R33GZ Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 hmmmm.... my 2ghz C2D iMac scored a 1,119 but my work machine, a 2.66ghz quad core Mac pro scored a tasty 3172 You reckon these scores are a bit of a have? ToW runs perfectly fine on max settings... Im betting that CM:SF will run fine too. Would love to give the MacPro a run though 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Cobb Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Originally posted by Jim Cobb: Thanks, guys. I have a Gig of Ram. The trouble I'm having a cursor lag/jerkiness. t My problem went away when I turned off vsynch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward J. Smith Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Hi Guys... A couple of questions.... What advantage is there to a quad core over a duo? What advantage is there to buying an Nvidia 8800 GTX Ultra over a standard GTX. Is it worth the money? What advantage is there in getting two of the aforementioned cards in SLI? I play Battlefront games, Rome Total War, and Civilization, none of which are very taxing to my current system but i am about to buy a killer rig and am confronted by the outrageous cost. I would like the following: Core 2 Extreme QX 6700 (8MB, 3.46GHz Factory overclocked Vista Home Premium 2GB Corsair Dominator DDR2 SDRAM 800MHz OC'ed to 1066 Blu-ray Disc 30" Dell Monitor Dual 768 GeForce 8800 GTX Ultra Soundblaster X-Fi I would love all these things, as would anybody, but if I buy this I will have to harvest my kidneys, or at least my wife's. If I must cut back, where do you suggest...processor...video cards...Ram...monitor...Blu Ray? A fun topic of discussion. Please advise. [ July 21, 2007, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: Edward J. Smith ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Dear God man. You WANT VISTA???!!! I got a vista computer and returned it after three days. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salkin Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Today you get (gaming-wise) a better bang for the buck with duo core. Quad core is the better choice if you do ALOT of multitasking or if you work with advanced programs developing games or making for instance music. I think quad core is the future, but that future isn't even close to being here yet. If you are buying now, you should buy duo core. As for Vista, I run Vista 64 and I like it. There is a huge drawback in that there is alot of stuff that isn't supported in it yet though. Much of the advanced 3d sound out there doesn't have full support yet which is a total bummer. //Salkin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthias Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 drop the blue ray, its not certain it will win the format wars so it might be a betamax, and even if it does, by the time it does it will be ALOT cheaper. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Pies Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 For approximately $15,000 Apple will sell you a system with 16 gig of ram and enough of everything else to require its own powerline. How big a map would that run?Dan don't by that Apple. My work system cost $15,000 and that's a Quad Opteron with 64 Gig of RAM. It's Linux though so no Uber maps for me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Byte Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For approximately $15,000 Apple will sell you a system with 16 gig of ram and enough of everything else to require its own powerline. How big a map would that run? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dan don't by that Apple. My work system cost $15,000 and that's a Quad Opteron with 64 Gig of RAM. It's Linux though so no Uber maps for me. Yeah but shouldn't you be doing a CMBB turn at the moment instead of hanging around forums waiting for releases? com'on sunshine pull your finger out 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 I have one simple reason for liking Apple, and I am typing on a 20 inch IMAC that jokes aside is going to have to suffice for some time yet. Viruses, I do essentially all of my internet communication on the Apple side and despite being hooked up to a broad band connection for almost a year now I have NEVER had a problem. I use bootcamp for games, and will use it for this one, and other Windows only apps but have literally never set up the email in Windows. And the result is no virus/worm problems to speak of. It makes the Apple premium irrelevant in my own humble opinion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 I've been online for over 10 years now with various pc's and have yet to get a virus. Just lucky I guess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 Originally posted by Edward J. Smith: What advantage is there to a quad core over a duo? For a game that doesn't make use of multi-cores anyway like CM and ToW, zero, except for your eletrical power supplier Otherwise, you might have applications that multithread well (such as some audio/video encoders). Or you do several things at the same time, and more than two. Examples would be a compilation run AND some video encoding going on in the background and at the same time you have fat web pages in your browser. In general, however, even multitasking is satisfied with two CPUs/cores, because it will make the foreground work more smooth. What advantage is there to buying an Nvidia 8800 GTX Ultra over a standard GTX. Is it worth the money? Uh, it's faster, no other difference. Nobody else than you can judge whether that is worth the money for you. Personally I buy top-of-line (that means Ultra when available in the series), because so far it turned out that the better resell value recovers most of the extra cost anyway, so why not have a faster system? But that requires selling at the right point in time which has various other risk implications. What advantage is there in getting two of the aforementioned cards in SLI? Uh? It's faster. I play Battlefront games, Rome Total War, and Civilization, none of which are very taxing to my current system but i am about to buy a killer rig and am confronted by the outrageous cost. I would like the following: Core 2 Extreme QX 6700 (8MB, 3.46GHz Factory overclocked Vista Home Premium 2GB Corsair Dominator DDR2 SDRAM 800MHz OC'ed to 1066 Blu-ray Disc 30" Dell Monitor Dual 768 GeForce 8800 GTX Ultra Soundblaster X-Fi Why would you do that if you already know you don't need it? And why would anybody with their brain mounted buy a Creative product? That 3.46 overclocked quad-core will NOT turn out reliable under all circumstances. Only hand-picked CPUs and watercooling and a lot of work and testings can theoretically get you there. The dominators are a total waste of money. You gain almost no real-world performance from faster memory. In any case, 2 GB RAM in the above system is a joke. 4 GB RAM are the first thing you want for mixed workloads now. I would love all these things, as would anybody, but if I buy this I will have to harvest my kidneys, or at least my wife's. If I must cut back, where do you suggest...processor...video cards...Ram...monitor...Blu Ray? A fun topic of discussion. Please advise.You don't have your objectives set, that's the problem in selecting the strategy. You need a problem to address. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z1812 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Hi All, Would it be save to say that if you run ToW at the high end without problems them CMSF will also run well? Regards John 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted July 24, 2007 Author Share Posted July 24, 2007 Redwolf- Thanks for all your input. Would you agree that this rig would perform well for any current game out there (including CMSF): 2.1 GHZ Intel Core 2 Duo Windows XP Pro 2 GB RAM nVidia GeForce Go 7600 w/ 128 MB dedicated RAM and 128 MB shared system RAM 1440 x 900 resolution 17" screen Thanks! Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 No, Steve, a 7600 is certainly not able to drive 1440x900 in many current games, e.g. Stalker. Also, if this is a laptop and a mobile 7600 the equation changes again. The CPU is fine. Windows sucks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted July 24, 2007 Author Share Posted July 24, 2007 Originally posted by Redwolf: No, Steve, a 7600 is certainly not able to drive 1440x900 in many current games, e.g. Stalker. Also, if this is a laptop and a mobile 7600 the equation changes again. The CPU is fine. Windows sucks 1200 x whatever? 1078? 800 x 600? Gimme a bone here! Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 No can do The problem is that people have so different preferences of what they think is an acceptable framerate, how much AA/AF they want and whether they see any difference in texture quality from loading better textures. Of course a 7600 should be fine for CM:SF, but I'm a little worried about the partial memory sharing with main memory. That didn't work out so well with the Turbocache junk. And although CM:SF will have low requirements total compared to other games, it might load a whole bunchload of textures and then you are certainly way beyond 128 MB. You need to study a couple review sites, I'm afraid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikoyanPT Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Originally posted by MrSpkr: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Redwolf: No, Steve, a 7600 is certainly not able to drive 1440x900 in many current games, e.g. Stalker. Also, if this is a laptop and a mobile 7600 the equation changes again. The CPU is fine. Windows sucks 1200 x whatever? 1078? 800 x 600? Gimme a bone here! Steve </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R33GZ Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Although its not a pc... my rig sounds similar to what MrSpkr is after. iMac 17" 2.0 ghz C2D 128mb ATI X1600 2GB RAM Windoze XP Professional SP2 The above setup runs ToW perfectly fine @ 1440x900... Im betting that CM:SF will run fine too Is it the nVidia GeForce Go 7600 graphics card that would hold its performance back? whats the difference? sorry if this is stupid question... Im not too well versed on what cards are better than others 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Anyone care to comment on the whether or not getting a Quad core (Q6600) is a better choice than the Duo E6850? Both are the same price now. (@ $266) I realize CMSF doesn't take advantage of multi-core (or so I think I've read) but if Im putting together a new machine, should I just get the Quad? Be gentle, Im not an uber geek. BTW - does software have to be specially written to benefit from a quad core? IE - I've got an older version of Sony Vegas. Would my video rendering benefit at all? Or would the dual core be just as good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Phoenix: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=001655;p=2#000035 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Mucho thanks! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.