quote:

Originally posted by Ninja_Kn1ght:
honesltly pcgamoing seems less and less appealing as time goes by, there's just not much there that can't be done on a console.

Outside of maps (uses premade objects and textures) for some games, you cannot create content for games on a console. End of story.

Game wise, there are still plenty of PC only games though they require more than just point and shoot processes.

quote:

Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:

quote:

Originally posted by Ninja_Kn1ght:
honesltly pcgamoing seems less and less appealing as time goes by, there's just not much there that can't be done on a console.

Outside of maps (uses premade objects and textures) for some games, you cannot create content for games on a console. End of story.

Game wise, there are still plenty of PC only games though they require more than just point and shoot processes.

LittleBigPlanet

I'm only just now getting into PC gaming. I don't have the time, patience, or knowhow to spec out my own machine. To someone like me the Crysis-branded PC looks very tempting. Opinions on its specs anyone?

quote:

Originally posted by Mutton-Chops:
I'm only just now getting into PC gaming. I don't have the time, patience, or knowhow to spec out my own machine. To someone like me the Crysis-branded PC looks very tempting. Opinions on its specs anyone?

I built my first PC 19 months after buying my first PC. It really isn't rocket science.

I pc game often my setup is

Intel Quad 6600
EVGA Nvidia 8800 GTS 512
4 gigs DDR 1000 G skill
Asus Board and a 24" LCD HP 1080P
on Vista 64 / Kunbut Dual boot

Quad core is pretty nice since it gives you a little more room to move with. I can be in a game on part of my screen & irc with 12 Firefox tabs open & photoshop and be only maxing 2 processors out. only games that support quad at the moment is Crysis and universe at war if i remember right.

quote:

Originally posted by Ninja_Kn1ght:

quote:

Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:

quote:

Originally posted by Ninja_Kn1ght:
honesltly pcgamoing seems less and less appealing as time goes by, there's just not much there that can't be done on a console.

Outside of maps (uses premade objects and textures) for some games, you cannot create content for games on a console. End of story.

Game wise, there are still plenty of PC only games though they require more than just point and shoot processes.

LittleBigPlanet

That's what I was thinking...

Games like Homeworld or even real racing sims like iRacing (from the old Papyrus developers of the famous Gran Prix Legends and the NASCAR Racing series) to flight sims, there is a wealth of games not found on consoles. As noted before, user made content (mods) are not found on consoles which extends the life of games longer than what is seen typically. Ghost Recon on the PC still has mods coming out for it some 7 years after it's initial release.

I was thinking of playing some Quake Live if you want to join me Vball!!! We can do it together =P

quote:

Originally posted by Toothpaste23:
I see suggestions for quad core procs.

What games today fully utilize -dual- core never mind quad core?

Might be better to get a faster dual core, since those are available sooner than an equivalent speed quad.

Oh, the uninformed. JK i love you toof. But SERIOUSLY.

In my mind quad-cores are a must for any new computers. You won't notice any improvement over a dual-core in a desktop environment, but OH MY will you notice in games. I thought my 3.2 GHz Core 2 Duo was really fast, and bought a 9800GX2. For some reason I just wasn't getting the frame rates that everyone was reporting for the card(review sites).

Funny thing happened and my motherboard died the night before my friend was coming to stay with me for two weeks of non-stop gaming and sushi/hot wings. I had the materials for a friend's computer that I was going to build, so decided to just build it for myself and reorder his parts.

At stock speeds (2.66 GHz compared to 3.2 GHz of basically the same architecture) my frame rate doubled in the Unreal 3 Engine. It was hampered down to a measly 29 frames per second before and now with the quad-core I am getting a solid and never faltering 60 frames. Mind you I am running it at 2560x1600, but still, be aware that new video cards need beefy processors to reach their potential.

My suggestion: Cheapest Intel Quad-Core with the large cache.
4-8 GiB of DDR2 (less than 200 for 8 gigs that run at 800 MHz) obviously, go with patriot.
For your video card, I'd try to grab one of Sapphire's 4870s. They are really nice cards.
Other than that, I'd see what you can grab bag from alienware and anyone else. Motherboards are the most important part of the computer, but if you can get one that supports intel quad cores (and cheap) I would probably oblige were I you

I check the forums about once every two or three months, so if you have questions feel free to message me on XBL (Lambda Ze Panda)

cheers!

edit: to muttonchops, that crysis PC is a good deal. If you just want a pick up and go rig, the price is not outlandish by any means.

quote:

Originally posted by Valkyrie FD:
I was thinking of playing some Quake Live if you want to join me Vball!!! We can do it together =P

ya amy i wanted to play that too, i was gunna get missy to help me learn. and i also was gunna join her division cause pc tourneys seem more fun! (and im sooooo tired of call of duty 4)

quote:

Originally posted by Lambda_Ze_Panda:

quote:

Originally posted by Toothpaste23:
I see suggestions for quad core procs.

What games today fully utilize -dual- core never mind quad core?

Might be better to get a faster dual core, since those are available sooner than an equivalent speed quad.

Oh, the uninformed. JK i love you toof. But SERIOUSLY.

Woah there! Might want to take a check on calling someone else uninformed for now ...

quote:

At stock speeds (2.66 GHz compared to 3.2 GHz of basically the same architecture) my frame rate doubled in the Unreal 3 Engine. It was hampered down to a measly 29 frames per second before and now with the quad-core I am getting a solid and never faltering 60 frames. Mind you I am running it at 2560x1600, but still, be aware that new video cards need beefy processors to reach their potential.

According to you UE3 scales better than linearly with number of CPU cores, which it doesn't. Even benchmarks can't do this. This is how UE3 actually scales with multiple cores.

You're looking at a 20% boost going from 2 to 4 cores, if you're lucky. Your old setup was probably limited by a driver issue on the GX2 (not a great buy tbh), and further troubled by v-sync and double buffering.

Capcom's Framework engine scales much better, but a fast dual core will still get you a pretty solid 60fps from current Framework games. Team Fortress 2 doesn't even use 2 cores close to fully (barely touches the second core).

quote:

Originally posted by ItsLaggyTonight:

quote:

Originally posted by Lambda_Ze_Panda:

quote:

Originally posted by Toothpaste23:
I see suggestions for quad core procs.

What games today fully utilize -dual- core never mind quad core?

Might be better to get a faster dual core, since those are available sooner than an equivalent speed quad.

Oh, the uninformed. JK i love you toof. But SERIOUSLY.

Woah there! Might want to take a check on calling someone else uninformed for now ...

quote:

At stock speeds (2.66 GHz compared to 3.2 GHz of basically the same architecture) my frame rate doubled in the Unreal 3 Engine. It was hampered down to a measly 29 frames per second before and now with the quad-core I am getting a solid and never faltering 60 frames. Mind you I am running it at 2560x1600, but still, be aware that new video cards need beefy processors to reach their potential.

According to you UE3 scales better than linearly with number of CPU cores, which it doesn't. Even benchmarks can't do this. This is how UE3 actually scales with multiple cores.

You're looking at a 20% boost going from 2 to 4 cores, if you're lucky. Your old setup was probably limited by a driver issue on the GX2 (not a great buy tbh), and further troubled by v-sync and double buffering.

Capcom's Framework engine scales much better, but a fast dual core will still get you a pretty solid 60fps from current Framework games. Team Fortress 2 doesn't even use 2 cores close to fully (barely touches the second core).

Thanks for coming late to the party little boy! Let me serve you.

Please, if you want to prove something with an exceptionally old article, using an old as hell version of the UT3 engine, in a time where there were no cards as powerful as the 9800 GX2, be my guest! Just don't expect me to believe that you know anything.

Point 1: The most powerful card they have there is the 8800 GTX. The 9800 GX2 is two sets of processors nearly as powerful as that one, and the overhead the processor takes on to make the cards work harmoniously is intense.

Point 2: Let us look a little closer. What was the resolution being run there? OH! 1024x768! Man, what a high resolution! I'm only joking, as you may not realize. At that resolution my 9800 GX2 would be having a tea party, and thus would be bound to framerate by my CPU, thus, a CPU limited (or bound) scenario. Now, if you payed attention or had even skimmed what I wrote, you would see that I am running at 2560x1600. At that resolution, it is a different story. At such a high resolution, my card is able to use its full power, as the more strenuous computations going on are video ones. Say I got 200 FPS at 1024x768. We know then that my CPU is capable of running the engine at 200 FPS. When we switch to 2560x1600, the framerate drops significantly, say to around 70 or so. Since we know my processor is capable of running my card at (a made up) 200 FPS, but now we are only getting 70 FPS, you can deduce (assuming you have a brain) that we are now limited by the GPU. So, we know that my CPU is letting my GPU work to its fullest potential.

Now, let me ask you a question. What is your rig? You seem so informed(?) on the topic of quad-cores and powerful GFX cards, I can only assume you must run a rig like that yourself, and that you had run a similar rig with a dual-core. Or not?

quote:

Thanks for coming late to the party little boy! Let me serve you.

Sigh.

Try this:

Run UT3 while looking in Task Manager at the performance tab, and see what the CPU usage graphs show you. It's a simple test that anyone can do to get a rough idea of how software is using all those cores they've paid for.

Now try it with a Framework based game. Amazing.

quote:

Originally posted by ItsLaggyTonight:

quote:

Thanks for coming late to the party little boy! Let me serve you.

Sigh.

Try this:

Run UT3 while looking in Task Manager at the performance tab, and see what the CPU usage graphs show you. It's a simple test that anyone can do to get a rough idea of how software is using all those cores they've paid for.

Now try it with a Framework based game. Amazing.

Do you have a link to a list of framework based games on PC? I see a lot of talk of it on the consoles, but I don't hear PC developers gobbling it up.

Oh, and when I look in task manager I don't see much. That's kind of the point though. With my E6600 both cores were constantly maxed in the U3 engine at 2560x1600. With the quad I can hardly tell anything is running on it.

edit: Almost forgot...as much as I love TF2, it is running on the source engine. Not exactly the cream of the crop these days...

I want to play Quake Live. Invite plz.

quote:

Do you have a link to a list of framework based games on PC? I see a lot of talk of it on the consoles, but I don't hear PC developers gobbling it up.

No link I'm afraid, but Lost Planet and Devil May Cry 4 use it. The demos and Task Manager should give you a good idea of what it's using. Make sure that vysnc is off to give you the best idea of what the CPU is doing.

Only Capcom use it AFAIK. A lot of what attracts people to UE3 isn't just the graphics and performance but also the tool chain, documentation and support, which I can't see Capcom being able to compete with. Maybe one day?

quote:

Oh, and when I look in task manager I don't see much. That's kind of the point though. With my E6600 both cores were constantly maxed in the U3 engine at 2560x1600. With the quad I can hardly tell anything is running on it.

Tim Sweeney describes UE3 as using two heavy duty threads and a pool of helper threads - something that would fit dual core PCs and the 360 very well. This is why you can expect to see it use 2 cores heavily, but cores 3 and 4 not so much.

quote:

edit: Almost forgot...as much as I love TF2, it is running on the source engine. Not exactly the cream of the crop these days...

Yeah, it's getting old. They've done a lot of work on updating it but eventually you have to start again. It'll be good for Ep3 and the new Counterstrike though, and it does run well on older hardware.

Framework is Capcom's proprietary multi-platform game engine. It's not licensed. id tech 5 is more likely to be a competitior for UE3 since they're focusing on ease of multi-platform development which is a big deal these days and early UE3 games did not perform well on PS3.