The Glade 4.0

$89 card.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6814150474

F Geforce crap.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Well, like I said, I just clicked something on the first page that I knew would work, and I know from experience a 9800 will handle any game on the market just fine. =) With the card you linked though, looks like I could trim the PSU to 400watt (probably for the 9800 too, IIRC I ran a 450 watt PSU with a 9800 for a long time). There's lots of room to trim the cost down while keeping the performance up.

True dat

Or, for $20 more,
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6814102869

Which is what I would do.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

gtx 290 or BUST.

No thank you.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... -_-Product

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I meant the gtx295, which is better than your link, at least in benchmarks.

Sure, put a 2g card up against a 1g card. :p

Well, a 1.8g card... that's still retardedly expensive.

$550+ vs $350 is a huge price advantage.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

There's a guy I work with, who is putting 2 5970's in his machine Crossfire, and says he's keeping his 4850x2 in there for physics processing. Which is just absurd, there's nothing out there that will even take advantage of that yet lol.

I mean, even Taly's "minimum" system is way overkill for the vast majority of games out there right now, and probably will be for some time.

I'm afraid your quite wrong, Coren. The majority of games are and have been CPU limited since the GTX-260 Core 216 NVidia cards. Consequently, the only CPUs not holding games back are in more expensive than your value box.

_________________

I guess I just have a different opinion on what's limited I guess. I know technically you're right, but when a box will handle a game, let it run well and smoothly...beyond that is what I referred to as "overkill", and I stand by that statement.

But then, I've gotten an Athlon X2, with an 8600gt, to run 2 copies of LotRO at once at 720p maintaining 30fps, and thatsystem was *way* below that "value box".

Coren:

Except, even when paired with a GTX-295 a C2-Q6600 is insufficient keep WoW at 60 fps at any resolution higher than 1024x768; I think you serious underestimate how CPU limited more recent iterations of DX happen to be. DX10 is, in point of fact, a step backwards in terms of processing priority over DX9 for that reason. That said, my definition of running well is 60 fps at 1680x1050 with 4x AA, 8x AF, and vsync. That's not overkill; that's smooth and functional.

_________________

We just have different definitions of overkill then. I'll stick to mine because it works for me. (For one, I generally play at 1920x1080 unless 2 boxing, with no AA because I don't like how it looks, and while 60fps is nice, as long as it NEVER drops below 30, I'm happy.)



Not at all, I'm *quite* aware. It just wasn't relevant to my point. =)

Actually, bad choice of words; didn't mean irrelevant, just meant it doesn't affect my point.

My machine doesn't drop below 90fps in Mass Effect 2 at 1920x1080 (when tweaking it to let it go past the locked 60whatever fps for benchmarking). Ber's old PC that he left when he moved to the east coast can still maintain over 30, and it's well below Taly's minimum computer. Haven't bothered to benchmark Bioshock 2 yet, but I know I keep a solid 60fps, and am sure it can go much higher.

Edit: To finish the post fast since I've been getting interrupted hardcore...most people I know are quite happy with the 1280x720 that most console games play at these days, so for them even playing at 1680x1050 would be overkill - they wouldn't notice any benefit. (Though AA is a lot more important at that res, just for clarification because of what I said about AA above). The "value box" I outlined above would have little trouble keeping up with the vast majority of games at a level exceeding what a PS3/360 could do, which is kinda what I had in mind when I used the word "overkill" above.

Then will you all please suggest to me what you consider the three best RPGs for console only, and the three best strategy games for console only, so I can judge for myself.

First off, you say that "today I load up bg2"... are you saying you just happened to "load up" BG2 right when I posted this? What a coincidence! Because that's what it sounds like. Please tell me you're not that bad a liar. But if you just mean hypothetically, in order to engage in some argument, fine.

Moving on, you say you're annoyed by the "arcane rules". I think you mean a complexity of variables and interactivity that you simply don't see in games today. That would pretty much exclude all that the RPGs of today are built on, the D&D gaming system. Well okay, if you wish to dismiss all of that as too "arcane" to follow along with, that's your right, I'd say that's the exact problem, you want a simpler system, so that's exactly what we've been given today.

And an easily broken combat? Please explain. And if you're talking about bugs that were fixed with later mods, well yeah, that's what happens when you're actually ambitious and try to create a complex game...oh and also a game that has far superior and mature dialogue than the trite and juvenile posturing you get from almost every game today. I can provide examples if you wish.

Wow, and here I thought I wasn't in Hellfire.

I find that I am uninterested in continuing this argument if I'm going to be called a liar. Good day, folks.

_________________


Grenade 3 Sports Drink. It's fire in the hole.. Your hole!

Oh, one more thing just occurred to me.. Show me a game that competes with Shattered Horizon graphically on a console, rendering at 1080p, and I'll eat my hat.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

The PC is much better for turn based and strategy games, conversely I prefer console for sports, action, and FPSs.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Console RPGs vs PC RPGs is definitely apples and oranges. You can probably find some that share attributes of both, but overall they're different types of games. Variety is a good thing, so I'm happy for that. I would be a very sad person if the next game out of Atlus was a Bioware type game, and I wouldn't go so far as to call one "better" anymore than I would call a soccer game better.

I'm definitely on the console side when it comes to hardware issues, though. This in despite of the fact that consoles have been less and less reliable as time goes on, Nintendo aside. I made a pseudomistake in getting a Dell awhile ago. The computer actually was not that bad. It was purchased years ago and I'm still using it, and I was very happy with it for a year or two. It just lacks significantly in the upgradability department. Now I bottom out around 3 fps at 1280x720 when pushing WoW to its limits (generally 25 man raids, in the first minute or so of a fight). Does not make me happy with PCs! :p I suppose it is soon time for a new one...

I was thinking this last night. It's hard to even categorize Western RPGs and Eastern RPGs under the same "RPG" umbrella.

_________________
Los Angeles Kings 2014 Stanley Cup Champions

"I love this **** team right here."
-Jonathan Quick

Hence my statement that "JRPGs", well, are not [RPGs]. It wasn't meant as derogatory, or to imply that western RPGs are better than JRPGs, just that JRPGs aren't my taste and are entirely different things, and that I therefore feel the "RPG" portion is a misnomer.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Actually this was exactly the point I was making about the PC. The fact that my home PC plays games is only a portion of what it is used for. I often have to work from home and while I can use a work issued laptop, I much prefer using my full keyboard mouse and monitor set-up (yes, I know I could hook all that up to the laptop, but work won't issue any of that to me).

Also, when looking at console gaming, besides the video interface, you should also be adding in all the extra controlers, motion sensors, video pick-up, extra batteries, console remotes, add-ons, as well as the price of all the addtional consoles you are supporting (the PS3 and the Xbox and the Wii and the PS2 and the Sega and the Dreamcast, etc...., whatever still gets used) because they are needed to play the different games, while you can play all your PC games on your ("must always be kept new") PC machine.

My point is, if you are going to ignore the other reasons for buying a PC and tack that onto the price, then tack on all the other prices associated with console gaming needs. Again, this supports what I said from the start, there is no disinct price difference between PC vs console if you compare evenly (as a whole or game by game).


P.S. Darn I missed a lot of dialog last night, too much going on and needed sleep.

_________________
Gorse

While this is true, the gaming portion of a PC expense is about an extra $700-900 minimum. You can get a PC for everything else for $300-400 easily.

You can't get a PS3 cheaper if you just want a mediacenter. Hell, you can't really get a standalone media center cheaper than a PS3...

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

[Two additional posts removed by poster.]

I'll just leave it that we disagree.

_________________
Gorse

All you need beyond the cheap box for PC gaming is a $100 Radeon 4850 (which is 2, maybe 3, generations newer than the hardware in consoles). Onboard sound is fine, any mid-range dual core processor is fine, and about 250 GB of hard drive space would let you keep a dozen games installed at any one time (unless they are all MMOs).

My laptop has equal or worse specs (except 500 GB hard drive) and plays Dragon Age, LotRO, and ST:O just fine at 1600x900 at mid level graphics settings.

It probably would suck at CPU intensive games like flight sims, but for most games it's just fine.