Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
they are good cards but you can buy a new 6870 for ~ 180 after MIR.. so I would think a used 5870 would be worth something in the $140ish range.
nickname however did pick up portal 2 and it is pretty jawsome. I have only played it a little bit as time permits but im up to chapter 6. only about halfway through but already this game was totally worth the $30.
MajorMajorMajor said:
I almost posted tits here then I remembered you guys are Rated PG.
u can post dem to my PM box
Lemm said:
XBOX also is very lucky… for some reason most people chose to get xbox over ps3.. now there is some circular reasoning here as I’m not sure which came first but most games are developed and optimized for the xbox.. PS3 game are not optimized graphically unless they are an exclusive and Wii is *edited* in this regard. This may also be due to the fact that some XBOX live revenue may go towards paying game manufacturers to do this.. in which it isn’t luck .. it’s just business.
360 came out a full year before the ps3… which gave it a huge boost.
Lemm said:
XBOX
That’s a partial truth at best. The PS3 has more theoretical power with the cell processor… but in general, it is not being fully utilized due to the complexity of programming for it, so they actually end up being pretty close. The graphics cards are actually surprisingly similar if you look at the architecture as a whole and how memory is shared with the graphics and such. So yeah the PS3 is at the end of the day perhaps slightly better, but its so small a difference that in most games you can’t even tell a visual difference. In fact as you know some games look better on the 360 while others look better on the PS3.
Sony shot itself in the foot with the cell processor IMO; hope you guys wont want backwords compatibility on the PS4 lol.
The problem is the original Wii was outdated the day it got released. Like REALLY outdated. I’m happy to see them finally release something… relevant. Still though, I think it will take some time before there is a huge difference in titles between the wii2 and 360/ps3. Though what this does help nintendo with is getting in on all that awesome multiplatform action, now that they will actually have enough power to do such a thing. Stuff like Call of Duty, Madden, etc, will be not only options but highly desireable on the wii 2, considering its superior power. Should be a win/win for developers and nintendo, as long as they do enough to keep the wii different so people buy it in the first place.
Also, a touchscreen controller sounds horrible to me but thats just my opinion.
Are those specs really 6 years of progress compared with the xbox or 5 years of progress compared with the ps3?
I think not.
I also think nintendo needs to figure out their market for this next console; they won’t have the extreme sales if they are selling at $350-400 compared to $250. I mean if they want sales like the xbox got then yeah go for it but I don’t think they are gonna be happy with that…
just wanted to pull out an old classic:
i still need to buy this game. Since I missed out on the awesome preorder sales (don’t get me started on this), I am now stuck waiting to find this on sale on steam or otherwheres. I refuse to pay more than $35, even though it is worth more than that.
Lemm said:
I thought it was funny that they included bloggers as those of the damned.
bloggers are at the very least on par with Nazis and homosexuals.
I will stand buy AMD/ATI all day and say their products are great (just ask MasterP… who do you think pushed him to buy that 5770?), but at the end of the day, 4 of my 5 computers (3 laptops and 2 desktops) have intel cpu and 4 of the 5 have nvidia graphics (3 are intels with nvidia gfx, 1 intel with intel gfx, 1 amd with nvidia gfx). When it comes down to it, intel and nvidia have been the superior bunch. That being said, if I were buying a new DESKTOP today (automatic intel and nvidia if a laptop; AMD needs to step this up badly), I would consider an AMD processor and graphics card.
there are lots of games you can play online over email and such at yucata.de.
and nice to see joo major.
actually i think the hybrid drives are the way to go… at least once they become more prevalent. you get some of the SSD advantages with none of the disadvantages… plus if the ssd part ever fails you still have the mechanical drive to fall back on. That and they are loads cheaper. Of course, I think only seagate really sells them right now and yeah… seagate…
MasterP said:
Classic MasterP vs. Nickname tech argument, Round 1. FIGHT!
Let’s go!
MasterP said:
The last SSD I used was in a dell and was slower than the 5400 RPM drive in my HP mini.
I know you aren’t basing your whole argument about SSDs due to the fact that you used a dell mini with a slow SSD… I mean thats the same logic as comparing a 5 yr old 7200rpm drive to a new one from today. Besides having the same technology, they are monumentally different. I will admit though that you do have to closely research a SSD or you will get boned. All SSDs are not created equal, or even close for that matter. Considering with a standard drive you pretty much know what you are getting if you get a 250gb 7200rpm drive, you would think that most 128gb SSDs would be the same to one another. They aren’t; so if you are basing your arguments on that then… well… ok i give up right now.
MasterP said:
I said they were fast, expensive, that the SATA bus is slower than the PCIe x8, that they’re small, and relative to the 10-12x higher price tag aren’t really all that useful. I think you’d be hard pressed to argue with any of those statements.
I will argue with the “aren’t really all that useful” and the whole pcie x8 thing; yeah the pcie x8 bus is faster but since no current drives are hitting the threshold of the sata2 bus (let alone sata3), there isn’t really a good reason to spend more for the pcie based SSD.
MasterP said:
To comfortably house Windows7 you need a 32GB drive but then you’ll probably have to put all your games on another drive. If that other drive isn’t an SSD, what’s the point? All you’ve really done is decrease your boot time, gaming performance won’t have increased at all. With most modern games being 6-12GB even a 128GB SSD is pushing it on a gaming computer.
Agreed; this is the biggest downfall of a SSD. Though a SSD will only decrease load times in games anyways so if you thought a SSD would give you a FPS boost you would have been wrong…
MasterP said:
When you consider that the newer high-cache spinning drives have 120-140MB/sec read/write I can’t really imagine needing a SSD except to brag. I don’t mind it taking 40 seconds to load windows or 20-30 seconds to load a game level.
Beyond the fact that good SSDs are going to give you double those rates, the real benefit of a SSD is access time, which is going to be about .1ms on a SSD and 9-13ms on a standard hard drive. Oh yeah and IO performance (result of access time), where you are going to get 10000+ I/O’s per second vs maybe 200 on a good standard drive. Yeah, that is a huge deal, and in certain situations is a huge benefit
OK done with the quotes cause I don’t have any arguments for the rest of that, it’s all true. My whole point was that the benefits for a SSD are related more to access speed than throughput, and I thought that you not mentioning their benefits and only their downfalls was being too biased, but that is par for the course with you I suppose…
MasterP said:
Nickname said:
wut? ill take it for $5
lol
There will be so many strings attached it won’t be worth the hassle.
$5 is cheaper than $40
carolina is still in it so im happy.
still… my bracket is way gone; I had ohio st, duke, pitt, and notre dame in the final 4 with ND winning it all… so yeah im *edited*ed lol.
MasterP said:
They’re overly expensive and when used on the SATA interface not really that much faster. I mean yeah they’re faster than a conventional drive but as long as you’re using the SATA interface you’re pretty much stuck with a certain limit.
If you’re going to buy an SSD, and you’re going to spend $300 or more on it, you might as well spend a little bit more and get one of the PCIe x8 SSD cards coming out later this year. At least that way you have a direct 4GB/s bi-directional link to the northbridge (CPU, RAM, other PCIe) and don’t have to go through the much slower, and typically overcrowded, Southbridge.
From the start of this SSD nonsense I’ve said that using a SATA interface is tantamount to viper engine in a hybrid car. The technology is capable of much more speed but the designers are/were motivated by quick profits so they tossed on an existing bus (SATA) and sold it as fast. Yeah it’s fast, yeah if I had unlimited funds I’d buy one, but for 3-5x the cost they’re not fast enough, or large enough, for me to even consider buying.
you clearly know nothing about the advantages of a SSD… or the capabilities of one vs a standard hard drive for that matter.
