|
|
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21306 |  sbuckler (50) Feb 20, 2009 - 11:27 am » Edited on Feb 20, 2009 - 11:28 am
| » Give it a year and this should be very good
In a years time I expect:
a) they will bring out a mk 2 version of the glasses which will be both better and cheaper.
b) 120Hz displays will start to become standard for gamers - irrespective of 3d vision 120hz displays will be great for gamers. They will become a key selling point.
c) the availability of hardware for devs to test on + nvidia's TWIMTBP will mean new games will support 3d vision properly. Unlike physx it seems pretty easy to add support to a game.
The only downside is it won't work with ati hardware :( Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21261 | sbuckler (50) Feb 10, 2009 - 03:08 am
| But I don't want to have to spend > $100 on a mix amp if my sound card can do the mix for me. Why output DD5.1 to a box that then applies effects to make stereo headphones (which is what A40 has) sound like 5.1 when my sound card could already do that.
Also I don't care if it's "really" Dolby Digital, what I want is 3d audio positioning in my games, I don't care how it's done, but the winner is the one that does it best. Hence my original request to compare to the most common gaming sound card - the creative Xfi. If start up L4D and can't tell whether it's the A40 mix amp, or the Xfi CMSS3D then why should I buy the mix amp?
Remember too the A40 headphones are not meant to be as good as equivalently priced audiophile ones ... Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21261 | sbuckler (50) Feb 09, 2009 - 08:44 am
| » Why did you not compare to Xfi sound card?
Xfi does 3d spatial sound using stereo headphones (using the CMSS 3D option). Which is better? Can you tell the difference?
Obviously PC buyers with an Xfi could save a fortune and get better sound quality by just getting some decent quality and better sounding sennheisers. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21150 | sbuckler (50) Jan 08, 2009 - 04:23 am » Edited on Jan 08, 2009 - 04:24 am
| There is some truth - lots of desktop's jobs have been replaced by smaller, more efficient devices. To your average non techy family who just do a bit of web surfing and word processing a laptop works fine and saves lots of space. If you want to game you use your Wii. If you want media storage you buy a NAS, if you want to instant message you use your phone, etc.
A desktop is really only for the "power" user these days. That's not to say that the desktop is going to die out any time soon as there are a lot of power users. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21146 | sbuckler (50) Jan 07, 2009 - 05:12 am
| Not particularly shocking - going down to 40nm if they'd kept the chip the same physical size as a 65nm 280 GTX they could have produced a chip with many more processors.
In fact the chip is very small for an nvidia high end gpu. The 256-bit memory also makes for a much simpler board, so in theory it should be cheap to make, and not have silly power requirements. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21117 | sbuckler (50) Dec 18, 2008 - 12:01 pm
| » Power level servers ruin it
Adding to your local stats complaint they stupidly allowed admins to decide how many points you get for a kill. This has lead to half the populated server list being "power level" servers where you get 4000 points a kill (i.e you will reach max level after about 35 kills).
Anyway completely ruins the level up experience as everyone is lvl 65 after about 10 mins. Real shame as they had added prestige for the PC too (if you can be bothered you can get lvl 10 prestige in a couple of hours).
Oh and the respawn locations are utterly appalling - you will randomly respawn right in the middle of large groups of enemies. This completely ruins tactics of trying to defend a spot or carefully clear and advance through enemy positions, because at any moment they could respawn directly behind you and shoot you in the back.
Other then that it's quite a good game - like COD 4 but with a number of the most annoying bits tweaked (e.g. dogs > heli, martyrdom no longer so effective, etc). Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21095 | sbuckler (50) Dec 11, 2008 - 03:24 am » Edited on Dec 11, 2008 - 03:34 am
| » Where are the 4850's in Xfire for comparison (preferably 512 and 1 gig versions)?
You are missing the most obvious comparison of all. If 2*4850 in Xfire perform as well as the 4850 X2, then you could use two of them instead which would overcome your noise problems (as they often come with low-noise custom fans). If the 4870 X2 is anything to go by chances are 2*4850 will be cheaper then a 4850 X2 as well. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20988 | sbuckler (50) Nov 10, 2008 - 08:38 am
| Obviously the engine is tuned for consoles so it'll look the same (but at higher res/aa/af) on a pc.
However I don't think it's just that. If you want to sell a lot of games you've got to set achievable hardware requirements. If they upped the graphics so it didn't run on high on an 8800GT, or at all on a laptop with a mid range gpu then they cut their potential sales massively.
Crysis suffered from this - I am an enthusiast and I still haven't bought it because I *only* have an 8800GT, and when I play that game I want to play it on ultra high settings, so that game can wait till I upgrade my graphics next year. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20897 | sbuckler (50) Oct 03, 2008 - 02:42 am
| I hear both nvidia and ati will release their next gen cards @ 40nm sometime middle-late next year. I expect both will be DX11.
Between then and now there's going to be a 55nm version of the 260/280. I would have thought it'll be out in the next few months. It's obviously going to be a little quicker then the current cards. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20888 | sbuckler (50) Oct 01, 2008 - 07:42 am
| They are still smarting because ut3 didn't sell like they wanted it too. Nothing to do with piracy - new people just didn't want to play the game, and they then did a great job of p**sing off all the hard core fans - so they stopped playing too.
Their response has been "stuff the pc". Well EPIC stuff you. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20787 | sbuckler (50) Aug 22, 2008 - 03:56 am
| Personally I am seriously considering physx. It's easy for me as I already have an 8800GT (which would be great for physx) and a motherboard with two 16* slots. While I could buy a 4870 to replace the 8800GT, I loose any chance of doing physx. If I buy a 260 I don't. If the performance is similar I will buy a 260 and future proof myself.
However currently there is no need for the 260 - 8800GT still does fine in all the games I play so I will wait.
If I do buy a 260 it'll be after they reduce it to 55nm, up the clocks a bit, and sounds like add an extra cluster (i.e. exactly they same thing they did to create the 8800GT). Sounds like that card will be out in the Autumn. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20739 | sbuckler (50) Aug 06, 2008 - 10:37 am
| » 4870 + 8800GT?
So did you manage to setup a 4870 for graphics and something like an 8800GT to do physx?
This I would have thought would be something lots of people would want to know, being as many have an 8800GT and are thinking about getting a 4870. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20596 | sbuckler (50) Jun 25, 2008 - 09:03 am
| » Xfire uses too much power
Great cards, only downside is power usage. You say xfire them but when one 4870 uses more power then 2*8800GT in sli, with two we are talking silly power usage. Even two 4850's is excessive (i.e. more then most peoples power supplies will comfortably handle). Hence you've got to factor in an expensive new high power psu and big electric bills to any budget xfire dreams. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=14387 | sbuckler (50) Feb 27, 2007 - 08:01 am
| | Biggest problem with MMORPG's is they eat your life - that south park WoW episode was too close to the truth. I play ut2004 online - it has the massive advantage that you can play for short periods of time, and don't have to play night and day to get a *good* character. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=14351 | sbuckler (50) Feb 16, 2007 - 07:56 am » Edited on Feb 16, 2007 - 08:05 am
| Well it's showing a bit of amd bias:
1) The comment that quad core FX70 setup is cheapest quad core setup going. It isn't even correct in theory because the figures on your first page make the Q6600 $1 cheaper. Sure you could get a better motherboard for the Q6600 upping the cost a bit but the costs are still close enough to not matter much. If cost is the driving factor you should probably account for the cheaper running costs of the Q6600, the fact it only needs 1 after market heatsync not too, a smaller power supply, etc. Hence I think it's fair to say costs are similar.
2) Having said they are competing you then show overclock results for the FX70 but not for the Q6600 - why not o/c that one too? Flag this | Edit this post |
|
|
|
|
