thales100 Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 An i7 at stock speeds rapes any older quad even when they are overclocked to hell. Thats not true, we have compared performances in the forum for sometime, a quad at 4 Ghz will f*ck ass n p*ssy of a i7, like the 920, at stock clock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTA_XP Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 An i7 at stock speeds rapes any older quad even when they are overclocked to hell. Thats not true, we have compared performances in the forum for sometime, a quad at 4 Ghz will f*ck ass n p*ssy of a i7, like the 920, at stock clock. ROFL, that must hurt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebastian1802 Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Lol Always same Amd Vs Intel,Amd is best bang for money.U can spend your change to get some bitches.And Whats beter?No difference 38 or 35 fps.Having 35 with Amd and some bitch under the desk.Amd - Funn -Pleasure -Amd Rocks Intel sucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anus Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Intel still provides the best bang for buck CPUs, no matter what you say, this is the truth. I'm happy that AMD has made a great comeback with the Phenom II line though . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinky Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 An i7 at stock speeds rapes any older quad even when they are overclocked to hell. Thats not true, we have compared performances in the forum for sometime, a quad at 4 Ghz will f*ck ass n p*ssy of a i7, like the 920, at stock clock. My QX f*cks overclocked i7s in vantage too. Wish I had bought two 295s and not 2 285s as I would now be the current world record holder. The current holders CPU, an i7 965 overclocked to 4.309GHz scores only 31669 for CPU and my QX scores a whopping 47264 for CPU. They are only in the top slot thanks to the score that two 295s will give you. http://service.futuremark.com/resultAnalyz...8&resultType=19 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron123 Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 3x285GTX is the stronget GPU force that a rig can have, it is stronger in 10%-15% then 2x295GTX, you can add to it water cooling to have the strongest monster on the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blades Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 As I read through this topic, I saw thales' screenshots, my jaw hit the floor. VERY nice. Then the topic turned into a jumble of numbers and letters... Yeah I built my own pc but that's nothing. I'll admit I know nothing about overclocking etc. etc. Mine runs it fine on decent mid settings though... AMD Athlon X2 5200+ (2.6ghz per core) 3GB Kingston Value RAM Inno3D GeForce 8800GT 512mb factory OC 19" Dell flatscreen from my last computer (must be about 4 years old now, lol. It maxes out at 1280x1024) Yeah, I know it's not amazing, but I'm a student. I have no money. The 2nd patch seemed to have a miracle effect on the FPS too. Before the 2nd patch I ran it on low and barely got above 20fps because the cpu usage was in the high 90%s all the time. Since the 2nd patch I've been able to turn up the graphics settings and it runs pretty much smoothly all the time now apart from when it gets a bit crazy with somebody using a rocket-smg or something, then the fps takes a bit of a hit, but not enough to disconnect me from a MP game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 The 2nd patch seemed to have a miracle effect on the FPS too. Thats true, i got a FPS boost here too after second patch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emcax24 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 your first start is one of these monitors: god you guys are so stupid handing out your useless suggestions. wtf does a new monitor have to do with his game performing bad? Try playing it on a small lcd that's 4-5 years old, then you'll see how bout you just tell me so i dont have to have an aneurysm trying to figure out how the f*ck an output device can effect performance of a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Jesus f*ck, dense? He wants to play on MAX settings, so he needs a monitor that supports 2560 size resolution - that's all it is about. He wants the max settings possible, so not having one of those monitors will prohibit him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anus Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 your first start is one of these monitors: god you guys are so stupid handing out your useless suggestions. wtf does a new monitor have to do with his game performing bad? Try playing it on a small lcd that's 4-5 years old, then you'll see how bout you just tell me so i dont have to have an aneurysm trying to figure out how the f*ck an output device can effect performance of a game. You act like you know everything, but you don't know sh*t. So, stop acting like a smartass and bashing other members because you're too much of a retard to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron123 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 \ L-O-L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emcax24 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Jesus f*ck, dense? He wants to play on MAX settings, so he needs a monitor that supports 2560 size resolution - that's all it is about. He wants the max settings possible, so not having one of those monitors will prohibit him... really? i cant max out the setting on 1280x1024? i need 2560 resolution? thats news to me. alright back to spouting useless disinformation with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) Jesus f*ck, dense? He wants to play on MAX settings, so he needs a monitor that supports 2560 size resolution - that's all it is about. He wants the max settings possible, so not having one of those monitors will prohibit him... really? i cant max out the setting on 1280x1024? i need 2560 resolution? thats news to me. alright back to spouting useless disinformation with you. No you cant. Or, you shouldnt. The high settings are SPECIFICALLY for higher resolutions (aside from dynamic shadows - and textures? That in itself is arguable...). If you want to max the game, you need to max the settings. Dude, I did not even know this was you with these recent posts you made challenging me. You don't know sh*t. I urge everyone to find-all-posts by this member and laugh at him. So glad I did, as perhaps you will understand now. This game was made to scale UP, not to lose flavor just because it was scaled down. It was made to have-a-heart for the little guy, and to push a little further or the enthusiast. You have one hell of a sh*t post record, and I am not surprised at all that now that I check your post record. The bullsh*t you said in that "how to take a screenshot?" topic... You have been trolling me, you little sh*t. hahahaha. GetaLife. Edited February 11, 2009 by chngdman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emcax24 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 high settings are specifically for higher resolutions. omfg now ive heard it all. im going to go die from laughter now. resolution and texture settings are in no way related. lemme say it again so you can hear me. TEXTURE SIZE AND SCREEN RESOLUTION ARE IN NO WAY RELATED. you can max out all the textures you want at 800x600, 640x480, 320x240 or any other resolution you want. the only way one will affect the other is the amount of gpu power needed to push polygons at higher resolutions and the amount of ram needed to hold those textures. jesus christ you really should stop talking. everything you say is more retarded than the last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 high settings are specifically for higher resolutions. omfg now ive heard it all. im going to go die from laughter now. You are one every stupid child, cope with it. Of course settings and screen res are not related, but is there some relation between the res, details and what your eyes can actually see? For instance, which of these images has the most details (details you can actually see)? 1) 2) 3) Same image, different resolutions. So, if you force max setting on a 800x600 screen are you really going to see all the details like on a 2560x1600 resolution? Get educated before you start throwing insults all around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anus Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 He's born a retard mate, there's no saving him now . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 He's born a retard mate, there's no saving him now . Everybody's born stupid, but they need to start learning from day one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emcax24 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) he was talking about you. the details are exactly the same in every screenshot you posted assuming its the same image just resized. i guess you are stupidly assuming that somehow when you play in lower resolutions the rest of the screen is blacked out and all you can see is a tiny window the size of the resolution which is absolutely LOL. in any resolution the image is the same size as your monitor. if your native resolution is 1280 everything will be nice and sharp in 1280, same goes for any other resolution. it doesnt just magically get better because you made the image larger. 800x600 on a 15 inch monitor is the same as on a 32inch monitor. only on a 32inch monitor it looks worse because its taking a tiny image and stretching it to fit. you really should go read about this sh*t before you start talking. Edited February 11, 2009 by emcax24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pasanen Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 A moderately OC'd Intel dualcore coupled with a GFX card with >512mb of ram and maybe 4GB of DDRII (which is dirt cheap) can run the game on High / Very High @19x12 resolution >30FPS This game hardly requires a super computer, and not even necessarily a quad core. 1.0.2.0 patch makes a huge difference of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 A moderately OC'd Intel dualcore coupled with a GFX card with >512mb of ram and maybe 4GB of DDRII (which is dirt cheap) can run the game on High / Very High @19x12 resolution >30FPSThis game hardly requires a super computer, and not even necessarily a quad core. 1.0.2.0 patch makes a huge difference of course... Dont think so, any proof of what you say ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 he was talking about you. the details are exactly the same in every screenshot you posted assuming its the same image just resized. i guess you are stupidly assuming that somehow when you play in lower resolutions the rest of the screen is blacked out and all you can see is a tiny window the size of the resolution which is absolutely LOL. in any resolution the image is the same size as your monitor. if your native resolution is 1280 everything will be nice and sharp in 1280, same goes for any other resolution. it doesnt just magically get better because you made the image larger. 800x600 on a 15 inch monitor is the same as on a 32inch monitor. only on a 32inch monitor it looks worse because its taking a tiny image and stretching it to fit. you really should go read about this sh*t before you start talking. Christ, you are daft. I officially give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM965_X3100 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 This will probably almost get ya there, but it's not exactly economical..... Graphics Card: His Saphire 2 gig CPU: I7 965 (8 threads) Ram: 4 gigs worth of Kingston Ram..... Sound: Logotech sound.... That should pretty much allow anyone to play GTA IV at almost any setting!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emcax24 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I officially give up. you should have given up a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hussam1988 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) If ur rich don't ask her go to the best shop in town and tell them I have money and I need the best sh*t money can buy because I sh*t money.looooooooool Edited February 11, 2009 by hussam1988 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hussam1988 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 An i7 at stock speeds rapes any older quad even when they are overclocked to hell. Thats not true, we have compared performances in the forum for sometime, a quad at 4 Ghz will f*ck ass n p*ssy of a i7, like the 920, at stock clock. My QX f*cks overclocked i7s in vantage too. Wish I had bought two 295s and not 2 285s as I would now be the current world record holder. The current holders CPU, an i7 965 overclocked to 4.309GHz scores only 31669 for CPU and my QX scores a whopping 47264 for CPU. They are only in the top slot thanks to the score that two 295s will give you. http://service.futuremark.com/resultAnalyz...8&resultType=19 man if u have all that spec why don't get an 30 inch screen? cool sh*t dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I officially give up. you should have given up a long time ago. I know, there's no talking to morons. Now, lets see if you are really that stupid like you seem you are. Let's say you have a 1680x1200 screen size and I have 1024x768. Both of our gpu's are processing the same content (i.e. draw distance, textures and such) but they are rendered at different resolutions. Your screen has (1600*1200)/(1024*768) = 2,44 pixels more then mine. So to speak, where my screen has 2 pixels, your screen has 5. Q1: Which screen has the ability to present more detail? In place where on your screen there is 5x5 pixels patch depicting some detail (like a bullet hole) my screen can only represent it with around 10 pixels, that is 3x3 patch. Q2: Which will be sharper? Q3: Which will be more crisp? Or you are still claiming there is no difference? Now, in correlation with what has been said, what could I do with in my case to gain better performance (less lag, more FPS)? I could reduce the level of detail (use lower res textures, less DD and such) and relieve the strain on my GPU as it doesn't need to process all those details my screen CAN NOT EVEN display. Apologies to Thales for abusing his screenies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Apologies to Thales for abusing his screenies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperwire93 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 OP: like hussam said, talk to the shop helper and said give me the best monster pc ever made here. I got money just tell me the price Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anus Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I was not calling mkey a retard, it's actually you (emcax24) that is the retard. You just proved my point of you being a dumbass when you couldn't even understand who I was talking about . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now