The New Crysis Warhead optimized PC

[Aries_Split]

I remember when twin raptors were the holy grail of gaming harddrives. You say you worked on an Octocore? Nice.

 

[Jamanticus]

Eggo, did you just say 128 GB is the amount of RAM Vista 64 can recognize? Wow, talk about exponential scaling...

 

[Bane07]

...
Why would you need 128gigs of ram?
That must be for like NASA and Government Super Computers or something

 

[Lilim]

Lulz you have a pair of Raptors with a dual core CPU and only 3 gigs of RAM.

And you paid $1400? I hope that was like 2 years ago.

I've upgraded mate. That's the total amount I've invested in it. Also, it's clear you lack PC knowledge to scoff at a Wolfdale. If you knew anything you'd know that a 9800GX2 is about 300 dollars. I used to have an 8800GTS G92, so thats another 300, two raptors is about another 300, the wolfdale is about 150, Also, again you prove your lack of computer knowledge with the ram comment. Windows only recognizes 3.3 gigs of memory max. So even though I have 2 seperate 2 gig sticks, it only recognizes 3 of the four gigs. Factor in my Evga Mobo and you have a general idea of the cost. So hush.

I guess I'm just surprised that someone would go through the trouble to get an awesome video card like the 9800GX2 and then bottleneck it with a wimpy dual core and a 32 bit OS.

If you actually plan on doing anything serious with a computer, overclock a Q6600 and get 8 gigs of RAM and Vista 64. Right now, all you've got is the Ferrari engine with go-kart wheels and chassis.

That's assuming you're using it for something like content creation and not just gaming. Otherwise, I'd just suggest switching to Vista 64, especially considering how much memory is being eaten up by your video card under its current 32 bit OS.

And the dual Raptors in RAID 0...I won't even touch that with a ten foot long pole.

I'll make the switch to 64 once I hear more positive things about it. Also, it disturbs me you call a wolfdale "wimpy". It matches a Q6600 in nearly every aspect, and passes it in gaming. Yes, soon it will be renendered obsolete by more advanced threading optimization, but for now it suits me fine. Also, what do you have against twin raptors in raid 0? My beast boots like a monster.

Don't think I'm provoking you or anything, I just like tech debates.

If gaming is most of what you use your pc for, and if you use mostly new programs, a 64 bit os will be a much more stable environment, as well as a probable performance boost just due to the fact that it lets your cpu (if it's 64 bit) operate faster.... Then there's the RAM recognition...
The bad thing about a 64 OS is that it's not all that compatible with old software... Like, at all...
So, did I change your mind?

My biggest turn off for Vista is easily it not being very compatible with old software, that covers most of my favorite games. That and other issues. Basically I'm with people saying they're going to wait until Vista really starts proving its better overall. Until then, you know... XP has just treated me very well.

3.0 gig quad-core processor
4 gig ram
8800 Ultra
400 gig hd

is suiting me just fine for now. Anything else can wait a bit.

 

[Theo Samaritan]

TBH if I had a choice between a single 9800GX2 or a pair of 8800GT 512's, i'd get the 512's. Just as powerful, for cheaper.

I don't get why people use cry engine based games as benchmarks anyway, its such a poorly written piece of crap that in many ways it doesn't compare with the performance of real games.

 

[Lilim]

TBH if I had a choice between a single 9800GX2 or a pair of 8800GT 512's, i'd get the 512's. Just as powerful, for cheaper.

I don't get why people use cry engine based games as benchmarks anyway, its such a poorly written piece of crap that in many ways it doesn't compare with the performance of real games.

Poor coding inherently ups system requirements. Go figure. Anyone wonder why many Blizzard and Valve games can look great, even on their lowest settings and STILL play on games that don't even meet their minimum requirements? Good coding. That's why. That's one of the things the industry needs more of... good coding.

 

[MonkeySlayer]

8 gigs?! How much RAM does Vista 64 recognize?

Just to clarify, stick in my two-penneth (thats two cents for the Yanks) and to get another one on my abysmal post count... XP64 recognises 16Gb, Vista 64 Basic/Home Premium recognises upto 8Gb properly, depending on mobo, but should be ok upto 16Gb on Premium and Vista ultimate/Business will recognise 128,,, but thats far too much to actually be of use on a home computer at the moment!

And as this seems to be a place for people shouting about their rigs...
P5KR
Q6600 @ ~2.4GHz
4Gb RAM
ATi Radeon 3870x2
Vista Home Premium 64Bit

Take it Easy

 

[Lilim]

My biggest turn off for Vista is easily it not being very compatible with old software, that covers most of my favorite games. That and other issues. Basically I'm with people saying they're going to wait until Vista really starts proving its better overall. Until then, you know... XP has just treated me very well.

3.0 gig quad-core processor
4 gig ram
8800 Ultra
400 gig hd

is suiting me just fine for now. Anything else can wait a bit.

That's easy then: do a dual boot like I did. And in my experiences, I never really had to boot up to XP32 because very few games are actually incompatible with Vista 64.

In other words: if you have more than 2 gigs of RAM, Vista 64 kicks ass.

Dual booting is a pain. Well, I think it is. I'd much rather wait until Vista actually looks worth getting 'now.' And I can do that any time. No rush.

The incompatibility thing you noted though... I have to wonder about the library of games you're looking at. There were a good range of games very old, old, somewhat old, not all that old, not old at all, and new that were incompatible the last time I checked? Or was there some fix I'm not familiar with due to not having Vista?

[ and Vista ultimate/Business will recognise 128,,, but thats far too much to actually be of use on a home computer at the moment!

Take it Easy

Does anyone else remember back when people laughed at the thought of ever needing more than... what... a couple of megs of ram? I just suddenly remembered that when reading this.

 

[Temarka]

Vista might not support old games by default, but it's not hard at all to find ways around that. Most popular old games will be packaged into vista-compatible installers by fans, but failing that you can always run them through DOS-BOX.

Xcom: UFO Defense
Transport Tycoon Deluxe
Master of Orion 2

All of these games works perfectly for me, only have to run Orion 2 through DOS-BOX (this actually makes the game perform better than it did originally).

EDIT: I run Vista 64 with 8 gigs of memory.

 

[JakubK666]

My rig sucks but it's essentially an Escapist/TF2 Machine.

Pentium D Dual Core 2.8Ghz
1GB RAM
Radeon 2600 XT 512mb.

Now think about how I feel when you lot of you are talking about 8GB's of RAM!

 

[Danny Ocean]

Also, it disturbs me you call a wolfdale "wimpy". It matches a Q6600 in nearly every aspect, and passes it in gaming.

Dual cores are always going to be wimpy compared to quad cores. Go check out Ableton Live 6 and 7 benchmarks if you don't believe me.

And in gaming, you aren't actually seeing a significant CPU related performance difference between your 4 GHz dualcore and my 3 GHz quadcore.

They're not wimpy for the moment, as he's already said, most games aren't multi-threaded, so you're only using one of your four cores for the game. His two cores are each faster, so effectively he has a better gaming PC. 1GHz makes a difference. Although for muli-threaded apps, and perhaps the next lot of PC games will have multithreading, so you can put all those cores to good use.

And I don't even know why they call it RAID 0.

Redundant Array of Independant Disks

 

[Danny Ocean]

However, the performance found in RAID 0 isn't relevant or significant enough in gaming to actually merit the buttrape someone using RAID 0 will inevitably get.

For under the price of 2 Raptors in RAID 0, you could build a substantially larger, safer, and altogether more useful RAID 5 disk set.

Agreed. I want to know what all these new numbers do. What could RAID 7 do!? Next thing you know they'll be RAID 2K and they'll be rooms full of hard drives.

 

[runtheplacered]

I'm sorry, do you know the definition of "serious computer work"

Serious computer work has a definition? Really?

Then you brought up Crysis? That's serious? I thought that was play. I'm totally confused now.

16GB of RAM per computing unit, 1.5TB maximum, up to 64 processors (256 cores?). Note the very distinct lack of Windows support. That's a real computer.

That's like saying some guy with a real nice pickup truck doesn't have a "real" truck because it's not a mack truck. What're you even comparing them for? They don't have anywhere near the same purposes. That's asinine.

Anyway, I'm not touching a new Windows version until Windows 7.

You go girl! Show Microsoft what RAKtheUndead thinks of them!

so I do use a proper operating system, rather than that newest bloated monstrosity from Microsoft.

You really are quite full of yourself.