Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

For PC gamers

7,322 replies to this topic
Fnorg
  • Fnorg

    OG

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2008
  • None

#61

Posted 18 June 2008 - 05:04 PM

QUOTE (VinnyGouveia @ Jun 18 2008, 08:18)
Heh, first, the enviroment is more massive than the one of crysis, and euphoria takes a whole ammount of memory, together with the Real-time damage. And the graphics are better than Crysis, so you'll need a f*cking awesome PC to run GTAIV.

Also, the game is not even announced for PC, so why the hell would you want to make a thread already?

Yes. A PC better than an Xbox. Just about any new PC. Xboxseses are weak, face it. Graphics are soo much worse than Crysis, you're either sarcastic (I can't tell), dumb or a fanboy (the latter two are about the same thing). We've had these kinds of graphics since '04 (Source engine) and GTA IV is perhaps a little better.

QUOTE (JamesHarris135 @ Jun 18 2008, 08:38)
anyone got any infomation on when Battlefield 3 is going to be released, if ever. (and no, im not talking about battlefield heroes)

Never heard of it. Still excited about BF:H.

jelly
  • jelly

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2002

#62

Posted 18 June 2008 - 05:11 PM

QUOTE (VinnyGouveia @ Jun 18 2008, 17:18)
Heh, first, the enviroment is more massive than the one of crysis, and euphoria takes a whole ammount of memory, together with the Real-time damage. And the graphics are better than Crysis, so you'll need a f*cking awesome PC to run GTAIV.

Also, the game is not even announced for PC, so why the hell would you want to make a thread already?

That's just ignorant.

Firstly, yes, the environment is larger but so was San Andreas. CryENGINE2 scales to 2 kilometers of view distance.. Euphoria, it's just a physics engine. We've had those for years. PhysX, Havok, and so on. There's nothing new about it and it'll run just fine. The graphics are not better than Crysis (or any other recent, actual PC game). It's a regular, low-res textured console game. Try to look at some comparison shots before you speak.

You won't need a 'f*cking awesome' PC to run IV. Come on, the consoles' specs were finalized in 2005, hardware-wise they were outdated on release day, listen to yourself!

Go look at the specs needed for Mass Effect, to get an idea of what will be needed. Not to mention that Mass Effect has been improved graphically for the PC and runs at higher resolutions.

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#63

Posted 18 June 2008 - 05:26 PM

Wait - Vinny was serious?!?!?!

GTA4 has better graphics than Crysis? I'm actually laughing over here.

jelly
  • jelly

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2002

#64

Posted 18 June 2008 - 05:34 PM

QUOTE (Otter @ Jun 18 2008, 18:26)
Wait - Vinny was serious?!?!?!

GTA4 has better graphics than Crysis? I'm actually laughing over here.

How should I know? You hear so much silly about the consoles every day that I'm not surprised.

JamesHarris135
  • JamesHarris135

    La-Li-Lu-Le-Lo

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2004

#65

Posted 18 June 2008 - 05:42 PM

crysis is the best looking game ever created, although IMO its not that great a game

thastrogg
  • thastrogg

    PC GAMER And A Strogg?

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 May 2008

#66

Posted 18 June 2008 - 06:23 PM

QUOTE (VinnyGouveia @ Jun 18 2008, 18:18)
Heh, first, the enviroment is more massive than the one of crysis, and euphoria takes a whole ammount of memory, together with the Real-time damage. And the graphics are better than Crysis, so you'll need a f*cking awesome PC to run GTAIV.

Also, the game is not even announced for PC, so why the hell would you want to make a thread already?

Hah

A console kiddo enters a for pc gamers thread without knowing sh*t about pc´s´

biggrin.gif biggrin.gif i just find it very funny

matthew1g
  • matthew1g

    Trust me, I'm a pipe smoker

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2005

#67

Posted 18 June 2008 - 06:34 PM

QUOTE
A flat CRT? Wow.  wow.gif wow.gif Well, anything above 1280x720 is HD, so that shouldn't be hard to reach. PC monitors have had it for ages.



pretty much what the dude below you said.. it's a 7 y.o

user posted image


is pretty much what I have.. but It does 1600x1200 and the colours are still somewhat vibrant, although somewhat blurrier compared to the 19" TFT I use for viewing dvds and such.

Fnorg
  • Fnorg

    OG

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2008
  • None

#68

Posted 18 June 2008 - 06:42 PM

QUOTE (matthew1g @ Jun 18 2008, 10:34)
QUOTE
A flat CRT? Wow.  wow.gif wow.gif Well, anything above 1280x720 is HD, so that shouldn't be hard to reach. PC monitors have had it for ages.



pretty much what the dude below you said.. it's a 7 y.o

user posted image


is pretty much what I have.. but It does 1600x1200 and the colours are still somewhat vibrant, although somewhat blurrier compared to the 19" TFT I use for viewing dvds and such.

Neat. Didn't know they existed.

VinnyGouveia
  • VinnyGouveia

    Back to Los Santos

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2006

#69

Posted 18 June 2008 - 07:03 PM

Ok, ok, ok, ok, I f*cked up. I recognize the error (not that it will make any better to the situation, but screw it).

But still, the game will need a big amount of both Video and RAM memory. It's not like the game will run in 128MB in video memory and 1GB of RAM. I think it will need 1.5GB minimum, or 2GB for vista (everyone adds 512MB for vista), and also a card with 256MB(or even more) video memory, wich isn't that much, I know. What makes me think of a "f*cking awesome PC" is that it will need a card with Pixel Shader 4.0 . It's the new trend to get money out of the gamer wallets. Even if the game don't uses a lot of lightining that can be considered "DX10 level", it won't be able to run in chipsets that aren't better than Nvidia's 8 series and ATI's Radeon equivalent and those cards are still expensive. Another thing I would talk about would be the processor, but since I don't know much about those, and I don't want to f*ck myself up more than I did with my statement (wich I did research after the post and saw it was false[remember kids, that's not what you want to do in the forums]).

I know, it may sound like utter bullsh*t, but I tried to give it a shot to explain myself.

@Gronf, otter, jallar and all the other people that actually quoted me: Ok, I was a little dumb in my post, so yeah, sorry. Won't post sh*t without researching ever again.

jelly
  • jelly

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2002

#70

Posted 18 June 2008 - 07:19 PM

The PS3 has a 256MB frame buffer and 256MB of main system memory, the 360 has 512MB shared system memory and a 10MB frame buffer - what makes you think it won't run on a PC with 1GB of main system memory?

Besides, DDR2 is so cheap nowadays that there's no reason to not have 2GB installed, and even 4GB should be interesting for most people.

Here are some system requirements for the PC version of Mass Effect, which in my opinion is a quite good looking game (although people say it stutters on the Xbox, I don't know):

Minimum System Requirements:
Operating System:
Windows XP or Vista
Processor:
2.4+GHZ Intel or 2.0+GHZ AMD
Memory:
1 Gigabyte Ram (XP)
2 Gigabyte Ram (Vista)
Video Card:
NVIDIA GeForce 6 series(6800GT or better)
ATI 1300XT or better (X1550, X1600 Pro and HD2400 are below minimum system requirements)

Hard Drive Space:
12 Gigabytes
Sound Card:
DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card and drivers

Recommended System Requirements:
Operating System:
Windows XP or Vista
Processor:
2.6+GHZ Intel or 2.4+GHZ AMD
Memory:
2 Gigabyte Ram
Video Card:
NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX or higher.
ATI X1800 XL series or higher

Hard Drive Space:
12 Gigabytes
Sound Card:
DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card and drivers – 5.1 sound card recommended

QUOTE
Even if the game don't uses a lot of lightining that can be considered "DX10 level", it won't be able to run in chipsets that aren't better than Nvidia's 8 series and ATI's Radeon equivalent and those cards are still expensive.

dozingoff.gif

matthew1g
  • matthew1g

    Trust me, I'm a pipe smoker

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2005

#71

Posted 18 June 2008 - 07:20 PM

........512mb Vram cards are standard for every pc gamer nowadays, so is 2gigs ram.. heck I use 2 gigs just surfing the internet and listening to music and chatting on vista. (4gigs ftw). the game only uses Ps 3.0. heck I don't think there's a game right now that even uses 4.

elanman
  • elanman

    Misanthropic lycanthrope

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 11 Apr 2007
  • None

#72

Posted 18 June 2008 - 07:26 PM

QUOTE (Gronf @ Jun 17 2008, 11:56)
You don't have to buy new hardware every six months. I could go out, get me an 8600GT and be set for the rest of the generation. Even if there's an 9800GTXXX out, my "old" 8600 beats the Xbox.

I wonder how long this generation's got left to "live".

You, my friend, make a lot of sense.

matthew1g
  • matthew1g

    Trust me, I'm a pipe smoker

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2005

#73

Posted 18 June 2008 - 07:32 PM

But why would you play a game at it's lowest and miss like 60% of the stuff you're meant to see, but can't because of the weak system? I mean seriously, the game is meant to be played at it's highest settings.

sure you may argue that gameplay is what counts yadda yadda.. but good graphics helps gameplay and the overall experience.

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    Boob groper

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#74

Posted 18 June 2008 - 07:49 PM

Its a sad thing that MGS4 wont be released for PC sad.gif Now when PCs are stronger than PS3 and when you can have a blu-ray reader on PC it would be a waste not to have MGS4 on PC, even though you might need one hell of a PC

SynTerro
  • SynTerro

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2008

#75

Posted 18 June 2008 - 08:00 PM

QUOTE (VinnyGouveia @ Jun 18 2008, 19:03)
Ok, ok, ok, ok, I f*cked up. I recognize the error (not that it will make any better to the situation, but screw it).

But still, the game will need a big amount of both Video and RAM memory. It's not like the game will run in 128MB in video memory and 1GB of RAM. I think it will need 1.5GB minimum, or 2GB for vista (everyone adds 512MB for vista), and also a card with 256MB(or even more) video memory, wich isn't that much, I know. What makes me think of a "f*cking awesome PC" is that it will need a card with Pixel Shader 4.0 . It's the new trend to get money out of the gamer wallets. Even if the game don't uses a lot of lightining that can be considered "DX10 level", it won't be able to run in chipsets that aren't better than Nvidia's 8 series and ATI's Radeon equivalent and those cards are still expensive. Another thing I would talk about would be the processor, but since I don't know much about those, and I don't want to f*ck myself up more than I did with my statement (wich I did research after the post and saw it was false[remember kids, that's not what you want to do in the forums]).

I know, it may sound like utter bullsh*t, but I tried to give it a shot to explain myself.

@Gronf, otter, jallar and all the other people that actually quoted me: Ok, I was a little dumb in my post, so yeah, sorry. Won't post sh*t without researching ever again.

1,5 GB recomended: is actually a good guess
256 MB Video memory: My 2003 video card has that and it was not expensive back then either.
Pixel shader 4: I thought Xbox only support Pixel shader 3.0, anyway I think Pixel shader 3 is more accurate guess.
DX10: Again xbox only support DX9 so why would PC version force in DX 10.
Nvidia 8 card or better: again I would say youre wrong. Lets say Pixel shader 3 is minimun, any card above GeForce 6 series, and Radeon R520 (X1300-X1950) supports that.

CharmingCharlie
  • CharmingCharlie

    Proud PC Gamer

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 May 2006

#76

Posted 18 June 2008 - 08:14 PM

QUOTE (matthew1g @ Jun 18 2008, 20:32)
But why would you play a game at it's lowest and miss like 60% of the stuff you're meant to see, but can't because of the weak system? I mean seriously, the game is meant to be played at it's highest settings.

sure you may argue that gameplay is what counts yadda yadda.. but good graphics helps gameplay and the overall experience.

but that is the thing, YOU WON'T. Every console port so far has played perfectly fine at max settings even on my lowly media server, which just consists of a C2D E6600 (£100), 2gbs Ram (£50) and a lowly 8600gt with 512mbs (£50). That system has so far played all console ports at 1280 x 720 and 25 - 30fps. Mass Effect the latest console port plays with IMPROVED graphics on this system at 1280 x 720 at 25 - 30fps with all graphic settings maxxed.

Now naturally if you are willing to spend a bit more money you will get a little bit of extra niceness. At the moment it is just increased resolution though. My gaming PC which is a quad with 8800gts can play all console ports at around 35 - 40fps @ 1680 x 1050.

If you are content to play GTA 4 at the same sort of resolutions as the console you DO NOT need to spend thousands on a system to do it, a simple outlay of £200 will do it easily. Obviously people don't know this hence we get crap in these threads like "omgz I can't afford to spend gazillion pounds on hardware that will be out of date in 4 months".

matthew1g
  • matthew1g

    Trust me, I'm a pipe smoker

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2005

#77

Posted 18 June 2008 - 09:06 PM

well I really don't know.. before this system I had these two:

Q66, asrock dual vsta crap, 2gb ddr2 667, 320megs 88GTS
p4 3.0ghz, 68xt 256meg AGP, 1gig ram

the p4 system could play games on high everything, just with AA and AF turned off for up to around beginning of 2007. I got the second system at around mid march last year. By november, the 320megs was being a big bottle neck, and forced me to play on medium-ish settings. I sold that system and got this one, which handles everything perfectly so far.

Depends what games are out I guess.

VinnyGouveia
  • VinnyGouveia

    Back to Los Santos

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2006

#78

Posted 18 June 2008 - 09:39 PM

QUOTE (SynTerro @ Jun 18 2008, 17:00)
Pixel shader 4: I thought Xbox only support Pixel shader 3.0, anyway I think Pixel shader 3 is more accurate guess.
DX10: Again xbox only support DX9 so why would PC version force in DX 10.
Nvidia 8 card or better: again I would say youre wrong. Lets say Pixel shader 3 is minimun, any card above GeForce 6 series, and Radeon R520 (X1300-X1950) supports that.

Yeah, Jallar already said to me. But, hey, if it is going to be like Mass Effect, it will get an graphical improvement so it can be better in the PC. Well, I atleast hope so.

Drunk Russian 9
  • Drunk Russian 9

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2007

#79

Posted 18 June 2008 - 10:08 PM Edited by Drunk Russian 9, 18 June 2008 - 10:17 PM.

QUOTE (jallar @ Jun 18 2008, 19:19)
Besides, DDR2 is so cheap nowadays that there's no reason to not have 2GB installed, and even 4GB should be interesting for most people.

Too bad beyond 3.25 gigs wont be reconized by the system unless you run 64 bit XP/Vista. Which Im sure everyone has sarcasm.gif

Besides, it doesnt make much difference. I would go out and buy DDR3 instead with those fancy heatsinks. Even games like Crysis only use 2 gig.

SynTerro
  • SynTerro

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2008

#80

Posted 18 June 2008 - 10:46 PM Edited by SynTerro, 18 June 2008 - 10:50 PM.

QUOTE (Drunk Russian 9 @ Jun 18 2008, 22:08)
QUOTE (jallar @ Jun 18 2008, 19:19)
Besides, DDR2 is so cheap nowadays that there's no reason to not have 2GB installed, and even 4GB should be interesting for most people.

Too bad beyond 3.25 gigs wont be reconized by the system unless you run 64 bit XP/Vista. Which Im sure everyone has sarcasm.gif

Besides, it doesnt make much difference. I would go out and buy DDR3 instead with those fancy heatsinks. Even games like Crysis only use 2 gig.

Is that true? 32 bits should theoreticly support 4294967296 bytes, while 64 should theoreticly support 1,84 Yottabytes

Edit: checked Wiki

QUOTE

The range of integer values that can be stored in 32 bits is 0 through 4,294,967,295 or −2,147,483,648 through 2,147,483,647 using two's complement encoding. Hence, a processor with 32-bit memory addresses can directly access 4 GB of byte-addressable memory.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32_bit

Drunk Russian 9
  • Drunk Russian 9

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2007

#81

Posted 18 June 2008 - 11:24 PM Edited by Drunk Russian 9, 18 June 2008 - 11:30 PM.

QUOTE
Microsoft Windows XP Professional, designed as a 32-bit OS, supports an address range of up to 4 GB for virtual memory addresses and up to 4 GB for physical memory addresses. Because the physical memory addresses are sub-divided to manage both the computer’s PCI memory address range (also known as MMIO) and RAM, the amount of available RAM is always less than 4 GB. The memory addresses starting down from 4 GB are used for things like the BIOS, IO cards, networking, PCI hubs, bus bridges, PCI-Express, and video/graphics cards. The BIOS takes up about 512 KB starting from the very top address. Then each of the other items mentioned are allocated address ranges below the BIOS range. The largest block of addresses is allocated for today’s high performance graphics cards which need addresses for at least the amount of memory on the graphics card. The net result is that a high performance x86-based computer may allocate 512 MB to more than 1 GB for the PCI memory address range before any RAM (physical user memory) addresses are allocated. RAM starts from address 0. The BIOS allocates RAM from 0 up to the bottom of the PCI memory addresses mentioned above, typically limiting available RAM to between 3 GB and 3.4 GB.


Nope

Also:
QUOTE
user posted image

Current system with 4 gigs of ram and a 8800GTX....Looks to make sense 768 megs off of 4 gigs gives me 3.25.


Also 2:Clicky

CharmingCharlie
  • CharmingCharlie

    Proud PC Gamer

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 May 2006

#82

Posted 18 June 2008 - 11:28 PM

QUOTE (SynTerro @ Jun 18 2008, 23:46)
QUOTE (Drunk Russian 9 @ Jun 18 2008, 22:08)
QUOTE (jallar @ Jun 18 2008, 19:19)
Besides, DDR2 is so cheap nowadays that there's no reason to not have 2GB installed, and even 4GB should be interesting for most people.

Too bad beyond 3.25 gigs wont be reconized by the system unless you run 64 bit XP/Vista. Which Im sure everyone has sarcasm.gif

Besides, it doesnt make much difference. I would go out and buy DDR3 instead with those fancy heatsinks. Even games like Crysis only use 2 gig.

Is that true? 32 bits should theoreticly support 4294967296 bytes, while 64 should theoreticly support 1,84 Yottabytes

Edit: checked Wiki

QUOTE

The range of integer values that can be stored in 32 bits is 0 through 4,294,967,295 or −2,147,483,648 through 2,147,483,647 using two's complement encoding. Hence, a processor with 32-bit memory addresses can directly access 4 GB of byte-addressable memory.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32_bit

Yeah but 32bit can access up to 4gbs of memory. But there is something you are forgetting Synterro sly.gif sly.gif your graphics card memory is included in that 4gbs. So if you have 4gbs of system ram and a 512mb card the 32bit OS will only see 3.5gbs of system ram and the 512mb on the graphics card.

matthew1g
  • matthew1g

    Trust me, I'm a pipe smoker

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2005

#83

Posted 19 June 2008 - 12:55 AM

funny.. I have 4 gigs and a 512 88gt and still:

user posted image

SynTerro
  • SynTerro

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2008

#84

Posted 19 June 2008 - 01:14 AM

QUOTE (CharmingCharlie @ Jun 18 2008, 23:28)
QUOTE (SynTerro @ Jun 18 2008, 23:46)
QUOTE (Drunk Russian 9 @ Jun 18 2008, 22:08)
QUOTE (jallar @ Jun 18 2008, 19:19)
Besides, DDR2 is so cheap nowadays that there's no reason to not have 2GB installed, and even 4GB should be interesting for most people.

Too bad beyond 3.25 gigs wont be reconized by the system unless you run 64 bit XP/Vista. Which Im sure everyone has sarcasm.gif

Besides, it doesnt make much difference. I would go out and buy DDR3 instead with those fancy heatsinks. Even games like Crysis only use 2 gig.

Is that true? 32 bits should theoreticly support 4294967296 bytes, while 64 should theoreticly support 1,84 Yottabytes

Edit: checked Wiki

QUOTE

The range of integer values that can be stored in 32 bits is 0 through 4,294,967,295 or −2,147,483,648 through 2,147,483,647 using two's complement encoding. Hence, a processor with 32-bit memory addresses can directly access 4 GB of byte-addressable memory.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32_bit

Yeah but 32bit can access up to 4gbs of memory. But there is something you are forgetting Synterro sly.gif sly.gif your graphics card memory is included in that 4gbs. So if you have 4gbs of system ram and a 512mb card the 32bit OS will only see 3.5gbs of system ram and the 512mb on the graphics card.

A problem I have yet to experience, thanks anyway. tounge.gif

jelly
  • jelly

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2002

#85

Posted 19 June 2008 - 01:20 AM

Time to step into the 21st century with x64 for some of you, I see. ph34r.gif

In any case, I see most of you are hardware enthusiasts here, so I'm going to shamelessly invite you to fold for our team here, either on the legacy CPU client or the immensely quick ATI and NVIDIA clients.

Any of you guys with a 2xxx/3xxx series ATI or 8xxx/9xxx series NVIDIA card should join up. Collectively we'll smash the dreams of every PS3 Cell fanboy out there!

matthew1g
  • matthew1g

    Trust me, I'm a pipe smoker

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2005

#86

Posted 19 June 2008 - 01:23 AM

QUOTE
Any of you guys with a 2xxx/3xxx series ATI or 8xxx/9xxx series NVIDIA card should join up. Collectively we'll smash the dreams of every PS3 Cell fanboy out there!



With pleasure..
Can you run both CPU and GPU based folds at the same time?

jelly
  • jelly

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2002

#87

Posted 19 June 2008 - 01:26 AM

QUOTE (matthew1g @ Jun 19 2008, 02:23)
QUOTE
Any of you guys with a 2xxx/3xxx series ATI or 8xxx/9xxx series NVIDIA card should join up. Collectively we'll smash the dreams of every PS3 Cell fanboy out there!



With pleasure..
Can you run both CPU and GPU based folds at the same time?

With older drivers the GPU is really CPU cycle hungry. With the newest 177.35 drivers (a modified .inf file is needed to make it work with older cards) it rarely uses more than 20% of one core, so I'd say it's possible.

Personally I won't risk the CPU cannibalizing my GPU points since the NVIDIA client is so ridiculously fast and my AMD is so ridiculously slow. tounge.gif

CharmingCharlie
  • CharmingCharlie

    Proud PC Gamer

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 May 2006

#88

Posted 19 June 2008 - 03:06 AM

QUOTE (jallar @ Jun 19 2008, 02:20)
Time to step into the 21st century with x64 for some of you, I see. ph34r.gif

Oh smartarse one tounge.gif as soon as there is any viable driver support for 64bit I might actually do it, till then I am not about to junk tons of hardware just because MS and hardware companies cannot be arsed to support 64bit. Maybe if MS had some guts and finally dumped 32bit with Vista we might be getting somewhere. You need at least a dual core processor to get any decent performance out of Vista anyway and I am not aware of any 32bit dual processors. I mean they aren't even bothering to ditch 32bit for Windows version 7 (just how moronic can MS actually get). So I will stick to the 32bit version for now at least it has semi-decent driver support. As for the memory issue, I can't see it being much of an issue for the majority of people. I have 3gbs in my gaming PC and it has yet to even use that, I think the biggest guzzler is Crysis which grabbed about 2.2gbs if memory served.

QUOTE (jallar @ Jun 19 2008, 02:20)
In any case, I see most of you are hardware enthusiasts here, so I'm going to shamelessly invite you to fold for our team here, either on the legacy CPU client or the immensely quick ATI and NVIDIA clients.

Any of you guys with a 2xxx/3xxx series ATI or 8xxx/9xxx series NVIDIA card should join up. Collectively we'll smash the dreams of every PS3 Cell fanboy out there!

I dunno jallar anyone would think the PC is the new PS3 ie sod all to play on it so we have to do folding@home to show off biggrin.gif biggrin.gif . I suppose it is good that we have this kind of thing to finally shut up the cell BE nuts but to be honest I would rather be shutting them up with games that show off the PC's power. As for recommending GPU over CPU I am not sure the folding@home team would thank you for that biggrin.gif . It is my understanding they actually prefer people to use the cpu client because it can handle more complexed molecules than the PS3 or GPU clients can (yeah you never hear the PS3 fanboys mentioning that do ya). So if you have a decently fast CPU and not an AMD like jallar you would do more for medical research by using the CPU client. Me personally I aint about to do a rich corrupt pharmaceutical companies job for them and I will restrict my PC's to playing kick ass games biggrin.gif

mkey82
  • mkey82

    Keep riding hard, son

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008

#89

Posted 19 June 2008 - 06:17 AM Edited by mkey82, 19 June 2008 - 08:30 AM.

QUOTE (matthew1g @ Jun 18 2008, 21:32)
But why would you play a game at it's lowest and miss like 60% of the stuff you're meant to see, but can't because of the weak system?

Money? Or lack of it? Also, please resize those images, as they make thread browsing painful biggrin.gif.

Upon arrival I thought we have been visited by our first troll, but I see it was only one misinformed soul that can be dealt with reason. Hence, not a troll smile.gif

QUOTE (CharmingCharlie @ Jun 19 2008, 05:06)
It is my understanding they actually prefer people to use the cpu client because it can handle more complexed molecules than the PS3 or GPU clients can (yeah you never hear the PS3 fanboys mentioning that do ya).

It's probably because they don't know. If they did, then we wouldn't have to deal with terms like "fanboy", "console whore" and such. Ah, imagine the world without fanboys.

user posted image biggrin.gif

I'll update the first post with some specs.

EDIT: A funny story about Mafia. I had this image http://games.tiscali...18&img=bngd.jpg on my desktop at work and when my boss was passing by, he said "what a nice Chevrolet" biggrin.gif. He didn't even understand it's a video game screenshot. And ideologically he's against video games (old school guy, what can I say) .

Fnorg
  • Fnorg

    OG

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2008
  • None

#90

Posted 19 June 2008 - 11:15 AM

QUOTE (mkey82 @ Jun 18 2008, 22:17)
EDIT: A funny story about Mafia. I had this image http://games.tiscali...18&img=bngd.jpg on my desktop at work and when my boss was passing by, he said "what a nice Chevrolet" biggrin.gif. He didn't even understand it's a video game screenshot. And ideologically he's against video games (old school guy, what can I say) .

We need a "Mafia II for PC - Will it Happen" thread? (I know it's gonna happen. tounge.gif)

QUOTE (matthew1g @ Jun 18 2008 @ 21:32)
But why would you play a game at it's lowest and miss like 60% of the stuff you're meant to see, but can't because of the weak system?

http://games.tiscali...18&img=bngd.jpg
Hardy-har-har. Enjoy your 40% tounge.gif. At least all branches of gaming will get to enjoy MII. ('Cept for Wii, but they don't count)




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users