Odd Question... Which CPU?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Like at a movie theater screen :lol:
No i have not, but my mother has an (i belive it is 101inch)screen out at her house.I've played on that, but it has a native resolution of 1024x768.
 
Don't claim that any game runs at max settings on your rig. "Max settings" in general use implies big screen, full 1600x1200 or higher res, full detail options enabled. I can run anything at "max settings" on my rig if i set the resolution to 320x200. But that's not "maxed."

The 8800 series are still immensly powerful DX9.0c cards as well as DX10 compatible. They make a great upgrade path. You get something now that's outrageously powerful, AND it'll work on the next generation of games too. *shrug*
 
1024x768 Actually, I dont see the need for some big ass screen, bigger the screen more money for a better graphics card. I know wtf itll play on what graphic settings. BF2 BF 2142 CD2 Wow. everything ive played max settings. Not all of us are stupid to buy some big ass screen just so we can buy 2 $500 cards. I have a 60' inch TV and i dont care for it i rather watch tv on my 20' inch.

So ya my system will work wanders for the average gamer (poor gamer to).

And another thing why do yall buy waste money on those geforce 8800 when DX10 isnt even out and you need vista plus a game that supports it to even get it to work? id never spend more than $200 for a graphics card exspeacialy when it will be about half a year to see its full potential?

What are you talking about? I didn't say anything about large screens, I'm talking about "max settings". I don't see how your 7600GT can show ALL game details on/full. Look at this.

Notice that with Oblivion, even at 1024x768 they still have details turned off. And this is with an overclocked version of the 7600GT. Sorry, but your full of it.
 
Don't claim that any game runs at max settings on your rig. "Max settings" in general use implies big screen, full 1600x1200 or higher res, full detail options enabled. I can run anything at "max settings" on my rig if i set the resolution to 320x200. But that's not "maxed."

The 8800 series are still immensly powerful DX9.0c cards as well as DX10 compatible. They make a great upgrade path. You get something now that's outrageously powerful, AND it'll work on the next generation of games too. *shrug*

You are so full of BS. YOu cant run any new game at 320x200 because that rez is no longer supported.

LIES LIES
 
1024x768 Actually, I dont see the need for some big ass screen, bigger the screen more money for a better graphics card. I know wtf itll play on what graphic settings. BF2 BF 2142 CD2 Wow. everything ive played max settings. Not all of us are stupid to buy some big ass screen just so we can buy 2 $500 cards. I have a 60' inch TV and i dont care for it i rather watch tv on my 20' inch.

So ya my system will work wanders for the average gamer (poor gamer to).

And another thing why do yall buy waste money on those geforce 8800 when DX10 isnt even out and you need vista plus a game that supports it to even get it to work? id never spend more than $200 for a graphics card exspeacialy when it will be about half a year to see its full potential?
I can only think of one thing to say and "Da Sick Ninja" says it with his signature.
 
Heh mad-dog. I just reread him from the quote and /agree.

doesnt admitting to buying a 60'in screen defeat his own arguement?... just about. Plus, admitting to not knowing what the 8800 offers besides dx10..... eak.



Da Sick, do your thing.
 
The 7900GS is ok, but the 7900GTO is really underrated and underpriced and will run circles around the GS.
Take a look at the VGA charts John: http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html
The 7900GTO is not listed but it runs right behind the 7900GTX,
the GTX costs 2x as much as the GTO, physically both cards are identical, the GTO is simply underclocked by 280MHz.
IMHO the 7900GTO offers the best bang for the buck using NVIDIA's chipset.
 
Well I also am a dad and my daughter has an ATHLON XP 2800 and she is just fine with it.But I understand why you want to build him a faster system.However,if you are wanting at least 2x the performance over the old one,you are going to have to spend a more moderate amount of money.Simply put,if you want serious performance you need to spend the money to get it.Goodluck.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.4 S-939
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7800GT CO IN SLI
2X1GIG DDR IN DC MODE
WD300GIG HD
EXTREME 19IN.MONITOR 1280X1024
ACE 520WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120
 
compared to the 7900GS......yes, but only if you can find it for $253 or less (which you can't, i just checked)
You know what, i keep forgetting that your gonna upgrade thru EVGA (I did), just get that 7900GS or a 7800GT and run with it till next year John
 
So I assume you're gonna need memory for it. 1GB should be enough at this point, but try and go for DDR2-800 speed. DDR2-667 is fine, but obviously slower.
 
DDR2-667 is fine, but obviously slower.

Depends on the memory ratio you run. 1:1 will cause it to run DDR2-533 stock. (meaning it shouldn't be any slower then DDR2-800 at stock.) Using the 1:1 ratio you can overclock to 333MHz until you have to worry about your ram. Buy the DDR2-800 stuff if you can afford the extra $$$, and are planning on going north of 350MHz.
 
DDR2-667 is fine, but obviously slower.

Depends on the memory ratio you run. 1:1 will cause it to run DDR2-533 stock. (meaning it shouldn't be any slower then DDR2-800 at stock.) Using the 1:1 ratio you can overclock to 333MHz until you have to worry about your ram. Buy the DDR2-800 stuff if you can afford the extra $$$, and are planning on going north of 350MHz.
But I'm guessing from what I have read in these forums that this CPU - STOCK will be as fast as an AMD X2-4200. Is that accurate?