rimnet00's comments

Avatar image for rimnet00
rimnet00

11003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

104

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Edited By rimnet00

jrotc_redneck: No, the 360 uses a processor called the Xenon which is based on the PowerPC architecture by Intel... very similar to processors found on the PC. The Cell is a completely different beast, and is only found *commercially* in PS3s.

Avatar image for rimnet00
rimnet00

11003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

104

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Edited By rimnet00

pudgeman007: Why are you even bringing up the Cell? The cell is based on a distributed computing architecture... which most programmers have never done in their lives. In a market, where software engineers are few, the chance of finding a good programmer who is willing to focus on this kind of programming is rare. That is why the Cell will not be mainstream, as the cost for hiring programmers for it is extremely expensive.

Avatar image for rimnet00
rimnet00

11003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

104

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Edited By rimnet00

I just used the Crysis Graphics benchmark and got 38fps on High @ 1600x1200 settings under Vista 64. 20fps on Very High. This is with one 8800gts 640 oc'ed to 650/1000. I'm sorry, but if he is getting 30fps, on High settings, with a 8800 gtx... something is wrong.

Avatar image for rimnet00
rimnet00

11003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

104

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Edited By rimnet00

@boratman: The reason that you see most large LCD monitors at 1920x1200 is because that is the "standard" HD resolution (1080p is 1920x1080 at 16:9, while LCDs have a 16:10 perspective). Since many bigger monitors are made with other input sources in mind, specifically HD Sources (xbox 360, blu ray player, etc), it makes sense to use that resolution. This is to avoid having to upscale, which can and will cause image distortion. Note, that this upscaling is a lot worse then upscaling found in DVD players.

Avatar image for rimnet00
rimnet00

11003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

104

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Edited By rimnet00

@kave-man007: Gamers who grew up and now have full time jobs =) Remember, not all of us are in high school or college. I just graduated and still a huge gamer. The only difference is my pockets have grown :P

Avatar image for rimnet00
rimnet00

11003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

104

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Edited By rimnet00

@maxaitor - In regard to all your pots as a whole. Great job dude, and appreciate you calling out the kid who called shanagans on my bottleneck claim earlier. I just wanted to note that I think SLI is very useful for those who are running higher then 1600x1200 resolutions. I have a 24in LCD, with a native resolution of 1920x1200, and there is a noticeable difference when doing benchmarks at that resolution. It is also noticeable in STALKER. However, I do agree that SLI is not necessarily, it is definitely a luxury. In fact, I recommend people to get the 8800gtx over the 8800gts SLI due to better scaling long term. The only reason I picked up SLI is due to eVGA's stepup program, which allows me to upgrade at price difference in 90 days - at which point I'm going to be going 8800ultra SLI for minimum price =).

Avatar image for rimnet00
rimnet00

11003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

104

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Edited By rimnet00

@micahk - Clearly they needed to mention it in there article when people such as yourself don't even realize it. There have been numerous benchmarks that have been conducted that show that even a single 8800gtx will be bottlenecked by a C2D until it reaches 3.4ghz. This difference is especially noticeable with SLI, which is precisely where my concern lied. I'll iterate it once again; it is obvious that a bottleneck is occurring from the 3DMark scores. The scores hit a wall at 13000 points! Look, even the 320mb 8800 beats the 640mb one.

Avatar image for rimnet00
rimnet00

11003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

104

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Edited By rimnet00

thinkfootball: The "medium" settings of new PC Games look better in quality then 360/PS3 games now. Also, good FPS on a PC is 60fps versus 30fps that you see on 360/PS3 titles. Now, of course if you were to do a price vs performance roundup with the 360/PS3 vs the PC, with all the supported video cards of this year's games, you would find the consoles fall somewhere in between. The reason for this is, you can go to the store and buy your self a 7 series or EVEN a 6 series Nvidia card and play these new games. I could go on and on about why this hardware is way more expensive, but I'm going to save my trouble, because if you really want to know you could look it up. Oh, and if you think I am being biased, you should look at my profile. I'm not exactly a PC-only gamer ;)

Avatar image for rimnet00
rimnet00

11003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

104

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Edited By rimnet00

Just like Poshkidney said, unless you see it for yourself you won't understand the difference. I beat Lost Planet on the 360 when it first came out and only downloaded the demo to benchmark my computer. Well, let me tell you, its like night and day how amazing the DX10 version of this game is. It simply jaw dropping.