Search results

True true... It's one of the worst engines I've seen in a long time. Screams console port and a bad one at that. Why can't Treyarch use the best parts of Infinity Ward's work without screwing it up every time... We'll never know... Sorry, Showing one benchmark of Black Ops shows only that...

It also could simply be overheating. Have you run something simple like CPUID's Hardware Monitor to see if it's cooking? If the CPU overheats, the motherboard likely will shutdown to protect itself. Or the CPU itself could be failing due to overheating causing the shutdown. If the board...

God... I've built at least a dozen AM(x) systems just for myself this year... I've still got a 4400 Toledo (with board & ram) though somewhere in the closet acting as a paperweight. I just have no use for something so slow anymore. Heck even my HTPCs are more potent. With prices where they are...

Your stock cooler and limiting it's speed are what's holding you up. I put a Zalman 9900 on my new 1090T and it dropped the temps a TON (as well as being near silent). The new 970 is a hot chip but still, a good aftermarket cooler will help tremendously.

Ya, I was about to ask 'which game'... Some (like Metro 2033) do require some specific tweaking...

Sounds like your directX setups are trying to force a refresh rate. Did you install the ATI Tray Tools to lock the D3D at some point? Still you could try to use it to change it to what you want. It seems like just your DX settings are bad. Or even your install itself is a bit off. Perhaps just...

Probably a monitor limitation itself. The game is probably trying to run at 60Hz and your monitor may be limited to 59Hz at max res. Some of the cheaper 1080 units are. And some games (like Metro 2033) just have to be forced to play nice, regardless of your equipment.

Is the Crossfire in your would-be server? I also have the same board in my gaming rig. It holds my blu-ray overflow from my actual file server. I also noticed moving from my older motherboard to this one that it has trouble streaming my HD content and has occasional studders also. I do believe...

If you can handle the card with your system, and it's what you've been looking for, it's a hell of a deal. I even considered it myself but I'm forcing myself to wait for the 6900 series to come out. But for $180, if you're even considering it at all, why would you be nervous?!? It's a great card...

I wounder how many they had at that price... That's what I was so upset about (see above a few posts).

GO@#$%()! I was all set. ORdered at 1 after. Looks like it went all peachy. But the 'Thank you for ordering' window came up... No order number... No 'ship to' information... And no gross total... Weird.. NEver happened before... I tried to go back and double-order it only to find out the main...

Thomas

Here's an interesting example: http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=152594&page=4. With most games locked with vertical FOV, the 16:9 shows you more actual information properly formatted because they have a wider FOV. 16:10 can see the same by forcing the FOV wider but it squishes...

You're looking at pixels, not actual use. If you have the same height of the image viewable on both monitors, the 16:9 model has more to the sides. It's all about the asepct and point (or field) of view. I want the better field of view. If you use the desktop the same way, you have more usable...

Well, that entirely depends on what you're after. Personally I have far MORE deskspace with a wider format. You can shrink the system down to get more on a page in fewer pixels so the productivity aspect is absolutely bumpkiss. And being a software engineer by trade, I know. Using that as an...

The 965 is a darn fine chip. That and your 4870 will game at your res for time to come. I personally went from a 550 to a 965 and noticed great improvement with my 4890 @ 1920x1080. I then moved up to a 1090T which I notice no gaming improvement (although I do notice editing improvement which is...

I think I've figured out your error in perspective... You're takling about 'gamers', not what you originally talked about 'gaming'... And my definition of the modern 'gamer'; doesn't even know squat about computers. Those console nerds are ruining the true gaming arena due to childish...

OK, I know believe you really do not know what you are talking about. You said they would not need to know floppy disks but just simple computers like the XT... The XT used... Way-hay... Floppy disks.. Infact the original XT in 1985 came with ONLY floppy disks. Regardless of their size, floppy...

I have a feeling we've started discussing two different things... As a refresher; you said specifically: Which is where you were incorrect. It has completely relevance. Not perhaps relevance to modern trouble-shooting but your sentence here word for word was simply untrue. And actually...

Just because something isn't "helpful" per-say to what you're trying to do does not man it non-relevant to what you have today... It is very relevant. That's all I've been arguing about.

Thanks for proving my point yet again... In your eyes, the invention of the wheel has nothing to do with modern vehicles... OK... You're wrong but... Other than just generating old chit-chat... OK.. Thanks again.

You've proved a theory that 'modern' gamers just have no understanding of what is/were important and how things of old developed to what you love today. What you said basically is the same as saying the old Ford Model T has nothing to do with a Modern Mustang... Or even further how other...

How can you say that. It was the only way we had to keep our software from back then without coding them all over again. It's all we had. It led to the floppy drives and hard drives of today. How can you say they have no relevance to modern gaming?!? They are forms of data storage... One way or...

Pisha... I started with a Trash-80 (TRS) and TI-994A... Then I moved up to my dad's 8086 and 8088. To play games back then I first had to write it out of code... Sometimes my own invention, sometimes computing magazines would have some in the back... Back before hard-drives and all the fun...

What else do you expect from Treyarch? :p I've never been impressed with their versions of CoD honestly. Maybe that's just me...

Then you have something wrong with your install... Or drive... I've now got a few SSDs. I first went with the Intel G2. Did not notice much benefit over my Raptors. Slightly faster windows reactions and what not but... Now I moved that one to my laptop (and WOW, that's a huge difference...

Well, they might, might not. Depends what it 'feels' like to them. How picky their eyes are... (I adde edits to the above by the way, you might have missed. Seems we did it at the same time.) Anyhow, simply put, my friend drools over his 2560 pixels in these games asking me 'See how beautiful it...

Who says? I want it for playing at 1920x1080 with everything turned on without dipping below 60FPS... They still can't do that 100%. Not even close. Heck in some games even the best can't do that at 1680x1050. These lower-res tests are still completely valid evaluations.

I guess perhaps I see what they may be getting at. I do understand the 'feel' but was not understanding how they were trying to blame the 5970 for dipping when they all did... On this I do not agree. On any 60Hz monitor, anything under 60Hz almost always involves shuddering and/or tearing...

I don't quite follow: From page 2: I clearly see spikes from all three tested cards going to ~0 FPS constantly throughout the test. Why then would one be so much worse then the others. I'd say they all suck in this test... But that's just my opinion. Also, as a side note, what about other...

I have that exact chip and board in an HTPC right now. It's plenty. I also have blu-ray drives and what not and a different case but it's way overkill. I have three HTPCs right now and this one is my most powerful, but all of them play HD content off my 12TB NAS holding my .iso's just peachy...

If you're content with it, why did you even bother asking the question... I don't like the power the GTX line is using. Or the turbo-noise of the 400 series for that matter either. But as I said; it's all about what is important to you.

The new cards are coming out now... But personally, I'd say no it wasn't the best deal. Unless you're really wanting Nvidia, there are cheaper options out there. Then it also depends what your priorities are. Right now I'm not happy with Nvidia and their power-hungry cards under performing...

You're going to be just fine with your 4890. CoD isn't that complicated of an engine.

They will. I've done it. That's what I said. As long as it's under warranty, no problems.

I'm not sure who you deal with but I've had failed stand-alone pumps replaced with no problem. All on custom built rigs. I've never had a radiator or block fail. Pretty hard unless your building skills are just horrid..

I didn't like the 9500 either, but the 9900 has been very nice. I've seen failed H50/70's though which is why I don't personally care for em. Too complicated IMHO. Personally, if I'm going to do water, I'm going to get a block, radiator and pump and just do it all the way. But everything has...

I just don't see the need. My 1090T with a Zalman 9900 never hits much over 40 degrees... Quiet and attractive (green LED version also available if color matters) if looks are important to you, plus no pump to worry about failure. But still, to answer your question, the H50 will work fine.

You can do what you want for under $300... Not even cutting any corners. I'm an almost pure AMD user myself. And ya, the stock coolers are junk... for overclocking. But running stock speeds, they are just peachy. Plus, you can always add another cooler later on if you find out your chip is...

Actually, the typo might be my fault... I might have hit a key when copying... No biggie... But thanks... I was right on the part number though.. And still don't see any... HOWEVER, Java... Eww... (I'm a software engineer along with my little bits of help with the hardware group... I HATE...