Like/want to build computers? Get in hurrrrrr

[magley64]

exarch is entertaining to say the least...

[BDBGoalie]

Yup. When I'm bored arguing with people entertains me as well.

[jbot]

.....GFX should be ATI. Their cards are working really well, and the prices are spot on. I use a HD 6950, and flash the card to unlock the shaders. It makes the card like a HD 6970 without the cost. I'd advise just modifying the shaders and not the clock speeds.

Again, feel free to send a PM if you have further questions.

any legitimacy in people saying that nvidia cards are better (for intel build) because ati-amd cards are native to AMD processors and nvidia is closer to intel?

[Cheech]

any legitimacy in people saying that nvidia cards are better because ati-amd cards are native to AMD processors and nvidia is closer to intel?

None. That's the fanboi talk. Intel fanboys are white-knighting for nVidia by saying that ATI cards are inferior for Intel processors because ATI is owned by AMD.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Cheech
duh

[CoolWhip]

I have two 6870s in Crossfire and there isn't a game a can't play on full settings. It might be something to consider if you are trying to go for budget.

[ScubaCinci]

any legitimacy in people saying that nvidia cards are better (for intel build) because ati-amd cards are native to AMD processors and nvidia is closer to intel?

None whatsoever.

Performance of each epends on the application. Some games are optimized for one brand or the other and will obviously run better for the brand it is optimized for. However, anything over 40fps is essentially a waste since it has no discernible impact to the user so if the AMD card runs a game at 70fps and the NVIDIA at 80fps, who the frack cares?

Performance is also heavily resolution dependent. Lower res employs more CPU assistance and higher res uses the GPU more. I'm rocking a 30" 2560 x 1600 screen running a GTX590 and it gives it a workout even though it's a dual GPU card.

[CoolWhip]

What screen is that???

None whatsoever.

Performance of each epends on the application. Some games are optimized for one brand or the other and will obviously run better for the brand it is optimized for. However, anything over 40fps is essentially a waste since it has no discernible impact to the user so if the AMD card runs a game at 70fps and the NVIDIA at 80fps, who the frack cares?

Performance is also heavily resolution dependent. Lower res employs more CPU assistance and higher res uses the GPU more. I'm rocking a 30" 2560 x 1600 screen running a GTX590 and it gives it a workout even though it's a dual GPU card.

[Cheech]

None whatsoever.

Performance of each epends on the application. Some games are optimized for one brand or the other and will obviously run better for the brand it is optimized for. However, anything over 40fps is essentially a waste since it has no discernible impact to the user so if the AMD card runs a game at 70fps and the NVIDIA at 80fps, who the frack cares?

Performance is also heavily resolution dependent. Lower res employs more CPU assistance and higher res uses the GPU more. I'm rocking a 30" 2560 x 1600 screen running a GTX590 and it gives it a workout even though it's a dual GPU card.

I quarrel with you slightly over the FPS argument. First off, I thought the threshold was 60fps, not 40fps (monitors having a 60hz refresh rate, even though the FPS is higher than 60 the monitor is only capable of putting 60 frames per second on the screen at a time) I could be wrong, and my info could still be coming from the CRT world. Anyway, I do believe that running at 40FPS vs 75FPS is a pretty big deal, especially given the types of games that jbot (or me, for that matter) get into, simply because the current FPS of gameplay is dependent on what's going on in the game at that time. If all you're doing is derping around the beginning stages of StarCraft2, lazily spawning overlords and generating that sweet, sweet vespene gas, then the game's going to run nice and smooth. When the Koreans come with the OMGZERGRUSH (kekekekekeke), on lesser hardware things start to bog down and choppiness ensues, not the best position to be in to repel the masses of unwashed kimchee.

[Cheech]

What screen is that???

I thought it was a Apple Studio Display, but those are 27' with the same resolution. I'm curious too.

[ScubaCinci]

It's a Dell U3011...not bad for gaming

As for fps, you're right that anything 60+ is preferred but once you get under 40fps, things get juddery (is that a word?)/choppy and relatively unplayable. Obviously, this is an average. For most, anything above 40fps, the eye/brain is sufficiently fooled into the fluid motion illusion and is definitely playable. It varies person to person just like on DLP tv's some see a rainbow effect and others don't.

[CoolWhip]

Ahhh I gotcha. Yes, I have heard wonderful things about the Dell screens.

[ScubaCinci]

Except that 2 weeks after the warranty ended the displayport connection went tits up. WTF? Otherwise it's a great monitor. I do a lot of photoediting in photoshop/lightroom and it helps a lot to have ample screen real estate.

[Exarch]

any legitimacy in people saying that nvidia cards are better (for intel build) because ati-amd cards are native to AMD processors and nvidia is closer to intel?

Doesn't matter, I usually run ATI with intel. I think it is more/less a marketing gimmick I used to run amd with nvidia aswell, but Intel and ati have really stepped up in the past few years.

ATI is nice if you want a great card at a great price. Nvidia if your looking for a powerhouse and don't care about $$.

[InyaAzz]

Wait for it.....

[Exarch]

I quarrel with you slightly over the FPS argument. First off, I thought the threshold was 60fps, not 40fps (monitors having a 60hz refresh rate, even though the FPS is higher than 60 the monitor is only capable of putting 60 frames per second on the screen at a time) I could be wrong, and my info could still be coming from the CRT world. Anyway, I do believe that running at 40FPS vs 75FPS is a pretty big deal, especially given the types of games that jbot (or me, for that matter) get into, simply because the current FPS of gameplay is dependent on what's going on in the game at that time. If all you're doing is derping around the beginning stages of StarCraft2, lazily spawning overlords and generating that sweet, sweet vespene gas, then the game's going to run nice and smooth. When the Koreans come with the OMGZERGRUSH (kekekekekeke), on lesser hardware things start to bog down and choppiness ensues, not the best position to be in to repel the masses of unwashed kimchee.

This is like saying 1080I is better than 1080p... Sure in theory, but can you tell the difference? No...

Things bogg down during the zerg fucking because your frame rate drops, it doesn't stay at 40fpa, if you had 60fps and it droped to 40 you wouldn't notice a difference, but if you had 40 and it dropped to 25fps you would notice a huge difference...

You forgot to take that into account, but other than that you arnt going to notice a difference. unless maybe you are a ninja

[RVTPilot]

When the Koreans come with the OMGZERGRUSH (kekekekekeke), on lesser hardware things start to bog down and choppiness ensues, not the best position to be in to repel the masses of unwashed kimchee.

Unwashed kimchee is truckloads of awesome sauce. I likes to rub on my bum when its skin gets dry.

And you gaiz is the uber nerds. Loves yous, but yous nerdz.

Oh, and sorry 'bout your Rangers, Cheech. Love, a Devils fan.

[Cheech]

Unwashed kimchee is truckloads of awesome sauce. I likes to rub on my bum when its skin gets dry.

And you gaiz is the uber nerds. Loves yous, but yous nerdz.

Oh, and sorry 'bout your Rangers, Cheech. Love, a Devils fan.

LA's too good, and you guys got way too lucky during our series. As much as it pains me, the Cup's coming to LA.

[magley64]

This is like saying 1080I is better than 1080p... Sure in theory, but can you tell the difference? No...

and you would be completely wrong...

for the same resolution, progressive is better than interlaced....because with progressive you repaint every pixel on every refresh, interlaced you only repaint half of the pixels with every refresh...

not only do you have it backwards, but if your screen gets large enough (50" and up) you can absolutely tell the difference.

32" or smaller, probably not...

40-42 is sketchy, but you can sometimes tell..

Edited May 31, 2012 by magley64

[Exarch]

and you would be completely wrong...

for the same resolution, progressive is better than interlaced....because with progressive you repaint every pixel on every refresh, interlaced you only repaint half of the pixels with every refresh...

not only do you have it backwards, but if your screen gets large enough (50" and up) you can absolutely tell the difference.

32" or smaller, probably not...

40-42 is sketchy, but you can sometimes tell..

Your shit refreshes 2x every 1/30th of a sec (60hz) whatever got em backwards, doesn't really matter... I displays 2 sets, one every 1/30th and P displays the full pixels every 1/30th, x that by 2 so I displays the full image every 1/30th and p still displays the full image(can't display 2 images ) every 1/30th...

If you think you can see that with the naked eye it is your brain playing tricks on you

Ok so reverse what I said P is better than I in theory, you seriously can't tell me you can see the difference...

Btw, your movies and shit are shot @24fps... Not 60 or 30fps making your theory of it makes a difference irrelevant... hell even if there was a 1080x(154544544fps) it wouldn't make a difference, especially since pretty much everything is shot at 24fps(including your blie rays, which you think look soo much better than HD, it really doesn't)

A crisp image is all that matters, your probably thinking of color display/contrast, which does make a difference to a point...

[jporter12]

Your shit refreshes 2x every 1/30th of a sec (60hz) whatever got em backwards, doesn't really matter... I displays 2 sets, one every 1/30th and P displays the full pixels every 1/30th, x that by 2 so I displays the full image every 1/30th and p still displays the full image(can't display 2 images ) every 1/30th...

If you think you can see that with the naked eye it is your brain playing tricks on you

Ok so reverse what I said P is better than I in theory, you seriously can't tell me you can see the difference...

Btw, your movies and shit are shot @24fps... Not 60 or 30fps making your theory of it makes a difference irrelevant... hell even if there was a 1080x(154544544fps) it wouldn't make a difference, especially since pretty much everything is shot at 24fps(including your blie rays, which you think look soo much better than HD, it really doesn't)

A crisp image is all that matters, your probably thinking of color display/contrast, which does make a difference to a point...

Quoted for Cheech...

[CleaveTheGreat]

especially since pretty much everything is shot at 24fps(including your blie rays, which you think look soo much better than HD, it really doesn't)

A crisp image is all that matters, your probably thinking of color display/contrast, which does make a difference to a point...

Really....

[jbot]

i'm going to ignore the ignoramus comments.

last minute thoughts on this setup? i'm about to head to microcenter

ASUS P8Z77-V PRO LGA 1155 Z77 ATX Intel Motherboard

$170

i5 3570K (unlocked)

$190

and some ram (I'll probably start with 2x4gb but maybe get another 8 later)

i'm going to have them put those components together, test it to make sure it's put together right, and then bring it home.

i couldnt find anything super duper well priced at microcenter for GFX, so unless i see something while i'm there, i'm gonna order something online... anyone have more suggestions on specific well price-fairly high performance GFX card(s), that would be appreciated. i'm going to check out the ones suggested already while i'm at microcenter.

thanks again all

[ScubaCinci]

What kind of gaming will you be doing and at what resolution?

A guy at work just bought a GTX570 overclocked edition at Microcenter which performs just as well as the 580...I think he said was an MSI but don't recall what he paid for it. A 570 will run most games today depending on resolution.

I heard today that they are releasing a DLC for Skyrim...I guess that means I'm getting nothing accomplished for the next month

Also, make sure you install Windows 7 64-bit or anything over 4GB of RAM is useless (actually, less than that but it complicated).

**EDIT, it may be this one http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0363755**

Your setup looks good BTW

Edited May 31, 2012 by ScubaCinci

[jbot]

on the other hand, there is an i7 build option that is close in price:

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0379093

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0383144

orrrr, i could still get the i5 2500K for 160 and find a different board than the one i was going to buy (a z68 board). the board i WAS going to buy was $70... but they are discontinued, apparently, and out of stock. lame.

[jbot]

What kind of gaming will you be doing and at what resolution?

A guy at work just bought a GTX570 overclocked edition at Microcenter which performs just as well as the 580...I think he said was an MSI but don't recall what he paid for it. A 570 will run most games today depending on resolution.

I heard today that they are releasing a DLC for Skyrim...I guess that means I'm getting nothing accomplished for the next month

Also, make sure you install Windows 7 64-bit or anything over 4GB of RAM is useless (actually, less than that but it complicated).

i dont have a specific usage requirement yet. i just want to be able to pop in games that come out in the next couple years and not have to fret about playing it at some god awful setting.