Meh?
That's fairly decent.
The CPU is top notch for gaming. An i7 is a huge waste of potential power and money for video game.
4GB of 1600MHz DDR3 is pretty much standard, though he could have went with G.Skill, though if I remember right Corsair is quite good with memory as well as PSUs.
I'm not sure of the price:performance difference for the GTX 460 vs GTX 465, but the GTX 460 is a pretty nice card for the price.
I was almost jealous, then realized there's little to no difference in gameplay between your 190+ FPS and my 60 FPS. :3
Oh ****, not another wanker that believes "Our eyes can only see 30Fps or 60Fps" Or something along the lines of that. Tests have been conducted, data has been examined, and converted into an understandable form. We can tell a difference between 180, and 300.
Personally, i can see a difference between 60 > 120, 120 > 180, 180 > 250. However, i'm at a roadblock when it comes to ~300FPs. I can tell the difference between it, and any higher number after it.
I was almost jealous, then realized there's little to no difference in gameplay between your 190+ FPS and my 60 FPS. :3
Oh ****, not another wanker that believes "Our eyes can only see 30Fps or 60Fps" Or something along the lines of that. Tests have been conducted, data has been examined, and converted into an understandable form. We can tell a difference between 180, and 300.
Personally, i can see a difference between 60 > 120, 120 > 180, 180 > 250. However, i'm at a roadblock when it comes to ~300FPs. I can tell the difference between it, and any higher number after it.
'Kay, thanks for swearing at me and adding a rude name to boot. That was really necessary.
Note that I said "little to no difference." I'll take your word for it that there is a difference. But it is small, small enough that I myself can't tell the difference, therefore I don't care.
Oh ****, not another wanker that believes "Our eyes can only see 30Fps or 60Fps" Or something along the lines of that. Tests have been conducted, data has been examined, and converted into an understandable form. We can tell a difference between 180, and 300.
Personally, i can see a difference between 60 > 120, 120 > 180, 180 > 250. However, i'm at a roadblock when it comes to ~300FPs. I can tell the difference between it, and any higher number after it.
You can't see any of that unless you have a monitor that can do it.
Considering the best LCDs max out at 120hz and the best CRTs will be limited by the RAMDAC of your videocard being 400MHz...
I couldn't give a fluff if you cared or not. Stating one "Fact" that's not true, because of your "Lack of not caring" isn't really ok.
If you're going to post something relatively controversial, read up on it :smile.gif:
I posted something controversial? I didn't swear at you twice in the same line for no reason. I didn't overanalyze what you said and try to use it to convict you of ignorance and subsequently fail at doing so. I didn't want to randomly pick a fight.
But guess who did?
Besides, you still don't know what you're talking about. My "fact" was true. I said that 60 FPS as compared to 190 FPS changes the gameplay a little bit or not at all. And as you confirmed, it changed it only a little bit. So what are you trying to prove? That you can look like an ass on the Internet?
Oh ****, not another wanker that believes "Our eyes can only see 30Fps or 60Fps" Or something along the lines of that. Tests have been conducted, data has been examined, and converted into an understandable form. We can tell a difference between 180, and 300.
Personally, i can see a difference between 60 > 120, 120 > 180, 180 > 250. However, i'm at a roadblock when it comes to ~300FPs. I can tell the difference between it, and any higher number after it.
You can't see any of that unless you have a monitor that can do it.
Considering the best LCDs max out at 120hz and the best CRTs will be limited by the RAMDAC of your videocard being 400MHz...
I was about to say exactly this... but you beat me to it.
I guess I am one of those "idiots" that believes you can't see past 60fps... because most screens at full resolution won't do more than 60hz therefore rendering any higher FPS null. In fact, unless your FPS is a multiple of your refresh rate, it can cause the illusion of "frame drop", much like the wheels of a fast moving car appearing to move backwards.
So, unless you have a screen that can do 190hz, but *think* you can tell the difference between 60fps and higher... then I'm afraid you are full of ****.
I get 400fps in Minecraft, but I force Vsync so it sits dead on 60hz to avoid the weird frame drop illusion. It seems a lot smoother with a constant and steady framerate.
Lastly, whoever said an i7 is a waste for games? LOL. Whatever. Games put the most pressure on computer hardware (except for maybe a real-time protein folding simulation). A friend of mine just got an i7 930, and we have maxxed that out using little more than Crysis, or scene demos. Games and gaming potential is WAY ahead of the hardware. Game developers (I know because I am a small-time indie hobbiest myself) have ideas that will never see the light of day until computers make advances 1000x past where they are now.
My 2 cents.
Source: Been a tech for 15 years. It is my profession. Want to know more? PM me, I can't be bothered hanging "it" out in the wind here.
I couldn't give a fluff if you cared or not. Stating one "Fact" that's not true, because of your "Lack of not caring" isn't really ok.
If you're going to post something relatively controversial, read up on it :smile.gif:
I said that 60 FPS as compared to 190 FPS changes the gameplay a little bit or not at all. And as you confirmed, it changed it only a little bit. So what are you trying to prove? That you can look like an ass on the Internet?
Myself, i can't aim for **** whilst at 60Fps. however, at around one hundred and twenty, i can feel it all smooth out, and my aim improves a bunch.
I'm not trying to prove that i'm an ****, people can assume strait away after i type a sentence. What i'm trying to prove is that there are a bunch of weird people out there, that go around on forums, pretending they know everything, and freak out when they get caught out on it.
That is all.
I couldn't give a fluff if you cared or not. Stating one "Fact" that's not true, because of your "Lack of not caring" isn't really ok.
If you're going to post something relatively controversial, read up on it :smile.gif:
I said that 60 FPS as compared to 190 FPS changes the gameplay a little bit or not at all. And as you confirmed, it changed it only a little bit. So what are you trying to prove? That you can look like an ass on the Internet?
Myself, i can't aim for **** whilst at 60Fps. however, at around one hundred and twenty, i can feel it all smooth out, and my aim improves a bunch.
I'm not trying to prove that i'm an ****, people can assume strait away after i type a sentence. What i'm trying to prove is that there are a bunch of weird people out there, that go around on forums, pretending they know everything, and freak out when they get caught out on it.
That is all.
Do you have a 120Hz capable monitor? If not, then 120fps is the same as 60fps on a 60Hz display.
Lastly, whoever said an i7 is a waste for games? LOL. Whatever. Games put the most pressure on computer hardware (except for maybe a real-time protein folding simulation). A friend of mine just got an i7 930, and we have maxxed that out using little more than Crysis, or scene demos. Games and gaming potential is WAY ahead of the hardware. Game developers (I know because I am a small-time indie hobbiest myself) have ideas that will never see the light of day until computers make advances 1000x past where they are now.
My 2 cents.
Source: Been a tech for 15 years. It is my profession. Want to know more? PM me, I can't be bothered hanging "it" out in the wind here.
~Sol
Audio and Video editing, tons of compiling (kernels are a good example), physics simulations, folding, CAD, or half of the things workstation computers do? That's kinda what the Core i7 was targeted for.
A Core i5 is more than enough for a gaming computer. A Core i7 for gaming is just a waste of money and a very very good processor.
There's no point is listing more benchmarks. My point is that the Core i7 is overkill for gaming.
Not sure if this is true or not, but if it is.. just to give you an idea of how powerful the Core i7 is and why it's not going to get taxed much from gaming, make Direct X run in software rendering mode and play some games. From what I hear a Core i7 can render a number of games on medium at playable framerates by itself without the aid of a GPU.
I'd actually like someone to try, because if that's true it's VERY amazing.
If there is a 60Hz screen, if Vync is on, it is capable of showing ~60Fps. Vsync off, and you can go into the 500's, but you will without a doubt get vertical tearing, /thread
i5 760
4G 1600mhz Corsair
Nvidia GTX465
1080p Max Settings
FPS: 150-300 Depending on what I'm looking at.
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/856/minecraftfps.png
Wrong section, my bad.
That's fairly decent.
The CPU is top notch for gaming. An i7 is a huge waste of potential power and money for video game.
4GB of 1600MHz DDR3 is pretty much standard, though he could have went with G.Skill, though if I remember right Corsair is quite good with memory as well as PSUs.
I'm not sure of the price:performance difference for the GTX 460 vs GTX 465, but the GTX 460 is a pretty nice card for the price.
FPS while underground 500-700
please.
Intel i7 Processor
4GB RAM
64BIT
You heard that, green and red.
Oh ****, not another wanker that believes "Our eyes can only see 30Fps or 60Fps" Or something along the lines of that. Tests have been conducted, data has been examined, and converted into an understandable form. We can tell a difference between 180, and 300.
Personally, i can see a difference between 60 > 120, 120 > 180, 180 > 250. However, i'm at a roadblock when it comes to ~300FPs. I can tell the difference between it, and any higher number after it.
'Kay, thanks for swearing at me and adding a rude name to boot. That was really necessary.
Note that I said "little to no difference." I'll take your word for it that there is a difference. But it is small, small enough that I myself can't tell the difference, therefore I don't care.
You heard that, green and red.
If you're going to post something relatively controversial, read up on it :smile.gif:
You can't see any of that unless you have a monitor that can do it.
Considering the best LCDs max out at 120hz and the best CRTs will be limited by the RAMDAC of your videocard being 400MHz...
465 can be overclocked and made into a 470
I posted something controversial? I didn't swear at you twice in the same line for no reason. I didn't overanalyze what you said and try to use it to convict you of ignorance and subsequently fail at doing so. I didn't want to randomly pick a fight.
But guess who did?
Besides, you still don't know what you're talking about. My "fact" was true. I said that 60 FPS as compared to 190 FPS changes the gameplay a little bit or not at all. And as you confirmed, it changed it only a little bit. So what are you trying to prove? That you can look like an ass on the Internet?
You heard that, green and red.
I was about to say exactly this... but you beat me to it.
I guess I am one of those "idiots" that believes you can't see past 60fps... because most screens at full resolution won't do more than 60hz therefore rendering any higher FPS null. In fact, unless your FPS is a multiple of your refresh rate, it can cause the illusion of "frame drop", much like the wheels of a fast moving car appearing to move backwards.
So, unless you have a screen that can do 190hz, but *think* you can tell the difference between 60fps and higher... then I'm afraid you are full of ****.
I get 400fps in Minecraft, but I force Vsync so it sits dead on 60hz to avoid the weird frame drop illusion. It seems a lot smoother with a constant and steady framerate.
Lastly, whoever said an i7 is a waste for games? LOL. Whatever. Games put the most pressure on computer hardware (except for maybe a real-time protein folding simulation). A friend of mine just got an i7 930, and we have maxxed that out using little more than Crysis, or scene demos. Games and gaming potential is WAY ahead of the hardware. Game developers (I know because I am a small-time indie hobbiest myself) have ideas that will never see the light of day until computers make advances 1000x past where they are now.
My 2 cents.
Source: Been a tech for 15 years. It is my profession. Want to know more? PM me, I can't be bothered hanging "it" out in the wind here.
~Sol
Myself, i can't aim for **** whilst at 60Fps. however, at around one hundred and twenty, i can feel it all smooth out, and my aim improves a bunch.
I'm not trying to prove that i'm an ****, people can assume strait away after i type a sentence. What i'm trying to prove is that there are a bunch of weird people out there, that go around on forums, pretending they know everything, and freak out when they get caught out on it.
That is all.
Do you have a 120Hz capable monitor? If not, then 120fps is the same as 60fps on a 60Hz display.
It's fact.
Much like, gravity exists.... is a fact.
~Sol
Audio and Video editing, tons of compiling (kernels are a good example), physics simulations, folding, CAD, or half of the things workstation computers do? That's kinda what the Core i7 was targeted for.
A Core i5 is more than enough for a gaming computer. A Core i7 for gaming is just a waste of money and a very very good processor.
Here's some benchmarks comparing the gaming performance of a Phenom II X4 and/or Core i5 to the Core i7 for gaming. There's almost no difference.
http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=794&page=13
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phe ... 60-13.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cor ... 03-11.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/195-main ... page9.html
There's no point is listing more benchmarks. My point is that the Core i7 is overkill for gaming.
Not sure if this is true or not, but if it is.. just to give you an idea of how powerful the Core i7 is and why it's not going to get taxed much from gaming, make Direct X run in software rendering mode and play some games. From what I hear a Core i7 can render a number of games on medium at playable framerates by itself without the aid of a GPU.
I'd actually like someone to try, because if that's true it's VERY amazing.