080p with most games or medium with the very hard ones. I am set. BF3 plays on high and so does the mass majority (except for Crysis 2).
 
But why get extra muscle now when most games still run in high when you can get a better card for that next gen build? 
 
We are in the PC Enthusiast Fi section. And thus form that psychographic I can understand what you mean. Getting as much performance as you can with some reasoning. But as a person that also looks at other things. I would rather say to wait and fully upgrade the next time you do. The 57xx series were heavily popular when they came out. They were the first DX11 series (5xxx that is) cards released and the 57xx appealed to the majority of people's wallets. 

 

[Kukuk]

Man, Assassin's Creed 3 just doesn't run very well on my computer. Even on it's lowest settings it drops well below 30FPS. I think it's probably my CPU. AMD's, particularly the lower end ones, are notoriously bad for games. Quad-core don't mean a thing with most games, since most games are only built around two cores. AMD's whole philosophy has been "MOAR CORES!!@!111111one!111!" instead of making a faster processor, so it's a little silly that they try to sell them as gaming CPU's.
 
I think probably the lowest-end i3 would perform circles around mine. I've seen some benchmarks that certainly seem to suggest that.
 
The next rig I build will definitely be Intel. It would most likely be better for running current games, and definitely be better for running PCSX2, which as it stands now runs well below playable.

 

[bowei006]

Quote:

Man, Assassin's Creed 3 just doesn't run very well on my computer. Even on it's lowest settings it drops well below 30FPS. I think it's probably my CPU. AMD's, particularly the lower end ones, are notoriously bad for games. Quad-core don't mean a thing with most games, since most games are only built around two cores. AMD's whole philosophy has been "MOAR CORES!!@!111111one!111!" instead of making a faster processor, so it's a little silly that they try to sell them as gaming CPU's.
 
I think probably the lowest-end i3 would perform circles around mine. I've seen some benchmarks that certainly seem to suggest that.
 
The next rig I build will definitely be Intel. It would most likely be better for running current games, and definitely be better for running PCSX2, which as it stands now runs well below playable.

Most games do use two cores but the majority of top games do use four cores. And also keep in mind that the four core CPU's also have more advanced pipelines, instructions and are faster per core(not just frequency wise) than what most are running as dual cores in their PC
s

 

[Kukuk]

Quote:

Most games do use two cores but the majority of top games do use four cores. And also keep in mind that the four core CPU's also have more advanced pipelines, instructions and are faster per core(not just frequency wise) than what most are running as dual cores in their PC
s

 
That's the theory, but with most process types AMD's architecture falls well behind Intel's. That's why AMD goes with the "more cores" route, since, I guess they figure they can't make a processor that completes with the efficiency of Intel.
 
Then there's the fact that AMD's CPU's just don't do (at all) certain instruction types, which is the reason why PCSX2 doesn't work on them.
 
It is a little funny that despite CPU playing such a huge role in Skyrim, I can still run it. Probably because I have plenty of overhead on my video card...
 
(Benchmark showing off CPU optimization)
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074-9.html

 

[bowei006]

Quote:

 
That's the theory, but with most process types AMD's architecture falls well behind Intel's. That's why AMD goes with the "more cores" route, since, I guess they figure they can't make a processor that completes with the efficiency of Intel.
 
Then there's the fact that AMD's CPU's just don't do (at all) certain instruction types, which is the reason why PCSX2 doesn't work on them.
 
It is a little funny that despite CPU playing such a huge role in Skyrim, I can still run it. Probably because I have plenty of overhead on my video card...
 
(Benchmark showing off CPU optimization)
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074-9.html

Hell yes it does. However AMD's APU's due to its more efficent and "together" Fusion system is on general more "advanced" than Intel's mobile options.
 
AMD goes the more cores and more frequency but less heat(they are now generally cooler than Intel CPU's) route. But we don't know anymore. AMD has dropped from Enthusiast competition and is staying in the mid battle now. Around the i5 3550 level and below from now on with a focus on efficency and fusion APU's.

 

[Kukuk]

ARGH I'M SO FRUSTRATED BY ASSASSINS'S CREED 3.

 

[bowei006]

Quote:

ARGH I'M SO FRUSTRATED BY ASSASSINS'S CREED 3.

Why? Did it not finish download?

 

[Kukuk]

No, it's just running really poorly. Runs much, much worse than Revelations, and the town I'm in isn't as big. Not to mention I'm playing it on my TV, so I'm only running it at 1366 x 768.

 

[negrosis]

anyone know if the sony zx700s are good for pc gaming (dolby digital surround)?
im probably going to be using it with fiio e11 and xonar dgx. is the zx700 do-able for the time being, until i have enough money to buy better headphones or should i just kill myself