Hey..nobody's claiming this is a wise investment. :p

well, given a choice between the "New Firebird for Spiral Foundation" and very needy cause, I'd have to donate to very needy cause.

Like the "Supercharge JLee's Tacoma Foundation."

Hahaha. Okay, are there any marked performance improvements for 64-bit? No. Also, Vista doesn't come out in 64-bit, it comes out in 32-bit, and you don't need a 64-bit processor for it. You're...way...way...way off base.

And no, you don't have that Celeron, but you called the computer it was in a "gaming rig", which is preposterous.


While I agree with the better ways to spend 9000, I can tell you right now--there are no enthusiast solutions for Quad SLi or the PhysX card. The only ways to get them are through Dell, Asus (prefab), and Alienware. Also, that chip isn't the BEST for gaming, but it certainly doesn't suck. I'd like to see these imaginary reviews, especially considering the validity of the rest of your statements.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi] Also, Vista doesn't come out in 64-bit,[/QUOTE]

http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/vista.asp

Read that FAQ. While it DOES come out in BOTH 32 and 64-bit, I seriously doubt most people who want gaming rigs will be getting the 32-bit version.

That guy's wrong--Vista 64-bit got delayed. Vista 32-bit is coming out first. 64-bit is supposed to come later, but in the end, you still probably won't see much performance improvements. You've got a severely distorted view of what goes into a "gaming rig". 64-bit versions of windows probably will be less in demand than the 32-bit alternative, mainly because drivers won't work, programs won't work, not to mention the bugs that are bound to pop up.

Read the news once in a while.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]That guy's wrong--Vista 64-bit got delayed. Vista 32-bit is coming out first. 64-bit is supposed to come later, but in the end, you still probably won't see much performance improvements. You've got a severely distorted view of what goes into a "gaming rig". 64-bit versions of windows probably will be less in demand than the 32-bit alternative, mainly because drivers won't work, programs won't work, not to mention the bugs that are bound to pop up.

Read the news once in a while.[/QUOTE]

You sound like one of those people from back in the day with the 8 and 16-bit processors. "The 32-bit processors will have driver issues, no one will use them. I doubt 32-bit will be better than my 16-bit!" There is significant improvement. If it wasn't for the drive issues in WinXP x64, more people would get it. Vista will ultimately be the solution for this, and hopefully will spawn the next generation of CPUs.

...No?

You weren't even around in those days. 32-bit was unveiled, and it was hailed as a massive improvement--which it was. But as you go up in the bits, there's the laws of Diminishing Returns in effect. Current processors have double the cache that normal x86 processors do--mainly to facilitate decent 64-bit performance. Every single 64-bit app out for windows right now shows NO performance gains over the 32-bit alternatives. I don't know why you think you know so much, but listen to me--you're wrong.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]...No?

You weren't even around in those days. 32-bit was unveiled, and it was hailed as a massive improvement--which it was. But as you go up in the bits, there's the laws of Diminishing Returns in effect. Current processors have double the cache that normal x86 processors do--mainly to facilitate decent 64-bit performance. Every single 64-bit app out for windows right now shows NO performance gains over the 32-bit alternatives. I don't know why you think you know so much, but listen to me--you're wrong.[/QUOTE]

Actually I was alive in those days. My first PC was a Commodore 64. And there are 64-bit programs that show improvement. Servers running 64-bit processors, handle better, because they don't have to access data in 2 parts.

Think I'm wrong? Well Google's servers, some of the most demanding servers in the world, have switched to AMD 64-bit processors, and are doing better jobs serving search results to millions of people, than your 32-bit processors are doing.

What does that do for "gaming rigs" though. Servers have been 64-bit for a while--the Opteron has been a 64-bit chip reigning that area.

You were alive in those days, but not around. Trust me, I can tell by the way you talk, by what you know (or rather what you don't), and by your previous "gaming rig" that you weren't aware of the switch from 16 to 32-bit in any way except maybe you heard it somewhere.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]What does that do for "gaming rigs" though. Servers have been 64-bit for a while--the Opteron has been a 64-bit chip reigning that area.

You were alive in those days, but not around. Trust me, I can tell by the way you talk, by what you know (or rather what you don't), and by your previous "gaming rig" that you weren't aware of the switch from 16 to 32-bit in any way except maybe you heard it somewhere.[/QUOTE]

I'd been stuck with my C64 for a long time, until I went to a 32-bit processor with Windows 3.1. I know the difference, and yes I was around back then.

Just looking at the new demands for games, did you know F.E.A.R. was built to run with a optimuly with a 64-bit processor. And the results are their the games are better.

Be prepared for this new technology You're obviously to adapt to the current stuff, and need to see into the future of PCs. And I can tell you, 64-bit is here to stay.

LOL, you say that as if someone, somewhere, somehow became aware of the switch without hearing about it somewhere.

Bah, lots of hype for a gaming machine. It's NOT the first quad-SLi machine; ASUS has been shipping dual 7800GT-cards for around half a year, and tests showed that it's possible to hook two of them together for the same thing, on any nForce 4 SLi x16 motherboard.

As for the processor... Remember that NetBurst sucks at gaming, not just in the Prescott cores. That Pentium D is like having a pair of 4.26GHz Pentium 4s... While the X2 4800+ is like having a pair of 4000+ chips, which, coincidentially, perform in games (across the board) like a pair of 4.6GHz Pentium 4s. (~4.9GHz for an FX-60)

And LCDs still are light-years from the quality of CRTs.

?

1) No, you weren't. The C64 is an 8-bit computer. I don't think you really know the improvements going from 16 to 32 bit marked.

2) Also, prove that FEAR was 1) made for "64-bit processors" (unless you're talking about it utilizing hypertransport...which everything does) and that 2) it would run worse if it weren't "made for 64-bit processors".

3) No **** it's "here to stay". It's an improvement in technology. But it's not that significant, so far means NOTHING for gamers or even your layperson using a machine, and has no reason to exist in the desktop environment yet.

4) You sound like an idiot throwing vague, unsupported claims at me, which I keep shooting down. Give me something solid--a (reputable) article, a piece of news, some announcement SOMETHING instead of just spouting off BS.


I see where you're coming from, but I meant they would have then researched it, noticed the improvements, etc etc. Most people just upgraded, and maybe heard "BY THE WAY THIS IS 32-BIT" without realizing the effects/impact of the upgrade.


It's the first machine to have 4 cards in it, making it effectively Quad-SLi. You're forgetting that Dual-dualcore SLi isn't the same as Quad-SLi--you have a lot less memory to work with.


For gaming, LCDs have a lot of problems.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]1) I've seen benchmarks--the Prescott does fine. You are just making this up, or the article you got it from is wrong on oh so many levels.

2) There are already games that support the PhysX card out.

3) http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_pentium_4_660_3.73ee/page8.asp[/QUOTE]


1) http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/reviews/article/1787/

2) What?!

3) Each of those benchmarks shows that a 3800+ winning over the P4 3.73 Ghz EE. We're talking about almost equal performance, but the price disparity favor's AMD heavily. (200$ vs 1000$ for the EE)

4) This isn't really impressive. The hardware is, but any idiot can put together 8000$ worth of system. For a lot better and cheaper too.




How can you say this when no game is built from the ground up with 64bit in mind? We don't have much way of knowing.




Wait- you like Dell for paying manufactures lots of money for delaying hardware that we could have otherwise got our hand on earlier?

1) Having never seen benchmarks from there, I can't say much about the validity there. But they're still pretty close (especially considering the FX-55 is basically an overclockable 4000+ or 4200+).

2) Yeah, the 3800+ does win--but not by much. At 5.2ghz I'm SURE the P4 could beat it.

3) Yeah...there's games on that list that are already out (City of Villains anyone?)

4) You CAN'T build this computer though. And it IS impressive. You're just being an annoying, snobbish little kid who thinks he knows better.

5) If you had read my posts Obi, I said that right now, RIGHT NOW, 64-bit poses absolutely no advantage for gamers. But to expound upon that, it probably won't anytime soon either--developers are likely to stick with 32-bit for a while. It's the most popular format, and doesn't look to be getting overthrown anytime soon, not to mention even though 64-bit apps don't work on 32-bit processors, 32-bit apps do work on 64-bit processors because of the backwards compatibility built into them.

I just want the hand painted Mike Lavallee flame job.. best in the buisness.. that by it self is worth alot of $$$

Eh...Falcon Northwest has better ones most of the time. And VooDoo PC. They really do have some amazing paint jobs. Too bad they can cost upwards of 5000 dollars just for the paint.

Mike Lavallee's work is amazing.. he's one of the best air brush artists I've seen.

same here.

For those saying that LCDs can't stand up to CRTs for gaming..your LCD experience must suck. A nice LCD is awesome...but then again, some of us do appreciate having a little desk space left over too. :p

I don't see how anyone could dislike a 30" widescreen..

No, they really ARE inferior. There's anywhere from a 15-100 ms display lag on LCDs. I'm not talking about refresh rate, I'm talking about actual display lag. They're worse for online gaming.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]No, they really ARE inferior. There's anywhere from a 15-100 ms display lag on LCDs. I'm not talking about refresh rate, I'm talking about actual display lag. They're worse for online gaming.[/QUOTE]

Show me any modern LCD that has a 100ms response time. Mine has 16ms, and there are plenty out that are under that.

How is online gaming any different than offline, anyway? I'd bet that your monitor really doesn't care.

Did I miss something? What is the point of this?

I didn't say response time. I said Display Lag. There's a difference. And online is different because when you're online, you notice a difference between 50 and 100ms pings, 100 and 200 ms pings. Add another 50ms on for your display lag and it seems even worse.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]I didn't say response time. I said Display Lag. There's a difference. And online is different because when you're online, you notice a difference between 50 and 100ms pings, 100 and 200 ms pings. Add another 50ms on for your display lag and it seems even worse.[/QUOTE]

So what's the difference between response time and "display lag", then?

/me kicks KnightRider2000 and Yoshi in the c***s

The information travels more slowly to the monitor, or the monitor processes it more slowly, something like that. Nobody knows exactly what causes it, but it's been documented on many LCD monitors, albeit to differing degrees. Response time is just how long it takes the pixels of liquid crystal to change from a certain color to a certain color and back. Usually black to black, or gray to gray.

This thread is stupid.

ePenis lenght

Any display lag between the receiving of the signal by the LCD and the actual displaying of the image is going to be TINY at best in comparison to other factors like the ping and response time, 1-2ms at most.

It may well be a problem that has been documented but in all honesty when put it against the lag of TCP/IP overhead and general ping fluctuations its going to be hardly noticeable.

K, I could be wrong, but LCD's have come a long long way in the past couple of years, once you get an LCD with an average response time of ~10ms or less (remember this is black to white, in most situations in games you won't have such big contrast in colour happening very often) you aren't going to notice the different in "lag" between a CRT and an LCD.

yeah there are LCD's out there now which aren't good for fast FPS gaming, mainly anything larger than 20" but just quickly browse the 19" and 17" section of LCD's, the average response time of ALL models is very likely to be under 10ms. Bar Dell who like to be VERY conservative on their ratings.

I went from a rather crappy 15" LCD that came with my computer to a Samsung 172x, with a stated response time of 8ms. I've switched between using a 21" CRT and 17" LCD and I honestly can not tell the difference, neither can 2 of my friends, one of which is still a VERY avid quake 3 player (cough*strafe jumping arsehole* :p) who has used a 24" CRT all his life.

Anyways, point is, unless you have eyes like no other human being that I know, you really must be high on caffeine to notice the difference.

This is going to end up being a situation where people are going to have to agree to disagree but I've done a lot of gaming in my time, mostly FPS, and I'm never going back to a CRT.

Well put, Admiral.

I have been very successful gaming with a laptop LCD screen. 10ms is going to make very little difference, guys, in any case. 10ms is such a small time span, and your internet connection varies between every player you oppose, and probably by at least 10ms. But who complains about that increase in ping? 10ms?

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]What does that do for "gaming rigs" though.[/QUOTE]

(Sorry it took long to respond, had to go to work.)

Online games run on servers. Granted there isn't MUCH difference between 32 and 64-bit when playing single player, HOWEVER their is vast improvement, when you connect between more people.

Try host an online game with your 32-bit processor. I gurantee, the more traffic you get, the more you'll see a difference hosting wth a 64-bit helps.

The more people it is, the more 64-bit power comes in handy. It's a basic fact, that's why Google uses it. The more demand, the more difference you see between the two type of CPUs. At some point Google figured out that a 64-bit processor was needed to handle a higher demand of web traffic, thus they switched to AMD 64-bit servers.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]No, they really ARE inferior. There's anywhere from a 15-100 ms display lag on LCDs. I'm not talking about refresh rate, I'm talking about actual display lag. They're worse for online gaming.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's why the best selling video game console ever was the Gameboy Advance, and that's why the Nintendo DS and the PSP are so horrible.

I'm hung like an iHorse.

And what does a server have to do with gaming? -good- servers are dedicated, meaning that you dont PLAY the game while its being hosted anyway. Servers != gaming machines. Hosting a game and playing it are entirely different.. Just because something is 64 bit doesnt mean it will outperform any 32 bit processer available.

KnightRider2000, you have no idea what you're talking about.

You meant to tell me you've NEVER hosted a game on your PC? I know I have, and I can tell you, 64-bit CPUs make so much more of a difference.

KnightRider, you act like such a perfect salesman...you're PERFECT for the job. Seriously, consider it. And to quote Tommy Boy..."He could sell a ketchup popscicle to a woman in white gloves."

[QUOTE=James Bond]stuff[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about response time. I'm talking abothat have to do with gamers again? I'm talking about for actual gaming computers. You changed the subject to servers. Servers are not the computers you play games on.

I'm not talking about response time. I'm talking about something NEW--display lag. No offense, but you guys really aren't getting this through your head. Let me find a good source.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1026393


Wow. You really don't know what you're talking about.


There's a difference between being optimistic about new technologies, and realizing that you've hit the effective limit as far as things go. Processors as they are will never reach more than 5GHz with complete stability by the producer. Intel and AMD both admit this. There's a point for diminishing returns for everything. You can't grasp this concept, and instead keep running your head into the wall of "HEY BE OPEN MINDED". I lump people like you in the same group as I lump people that say Hitler wasn't that bad of a guy in his own mind--the kind that have good intentions, yet also have no idea what they're talking about.