The Official Graphics Card and PC gaming Thread

You know, it's things you say like that, which make me want to jump on the 4 gpu bandwagon and to hell with someday-second-machine. (Of course my deal has to close.) When all those goddamn zombies are running at you from everywhere (I used to play test it two years ago when it was still very rough and it scared the shit out of me then) that's exactly when you don't need any goddamn laggy bullshit going on with your system - you need to be putting out those rounds and nades and let all those poor infected bastards rest in pieces!! Hahahaha!

My relative, Miles, as you know, did the animation for that game, and he would be quite pleased, I think, to hear that I was enjoying it. We had a talk once about TF2 - the orange box - another game he worked on - and I told him I hadn't thought about picking it up - that I mainly did WWII Nazi-killing games. I have a lifetime Valve key he gave me for all Valve games, and I still wasn't planning on picking it up. Duhhh. I should keep my mouth shut - I could tell he was slightly disappointed. (That reminds me, another relative told me that she had gotten an email from Miles that he got some award for the L4D animation - I also got that email but I don't remember that part about the award or I would have called with a personal congratulations - I DID pass on your compliments to him.)

Left 4 Dead, 400% scaling! - F**ing awesome!! Gabe Newell, Pres of Valve, is one clever SOB - I remember when he started talking about exploring 64 bit gaming - maybe that's the version of the game that Steam put on your computer when they saw Vista. Valve were horrified at the code when they took over Turtle Rock, but it sounds like maybe they've cleaned it up pretty well - or maybe it's just that your machine is so goddamn powerful! LOL!

Thanks for the tip - that sounds like the virtual twin brother of the ud3p - yeah, newegg right at $100 with rebate!

But I just got off the phone with one part of the deal!

If I can save it, L4D rough spots 55 fps and "smooth as silk!" LOL

Sam, I've been thinking about something you said a post or two up:

We said i7 quad is no better than core 2 quad for gaming. But, is the i7 architecture better for overclocking the i7 chip, without the serious NB heat issues? Look, the dude got his 940 to 4 Ghz. I am assuming he had a $300 motherboard, which is about what you paid for your x48-DS5 right? He probably had the 3 stick 6 gigs of DDR3 ram which seems standard for i7. The chip is expensive at $560 and the dominator memory is around $200, putting chip and memory about $400 more than Q9550 and 4gigs DDR2 memory, and about same price mobo. Is that extra $400 worth it if it means easier i7 overclocking and 50% more DDR3 ram?

Rich

 

What's great about Valve games is rather than be under the 'the way it's meant to be played' nvidia logo, or just third party, they actively support ATI hardware. Consequently, good crossfire performance in them is pretty much a sure thing. Team Fortress 2, HL2:Episode Two, Portal and Left 4 Dead all show fabulous gains from crossfire.
I'm not really sure what to say about how i7s would be affected by PCI express bandwidth, I too know someone with an i7 940 running at 4Ghz, but he's only using one X2, not two, and I have a pretty good feeling I could get my Q9550 darn close to 4Ghz with only one X2 installed, as my X38-DS4 could manage 3868.
With his system he scores 24,300 or so in 3dmark, about 2000 above me. He has the X58-Extreme, which is £260 versus the £200 I paid for my X48-DS5. The main reason for his choosing of the extreme though was the future potential for watercooling, he hasn't gone that way yet, but wants to keep his options open - the i7s use a lot of power, and he's reaching high 60s under load on his main CPU temp at 4Ghz, higher still in stress tests.

Ultimately, for anyone who has even the slightest budget limit for their system, i7 is the first thing to throw away. Unlike 3dmark, not having one is not necessarily a bottleneck for other games. The brute arithmetic force of the i7, however, does improve crossfire scaling in games that otherwise show very little benefit using one.

 

I know what you mean. Vista is still very functional, and for the most part, is fine for everything. But it's the minor bugs and quirks that XP never had that keeps me from using it. Windows 7 is turning out to be a LOT better though, so I'm excited to see a final version soon. I might actually buy an OS this time around Last one I bought was my copy of XP Pro XD

And yet another reason I choose not to go quad Crossfire as well. Maybe Windows 7 will be better, but faster cards are coming out anyway, so your system will quickly fall behind. Very cool as-is, I agree. But a waste of money, IMO.

Agreed 100%. The P45s are great for OCing and the UD3R has excellent chipset cooling. It's never really been a problem for myself as my chipsets stay within tolerable temps. But really big OCs will start to have problems. The UD3P isn't much different AFAIK. But I've never used either so I can't say much.

I also like how the original HL2 still meets a processor bottleneck with a single card, lol. Using faster cards made no difference, but installing a quad shot my frames through the roof. I rarely see it below 200FPS, if ever XD

My point exactly. The i7 is practically useless for games as any reasonably fast Core 2 Quad or Phenom II will show about the same FPS. Only when you have like GTX280s in SLI or Quad Crossfire will the i7 make a real noticeable difference. So unless you have money to burn, you will get a better value and nearly identical performance with almost any other quad. This is disregarding non-gaming applications though. The i7 is still faster, no doubt.

Personally, I would recommend a Q9550 or a Q6600 if you plan to go quad. Both can be OCd to the moon with a cheap P45 board. And they will surely be fast enough for anything.

 

We've discussed your loathing of Quad CF before, and you'll notice it rarely finds its way into my recommended build lists, but it does have its uses for some people and shouldn't necessarily be ignored.
I'm as up for the new cards as you are, but I don't see anything on the horizon, and discounting the GTX295 as an improvement, there hasn't been anything new under the sun since August.
The CPU ceiling of HL2 is quite amusing, I too saw big benefits changing to a Quad, but then again, that was only really as two cards were held back. With a single GPU, the gains from quad cores are still debatable in a lot of games.
The i7s show similar frame rates to the core 2s in most tests, but not the Phenoms, that is stretching it a bit. Even the Phenom 2s don't have what it takes for the top demanding CPU-bound games.
My CPUs of the moment are the Q9550, Q9400 and i7 920. The Q6600 shows up occasionally, but the 9400 isn't much more expensive, and is a significantly faster chip.

 

Oh no I'm not saying Quad GPU is a useless technology. It definitely has its niche as you have proven with the 3007WFP and 3008WFP. But most users would do better to stick with 2 GPUs or less due to the buggy nature of such technology and the diminishing gains seen in anything but the most demanding situations. Not to mention the way over-the-top power consumption(AND HEAT, DON'T FORGET THE BLASTED HEAT). Basically, if you're not running 2560 x 1600 or similar, don't even consider it.

I do respect that it's the fastest graphics solution ATi has come up with. Definitely breaking new ground in what can be done with video cards. But the price just doesn't justify the gains unless you REALLY REALLY need it.

Most games really don't support quad at all so any arguement here is almost pointless. Almost any single card system will game just as happily with a dual core. I agree that the benefits from quads only really show up with multiple cards. Though in non-gaming applications that can use it, a quad core will be faster, period. Not to say you can't use a single GPU and a quad to game, quite the contrary.

An exaggeration maybe? I have no problems with any games so far. My Phenom II is right on par with my Q6600. Even Crysis is reporting nearly the same FPS. I think the benchmark was like 1FPS less than the Q6600 at the same speeds. Agreed that they're not quite as fast as the 45nm quads and the i7s. They do put up a good fight though, considering how badly the original Phenoms were beaten

Also, GTAIV does not count as a top CPU bound title seeing as it plays much worse than Crysis with (comparatively)crap graphics. The game is bugged, quad core support or no.

Agreed. Though I don't think the Q6600 should be forgotten so quickly. It's still extremely cheap for a quad and most users will never notice a difference unless they watch FRAPS religiously. But if I were buying now, I would probably still get a Q9400 or Q9550. Because they ARE indeed faster.

 

It's great to see the lively discussions between you two guys, Sam and Estuansis. I just found a Q9400 on special at Microcenter (limit one, in-store only) for less than what Newegg has the Q6600 for, so if I go the intermediate solution, that's what I'll get - you both agree on that.

But in the unlikely event I'll go now for the new build (this deal looks increasingly like it won't pan out) I had been thinking, for the new build, of using the Q9550 and x48ds5 or ds4, whichever I can find.

However, forgive me for re-quoting again something you said Sam, that Estuansis also just re-quoted:

Reading that very closely, "does improve crossfire scaling" - in certain games. Games that without the brute force of the i7, DO NOT show much scaling.

That is VERY interesting indeed.

So here I am with the 2560x1600, in what you, Estuansis, would call a NEEDY situation of desperately requiring maximum graphics horsepower if I am going to be able to share your appreciation for the subtle nuances of the graphics at high settings, on games like crysis. And here we have the i7 which appears to me to be about a $400 budget increase, mostly for the 940 chip and 6 gigs DDR3.

So taking a close-to $2,000 investment in hardware - $1,000 of that just in the two 4870x2s, unless I can make some great ebay buys, the other $1000 in mobo, chip, memory, PSU, case, hsf, gaming keyboard, mouse, mousepad, etc. - adding another $400 is a 20% increase in the budget.

We're not talking about doubling the budget.

So for a 20% budget boost, the above quote says that I could get some scaling improvements - better fps - on certain gaming titles - than I am going to be able to get without that increased investment.

I fall into Estuansis' MAJOR NEED category with the 30" monitor. If the deal went through, I would have a total of $4,000 to work with - I could increase the new rig budget from $2,000 to $2400. Going from $2,000 to $3,000, a 50% budget increase, could be more of a problem, but an extra $400 is do-able.

Would it be worth it? Would you guys do it if you were me? Would it possibly be a better way of future-proofing the system?

I too am looking forward to the ATI 5000 family, but that might not come out for a while - maybe even for a year. The 6 month refresh rate is already busted, and now it looks like multiple gpu solutions are just catching on. I could always sell the gfx cards later and slide something new in.

The basic framework of mobo, chip, and memory could serve me for quite a while. Would it be worth the extra budget boost of $400 to go to i7 at this time?


Rich

 

Neither the Phenom II (not the 940 at least) or the Q6600 are lacking in games performance, but on max CPU-bound settings, they can prove limiting, even without dual graphics. I didn't just upgrade to the Q9550 to show off, there really was a benefit to it.
Agreed on not putting much weight on GTA4, but if more games in the future are like it (heaven forbid), it's wise to stay a little ahead of the game, especially with a relatively expensive new build, after all, I still spec Dual cores for the cheaper new builds.
The Q6600 was a fabulous CPU, and to see it still here a considerable 15+ months after its release is quite impressive. However, it is no longer the ideal CPU it once was.

To say that games that do scale with i7 do not when you use a Core 2 isn't true. The difference is never that great, but in some situations, Warhead in particular, the i7 works better with 4 GPUs than Core 2s do. Not the case for anything but Quad graphics though, I'll make that plain.

As far as I'm concerned, if something does come out to eclipse the 4870X2s, be quick to jump on the bandwagon and sell your existing gear, and you will lose less than you might expect.

 

Well, if you have the funds and the need for that much graphics power, 4 GPUs can be justified. Be forewarned though that few games will benefit much from them out of the few that will scale at all. Crysis and Warhead are, IMO, worthy of the investment. But this is also why I'd prefer to stay at 1920 x 1200.

And remember that a single 4870X2 will play most other games maxed at this resolution without much issue.

Oh I definitely understand your position on the subject. You play at the mother of all resolutions and are in one of the few situations where the extra money spent is justified. Your gains in L4D have made that especially clear to me. Even at 1920 res, I am not entirely lag free in the most intense parts

I see your point and I agree wholeheartedly. Even if games in the future aren't that bad, it's better to be overkill than be sorry

Also agreed on dual cores. 90% of users will be fine with a dual core. But those of us with multiple GPUs practically need a quad to get the full benefit.

My stance on the subject is this:

Single core High end Card or Dual Mid-range cards = Fast dual core

Multiple high end cards = Needs a quad

I understand your view. But also remember that most users ARE on a budget. And the Q6600 represents a fairly fast quad core for cheap. Yes, the newer stuff is faster, but the Q6600 is still cheaper ATM, and that makes it a good buy for those on a budget. Unless you use dual GTX280s or more than 2 HD4870s, the Q6600 is still a tremendous value for the relative performance.

Well, the basic idea is this: Really high end graphics solutions(2/3 GTX280s in SLI, 4 x HD4870 in CrossfireX) will encounter a processor bottleneck. This doesn't mean that they don't scale. It just means they don't scale as well as they could. The i7 alleviates this bottleneck and allows them to scale better.

Other than that, a single GTX280 or dual HD4870s work just fine with Core 2 Quads or Phenom IIs.

Agreed. The 4870X2 will still be worth quite a lot when the HD5000 series comes out. So you can sell what you have and pay a marginal price, really, for something better. I do this with most of my hardware. Or I trade it to friends and give them a mind blowing deal

 

Few games will benefit in a clear cut - it's playable now, it ran like crap before, sort of way. However, the predominant thing I noticed with the 4870X2 is that while it ran most games fine at 2560x1600 4x, almost all of them had slight periods where the fps dipped into the 'ok' but not 'silky smooth' category, and these were removed by cutting the res or dropping the AA. Quad CF seems to have removed those, it's a subtle effect, but it's made quite a big impact to games.

Haha, trade to friends, exactly what I do - most of my hardware goes to fellow members of my LAN, I don't make as much money, but I don't get screwed, they're happy, and it's so much easier.

 

Wow. Again, between the two of you - there is a brilliant fount of wisdom and practical application sense available.

Yes, Sam plays at the mother of resolutions! - well said - and he sucked me into that 30" camp. It's unbelievably immmersive. I'm going through my Pacific Assault right now - "Tommy smoked that dude!" - and there is a more real quality to it now that my field of view is all action! I haven't even bothered trying to get the correct 4:3 going - I can't be bothered right now to re-install Catalyst.

So Sam with 4 gpus can stay silky smooth pushing 4 million pixels, when you, Estuansis, occasionally experience lag in the most intense parts with two gpus pushing 2.3 million pixels - amazing! - nice scaling on that game!

And thank you Estuansis for additional clarification:

That makes a boatload of sense.

So - if I have the budget - I'm reading you guys, "Sure, for 20% or $400 more - do the i7 thing. A little bit of staying slightly ahead of the game."

VERY interesting. Let me see if I can save this deal and round up the bucks for the new build, lol.

Regarding selling the parts later - right when the new stuff comes out - sounds like very good advice and it will be Ebay for me. Apart from you guys, I don't have any gaming buddies. Miles - the animator - is not a gamer. Lol. (He probably would be but his wife and little 2 year old girl don't give him time for that!)

Rich

 

I agree with pretty much everything else Estuansis said. The i7 alleviates the bottlenecks of extreme systems, but little else, the same for goes for quads in general, you won't see much gain with one card even if it's a GTX285, but as soon as you go dual, even an HD4850X2, a Quad is where it's at. The faster the cards you use, the better the CPU you should have to match, makes sense really.

 

Right. I believe that if you're going to go high end, you should do it completely. Your system is only going to be as fast as the slowest component. As such, if you're going to go dual graphics, get a quad. Really any decent quad will do. But if you're going to go beyond dual graphics, you need either a really fast 2nd gen quad like Sam's, or an i7.

He basically summed it up perfectly with this statement:

I'd put it like this:

4870/GTX280 = any reasonably fast dual core

4870X2 or 4870 Crossfire/GTX280 SLI = any reasonably fast quad core

CrossfireX/Tri SLI = i7 or an OC'd 45nm quad

That's about as black and white as it gets.

 

Ok, guys, thanks. That really makes a lot of sense.

I'm tearing myself away from Medal of Honor Pacific Assault. The "walk" down the river with my marine squad is almost indescribable. What a riveting experience. There are a lot of things in this game that make it one of the best of all time. Even though the graphics aren't quite as advanced as COD2 - things don't move when they get shot - that kind of stuff - the scenery is much more lush - jungle plants and trees and an incredible river. It's all really well done - the series was developed by Steven Spielberg. On this big screen - what an experience!!

I used End-it-all to turn everything off - all the background processes - but still hit lag at just below 30fps in parts, whereas COD2 was totally smooth. Graphically, I guess there is more going on. If I can't save the house sale and I have to settle for the mid-range upgrade rather than the new build, it will still be nice to play titles like this completely fluidly. The 4850x2 will take me quite far - not as far as you guys, but it will move me nicely in that direction for now.

Rich

 

If you do get an HD4850X2, remember to get the 2GB version... The 1GB will be useless at 2560x1600 when you apply AA.

 

Pacific Assault used a lot of really cool graphics tricks. I also like the rivers. The shader effects are perfect and the floating bodies are eerie. Fundamentally a shoddy game though, IMO. Too much corridor crawling, try and die, and poor hit detection. Still fun though. Definitely a noteworthy game.

Oh yeah, I retook my SATs in January for my own personal satisfaction. My only bad score was my Math which was like a 500. Got the scores today and upped it to 760!!! I even improved my other scores

So now I'm at:

Math 760
Critical Reading 650
Writing 660

That's 2070!! Man I'm so stoked. I can't believe I did it

 

Jeff, VERY nice. Good job

 

I'd congratulate you, but I have no idea what those scores mean... :S
SATs here are just split into numeric levels like grade boundaries, but they're only used up until year 9 (13/14).

 

Sam basically those scores are out of 800 and they are used to get into University(13th). He kicked ass on the math.

 

Wow, nice. Do these SATS use a standardised marking scheme?

 

Congratulations on the high Sats Estuansis. You're obviously an extremely brainy guy, so I would attribute the lower earlier scores to not having prepared for the tests.

Wait, boozer just called you "Jeff." Is that your name? All this time I never knew!!! Thanks Booze. Yeah he kicked ass on the SATS!!

Regarding 2 gigs on the 4850x2 - that's a for sure, Sam. (The sapphire x2 only comes that way.) But if I were to do crossfire, with two separate cards, I would get 1 gig on each. The way that the purple line of the 2gig 4850x2 on that Far Cry 2 bench ended at 42fps at 2560x1600, whereas the crossfire 512mb 4850s nose-dived to 10-15 fps - that made a believer out of me right there! For 30" monitors I have absorbed one fact - you need huge VRAM on the board - the more the better!

Yeah, back to Pacific Assault - the hit detection is a little weak for sure - it takes some getting used to after the precision of COD2.

And there are a few strange things - let me share a funny one with all of you guys that happened to me yesterday!

When you are at Henderson, shooting down the bombers, either with the 50 caliber or that big interesting ack-ack thing - there is one dive bomber that refuses to be killed, even when you know exactly which one it is and you get him in the sights at the very beginning of the dive way up there, and then you throw all the lead in the world at the damn plane. He still lets go of the bomb, and there it drops. You can run all the way over to the little building and get inside, and you die anyway. Apparently that bomb is nuclear, lol. I remember getting so frustrated a couple years ago, until I finally figured out that you are supposed to be revived by your corpsman - is it "Sully?" It seems that "Help me out Sully!" sounds kind of familiar. I played 14 hours yesterday and I can't remember the guy's name. So a couple years ago when I first played the game, I finally figured out to run over to him right when I heard "Tommy get out of there." But yesterday that didn't work. He wasn't reviving me. Time after time.

But the nice part about the game is the F5 quick save, and F9 quick load. Valve also uses a Quick Save and I like that feature. I use it all the time. Like you say "Try and die." What's wrong with that? Hahahaha.

So after hitting F9 about 20 times, and the stupid sonovabitch wouldn't save me each time, I gave up on even manning any weapon to shoot the planes down. I sat there and watched him get flattened by the explosion, and then not fix me up - I'm pressing H (call for Medic) like mad.

(By the way, I used J for the first time - I never used it before - J is for apply bandage. When you get poked by a bayonet as you're emptying a clip on the guy - or if you step on a sharpened bamboo stake - even if you lose only a few points of health - your heart starts pounding and the health starts dropping one point a second - but if you press J and apply the bandage, it stops. I got a slight bayonet stab, applied the bandage, and ended up at 80 points health - no need to get treated by the medic which I save for when I'm down to 20.)

So I said to myself, "What the hell do I have to do to get saved around here?" - and then I just lay there next to him, and I started shooting my medic buddy in the head. It was funny. I started with the single shot rifle, and his head bucked back, and then I switched to full automatic - right in his glasses, lol. AND THEN THE SONOVABITCH GOT UP AND BACKED UP A FEW STEPS!!! And when the bomb came, this time he saved me - the damn program had gotten stuck!!!!! Don't you just love sh*t like that. Hahahahahahaha.

But all in all, I treasure this game. Weird glitches like that - I can forgive them all. The mood of going down that river - the beautiful chirping of the birds, the gloom of the dense fog over the boggy marshy part of the river with the constant buzz of the mosquitoes, and like you say the dead bodies floating by from time to time - MAN!! And in 30 inches - damn! it has so much impact!!! I think I could actually play through it again in six months with a stronger non-laggy system!

(I just read another review looking for the guy's name - and apparently the havoc physics was very advanced for its time - a bridge will explode in pieces, and parts will hit the river - splash! and then bob back up to the surface realistically depending on how big the piece is! I haven't noticed - it all just looks fabulous!)

HOLY SHIT - HOLD THE PRESSES! In trying to find the medics name, I just found the following Review of Pacific Assault:

"Then the time changed when the majority of the "2015" team, who developed MOHAA, left and started their own company: Infinity Ward."

Goddamn it! No wonder it is such a great game - Infinity Ward of COD2 and COD4!!! Did all the rest of you guys already know that? They say the group left after the Spearhead expansion pack. My God!!

Did I say My God enough times. Infinity Ward developed the original MOH!!!!

WAIT A MINUTE! The review I am reading of Pacific Assault is AFTER the dudes of Infinity Ward had left. They say the next expansion pack, Breakthrough, unlike Spearhead, both of which I own, was weak without those dudes. So they say at the beginning of this review - how will EA handle Pacific Assault? So I have to back up a bit - my favorite MOH of all time, Pacific Assault, was not an Infinity Ward production - it was something started by those dudes, but developed by EALA - entertainment arts at los angeles - by a team they put together and a new havoc physics engine. Well, they did a damn nice job in my book!

Rich