Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FX-62 Build

Last response: in Systems
Share
December 10, 2006 1:06:52 PM

You could say I am an AMD Fanboy, I won't mind, but AMD is what I have used in the passed and I am more knowlegdable about their products, so that is why I am looking at the FX-62.

FX-62 AMD AM2 @2.8
Foxconn 590 SLI
Corsair XMS2 Dominator 2 x 1024mb
EVGA Super Overclocked 7950GT (waiting for 8900 and Vista to settle down)
Thermaltake Armor w/ 25cm fan
PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750watt PSU
and of course (1)optical and (3)hard drives by lite on and seagate.

Total is $2100 which is my budget. This needs to last me for a few years like the computer in my signature.

I am looking for opinions, products to stay away from, something better, etc. Bought a new Viewsonic E90fb Monitor and I'm in love :D  I mainly game at 1024 by 768 and have no plans on changing. Thanks for any help.

More about : build

December 10, 2006 1:42:05 PM

FX-62???

Have you ever heard of overclocking ???
What a waste of money!

Buy a mid range CPU and if you need more then overclock!
December 10, 2006 2:04:35 PM

The only things I would change would be the motherboard; either getting a DFI or an ASUS Crosshair, and maybe getting a 850wt psu if you plan to go SLI. Other than that, it looks good to me.

Some people will tell you to get an Intel C2D instead, but remember that the cpu is your choice, not anyone else's and if you want AMD, then you want AMD. After all, its your money and your computer, not someone else's.
Related resources
December 10, 2006 2:29:25 PM

at the resolutions of 10x7 you should be good to go.
December 10, 2006 2:30:51 PM

Quote:
FX-62???

Have you ever heard of overclocking ???
What a waste of money!

Buy a mid range CPU and if you need more then overclock!


overclocking isnt always a sure thing.
a b B Homebuilt system
a b À AMD
December 10, 2006 2:44:59 PM

Nice DP.... Army Of Darkness kicks ass.....

@ 1024 x 768 you should be able to play anything.....ANYTHING!!!!
December 10, 2006 3:13:36 PM

You're buying an overpriced CPU, GPU and RAM...? With Intel, you could get a faster build for half the price.
December 10, 2006 3:24:10 PM

Quote:
You're buying an overpriced CPU, GPU and RAM...? With Intel, you could get a faster build for half the price.


Yeah but he already stated he is a die hard amd fanboi! :lol: I'm curious why he bothered posting then? People generally come here for advice, but he's coming to brag about his overpriced piece of hardware.
December 10, 2006 3:34:50 PM

Quote:I am looking for opinions, products to stay away from, something better, etc. Bought a new Viewsonic E90fb Monitor and I'm in love I mainly game at 1024 by 768 and have no plans on changing. Thanks for any help. Its not just about the cpu,or the monitor
December 10, 2006 5:35:57 PM

Quote:
FX-62???

Have you ever heard of overclocking ???
What a waste of money!

Buy a mid range CPU and if you need more then overclock!


overclocking isnt always a sure thing.


My x2 3800 runs at 2.7GHz on my ASUS A8R32-MVP. I dont think there is an athlon 64 that wont overclock to 2.4-2.5GHz with a proper mobo.
December 10, 2006 5:52:48 PM

Quote:
...I am looking for opinions, products to stay away from, something better, etc...

Stay away from the FX62 and the 7950GT.
Run towards Intel Conroe and your choice of NVidia 8800.
There are very good reasons why your choices are, a , non-optimal. :roll:
December 10, 2006 6:10:02 PM

Quote:
You're buying an overpriced CPU, GPU and RAM...? With Intel, you could get a faster build for half the price.


Yeah but he already stated he is a die hard amd fanboi! :lol: I'm curious why he bothered posting then? People generally come here for advice, but he's coming to brag about his overpriced piece of hardware.

I sense the dreaded "E-PENIS!"
December 10, 2006 6:19:09 PM

True. However, regardless of whether he's an AMD fanboi or not, he's blowing almost $1,000 more than he needs to on components to game at 1024 rez. Why an FX-62? He could get an X2 3800, even if Intel smokes it. If he wants AMD, then go AMD.....it's his money to waste I guess.

Advice:
-your wasting soooooo much money on those components. ALOT. Get a cheaper chip, cheaper vid card, cheaper PSU, and cheaper RAM. Actually, just about everything can be lower end by ALOT.
-with the money you save, get an Nvidia 8800 series card. Seriously.

Sorry to say, but the irony is that for your budget, you can get an Intel system and DX10 card that will destroy what you're showing. But if you want AMD, then go ahead. But I'd caution against wasting that much money. If you're serious about blowing that money, you could always donate it to me, I'll put it to much better use ;) 

LOL :) 


Good luck.
December 10, 2006 6:34:51 PM

He didn't come to brag.
He came asking for advice, with the exception of the CPU brand.
December 10, 2006 6:59:05 PM

Quote:
You could say I am an AMD Fanboy, I won't mind, but AMD is what I have used in the passed and I am more knowlegdable about their products, so that is why I am looking at the FX-62.

FX-62 AMD AM2 @2.8
Foxconn 590 SLI
Corsair XMS2 Dominator 2 x 1024mb
EVGA Super Overclocked 7950GT (waiting for 8900 and Vista to settle down)
Thermaltake Armor w/ 25cm fan
PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750watt PSU
and of course (1)optical and (3)hard drives by lite on and seagate.

Total is $2100 which is my budget. This needs to last me for a few years like the computer in my signature.

I am looking for opinions, products to stay away from, something better, etc. Bought a new Viewsonic E90fb Monitor and I'm in love :D  I mainly game at 1024 by 768 and have no plans on changing. Thanks for any help.

If thats what you want, go ahead. But you should look at the X1950XTX instead.
December 10, 2006 7:08:17 PM

If you're going to go with AMD, you are much better off with a cheaper processor. The FX-62 is a waste of money compared to Core2s and cheaper AMD processors. Get an X2, a 3800+ is a nice spot to sit at, 5000+ are pretty nice.

Just in case you're not completely set on amd, and just in case you haven't heard, an E6600 core 2 will destroy that processor for much less money (by destroy I mean on the order of 30%--if you're really that unfamiliar with intel's products, do some reading theres an excess of information on their new processors, which are not to be confused with netburst crap).

The ram is as people have mentioned overkill. Get something cheaper--twinx pc6400 corsair ram is about as expensive as I'd go, but its solid stuff even if you want to overclock.

The video card is also not a good buy, especially for such low resolutions. 7900GTs nearly match or exceed (depending on any factory overclocking) 7950 performance in directx9 games for much cheaper. (512mb of memory provides almost no gains.) If you're going to wait for a dx10 card, get something WAY cheaper now like a 7900gs or 7600gt or an ati x1950 pro. I would not, however, recommend an 8800 even if you ditch the expensive processor because at 1024 they are overkill and cheaper cards can keep up with them--check some benchmarks here or wherever. The 8800 shows its strength at higher resolutions. Wait and get a more mainstream dx10 card later.

Also, why SLI? The performance gains are minimal in most cases and it introduces extra compatibility issues and ridiculous heat/power requirements. Unless you bought the motherboard for other features, you could almost certainly get away with cheaper without SLI support, and it doesn't even sound like you planned on using it.

jesse
December 10, 2006 7:09:47 PM

Yes, that's why HE CAME ASKING FOR ADVICE.
He posted his desired system's specs so the people could evaluate them and give him tips, not to brag about them.
Those instead are the guys who post their OC C2D specs in their signatures.
And here people were already starting to feel -pardon- sense the "ePENIS"... :roll:
December 10, 2006 7:12:36 PM

Quote:
You could say I am an AMD Fanboy, I won't mind, but AMD is what I have used in the passed and I am more knowlegdable about their products, so that is why I am looking at the FX-62.


I think you are Stupid.
December 10, 2006 7:22:48 PM

Wow, nice, productive and intelligent contribution to the thread and the forums in general.
December 10, 2006 7:24:32 PM

Quote:
You could say I am an AMD Fanboy, I won't mind, but AMD is what I have used in the passed and I am more knowlegdable about their products, so that is why I am looking at the FX-62.


I think you are Stupid.
I think you are being an ass.
December 10, 2006 7:31:29 PM

Quote:
You could say I am an AMD Fanboy, I won't mind, but AMD is what I have used in the passed and I am more knowlegdable about their products, so that is why I am looking at the FX-62.

FX-62 AMD AM2 @2.8
Foxconn 590 SLI
Corsair XMS2 Dominator 2 x 1024mb
EVGA Super Overclocked 7950GT (waiting for 8900 and Vista to settle down)
Thermaltake Armor w/ 25cm fan
PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750watt PSU
and of course (1)optical and (3)hard drives by lite on and seagate.

Total is $2100 which is my budget. This needs to last me for a few years like the computer in my signature.

I am looking for opinions, products to stay away from, something better, etc. Bought a new Viewsonic E90fb Monitor and I'm in love :D  I mainly game at 1024 by 768 and have no plans on changing. Thanks for any help.


There is nothing wrong going with AMD, But, at this point, I would rather get a 4600+ or a 5000+X2 rather than the FX. I would also have a look at the Asus M2R32 motherboard. ATI chipset is very fast and run cooler than Nvidia one. The choice of memory is good. with the money you saved going with the lesser CPU, you could get a 8800 now instead of the 7950.
December 10, 2006 7:42:33 PM

Quote:

FX-62 AMD AM2 @2.8
Foxconn 590 SLI
Corsair XMS2 Dominator 2 x 1024mb
EVGA Super Overclocked 7950GT (waiting for 8900 and Vista to settle down)
Thermaltake Armor w/ 25cm fan
PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750watt PSU
and of course (1)optical and (3)hard drives by lite on and seagate.

Total is $2100 which is my budget. This needs to last me for a few years like the computer in my signature.


If you only want to play at 10x7 then you are wasting your money, you dont need a $2100 PC to do that.

The FX-62 is also a waste of money for the performance it offers. Games are far more dependant on the Video card than the CPU, and even if you wanted to stay AMD, an X2 3800 or 4200 and an 8800GTS/GTX would offer much more performance for around the same cost overall.

You could even go for an e6600 and an 8800GTX for a similar cost and get much better performance than the FX-62, but if you really don't want to go Intel then that's up to you.

For the record, up until C2D I was a die hard AMD fan. All my PCs were AMD based, from Durons to Athlon XPs to Athlon X2s, going all the way back to my old K6-2 300. C2D is just better, and there is no question of that.

Its unfortunate but right now AMD have nothing that can compete.

Anyway, a cheaper CPU, be it Intel or AMD, and an 8800 would perform better. I have an 8800GTX myself and although I probably wont be using DX10 for a year or more, I love running games at 1600x1200 with 16x FSAA and no lag whatsoever :)  Fable: The Lost Chapters is like a whole new game compared to when I played it on my old 5950 Ultra :D  My Gfx card prior to the 8800GTX was a 7900GT @ 740/1400, and the 8800GTX is massively better.

If you are still determined that 10x7 is fine though, I'd recommend an X2 3800 and a Geforce 6600GT. Save some more cash and get a S939 one and reuse your DDR1 RAM, there is just no point in anything more for 10x7.
December 10, 2006 8:18:00 PM

I don't quite agree about the video card and resolution.
IMO, you don't need to play at insanely high resolutions to need a high end card; if you want to have a lot of eye candy, even at low resolution, you need a card which packs a lot of shader power (see for example Oblivion).
And since he wants his computer to last for a few years, i'd recommend him to go for an 8800 at all costs. (maybe a GTS would be enough for his monitor's resolution)
And yes of course i'd suggest him to get a C2D.. with his budget, an E6600 is the one which probably makes most sense.
December 10, 2006 8:20:54 PM

I'm not to sure about everyone just up and recommending the 8800. Its a unstable card in my humble opinion. I'd wait till the second batch of DX10 cards come out to really make the jump. But thats just my worthless, under appreciated opinion.
December 10, 2006 8:24:35 PM

Well i've recommended it because i thought he wants to buy something now.
Personally, i'm waiting for Ati/AMD response before buying..
So, are you unsatisfied with your 8800?
December 10, 2006 8:35:57 PM

Quote:
I'm not to sure about everyone just up and recommending the 8800. Its a unstable card in my humble opinion. I'd wait till the second batch of DX10 cards come out to really make the jump. But thats just my worthless, under appreciated opinion.


I have alot of respect for your opinion Ninja but thats a surprising one for me!

While the early samples of the 8800GTX had the whole "wrong resistor" thing going for them, all the GTS's have been ok, and the 8800GTX's should all be sorted by now.

My 8800GTX has been if anything more stable than my old 7900GT, I havent had a single crash that I can put down to the Gfx card, probably partly because I don't bother overclocking the thing at all now - there is just no point!

We have the 97.44 drivers now, so any problems there were should be sorted imho.
December 10, 2006 8:36:40 PM

I don't have one. I still use the GX2.
December 10, 2006 8:41:44 PM

Quote:
I'm not to sure about everyone just up and recommending the 8800. Its a unstable card in my humble opinion. I'd wait till the second batch of DX10 cards come out to really make the jump. But thats just my worthless, under appreciated opinion.


I have alot of respect for your opinion Ninja but thats a surprising one for me!

While the early samples of the 8800GTX had the whole "wrong resistor" thing going for them, all the GTS's have been ok, and the 8800GTX's should all be sorted by now.

My 8800GTX has been if anything more stable than my old 7900GT, I havent had a single crash that I can put down to the Gfx card, probably partly because I don't bother overclocking the thing at all now - there is just no point!

We have the 97.44 drivers now, so any problems there were should be sorted imho.
My thing against the 8800 is simple. Nvidia clocked the absolute life out of the 8800. The GPU core can't take anymore voltage without becoming extremely unstable. Thats why I'm able to with a GX2 quad setup, beat all those other guys with the ridiculously powerful GTS and GTX, even when I should theoretically lose. It just can't be pushed any father than it already is. That being said it is a remarkable peace of hardware, but I still recommend waiting to see what the R600 and the 2nd gen will bring. Like I said though, my opinion really doesn't matter much. I'm not a GFX guy.
December 10, 2006 9:17:41 PM

First off, thanks for the constructive replies, i do have some more thinking to do. This is going to be a major purchase for me, except for vista and a 8900 this summer, and it is going to have to last me for a few years. You really think that is overkill, my cpu? The gpu i can understand since its getting replaced sooner. I was thinking i should get the best amd chip out there to last me the 3 years, plus get the most out of my 8900. And about bragging and "e-penars", anyone that has a computer spec posted in their signature is bragging OMG!! (sarcasm). Im new hear but i didnt expect this kind of outcome, lol made my day. Thanks again on the replies on a very important purchase of mine.
December 10, 2006 9:44:28 PM

Quote:
He didn't come to brag.
He came asking for advice, with the exception of the CPU brand.


Yeah, that's basically why I limited my advice to a different motherboard and a bigger psu. As to his cpu choice, whatever happened to the freedom to buy what a person wants? He gets the fanboy objection, but aren't those who object being fanboy types themselves? If freedom of choice is denied, then we might as well consign ourselves as being nothing but robots, doing stuff because we are told to, not because we want to.
December 10, 2006 11:10:06 PM

Quote:
I'm not to sure about everyone just up and recommending the 8800. Its a unstable card in my humble opinion. I'd wait till the second batch of DX10 cards come out to really make the jump. But thats just my worthless, under appreciated opinion.


I have alot of respect for your opinion Ninja but thats a surprising one for me!

While the early samples of the 8800GTX had the whole "wrong resistor" thing going for them, all the GTS's have been ok, and the 8800GTX's should all be sorted by now.

My 8800GTX has been if anything more stable than my old 7900GT, I havent had a single crash that I can put down to the Gfx card, probably partly because I don't bother overclocking the thing at all now - there is just no point!

We have the 97.44 drivers now, so any problems there were should be sorted imho.
My thing against the 8800 is simple. Nvidia clocked the absolute life out of the 8800. The GPU core can't take anymore voltage without becoming extremely unstable. Thats why I'm able to with a GX2 quad setup, beat all those other guys with the ridiculously powerful GTS and GTX, even when I should theoretically lose. It just can't be pushed any father than it already is. That being said it is a remarkable peace of hardware, but I still recommend waiting to see what the R600 and the 2nd gen will bring. Like I said though, my opinion really doesn't matter much. I'm not a GFX guy.

The GPU core can take the voltage - but to do so it needs better cooling, cooling 150W+ in the restricted space given to a standard PCIe 2 slot cooler is no easy feat. Like any piece of silicon, increase the voltage and you increase the heat, increase the heat and it becomes unstable.

This is a factor of the 850 million transistors more than anything else.

As for your Quad SLi setup winning, well that is *4* G71s, I don't remember the last time a new generation was more than 4x the performance of the previous.

I'd also be willing to bet the performance gap would be narrower in 3Dmark06 than in 3Dmark01, a look at 3Dmark ORB seems to indicate this (or does this not show Quad SLI? the highest 7950GX2 result I see at all is ~13k)
December 11, 2006 12:41:07 AM

This could be true, I'll have to test this out. Willing to send me your GTX? :lol: 
a c 90 B Homebuilt system
a b À AMD
December 11, 2006 12:59:41 AM

Quote:
If choosing AMD's highest end CPU in the light of Intel's faster, cheaper CPUs, he's making a foolish decision, bragging or not.
Some people buy Cadillac, some buy Corvette. They both get the job done.
It's down to personal choice. It's not like buying a classic, powerful & proven CPU is anything like foolish.
If a person has personal preferences it's OK to recommend options but to call a personal preference foolish or stupid is unnecessary (and very impolite).
December 11, 2006 1:42:48 AM

Quote:
He didn't come to brag.
He came asking for advice, with the exception of the CPU brand.
If choosing AMD's highest end CPU in the light of Intel's faster, cheaper CPUs, he's making a foolish decision, bragging or not. .

FX CPU has one thing others don't have.. unlocked multiplier. That make them interresting and that explain in part why they cost more than others..

You don't sell an open for abuse CPU at normal price.. you want them to cost more in case of return (which may happen more than often with overclocked CPU) for warranty...

AMD take the risk and expect more return on them... but they charge in consequence...
December 11, 2006 1:47:58 AM

Quote:
If choosing AMD's highest end CPU in the light of Intel's faster, cheaper CPUs, he's making a foolish decision, bragging or not.
Some people buy Cadillac, some buy Corvette. They both get the job done.
It's down to personal choice. It's not like buying a classic, powerful & proven CPU is anything like foolish.
If a person has personal preferences it's OK to recommend options but to call a personal preference foolish or stupid is unnecessary (and very impolite).I simply have a difficult time recommending a lower quality product with a higher price tag. As rude as it may be, from an economic standpoint an E6600 would be a better buy.
December 11, 2006 1:51:19 AM

Quote:
Quote:I am looking for opinions, products to stay away from, something better, etc. Bought a new Viewsonic E90fb Monitor and I'm in love I mainly game at 1024 by 768 and have no plans on changing. Thanks for any help. Its not just about the cpu,or the monitor



This is the only thing that I don't understand. Why don't you wanna bump up the res to 12x10? That will make it look a heck of alot better. It's optimal to run in the native resolution of your monitor if you can help it.
December 11, 2006 2:11:37 AM

I agree. But, we all have our reasons for buying from a certain brand.

The FX-62 is a fast chip. It'll certainly be a step up from his XP 3200+. But the question is...will he notice the new power?

If the only resolution he uses is 1024x768, there isn't even a point to upgrading. Hell, that resolution holds back his current machine. Granted, the lower the resolution, the more CPU-dependent it becomes.

I don't really see the point in buying an FX-62, personally. He hasn't said he wants to overclock, which is the only possible reason for buying an unlocked chip over one that's standard and therefore cheaper.

I won't list the advantages of the C2D over the AMD64. Intel's chips are better, and everyone but BM and the OP knows it. You should get a C2D, it's better, and now there are more high-performance motherboards out there for them than there are for AM2.

And about the 8800...meh. It's nice nVidia got their new architecture and hardware out in the wild before it becomes required. More than I can say for ATI. There are advantages to waiting, but I'd rather get the product out there so people can use it, abuse it, overclock it, break it and return it, get a new one and do it all over again.

Think about it: ATI's getting their schtoff out there when Vista's out. K, it'll probably be faster than the nVidia cards, but they might have equal or greater problems. And that's when people need the cards for DX10. nVidia's cards will be tested in the field already - we'll know whether they work or not before it's out.

Ninja's got a point, as usual. They can be more or less unstable than current cards. They're faster, but speed isn't always worth more than stability, or the risk of losing it. This is why I don't overclock usually.
December 11, 2006 2:19:50 AM

Unmodded, my GX2 can go farther on stock cooling than a non volt mod, non water cooled 8800. Thats the point. Now run along you twit.
December 11, 2006 2:23:44 AM

You're a twit because everytime you step into a discussion you start off with insults and do just about everything in your power to piss off everyone. For the sake of the thread, thats the most I'm going to say to you. Fuck off.
December 11, 2006 2:53:21 AM

Is that supposed to signify anything?

I don't mean this as an insult or anything, just that if there's a joke there I don't get it.
December 11, 2006 3:04:15 AM

his montior supports a resolution upto 1792x1344. bit outta the ordinary but thats what it says it can support. so gaming at 10x7 would be ridiculously stupid.
December 11, 2006 3:19:48 AM

I would suggest this CPU the below and a different motherboard. Also buy a smaller video card now and wait for the new ATI card, which shouldnt be to far off and then make your decision. The build will last longer. I promise! No OC'ing should be required in the system! I would suggest the best memory you can afford though. If you can afford it then dont just settle for something lower. I like this chip over the FX-62, but thats just me...good luck with your build!

CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...

Best,

3Ball
December 11, 2006 10:31:14 AM

Quote:
his montior supports a resolution upto 1792x1344. bit outta the ordinary but thats what it says it can support. so gaming at 10x7 would be ridiculously stupid.


pro gamers like in counter strike play at 1024 and even 800 and probably make more money than you, so how is it stupid?

the higher the resolution, the smaller things like your game hud and crosshair get. i am used to that resolution and would like to keep it there, that is why i want a high end cpu, plus i dont want to overclock it. remember, this thing might be overkill now but what about 2 years when im still running on the same machine trying to play the newest games?

on this forum, i have read that i need a good cpu to run at that resolution so that i dont have any lag. whats wrong with wanting to play a game at 1024, vsync on with highest quality settings? no one has really answered if i am wrong in getting a high end cpu now to last me for a few years, its like you guys think im going to be upgrading to a whole new system this summer when im not. oh well, if you're unable to read my questions thats ok, but thanks to those who did and provided some insight.
December 11, 2006 11:43:57 AM

First off, quad SLI does not outperform the 8800GTX. At lower resolutions it's closer, but at higher resolutions quad-SLI is simply destroyed.

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=80903&highlight=quad+sli+8800gtx

(Scroll 3/4 down the page to see the benchmark graphs from Anandtech for a single 8800GTX vs. Quad SLI; I have less than 100 posts so I can't link images. Here's what they say, anyway:) 

Oblivion 2560x1600 - no AA

8800GTX 24fps
Quad SLI
11.3fps

Prey 2560x1600 - no AA

8800GTX 56.3fps
Quad SLI 34.2fps


HL2 Episode I 2560x1600 no AA:

8800GTX 78fps
Quad SLI 48.5fps



Secondly, the 8800GTX can be OC'd to 625/2000 rather easily, so to call it "unstable" at stock speeds is ludicrous. It really shows a lack of knowledge on the subject, so I don't know why Ninja is spouting off so vehemently about it. He needs to do his research.

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=81476&highlight=quad+sli

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2873&p=5

Once again, Toms Hardware proves to be a real beacon of knowledge. 8O
December 11, 2006 12:23:01 PM

Quote:
his montior supports a resolution upto 1792x1344. bit outta the ordinary but thats what it says it can support. so gaming at 10x7 would be ridiculously stupid.


pro gamers like in counter strike play at 1024 and even 800 and probably make more money than you, so how is it stupid?

the higher the resolution, the smaller things like your game hud and crosshair get. i am used to that resolution and would like to keep it there, that is why i want a high end cpu, plus i dont want to overclock it. remember, this thing might be overkill now but what about 2 years when im still running on the same machine trying to play the newest games?

on this forum, i have read that i need a good cpu to run at that resolution so that i dont have any lag. whats wrong with wanting to play a game at 1024, vsync on with highest quality settings? no one has really answered if i am wrong in getting a high end cpu now to last me for a few years, its like you guys think im going to be upgrading to a whole new system this summer when im not. oh well, if you're unable to read my questions thats ok, but thanks to those who did and provided some insight.


A) Fatal1ty makes around 300K a year, thats not more than me.
B) CS:S resizes the HUD elements upon resolution change. They don't get smaller.
C) If for whatever reason you insist on staying at that stupid resolution, there is no reason to upgrade. Save your money and get an exam from a reputable eye care physician.
December 11, 2006 12:34:18 PM

$1500 can get you further, when used on the right parts
December 11, 2006 12:42:38 PM

Quote:
his montior supports a resolution upto 1792x1344. bit outta the ordinary but thats what it says it can support. so gaming at 10x7 would be ridiculously stupid.


pro gamers like in counter strike play at 1024 and even 800 and probably make more money than you, so how is it stupid?

the higher the resolution, the smaller things like your game hud and crosshair get. i am used to that resolution and would like to keep it there, that is why i want a high end cpu, plus i dont want to overclock it. remember, this thing might be overkill now but what about 2 years when im still running on the same machine trying to play the newest games?

on this forum, i have read that i need a good cpu to run at that resolution so that i dont have any lag. whats wrong with wanting to play a game at 1024, vsync on with highest quality settings? no one has really answered if i am wrong in getting a high end cpu now to last me for a few years, its like you guys think im going to be upgrading to a whole new system this summer when im not. oh well, if you're unable to read my questions thats ok, but thanks to those who did and provided some insight.


A) Fatal1ty makes around 300K a year, thats not more than me.
B) CS:S resizes the HUD elements upon resolution change. They don't get smaller.
C) If for whatever reason you insist on staying at that stupid resolution, there is no reason to upgrade. Save your money and get an exam from a reputable eye care physician.

i dont get a solid 100 fps now, so you mean i wont if i upgrade? not even 1 fps higher? fps is everything in games, someone with a p2 chip in their computer can became better with a e6800 because the game will respond faster to movement and everything will be smoother, so aiming is easier. before i added my 6800, i had a 5900, and my fps dropped from 65 to 20 in certain areas, now it drops from 85 to 65 in the same spots, and im able to make those shots that were once unattainable because of the video/fps lag. making 300K a year, i think you can afford to go see a mental health specialist and/or buy yourself a care-bear.

btw, i play dod, dods, cs, css, and bf2 and i can post ss of how small the hud gets from 1024 to 1600.
December 11, 2006 2:56:51 PM

Quote:
Unmodded, my GX2 can go farther on stock cooling than a non volt mod, non water cooled 8800.


Thats because the 8800GTX is the "fastest" G80 availible, while the G71 on the 7950GX2 is only clocked at 500MHz, leaving alot of headroom on a chip that was designed for 7900GTX speeds of 650MHz+

Thats my take on it anyway, plus with the 7950GX2 they couldnt be too aggressive on GPU speeds given that alot of newbies will have them in cases with woefully inadequate airflow.

Still at high resolutions in DX9.0c games, even Quad-SLi looses out to a single 8800GTX. In the DX8.1 3Dmark01 "competition" thing we are having (@10x7 no less) the 8800GTX doesnt shine quite as well, but tbh if I ever do play a DX8.1 game again I'm sure the performance will be ok ;) 

There are people in this thread turning a civil discussion into an argument however, which is no fun imho, so thats it for me on the 7950GX2/8800GTX subject :p 

And bobfan, you are saying you want high performance at low resolutions for competitive gaming or whatever, in which case spending $690 on an FX-62 which will not perform as well as a $300 e6600 is just stupid tbh :p 

Hell, buy a $500 e6700 and outperform both of them.
!