The Official PC building thread -3rd Edition

But Sam, gaming-wise:

What's your take/analysis of the last couple of pages where, at higher resolutions of crysis and far cry 2 - still significantly below your 30" resolution of 2560x1600 - the phenom achieves higher fps - actually beats the fastest i7?

The reviewers were confounded, surprised, and suspicious of the results and changed platforms - and still encountered the same results!

Am I mis-reading it?

 

Hey there,
Let me stick my nose in here, if you don't mind! I think they may well have optimized the Phenom II for 1680x1050 since that's the most common resolution for LCD monitors. Not that many people, even gamers have 30" screens. 22" is still the most popular size although 19" aren't far behind. Most 22s are 1680x1050, with a few 1920x1080s thrown in, with a small enough pixel pitch that the picture quality is actually a little better than the 1920x1200 of the 30". It's a matter of pixel density for a given screen size, or how many dots fit in the real estate available. With a 30" you are looking at a larger pixel pitch, typically in the low .027 range, while the good 22s are in the mid .025 range. The smaller the pixel pitch, the better the picture!

Russ

 

russ sorry but your wrong, 30" have 2560x1600 not 1920x1200

23, 24, 26, 27 and 28" have 1920x1200

and 22 23 and 24 also have 1920x1080

 

Opps! LOL!! I of course, meant that! ROFL!! I had 24" ones on the screen at the time, and so few people can afford a 30". I'll edit my post. Most 22s have 1680x1050, not 1920x1080. Newegg lists 48 1680x1050 vs just 4 1920x1200 widescreen monitors, with 1 lone 1440x900 from HP!

BTW, you need to learn a nicer way of saying you're wrong, Like maybe "I think you might be mistaken". A whole lot less "in your face"! LOL!! It doesn't bother me, but then again, I've known you a while, if you get my drift!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

19" monitors are disappearing. The 22" monitors are probably the most common.

As a rule that's true some smaller monitors less than 22 inch can hit 1920x1080 which is what is required for 1080P playback.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824116396

But all of the monitors (not TV monitors) that I've reviewed at 30" are 2560x1600 screen resolution.

 

i thought that what the "sorry" before the "your wrong" was me being nice
hehe

yeah soph, i did mean monitors, TVs are just a bit bigger than 1280x720, something along the lines of 13XXx8XX ?

 

I've already corrected my post! The vast majority of 22s are 1680x1050. Newegg lists only 4 Widescreens at 1920x1280 in that size vs 48 for the 1680x1050s! I should be purchasing two of these in the next week or so! I have two expensive builds coming up!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824002359. I'm a bit puzzled by the Specs. The viewing angle is 178x178, but the Pixel pitch is .285. Is this any good?

Russ

 

LOL!!

 

Lol, well soph, I've got one of the very last 19" monitors left in the world, and I LOVE it!! Haha. Well that's 'cause I just moved from nothing but CRTs for years.

Really, what amazing colors! and what the heck have I been waiting for all this time. Also I got the 1440x900 because it's 98% of 1280x1024 which my computer proved it could handle on cod4 online, and until I upgrade no point in getting screen resolution that I can't run.

Russ, not only does shaff admittedly type dyslexically, but he's of course working in a second language for him, and if he's a typical European - he probably knows two or three other languages, whereas I'm still working on spanish for centuries, only to not really be able to follow everything on TV. So shaff is a man of a few words, lol. "Sorry you're wrong" is extremely polite for shaff, and he took pains to spell it all out correctly hahahahaha.

But seriously, Russ, good point. "I believe you're mistaken" is soooo much smoother.

Shaff pay attention, Russ is spot on! LOL

Russ, back to the phenom. You said it likely is optimized for 1680x1050, which explains the amazing i7 "kill" but then soph pointed out that to play movies right from the blue ray, 1920x1080 is required, which will work with the 1920x1200 monitors. So, forgetting about 2560x1600 for the time being, how do you think the phenom will perform at 1920x1200, which is 30% more pixels? Would you guess, or would you know, that the tuning would carry over - ie span a RANGE of total pixels - so that we could expect similar stellar performance at 1920x1200?

I would hope so. I like the fact that - whatever trick they're pulling - better fps is better gaming. That's wonderful!

Rich

 

I would think that there wouldn't be a problem at all. For me, I have no interest in Blue Ray or HD TV and I do 90% of my video watching or playing games on the computer so a 22" 1680x1050 would be fine for me. That's what most people buy anyway in a 22", by a wide margin! Do you think for one minute that AMD doesn't know that? LOL!!

I posted a YouTube video in the AMD Building thread of Team AMD getting a stable 6GHz while running two iterations of the Crisis Demo with LN2, and 3.94GHz on air and beat Team Finland in a shoot out. Each team was given 30 minutes to get what they could out of it. Best stable OC wins!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Hey Russ, could you post another link to your AMD thread, or a direct link to that YouTube. Thanks.
Rich

 

Here you go Rich. linky

....gm

 

Wow, page 12 already and everybody's over there, including all the intel fanboys! Hahahahaha

Okay - I've got some reading to do to get caught up! I'll get this bookmarked - right now.

I especially like your latest post that I just glanced at "it's getting exciting!!"

Congrats on the thread and happy holidays once again!
Rich

 

OK, holiday story for everyone. I built a machine (new mobo&CPU, used but known good everything else) for my son who is home on leave from the U.S. Army. He is studying IT tech/communications in advanced training and will need his own machine when he graduates in a few months. I had it done a week before I needed to give it to him so i moved on to a different customers build. Came back to it the day before and it wouldnt powerup. No lights, fans, anything. Check PSU, everything lights up on my tester as it should. Unhooked all peripherals, still no go. Pulled the mobo from the case and it powered up outside of it so I assume I had a loose connection or something even though it ran fine previously. Put everything back together and it worked. Left it run all night. Unplugged it X-mas morning to give as gift and the simple act of turning it off downstairs, and plugging it in upstairs caused it to malfunction again, no lights, fans or anything.
I gave a gift of a computer that didnt work, even though it was running 15 minuted prior to that. Well I go back to the PSU again just to check, and notice that even though it lights up the tester fine, the level for the +5Vsb is low at 4.7 so I tried a cheap spare PSU I keep around for testing and BAM! fires up first time and everytime since.
I guess the moral of this story is to be thorough. Some people that read this thread have more builds and experience than I, but I have more than many also, so for beginners I say dont assume anything test everything. Everyone else I ask is this normal? I mean most electronics are either on or off, yes or no. Is it normal for a PSU to lose a few % output over a few years time instead of just an catastrophic failure?

 

Anybody know about this (Windows Codename Longhorn)! Is it XP or Server

 

longhorn was the codename for vista

 

Deadrum33,
It can and does happen. I've had a few this past year that were in running machines that I've removed and replaced with higher wattage units, that refused to work in another machine months down the road. I suspect that the components inside it may have failed due to them breaking down with age. Some will spin the fans and have the lights on, but the machine does nothing. I've also had others that would do nothing at all. Sophocles recently mentioned that he had an EarthWatts that would come on for long enough to see letters displayed on the screen and then would just shut down. I guess that it was no longer able to handle the load! I can't say that I've ever come across a low 5V though!

Happy Holidays,
Russ

 

Was it a good Ver, or was it glitchy

 

it was a beta version of vista so i am guessing it was probably not the best. are you downloading it or something?