$500 Gaming PC Upgrade

[NotJeff]

This article at Firing Squad (http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/$500_gaming_pc_upgrade/) details how to revamp your PC into a really excellent gaming rig for about $500. A new motherboard, GPU, CPU, and memory are in that budget, and it's assumed that you already own everything else.

GeForce 8800 GT
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
Gigabyte GA-MA69GM-S2H
OCZ PC2-6400 Platinum Revision 2 Dual Channel (2Gb)


The article goes as far as to source all of the components for you and suggest alternatives. They also note that the total price tag isn't all that much higher than our beloved consoles.

[Evil Avatar]

Nice article.

How good is a GeForce 8800 GT?

[Goronmon]

How good is a GeForce 8800 GT?Second best Nvidia card out there I believe.

[Adam Blue]

Nice article.

How good is a GeForce 8800 GT?

Really good.

[lockwoodx]

The GT makes me wish I didn't have an 8800GTS, but the price will drop now and I'll just SLI 2 when I pick up a second cheap one.

[torrefaction]

Second best Nvidia card out there I believe.

It even beats the GTX in some areas. Price/Performance wise, it's bar none the best card, and it comes close to being the outright best card anyway.

[Norse]

Will it run Crysis at max IQ settings at 1280x1024?

[J Arcane]

Nice article.

How good is a GeForce 8800 GT?
The best, so it seems. That's partly because the new high ends of this revision aren't out yet though.

But for the price, it's damn sweet, and I think it's gonna be going into my new rig.

[Loki_09]

Considering I haven't upgraded my PC since 2001 (Dimension 8100 FTW), maybe its time I broke down and upgraded, as these prices are very nice. The only reason I haven't yet is because I'm addicted to my 360, and dont really game very much on my PC anymore.

[GigaFuzz]

The 8800GT is severely tempting me to upgrade when it comes out. Trouble is, I'd feel obliged to upgrade my CPU at the same time. £££ :(

[SuicideKing]

The best, so it seems. That's partly because the new high ends of this revision aren't out yet though.

But for the price, it's damn sweet, and I think it's gonna be going into my new rig.

The GTX and Ultra's still remain superior, but after those, yeah it's the best. And for those wondering about crysis performance: http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQxMCwzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

I'll stick with my BFG 8800gtx OC2, but if you don't want to shell out 600$ on a vid card whose only real goal anymore is to let me play everythin at 1920*1080 at max settings, the 8800GT remains a beast at that pricepoint, kind of reminds me of my ATI 9800pro back in the day.

[PathMaster]

Considering I haven't upgraded my PC since 2001 (Dimension 8100 FTW), maybe its time I broke down and upgraded, as these prices are very nice. The only reason I haven't yet is because I'm addicted to my 360, and dont really game very much on my PC anymore.

You too? My tower was one of the first with XP on it out of Dell. Still runs really well too.

[MegaChops]

just did this myself, ordered all the parts today.

the card is backordered on the site listed in the article. however you can get it from newegg for $20 more. the Mobo and the CPU are both $4 cheaper than listed in the article.

with case, mouse/keyboard, monitor, HDD, and CD drive total cost for me was $836. should be getting it all this weekend and i'll let you guys know how it works.

[torrefaction]

Will it run Crysis at max IQ settings at 1280x1024?

It'll run at High settings at that resolution, but not very high. I think the bottleneck here is texture memory.

[Loki_09]

You too? My tower was one of the first with XP on it out of Dell. Still runs really well too.

Yup. Have had to do some replacements (stole a PSU from a friends dead 8100, bought a GeForce 2 Ultra for $10 on ebay), but it still runs. Its on its last leg though, no doubt.

[YoungAlCapone]

Nice, I was just looking at parts for a rebuild this morning. I will probably wait until next spring to do it, but this is exactly what I was looking for earlier. In fact I was gonna post a thread with my tentative parts and ask what you all thought, but this is much better.

[PathMaster]

Yup. Have had to do some replacements (stole a PSU from a friends dead 8100, bought a GeForce 2 Ultra for $10 on ebay), but it still runs. Its on its last leg though, no doubt.

I had a failed HDD after 9 months. Dell replaced it for free with a bigger drive. I have added RAM that I "grabbed" taking my 512 to 1gb of RD RAm ($$ RAM). I upgraded for free from parts from the G3 TI200 to FX5200 to my current x1650, which Voodoo suggest, for only $72. FEAR is playable now.

[J Arcane]

Anyone care to dig up a similarly priced part list for an Intel platform? ;)

[Loki_09]

I upgraded for free from parts from the G3 TI200 to FX5200 to my current x1650, which Voodoo suggest, for only $72. FEAR is playable now.

This was an issue for me, wasnt sure if the FX5200's would run on the power supply that originally came with the 8100. Maybe I'll procrastinate a little longer and pick one up. At least Nvidia still supports that card. The GeForce2 Ultra is shit outta luck in the driver department.

[PathMaster]

This was an issue for me, wasnt sure if the FX5200's would run on the power supply that originally came with the 8100. Maybe I'll procrastinate a little longer and pick one up. At least Nvidia still supports that card. The GeForce2 Ultra is shit outta luck in the driver department.

Yeah, Nvidia's forceware no longer supports that card. My G3 Ti200 was getting low on the support list as well. Could always try Omega's driver.

I agree, I think it is time for us to upgrade. But this particular article would require us getting a new case as well.

[Lunar Blue]

They also note that the total price tag isn't all that much higher than our beloved consoles.

I myself have been saying this for years; if you know where to buy, a superb PC isn't that far from the console price range. Even more so after PS3 launched at $599. Yet, some people still preach how you need at least $3000 to buy a PC that plays latest games. Sure, from Alienware.

[Evil Avatar]

Anyone want to donate $500.00 so I can test out this article???

Anyone?

Bueller?

[NotJeff]

Anyone want to donate $500.00 so I can test out this article???

Anyone?

Bueller?

Hey, Evil, I get a finders' fee, right?

[Phanto]

Second best Nvidia card out there I believe.

Third best really

The card in Nvidia charts is suppose to be below the GTS but in terms of performance in reality it goes like this:

8800 Ultra
8800 GTX
8800 GT

[Tyrant]

Anyone care to dig up a similarly priced part list for an Intel platform? ;)

I'm surprised they didn't choose a Core 2 Duo platform for the recommendation. Granted, games nowadays aren't really CPU bound with regards to more recent processors, but folks who have a computer generally don't have them exclusively for playing games. On the other hand, even with the cheapest C2D and motherboard, they'd probably break the $500 barrier.

[Phanto]

Nice article.

How good is a GeForce 8800 GT?

The 8800 GT can perform almost as good that 8800GTX.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8800_gt_performance/

You can read this Performance if you want or you can skip to the charts and see the performance of the card against the others.

[J Arcane]

I'm surprised they didn't choose a Core 2 Duo platform for the recommendation. Granted, games nowadays aren't really CPU bound with regards to more recent processors, but folks who have a computer generally don't have them exclusively for playing games. On the other hand, even with the cheapest C2D and motherboard, they'd probably break the $500 barrier.
Yeah, I have a feeling I'll be spening a few buck more going Intel, but past research I've done suggests it won't be TOO much more expensive if I stick with C2Duo on the mid-range.

I'd go Athlon myself, but Athlon support for OSX86 is a very tricky business, and one I'd rather sidestep.

[flinxz]

This is the card I have been waiting for, but I will wait a bit longer (into January) to pick one up. Maybe we will see a 768MB version soon as well.

[scythe]

I really regret my 8600GTS purchase now.

[OrangePulp]

This is the card I have been waiting for, but I will wait a bit longer (into January) to pick one up. Maybe we will see a 768MB version soon as well.

Some companies are supposed to be putting out 1024mb versions, although that's unofficial, apparently.

[Ancalagon]

Third best really

The card in Nvidia charts is suppose to be below the GTS but in terms of performance in reality it goes like this:

8800 Ultra
8800 GTX
8800 GT

Most people tend to lump the 8800 Ultra and GTX as one card, because the only difference is core clock, memory clock and shader clock. Which basically means its just slightly overclocked.

[Dakar]

I'm surprised they didn't choose a Core 2 Duo platform for the recommendation. Granted, games nowadays aren't really CPU bound with regards to more recent processors, but folks who have a computer generally don't have them exclusively for playing games. On the other hand, even with the cheapest C2D and motherboard, they'd probably break the $500 barrier.

Yeah. Top end C2D's kill the respective AMD's. But for price to performance ratio AMD wins easily, especially if you don't plan on overclocking.

[Ph00p]

*shakes fist at greedy canadian retailers* get your asses in gear!
I don't think you'd be able to pull that off in canada for even $650, if anyone thinks they can I'd like to see how.


edit:tried it a few places, damned shipping rapes most all deals(also I'm factoring a bigger PSU which I'd need) fuckit hopefully in 2008 the retailers will learn what PARITY means, and GST drops 1%! Only 13% HST then!!(fuck yeah?)

[raymeswh]

I had a failed HDD after 9 months. Dell replaced it for free with a bigger drive. I have added RAM that I "grabbed" taking my 512 to 1gb of RD RAm ($$ RAM). I upgraded for free from parts from the G3 TI200 to FX5200 to my current x1650, which Voodoo suggest, for only $72. FEAR is playable now.

sounds the same with me, i had the 8100 when it came out as a wee frosh in college, HD died with windows ME, dell replaced and i removed my head from my arse and installed winxp.

the bastard still runs, my dad gets some use out of it.

im running a latitude d610 from work and a dimension 8300c which i basically had completely replaced at the end of the warranty, new mobo, memory, HD, sound card, and processor, so im definetly leaning on those until they die. after that im looking forward to building a nice custom machine, something with massive storage, as ive already filled 1/2 TB. this deal looks pretty sweet tho

[flinxz]

Some companies are supposed to be putting out 1024mb versions, although that's unofficial, apparently.
I think either way I shall wait for one with more than 512. With my current card I kind of always wished I had gotten the 7900GT with 512 instead of 256.

[Disgustipated]

I think either way I shall wait for one with more than 512. With my current card I kind of always wished I had gotten the 7900GT with 512 instead of 256.

The 512MB 7950 GT's kill the 7900 GT's. Much faster, and the extra RAM really helps in games with huge, high-res textures.

[Cyndair]

Kind of like beating a dead horse at this point but yes, the GT really is an awesome card. I'd say it is hands down the best value for your dollar. Here is a write up and performance charts from Anandtech on the card:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140

I like the part where you can SLI two GTs for the price of one GTX and totally spank it in performance. :p

The GT is one of those cards that goes a long way toward getting people interested in PC gaming again. All about the price.

[KingGorilla]

Not in Vista, SLI is still pretty borked in there. And if you are buying a 8800 card, and running XP, that is kind of silly.

[Cyndair]

Not in Vista, SLI is still pretty borked in there. And if you are buying a 8800 card, and running XP, that is kind of silly.

They ran the test under Vista 32 bit. At lower resolutions it really doesn't make that big of a difference but the spread becomes larger as you go up. I just wish they would have said whether or not AA and AF were turned on:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140&p=12

You are right though. In most cases SLI can't beat a really good single GPU. The only reason it is viable here is because the GT is just that much cheaper than the GTX.

[J Arcane]

And if you are buying a 8800 card, and running XP, that is kind of silly.This is not actually true.

[Slack3r78]

I'd go Athlon myself, but support for OSX86 is a very tricky business, and one I'd rather sidestep.
Fixed that for you.

[Schnoogs]

XBox 360 plus 3 games?

[J Arcane]

Fixed that for you.
Well, I meant relatively. It's ALL tricky, but going Athlon adds an extra step to the process that I'd rather avoid.

When the alternative is spending three grand for a Pro level machine from Apple, I'll put up with funky cracks and hacks, but that doesn't mean I have to go making things more difficult on myself.

[Slack3r78]

Well, I meant relatively. It's ALL tricky, but going Athlon adds an extra step to the process that I'd rather avoid.

When the alternative is spending three grand for a Pro level machine from Apple, I'll put up with funky cracks and hacks, but that doesn't mean I have to go making things more difficult on myself.

Yeah. I've just gotten to the point that I don't see OSX86 being useful as anything more than a toy, so I can't really see basing a system build around it.

[J Arcane]

Yeah. I've just gotten to the point that I don't see OSX86 being useful as anything more than a toy, so I can't really see basing a system build around it.
I'd kind of figured on going Core 2 Duo anyway, so it's not really a big deal, and in all likelihood, if I decide I don't like final Cut, it probably won't last more than a few weeks on my system anyway, but it's not like the machine magically loses the ability to run XP as soon as you stick OS X on it.

[ElektroDragon]

Yeah, Nvidia's forceware no longer supports that card. My G3 Ti200 was getting low on the support list as well. Could always try Omega's driver.

I agree, I think it is time for us to upgrade. But this particular article would require us getting a new case as well.

But will it run Crysis with Very High settings all enabled at a decent widescreen resolution suitable to a 22" display? If not, useless!!

[J Arcane]

But will it run Crysis with Very High settings all enabled at a decent widescreen resolution suitable to a 22" display? If not, useless!!
By this criteria, every card presently available is basically useless.

Graphics whores are retarded.

[Philonious]

Graphics whores are retarded.

There is something inherently frustrating about playing a game in a less than optimal state... My laptop stutters on the Witcher and frankly I'm annoyed, I want to witch at super high-resolutions.

[J Arcane]

There is something inherently frustrating about playing a game in a less than optimal state... My laptop stutters on the Witcher and frankly I'm annoyed, I want to witch at super high-resolutions.
I can certainly understand wanting an acceptable frame rate, and some pretties, but really, most games come out looking pretty sweet even on Medium settings these days, and the visuals have little to nothing to do with the gameplay, which is what we should really be caring about in the first place.

Obsessing about being able to pile on yet another resource over-intensive feature that produces a marginal to imperceptible increase in fidelity is exactly one of the things that lets graphics card companies keep charging so much, and game companies keep screwing customers with unoptomized code.

It's also the very thing that leads scads of people to ditch PCs altogether and put up with console drek just so they don't have to put up with overinflated sysreqs and constant upgrades anymore.

Just turn the damn AA off already. At 1280 or above you can't even tell the damn difference anymore unless you've got a shitty flat panel with pixels the size of your fist.

[Itchyeyes]

I'm surprised they didn't choose a Core 2 Duo platform for the recommendation. Granted, games nowadays aren't really CPU bound with regards to more recent processors, but folks who have a computer generally don't have them exclusively for playing games. On the other hand, even with the cheapest C2D and motherboard, they'd probably break the $500 barrier.
In the article they say it's because the Athlon was only around $75 where the cheapest C2D (the e4300) sells for $130. Basically it was a budget choice.

[Schnoogs]

Again, AA is fucking pointless at that res unless you've got a monitor with some seriously shitty DPI. And cardwise, it basically can't be beat, except by a card about twice it's price for an utterly marginal increase in performance.

30 FPS is all you fuckers are getting out of most console games anyway, so I don't see how that "sucks ass" by comparison in anyway shape or form.

I had a 17" display that did 1920x1200...dot pitch on that was one of the highest I've ever seen. It still needed AA. Not sure what you're talking about.

[Evil Avatar]

I deleted my posts and the posts that referenced my posts. Buy what you want.

If the future, if you have $500.00 burning a hole in your pocket, please consider donating to EvAv.com first. At least then you know your money is going toward a PC that is running good. (Our server.)

[Cyndair]

Crysis is kind of a bad game to judge a system's performance off of anyway. It is a game specifically designed to push the envelope. Just because the options are there doesn't mean that you have to turn them on.

[J Arcane]

I deleted my posts and the posts that referenced my posts. Buy what you want.

If the future, if you have $500.00 burning a hole in your pocket, please consider donating to EvAv.com first. At least then you know your money is going toward a PC that is running good. (Our server.)
Wow. That's pretty fucked up dude. "I spouted a bunch of bullshit, someone called me on it, so I deleted all proof of it's existence."

[Evil Avatar]

Wow. That's pretty fucked up dude. "I spouted a bunch of bullshit, someone called me on it, so I deleted all proof of it's existence."

It wasn't bullshit, but I could see how quickly the PC apologists were ready to jump into the "Evil doesn't know what he is talking about." bandwagon and so I decided it was pointless to argue with people who just wanted to make this about me instead of about the hardware.

You know what, I read the article and what they wrote just doesn't support some of their conclusions. They ignored shipping costs, ignored the fact that you would have to wait for a rebate on the RAM and ignored the fact that the video card that they picked wasn't even available at the price that they quoted -- the only place that had it in stock was $20 higher.

They decided ahead of time that they could put together a budget PC that kicked ass and wrote an article to support that conclusion -- only the PC didn't kick ass. Not for Crysis and it wasn't really all that hot for UT3 or CoD4.

The better CPU they showed scored significantly higher on all the benchmarks that they did -- and in the case of Crysis that difference could be the difference between being playable and being choppy.

For $500 their PC didn't score much higher than MY PC for Crysis.

Not a very good value for your money. I said it before and I'll say it again... if you are going to upgrade then spend the money on decent parts.

torrefaction pissed me off because he did the same thing I see people do all the time -- he searched for the bits of article that supported his conclusion and ignored the overall idea (and the overall benchmarks from the article -- including the terrible minimum FPS in Crysis) I was trying to get across -- that you can easily waste your money if you don't buy quality parts and end up with performance that just isn't what it should be for that big of an investment.

I'm sorry if PC gaming costs money, but it does.

[Philonious]

I missed out the deleted posts... I would actually like to hear a critical evaluation of the article and see what people have to say.

[Schnoogs]

I have to agree with Evil on this one. Not a great deal and the performance is such that you'll probably find yourself going SLI shortly after. Anyone with a 1920x1200 or larger display isn't going to be happy with this setup.

[Evil Avatar]

I have to agree with Evil on this one. Not a great deal and the performance is such that you'll probably find yourself going SLI shortly after. Anyone with a 1920x1200 or larger display isn't going to be happy with this setup.

Don't be too quick to agree with me. I was kind of an asshole and I'm very sorry for that (and I unbanned both those guys right away), but even after re-reading the article and seeing what torre said about the GPU being the holdup at the 1920x1200 resolution (I did see that before, but I still don't agree with it.) I still think that in the end that if you do as the article suggested and purchase a non-SLI motherboard and a bottom-of-the-line CPU that you aren't going to be happy.

That system still only gets an average FPS in Crysis of about 20 - 30 and may run into some dips while playing. (It consistantly ran into some dips during their testing.) You can't add another video card and you are out $500.00. (Closer to $600 with shipping and having to go to Newegg for all the out-of-stock parts.)

I just did this about 3 months ago -- I took what I had and tried to "budget price" an upgrade. I did almost exactly what they did -- picked a decent video card and a budget CPU and Motherboard with new RAM and I almost instantly regretted it because I used hardware that was at the end of its upgrade path and it ended up costing me more than my original estimate.

(Which is exactly what will happen to you if you follow their instructions.)

Don't do that to yourself. Suck it up and spend a little more to get something more in the mid-to-high price range.

That does look like a good video card, but I would go with more RAM, a better motherboard, a faster CPU and if you can I would suck it up and buy two video cards for the SLI.

In the end you will be a lot happier.

[torrefaction]

These are my thoughts (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39054)on the situation.

And for the record Evil? I appreciate the unbanning.

[VictorVonViolence]

I guess this is a bad time to ask what the main difference between the 7000 series of geforce and the 8000...

[Schnoogs]

I guess this is a bad time to ask what the main difference between the 7000 series of geforce and the 8000...

DX10 for starters

[Johan]

I guess this is a bad time to ask what the main difference between the 7000 series of geforce and the 8000...

1000 ?

[PopoWRX]

Don't be too quick to agree with me. I was kind of an asshole and I'm very sorry for that (and I unbanned both those guys right away), but even after re-reading the article and seeing what torre said about the GPU being the holdup at the 1920x1200 resolution (I did see that before, but I still don't agree with it.) I still think that in the end that if you do as the article suggested and purchase a non-SLI motherboard and a bottom-of-the-line CPU that you aren't going to be happy.

That system still only gets an average FPS in Crysis of about 20 - 30 and may run into some dips while playing. (It consistantly ran into some dips during their testing.) You can't add another video card and you are out $500.00. (Closer to $600 with shipping and having to go to Newegg for all the out-of-stock parts.)

I just did this about 3 months ago -- I took what I had and tried to "budget price" an upgrade. I did almost exactly what they did -- picked a decent video card and a budget CPU and Motherboard with new RAM and I almost instantly regretted it because I used hardware that was at the end of its upgrade path and it ended up costing me more than my original estimate.

(Which is exactly what will happen to you if you follow their instructions.)

Don't do that to yourself. Suck it up and spend a little more to get something more in the mid-to-high price range.

That does look like a good video card, but I would go with more RAM, a better motherboard, a faster CPU and if you can I would suck it up and buy two video cards for the SLI.

In the end you will be a lot happier.

Which is probably why many have moved back to consoles. The whole yearly updating of a computer just to play games. (I'm in the middle of updating my 1-year old rig atm) Its a painful process on the wallet but I enjoy it nevertheless.

A year from now I'm probably going to have to do a complete update as the system I'm updating now will be out of date.

Going from an AMD X2 4200+ to a 6000+ or 6400+, waiting on Black Friday
Added 2 Gigs of Corsair PC 6400 ram to up it to 3 Gigs total
Went from a 7900 GS to a 8800 GT (Which I got as a DOA, in the process of RMAing, grrr)
Contemplating adding a bigger hard drive, will also wait on Black Friday

Gonna cost me around $500ish for the update. But I'm a PC Gamer at heart so, it's something I deem necessary.

[Schnoogs]

1000 ?

Depends on the card....8800 is 1700 more than the 7100 :p

What that 1700 is I don't know. Pixel dust?

[Philonious]

I liked the spirit of the article, even if they seem to be pushing it a little too far. It might be nice to hear from an avid pc gamers to suggest how someone might get the most bang for their buck. I was initially intrigued by the idea, and have since been turned off by it. My desktop's motherboard fried recently and the thought of getting it working and running better than my laptop (Intel Core2Duo T7200 @ 2.00 GHz; 2.00 GB RAM; GeForce 7900 GS 256 MB) for cheap was too appealing. Anybody want to suggest what I should do to make a FrankenPC for cheap, or should I just shut up and enjoy my laptop?

[J Arcane]

Don't do that to yourself. Suck it up and spend a little more to get something more in the mid-to-high price range.

I do kind of agree with this by and large, despite my disagreeing otherwise on the specifics. I think my perspective on it just may be a bit different though in that I just don't worry all that much about the bleeding edge.

I think the thing with PC gaming is that yes, it can be freakin' expensive if you really want to go for the bleeding edge graphics. If all you're concerned about is gameplay though, generally, you can get by with a current gen midrange box for quite a while if you're not as picky about graphic detail. I mean, my box is a complete piece of shit, and largely starting to quail in the face of them ost recent stuff, but even there it ran World in Conflict pretty nicely until someone dropped the nuke, and over all it's served me well despite having been out of date even when I got it a year ago.

Plus, like my point about AA, I think there's some of the graphics features that people obsess over that are just plain pointless, and I'd rather do without. The difference between AA and no-AA for me on a nice tube is basically nil, and a lot of the bloom and shit devs are so fond of now I could just flat do without on aesthetic grounds.

It's not as bad as some people, yourself included occasionally, like to claim, but yeah, I'm probably looking forward to about a grand for my new box, but it'll run the stuff I want to play. If I weren't so paranoid about OEMs since my Gateway experience, I'd even be tempted to do what my friend did, and just start watching the sales from places like Dell. He got a Core 2 Duo machine with a high end 7-series and a free flatpanel about a year ago for like $400, when it was still pretty top-end.

[Evil Avatar]

These are my thoughts (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39054)on the situation.

And for the record Evil? I appreciate the unbanning.

You never should have been banned. I was just frustrated because the discussion was turning into my not being right about the benchmarks when what I was trying to go for was a discussion about getting good value for your money.

That was why I wanted to delete the posts, because I didn't think I was making myself clear at all.

[BabyJesus]

http://www.boltonlake.com/graphics/pike48.JPG

[flinxz]

I guess this is a bad time to ask what the main difference between the 7000 series of geforce and the 8000...
Here is a bit more to your question, DX10 is the simple answer though.

GeForce 7950GT (Best 7 series GT)
PCI Express
RAM: 512
Memory Interface: 256-bit
Memory Bandwidth: 44.8
Memory Clock: 1400 MHz
Core Clock: 550 MHz
Shader Model 3.0 (DX9)


GeForce 8800GT
PCI Express 2.0 (It is BC)
RAM: 512
Memory Interface 256-bit (Wish it were more)
Memory Bandwidth 57.6
Memory Clock: 1800 Mhz
Core Clock: 600 Mhz
Shader Model 4.0 (DX10)

[cp#]

The 8800GT is severely tempting me to upgrade when it comes out. Trouble is, I'd feel obliged to upgrade my CPU at the same time. £££ :(

The card is already out. All over the place, retail stores even from what I've read.

I have to agree with Evil on this one. Not a great deal and the performance is such that you'll probably find yourself going SLI shortly after. Anyone with a 1920x1200 or larger display isn't going to be happy with this setup.

A 1920x1200 display would cost more than this $500 upgrade. Anyone going for an upgrade like this would probably have a 22" screen (1680x1050) or smaller since it's the budget gamer rig.

If I upgraded right now I would go with Core 2 Duo/Quad with after market cooling, a decent non-SLI motherboard and a single 8800GT with a after market cooler


For the record I have play every game I want to play (I do not want to play Crysis) at 1680x1050 on Very High settings with 0, 2 or 4x AA and 8x AF and rarely does any game dip below 30 FPS which is totally fine with me. I play TF2 the most and I get anywhere from 30-180 FPS depending on how heavy the action is. CPU is a Opteron 165 (Core 2 blows this thing away!) and GPU is a 7900GT, ram is only DDR. Almost 3 years old.

[Chaos Machine]

I just picked up two 8800GT's at bestbuy today, grand total was like 580 after taxes, let me tell you that these guys are beasts. and blew the shit out of my lone 8800gtx.(btw if anyone is wondering why i didnt just buy another gtx and sli them it was because my dad needed a new vid card so i figured it would be a win-win if i gave him my gtx and just sli'd the GT's)


running vista atm, i get around 15000 3d marks in 06 as opposed to 10k with the gtx, more importantly my MINIMUM fps in all games running in sli is measurably better than a single gtx @ 1920x1200 resulting in smoother gameplay.

[Johan]

I don't have $500 for a new PC, but I'd give five bucks for a glimpse at the missing posts!

Nah...actually, not.

[Voodoo]

My 7600GT SLI setup plays Crysis very well. As a seasoned PC Gamer I have learned that being reasonable is much better than being unrealistic. I'm able to play Crysis at 35 fps avg with the following settings...

1280x1024 Resolution
Everything at Max except Shadows is set to Medium and Post Processing is set to Low.

In two weeks I'll be picking up either the 8800GT or the 3870, depending on who has the best product for the money. :) The only reason I am replacing my SLI setup (will never go SLI again) will be to lower the power requirements of my small form factor PC as well as increasing the graphics horsepower a great deal for a very minimal cost.

[stereo bones]

Here is a bit more to your question, DX10 is the simple answer though.

GeForce 7950GT (Best 7 series GT)
PCI Express
RAM: 512
Memory Interface: 256-bit
Memory Bandwidth: 44.8
Memory Clock: 1400 MHz
Core Clock: 550 MHz
Shader Model 3.0 (DX9)


GeForce 8800GT
PCI Express 2.0 (It is BC)
RAM: 512
Memory Interface 256-bit (Wish it were more)
Memory Bandwidth 57.6
Memory Clock: 1800 Mhz
Core Clock: 600 Mhz
Shader Model 4.0 (DX10)

Edit: God damn it Becca, stop signing me out.

[J Arcane]

As a seasoned PC Gamer I have learned that being reasonable is much better than being unrealistic.

Bingo. That's exactly my philosophy as well.

[Disgustipated]

Here is a bit more to your question, DX10 is the simple answer though.

GeForce 7950GT (Best 7 series GT)
PCI Express
RAM: 512
Memory Interface: 256-bit
Memory Bandwidth: 44.8
Memory Clock: 1400 MHz
Core Clock: 550 MHz
Shader Model 3.0 (DX9)


GeForce 8800GT
PCI Express 2.0 (It is BC)
RAM: 512
Memory Interface 256-bit (Wish it were more)
Memory Bandwidth 57.6
Memory Clock: 1800 Mhz
Core Clock: 600 Mhz
Shader Model 4.0 (DX10)

Comparing two different generations of videocards based solely on useless manufacturer spec sheets is a bitch.

Thing is, videocard architectures vary so much (in this case, at least) from generations that core clocks, RAM clocks, etc are totally useless. The 8800 GT could beat a 7950 GT even at half its core clock Mhz, for example.

I pity those who don't understand the differences between videocards, as it's almost impossible to explain it to them.

[Noman]

These $500 PC parts are no-longer about mainstream performance. They pretty much give you top of the line performance at resolutions of 1680x1050 and higher.

PC hardware has never been this cheap.

I have posted in the newsgroups and webforums before but for $500 you can get,

Athlon64 X2 4400+
PCIe motherboard (SATA and very decent sound chipset)
2 GB DDR2 PC6400
Power Supply
8800GT 512 meg (will get cheaper in couple of weeks when Radeon HD3870
comes out)

For $20-30 more you can get an SLI motherboard to have room for expansion later. However, I always recommend waiting a couple of years and getting $200 latest graphic card. As long as there is nVidia-ATI competition, good deals like 8800GT will be available.

This system will do very well on Unreal Engine 3 games, will crush Source/DOOM3 engine and give adequate performance for Crysis. Not bad for a $500 PC. It could be even less if one has a PCIe/DDR2 setup to begin with.

By the way, having a dual-core CPU is more important than having a specific brand. An X2 or Core2 Duo will both serve well and at resolutions of 1680x1050+, more often than not the GPU will be a bigger bottleneck and will minimize the CPU factor. I recommend getting the cheaper one and overclocking it. X2 3800+, 4400+ or Core2 Duo E6400+ are all excellent overclockers without the need of special cooling hardware. More importantly even when run at stock clock, they do their job well.

My 2¢

[flinxz]

Comparing two different generations of videocards based solely on useless manufacturer spec sheets is a bitch.

Thing is, videocard architectures vary so much (in this case, at least) from generations that core clocks, RAM clocks, etc are totally useless. The 8800 GT could beat a 7950 GT even at half its core clock Mhz, for example.

I pity those who don't understand the differences between videocards, as it's almost impossible to explain it to them.

You wern't supposed to tell them that! It was a numbers are bigger kind of thing. Also I do believe the 256-bit memory interface is still an appropriate concern, but the clocks are good for show.

[Whimbrel]

The last time I tried a cheap upgrade I thought I would go super cheap so I jumped on a 754 mobo thinking the processors would get cheaper. Wrong. An Athlon 3700+ 754 is the fastest available cpu for my mobo. In todays terms it would be a pretty pathetic upgrade. But even worse is that it costs around $300 if you can even find it. So, I am a perfect example of trying to game the upgrade path. At the time I could get 95% of the performance of a 939 system for half the cost. But now I can't upgrade at all. Except with a new everything except floppy drive and case, pretty much.

[Voodoo]

You wern't supposed to tell them that! It was a numbers are bigger kind of thing. Also I do believe the 256-bit memory interface is still an appropriate concern, but the clocks are good for show.

256-bit memory interface is perfect. It doesn't require excessive memory pathways which drives of PCB costs, you can increase the speed of the memory and DDR level still within extremely reasonable cost and finally there isn't much benefit to having more then 256-bit when your memory speed is faster in total. Sure on the extremely high end setups you can see the difference between a 256 and a 512 but my guess is that you would be probably buying a $500+ video card anyways. With mainstream cards, 7600GT is a perfect example, 256-bit is plenty. Both the 3850 and 3870 are 256 bit as well and are stated to perform at 8800GT/GTX levels. Hell the 2900 XT has a 512-bit interface which didn't help it worth a damn, all it did was drive up the price of what turned out to be a higher mid-range card. Now, 128-bit interface, that is far too low as seen on the 8600 and 2600 series... If I am not mistaken, all main system memory is 128-bit when it is dual channel.

[flinxz]

My complaint about the 256-bit MI is from the GTS/GTX/Ultra are all receiving better treatment. When the card is released with more memory are they going to use the same interface? When you are talking about some pretty demanding stuff coming down the pipe it is never bad to be able to access that memory faster (more lanes in the highway).

It just makes me wonder if they might have shorted other aspects of this card; be it with stream processors, pipelines, GDDR3/GDDR4, and of course clocks (stock). Is this card going to be blown away by the 8900 or 9800 series just by doing a bit more? I understand the price is really fair for performance, but it all goes back to making me feel like they went cheaper in one area and maybe other areas that we do not even know about.

Analogy time: You see a nice looking house only to see that some of the finishing touches were rushed or less than stellar. You have to wonder if the stuff you cannot see is the same way (wiring).

[Voodoo]

I think you are putting far too much worth into the memory interface size. The new 8800GTS due out in early December is going to have a 256-bit memory interface as well but is going to absolutely blow the hell out of the current GTX model while being much cheaper due to the less need of there to be such a large memory interface. It is even slated to come in 512MB and 1024MB. BTW, nice analogy but I don't need such things. The G92 GPU was far from being rushed. Like the RV670 for ATI, nVidia saw the mistakes they made with the G80 and corrected them. One of those mistakes was having more than a 256 bit memory interface at the expense of other much better choices for the silicon.

[flinxz]

I am glad you understand my analogy. That is just what has been implanted in my head since I read about the MI. While not having to do with the interface, I was let down on the whole 7900GT / 7950GT thing. Just a short time and some tweaks made a pretty big difference. I like my 7900, but had I gotten the 7950 (not even a full step in their marketing/numbering system) I wouldn’t even be looking for a new card right now.

I see your point though; the G92 is the correction to the G80 disappointments.

[MankoChu]

I don't mind the expense of PC gaming. Sure, the system costs more than a console, but the games are much cheaper. 70-110$au for a new release game? Nah, wait two years and pick it up from EB for 10-20$au. Two year old games still look good and are just much fun. Of coarse i buy online games the day they come out, but over all i think PC gaming costs pretty much the same as console gaming.

I think this might be helpful. Please note, the prices are in AUD.

New System Recommendations (http://www.overclockers.com.au/wiki/New_System_Recommendations)
New System Parts Recommendations (http://www.overclockers.com.au/wiki?title=New_System_Parts_Recommendations)
Gaming Machine (http://www.overclockers.com.au/wiki/Gaming_Machine)

[Ancalagon]

What that 1700 is I don't know. Pixel dust?

Its the amount of magic blue smoke the card contains.

be careful not to immerse your card in water, otherwise it will release its magic blue smoke and no longer work.

[SuicideKing]

Damn it, I laughed at a magic smoke reference, but then you had to go explain it for the neophytes. As PC guys, we're supposed to be elitist which means non explained inside jokes for the win! :p

As for the general point of this thread, I'm torn on where I fall. Either way you look at it the 8800GT is an amazing card at that pricepoint, but the overall debate of adequate vs good performance with upgrade possibilities is a valid one. I for one blew 4K on my new rig this spring. Current plans are to pick up a new proc either late this year or next spring, and a vid upgrade again next year. However, I demand lack of jaggies and texture quality which means practically everything I play must run at 1920*1080 with 4X AA and 16X AF. Also, for the vast majority of games, if it runs slower than 50-60fps on average I get very annoyed, (sometimes 40fps is sufficient, works ok for Unreal III games) and yes I can tell the diference despite what some of you think you know about no one being able to see more than 30FPS. All of that means, my PC habit is quite expensive.

However, for most people willing to shell out that much, the PC is much more than a gaming platform, it's a hobby and a work environment. I know I usually spend the next week after an upgrade getting my highest stable OC just right, I'm the guy who shells out for 5.35" bay hard drive cooling encasings, and 60$ aftermarket heatsinks.

However, a LOT of the people I know, and I do mean a lot, are perfectly happy to play at 1024x768/1280x1024 at around 25fps. Most claim they can't notice the stuttering, I have one friend you plays oblivion running the Oldblivion mod, which still only gets him 25 fps. He's upgrading sometime next year, but that doesnt' change the fact he enjoyed, and still does enjoy the game at what I would consider craptastic settings and unplayable performance.

From personal experience, I can say that if you've never played a game at a consistently high fps, you probably really don't notice it. I remember way back in the day when Bluebyte was still around as a publisher, Extreme Assault was a beautiful game that probably only gave me around 10fps on my 100Mhz (133mhz when turbo was on, YEAH BABY!) voodoo 2 setup. This is back in the day, where upgrading from a 2x to a 10x CD-Rom drive gave sizeable performance increases. And I played through it many times and loved the hell out of it. Then, I tried it on a friends 350mhz PIII with a Matrox G400, and was blown away.


It really all depends on how much you want to pay, vs what your performance frame of reference is. I, personally would say go for high mid range with nice upgrade possibilities, shelling out for all high end gear isn't really something I can recommend doing more than one upgrade out of 2-3, and this 500$ one that got this thread started doesn't qualify, I usually figure 1000$ for a new build sans monitor will get you high mid range.
BUT some people simply have lower standards and that's fine.

[NotJeff]

This article at Firing Squad (http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/$500_gaming_pc_upgrade/) details how to revamp your PC into a really excellent gaming rig for about $500.

I'll take "Adjectives I Used Unwisely In My Newspost Causing Strife and Dismay" for $1000, Alex.

[Philonious]

I'll take "Adjectives I Used Unwisely In My Newspost Causing Strife and Dismay" for $1000, Alex.

Meh, its an interesting story that cause a pretty good discussion and some crazy drama... All in all, an excellent news post.

[Ancalagon]

My take on it is that it depends entirely how far you want to go.

Graphics cards these days are the bulk of where a gamers budget goes. The problem with them, is they offer increasing returns. Compare the 8600GTS to the 8800GT. I can not in any honesty recommend an 8600GTS. I could recommend a 2600XT or 8600GT at about £70, which is still quite cheap, and good enough for light gaming at fairly low resolutions. For some people, thats fine.

The problem with that, is that your hardware doesnt last long. its not long at all until you cant even play games. or, if you can, they run so bad its not worth it.

So, to anyone who wants to play games in any even half serious capacity, I would say, unfortunately spending less than £180 is simply not an option. Getting anything less than an 8800GT these days, if you are a gamer, is just not worth it.

I would also say, unless you need really high resolutions, there is no point in buying anything above an 8800GT. I would say you would need to game in resolutions at or above 1680x1050 to need anything more powerful.

So $500 is enough to convert an office pc to a gaming pc, provided your office person is not a total pos, and has at least a graphics card slot.

[fiercey]

That system still only gets an average FPS in Crysis of about 20 - 30 and may run into some dips while playing. (It consistantly ran into some dips during their testing.)

Shouldn't this be more an indictment of shitty programming than a shitty computer?

I've been in PC gaming since my parents bought me that IBM PC in 1984, and I swear for all the biannual technical innovations and yearly trifold increases in computing power, we're not really all the better for it.

I am *sick* of game makers putting a product on retail that requires the highest-end shit out there to run it on. It's so absolutely unnecessary.

Boycott the damn game, not the PC.

-f

[J Arcane]

Shouldn't this be more an indictment of shitty programming than a shitty computer?

I've been in PC gaming since my parents bought me that IBM PC in 1984, and I swear for all the biannual technical innovations and yearly trifold increases in computing power, we're not really all the better for it.

I am *sick* of game makers putting a product on retail that requires the highest-end shit out there to run it on. It's so absolutely unnecessary.

Boycott the damn game, not the PC.

-f
Word, dawg. Developers have gotten pretty goddamn lazy ever since they realized they could just dump out unoptomized code and count on their customers dutifully pouring scads of cash into hardware upgrades just to run it. And of course, the hardware makers are all signing sponsorship and endorsement deals with the developers, which further feeds the cycle.

[Ancalagon]

To be frank, having seen Crysis run live, I really dont see how you can see its badly programmed without being ignorant.

Frankly, until you do better, or I see a better looking game running at higher framerates, I'll believe that Crysis is a well programmed game that just happens to be extremely ambitious. Its graphics are really really good, it just requires a monster pc. remember when doom 3 came out? same story.

The only thing you might say is that game makers should focus more on gameplay and less on graphics, that may be true.

[Schnoogs]

To be frank, having seen Crysis run live, I really dont see how you can see its badly programmed without being ignorant..

Quoted for truth.

[J Arcane]

remember when doom 3 came out? same story.

No it wasn't. Doom 3 was shit, and got roundly lambasted in the press for being poorly optomized and generally having no excuse whatsoever to run as badly as it does, especially having been released right next to HL2 and Farcry. The goddamn thing took several hardware cycles before it could even handle the fucking outdoors for more than brief, 10 second intervals in a box canyon somewhere.

It was a crappy engine, that had to take a lot of cheap last minute shortcuts jsut to be able to be released in a state that would be at all playable on even high-end rigs of the time.

It's also why Epic has been kicking their ass all over the engine market ever since. Fuck there were still devs choosing to license the Quake 3 engine instead of that POS.

iD Tech 5 however, looks like a return to the quality one generally expects from iD, and I'm really looking forward to it, especially sinces RAGE looks fucking awesome.

[Philonious]

But there is SOME evidence of laziness when you compare to the improvements made in graphics on home consoles. With consoles developers are forced to get the most out of the hardware they have so games get prettier while the hardware stays the same, most PC games won't run smoothly until you've upgraded to tech released two years down the road. It would be nice if the industry settled on universally agreed upon specs on developed games targeted specifically at that hardware level.

[J Arcane]

But there is SOME evidence of laziness when you compare to the improvements made in graphics on home consoles. With consoles developers are forced to get the most out of the hardware they have so games get prettier while the hardware stays the same, most PC games won't run smoothly until you've upgraded to tech released two years down the road. It would be nice if the industry settled on universally agreed upon specs on developed games targeted specifically at that hardware level.
Yup, frankly, if people realized just how much is still being squeezed out of even a piece of shit hardware like the PS2, they wouldn't put up with quite so much crap from PC developers.

But the whole upgrade cycle system feeds into their egos, so a lot of them don't care, because it gives them an excuse to brag about how ridiculously expensive their PCs are.

[Ancalagon]

No it wasn't. Doom 3 was shit, and got roundly lambasted in the press for being poorly optomized and generally having no excuse whatsoever to run as badly as it does, especially having been released right next to HL2 and Farcry. The goddamn thing took several hardware cycles before it could even handle the fucking outdoors for more than brief, 10 second intervals in a box canyon somewhere.

It was a crappy engine, that had to take a lot of cheap last minute shortcuts jsut to be able to be released in a state that would be at all playable on even high-end rigs of the time.

Dude, seriously, thats just FUD. I played Doom3 on my radeon 9200 at launch, and it ran fine. I had to run it in 640x480, sure, but it ran fine, it was easily playable.

Half Life 2's textures are still not as good, its normal maps arent as good, it doesnt have dynamic lighting, and even episode 2 doesnt support full dynamic lighting.

Doom 3 was lambasted for not being as good as its hype, not for looking shit. people generally said it was the most impressive thing they had seen in a while, but was unoriginal and lacked the physics and AI that made HL2 so special.

[J Arcane]

Doom 3 was lambasted for not being as good as its hype, not for looking shit.

I didn't say it looked like shit, I said it ran for shit, and it does. You wouldn't have even been able to play it if the whole game hadn't been forced largely into cramped 5 foot corridors and rooms smaller than pizza boxes, because the engine couldn't handle anything more than that without dying.

[Schnoogs]

No it wasn't. Doom 3 was shit, and got roundly lambasted in the press for being poorly optomized and generally having no excuse whatsoever to run as badly as it does, especially having been released right next to HL2 and Farcry. The goddamn thing took several hardware cycles before it could even handle the fucking outdoors for more than brief, 10 second intervals in a box canyon somewhere.

It was a crappy engine, that had to take a lot of cheap last minute shortcuts jsut to be able to be released in a state that would be at all playable on even high-end rigs of the time.

It's also why Epic has been kicking their ass all over the engine market ever since. Fuck there were still devs choosing to license the Quake 3 engine instead of that POS.

iD Tech 4 however, looks like a return to the quality one generally expects from iD, and I'm really looking forward to it, especially sinces RAGE looks fucking awesome.

I'm gonna try and be as polite as possible but you have no idea what you are talking about. One of Carmacks trademarks is his ability to scale his engines. Doom 3 was able to run on VOODOO2 cards of all things. It scaled incredibly well considering its technical merits. You couldn't be further from the truth on this one. The fact that at Ultra High settings it needed a Radeon 6800 or equiv does not have anything to do with its optimization.

You are flat out wrong in your criticism and you're exaggerating.

[Ancalagon]

I'm gonna try and be as polite as possible but you have no idea what you are talking about. One of Carmacks trademarks is his ability to scale his engines. Doom 3 was able to run on VOODOO2 cards of all things. It scaled incredibly well considering its technical merits. You couldn't be further from the truth on this one. The fact that at Ultra High settings it needed a Radeon 6800 or equiv does not have anything to do with its optimization.

You are flat out wrong in your criticism and you're exaggerating.

thanks Schnoogs.

The only criticism about Doom 3 was that it required pixel shaders to run, which werent included in the Geforce 4 MX cards, so many people felt left out.

Frankly, when you have studied computer graphics, you realize why it is so difficult to render 3d graphics, and why polygon counts were so low for many years.

[Schnoogs]

Reading over your post again it is just full of errors and exaggerations. Epic's engine was more popular because, as John Carmack pointed out, Doom 3 came with shitty DEV tools. It wasn't the engine itself but the tools for using it. That's why IDTech5 has focused so much on the tools and not just the engine.

[fiercey]

I'm gonna try and be as polite as possible but you have no idea what you are talking about. One of Carmacks trademarks is his ability to scale his engines. Doom 3 was able to run on VOODOO2 cards of all things. It scaled incredibly well considering its technical merits. You couldn't be further from the truth on this one. The fact that at Ultra High settings it needed a Radeon 6800 or equiv does not have anything to do with its optimization.

You are flat out wrong in your criticism and you're exaggerating.


You speak in large, sweeping generalizations here. Clearly you weren't there and have zero idea what you're talking about.

-f

[Schnoogs]

You speak in large, sweeping generalizations here. Clearly you weren't there and have zero idea what you're talking about.

-f

Some people will do anything to pad their post count :p

[J Arcane]

You speak in large, sweeping generalizations here. Clearly you weren't there and have zero idea what you're talking about.

-f
It's also bollocks, I didn't say anything about the engine that isn't proved true simply by looking at the releases that came after using the same engine. For fuck's sake, they had to design an entirely new texturing technology jsut to get the engine to handle Quake Wars. And their actual third party licensors amount to Prey, Prey again, and oh look, it's Prey. Whoopie. The rest is more iD titles, put out by what amount to second-party developers.

[fiercey]

Some people will do anything to pad their post count :p

Posts: 8,112

Apparently. :p

-f

[fiercey]

It's also bollocks, I didn't say anything about the engine that isn't proved true simply by looking at the releases that came after using the same engine. For fuck's sake, they had to design an entirely new texturing technology jsut to get the engine to handle Quake Wars. And their actual third party licensors amount to Prey, Prey again, and oh look, it's Prey. Whoopie. The rest is more iD titles, put out by what amount to second-party developers.


What I appreciated in your post was this:

It's also why Epic has been kicking their ass all over the engine market ever since.

I don't think a lot of people in the care have ever come to that particular epiphany quite yet.

-f

[Schnoogs]

It's also bollocks, I didn't say anything about the engine that isn't proved true simply by looking at the releases that came after using the same engine. For fuck's sake, they had to design an entirely new texturing technology jsut to get the engine to handle Quake Wars. And their actual third party licensors amount to Prey, Prey again, and oh look, it's Prey. Whoopie. The rest is more iD titles, put out by what amount to second-party developers.

The lack of licensing is attributed to the poor dev tools...which was already pointed out in this thread and has nothing to do with the optimizations of the engine.

Your comment about the texturing contradicts yourself because MegaTextures was done to make things easier for the artists and is considered an enhancement which we'll probably see other engines adopt to some extent. Megatexturing was not an indication that Doom 3 wasn't properly optimized. The incorporation of new technology is just that...if that weren't the case then you could say that Source wasn't properly optimized since they had to release new games and technology to incorporate HDR.

Your criticism of the engine simply doesn't line up with the facts. Even a quick glance over Doom 3's Wiki page shows no mention of a lack of optimization as a criticism of the game despite the fact that they list 20 or so other popular criticisms.

[Schnoogs]

What I appreciated in your post was this:

It's also why Epic has been kicking their ass all over the engine market ever since.

I don't think a lot of people in the care have ever come to that particular epiphany quite yet.

-f

The dev tools were superior...that has nothing to do with a lack of optimizations.

You should be careful who you agree with...their lack of understanding becomes yours as well.

[J Arcane]

Even a quick glance over Doom 3's Wiki page shows no mention of a lack of optimization as a criticism of the game despite the fact that they list or so other popular criticisms.

Congratulations. That's the sound of your credibility disappearing completely. Have a nice day.

[Schnoogs]

Congratulations. That's the sound of your credibility disappearing completely. Have a nice day.

Outright dismissals of Wikipedia is pretty ignorant. If you can dig up articles that demonstrate that idTech4 was poorly optimized you can then add them to the Doom 3 entry. I don't think you can because frankly that was never a widespread criticism of the engine amongst those who know and understand game engines.

If your only counter argument is dismissing Wikipedia then I feel stronger in my position that Doom 3, like every other id game, was well optimized by the man known as the "human compiler". Perhaps you hated the game so you've taken it upon yourself to rip on everything related to it.

[fiercey]

Your criticism of the engine simply doesn't line up with the facts.


I haven't seen any facts yet-- so far just temper tantrums, hyperbole, and wikipedic synopses cut-n-pasted directly from the "Cliff's Notes for Dummies" edition.

-f

[Schnoogs]

I haven't seen any facts yet-- so far just temper tantrums, hyperbole, and wikipedic synopses cut-n-pasted directly from the "Cliff's Notes for Dummies" edition.

-f

There hasn't been a single temper tantrum in this thread...so that was a lie.

The facts have been stated several times. IDTech4 was not licensed nearly as much as previous engines because its competition, in this case Unreal, had vastly superior DEV tools. Doom 3 was successfully run on hardware as old as a Voodoo2. It was highly scalable and highly portable because of Carmacks reliance on OpenGl, etc. There is little supporting evidence to his claim that it was a poorly optimized engine and that was what led to the widespread licensing of Unreal.

There also wasn't any "cutting and pasting" from Wikipedia. Did you even read the posts? In fact what exactly have you offered to this conversation other than lies about tantrums and Wikipedia quoting?

Do you have any facts to offer yourself?

[J Arcane]

Dude, you cited a Wikipedia article as proof of a negative. You fail. End of game.

And I liked Doom 3. I think from a gameplay perspective, it's fuckin' brilliant, I just think iD let the lot of us down when it comes to engine performance. Also I can't play it for more than half an hour at a time because it scares the unholy piss out of me.

[Spunky Monkey]

I thought that the x2 4000+ processor was one to upgrade from, rather than to at the moment. 8800gt is a sweetass card though.

[Schnoogs]

Dude, you cited a Wikipedia article as proof of a negative. You fail. End of game. .

He said "cut and paste" which never happened. The fact that he said that made me wonder if he simply skimmed over the conversation and wasn't even really paying attention. If that's the case then why should I even take the time to address his sideline criticisms. I'd rather spend that time discussing it with you because you and I are clearly not in agreement and are offering up arguments to back up our opinions.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Later man.

[J Arcane]

I thought that the x2 4000+ processor was one to upgrade from, rather than to at the moment. 8800gt is a sweetass card though.
I want an 8800GT Right Now. Which is weird, becasue I can't think of any actual hardware bits that ever instilled excitement in me, but there you go.

[Schnoogs]

I will say this...it doesn't look good when people criticize others for using Wikipedia as a reference and then go on to cite none for themselves. If you know a better source then link it. Otherwise your unsubstantiated claim has zero arguments backing it upcompared to the claim that at the least has Wikipedia behind it.

Wikipedia may not be the best source for highly subjective topics but for technical discussions it's far more reliable. I routinely use it for Math and CS and I find that it is almost always in agreement with my school textbooks, etc.

[Slack3r78]

J Arcane, what the bloody hell are you talking about man?

Doom 3 ran fine on the cards available at the time of its release:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDc0LDIsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0

For comparison, HL2's numbers at full detail (by Valve's own account) aren't that far off, with the biggest difference being Nvidia and ATi cards swapping the lead due to ATi's notoriously bad OpenGL implementation at the time and Nvidia's DX9 performance being hurt badly by opting for slower 32 bit shader units over the 24 bit shader units of the ATi 9x00 series cards:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/5636/2

How the hell you could interpret that as the D3 engine having horrid performance issues is a bit beyond me.

[Harv]

All this talk about upgrading systems is making my NewEgg account itch.

[KingGorilla]

All this talk about upgrading systems is making my NewEgg account itch.

http://www.wholesaleramp.com/WholesaleRAMP/images/Cortizone10_1oz_AnalItch_7430000922.jpg

[Ancalagon]

Dude, you cited a Wikipedia article as proof of a negative. You fail. End of game.

Why is wikipedia a bad reference? Provide a peer reviewed journal that examines the accuracy of at least 1000 wikipedia articles. "Common knowledge" is often wrong, common knowledge in this case referring to the whole wikipedia is inaccurate.

Wikipedia is maintained by devoted professionals. Some fuckers screw some entries up, sure, but these are mostly picked up and corrected.

Can you name one instance where wikipedia was incorrect? No? Thought not.

Besides which, what do you know about games programming? If I remember correctly, it was you who thought a FX 5200 should be able to run everything. News flash - Doom 3 sucked on your system because your card is crap.

Doom 3 ran quite well on a card I later upgraded to, a 9600 XT. Which, yes, was an ATI card, the Doom 3 engines mortal enemy. SHock! horror! It ran! With dynamic lighting.

You have spouted nothing but FUD in this thread, J. Where is your proof that the Doom 3 engine sucked? Maybe you hated it because your FX 5200 couldnt handle it, but what about everyone else? I want you to round up at least 3 popular reviews saying that the game ran too crap for its graphics. And a few articles saying carmack was lazy.

Hey you know what, Carmack got where he is because he can code pretty well. How many OpenGL games engines have you written? How many games have you produced?

I work as a real time graphics programmer. So yes, I know what I'm talking about, when I say that games like Crysis running in real time are pretty hot, and Doom 3, for the time, was shit hot too.

[KingGorilla]

Wikipedia is about as accurate as a 2 year old Encyclopedia Britanica last time I saw a report.

[Slack3r78]

Why is wikipedia a bad reference?
Well, I think J Arcane is wrong on the topic of discussion, but his point here was valid. He wasn't saying wiki is a bad reference, rather that citing the absence of information on wikipedia as supporting evidence for a point isn't particularly valid.

[Schnoogs]

Well, I think J Arcane is wrong on the topic of discussion, but his point here was valid. He wasn't saying wiki is a bad reference, rather that citing the absence of information on wikipedia as supporting evidence for a point isn't particularly valid.

Wrong...there were over 20 criticisms lists of Doom 3 yet no mention of problems with optimization DESPITE J Arcane stating that this was the #1 issue with Doom 3.

Are we really supposed to believe that such a glaring issue was overlooked in all the years that this page has existed?? That would be like having a Wiki page for notable Chicago Bulls stars and despite having 30 players listed they omit Michael Jordan. Highly unlikely.

If the issue was as big as he said it was SOMEONE would have added it to the page.

[Slack3r78]

Wrong...there were over 20 criticisms lists of Doom 3 yet no mention of problems with optimization DESPITE J Arcane stating that this was the #1 issue with Doom 3.

Are we really supposed to believe that such a glaring issue was overlooked in all the years that this page has existed?? That would be like having a Wiki page for notable Chicago Bulls stars and despite having 30 players listed they omit Michael Jordan. Highly unlikely.

If the issue was as big as he said it was SOMEONE would have added it to the page.

Quite possibly, but the absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence. :)

I agree that it would suggest that J Arcane is overstating the problem, but, as a recent example, I was looking at the wikipedia entry on Dwight Eisenhower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_eisenhower) the other day and noticed that any mention of Eisenhower's involvement in the overthrow of the Iranian government and the installation of the Shah was noticeably absent. Citing that wiki entry to refute the suggestion that Eisenhower was involved in that action wouldn't be a particularly valid method of arguing that point.

This is why I chose to go for affirmative benchmarks showing Doom 3 running on contemporary cards relative to its direct competition instead. :)

[Schnoogs]

Quite possibly, but the absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence.

If the Wiki page didn't have a section called "Criticism" I would whole heartedly agree with you. But the fact that it was very detailed and thorough makes me highly skeptical that something so big would have been forgotten.

It almost boils down to probablity. How likely is it that such a huge criticism of the game would remain absent despite years worth of editing.

Then you throw in the small fact that he provided ZERO evidence of his own.

[fiercey]

Can you name one instance where wikipedia was incorrect? No? Thought not.

Actually, there was a report about Wikipedia on CNN.com a little while back because of glaring inaccuracies and outright fabrications in Wikipedia's content. There were also online polls asking people if they considered Wikipedia an accurate source of information, and the majority (like myself) said "No".

Since when did people start taking anything on Wikipedia with more than a grain of salt?

Edit: Oh, here you go.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/11/02/perils.wikipedia/index.html?iref=newssearch

-f

[KingGorilla]

Shock and awe, something in print is not necessarily accurate. Like I said, Wikipedia is about as good as the encyclopedias you would find in a school library.

[Slack3r78]

It almost boils down to probablity. How likely is it that such a huge criticism of the game would remain absent despite years worth of editing.

Then you throw in the small fact that he provided ZERO evidence of his own.

Fair enough. I was mainly just trying to cut off the people saying that J Arcane was saying Wikipedia itself was inherently inaccurate when he was actually just disagreeing with the way in which Wikipedia was used. :)

[Schnoogs]

I got a question for you all...I have a motherboard that was design for AMD processors and crossfire video cards. My X1900XT is showing its age when playing Crysis and I was thinking of grabbing an 8800GT as a short term solution. Will that NVidia card even work in a Crossfire motherboard??

[Slack3r78]

I got a question for you all...I have a motherboard that was design for AMD processors and crossfire video cards. My X1900XT is showing its age when playing Crysis and I was thinking of grabbing an 8800GT as a short term solution. Will that NVidia card even work in a Crossfire motherboard??

Yes. It's been a while since I've mixed ATI chipset with Nvidia GPU (Radeon Xpress 200 w/ a 6600GT) and it worked fine. The only problem we ran into was that suspend-to-RAM didn't work right, only power-on-suspend, and honestly, that may have just been that mobo.

[Ancalagon]

Actually, there was a report about Wikipedia on CNN.com a little while back because of glaring inaccuracies and outright fabrications in Wikipedia's content. There were also online polls asking people if they considered Wikipedia an accurate source of information, and the majority (like myself) said "No".

Since when did people start taking anything on Wikipedia with more than a grain of salt?

Edit: Oh, here you go.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/11/02/p...ref=newssearch

An online poll! How wrong I was! You have proved me wrong sir! An online poll must surely consist only of erudite, ubnbiased, intelligent, honest and educated people from the world over, not just America, who impartially judged Wikipedia's accuracy.

I stand corrected, you have shamed me.

Seriously now, I could just as easily accuse CNN of being biased and/or inaccurate. I can think of far more inaccurate news stories than inaccurate wikipedia articles.

So, in summary, you have said:

1. An online poll found Wikipedia to be inaccurate. Okay. Tell me how that is definitive proof.
2. CNN said Wikipedia was inaccurate. Again, tell me how that is definitive proof. Who's work did CNN cite?

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. In any collaboration, there will be people who fuck around and contribute nothing but falsehoods (several do exactly that on these forums).

However, the large majority of people like having factually correct information in wikipedia.

Besides, whatever, even if wikipedia wasnt accurate, which I believe it largely is, how does that mean Doom 3 was a badly coded POS? You still havent provided any proof for you statements that Doom 3 was coded like shit, ran badly and looked badly. I'm waiting.

[SuicideKing]

Ignoring the wikipedia tangent, anyone who says the DOOM 3 Engine was poorly optimized is either a blind unreasonable fanboy, or completely ignorant.

As mentioned before, it's STILL superior to the much revised Source engine in some ways, given that Source still does not do fully dynamic lighting. Episode 2's grass was still fucking SPRITES for heaven's sake. DOOM 3 ran at a very respectable clip on my old 9800pro with all the eye candy on, and ran amazingly well on my 7800gt.
Where HL 2 trumps Doom 3 is in the artt department, the Valve art department's shader + texture artists + animtors were were able to produce superior assets than the three guys tasked with churning out all the art assets for Doom3.

I'm not going to rehash megatexture tech since Schnoogs essentially said it all. It's an entirely new feature not something they had to shoehorn in to be able to texture the area. I for one also think that the entire megatexture concept is amazing as far as the technical implementations go. Carmack is the god of graphics engines, period fucking dot. The Unreal guys have a massive team to work on theirs, Carmack does his solo. Have you ever sat through one of his keynotes? The guy essentially decided "Hey, I would like to see an engine that fairly accurately simulates real-time fully dynamic lighting, none exist, I guess I might as well write one. I guess a DOOM storyline might show it off, let's revive that franchise." Couple months down the road, engine's done, and all that's left to do is wait for the content guys to catch up... "Hmmm, I'm bored, I guess I'll write a basic physics engine. Art guys still aren't done... Damn it, Fine I guess I might as well write the sound engine." "Ah we have some basic art assets, guess it might be time to write the netcode." In between time he's designing building, and testing space rockets.
The guy is insanely talented.

Also, I do believe the english language lacks adequate words to describe the ps2 analogy. Is is beyond heinous in how faulty it is. The entire point of a console is it's a closed system, everything, from the hardware to the software is strictly specced out and does not vary over the lifetime of the system. That right there, is the complete antithesis of the PC industry is, and needs to be.

No development team has the time to put out a AAA title which is as optimised for every existing PC hardware+software platform combination to the extent a console title can be, and have a prayer of ever releasing it, much less staying in the financial black long enough to do so. Which scenario do you prefer, the PC game refusing to even run on your sys period because you don't have the exact platform it was optimized for? Would you like to have to reboot your PC everytime you wanted to load a game so that the it could have full access to the CPU+RAM without having to deal with whatever fluctuating resources the programs you chose to install on your PC and run at the same time, might impose? How bout not even being able to run multiple programs at the same time?

You can't bitch about a developper not catering to you simply because you're too poor or niggardly to pay for a system that would run a game at what you might consider an acceptable visual+performance level.

There's a reason that AAA PC titles look superior to their console counterparts as well, and that is the fact that PC hardware improves far more regularly. Don't try to cripple those of us who care enough to shell out for a better experience just because you feel it's not fair that you can't get the same for less.

[Ancalagon]

The more I learn about computers, the more I'm amazed that they work at all.

I'm also amazed that there are people that can understand them from the microscopic, physical level, to the machine code level, to the operating system level, to the program level. Bloody amazingly complex machines.

[Slack3r78]

Where HL 2 trumps Doom 3 is in the artt department, the Valve art department's shader + texture artists + animtors were were able to produce superior assets than the three guys tasked with churning out all the art assets for Doom3.
I can't seem to find any links now, but I seem to remember that, not long after Half-Life 2's release, somebody pulling HL2 textures and models into D3 and the results were nothing short of stunning.

[Schnoogs]

I can't seem to find any links now, but I seem to remember that, not long after Half-Life 2's release, somebody pulling HL2 textures and models into D3 and the results were nothing short of stunning.

Search harder because you've peeked my interest! :p

[fiercey]

An online poll! How wrong I was! You have proved me wrong sir! An online poll must surely consist only of erudite, ubnbiased, intelligent, honest and educated people from the world over, not just America, who impartially judged Wikipedia's accuracy.

I stand corrected, you have shamed me.

Seriously now, I could just as easily accuse CNN of being biased and/or inaccurate. I can think of far more inaccurate news stories than inaccurate wikipedia articles.

So, in summary, you have said:

1. An online poll found Wikipedia to be inaccurate. Okay. Tell me how that is definitive proof.
2. CNN said Wikipedia was inaccurate. Again, tell me how that is definitive proof. Who's work did CNN cite?

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. In any collaboration, there will be people who fuck around and contribute nothing but falsehoods (several do exactly that on these forums).

However, the large majority of people like having factually correct information in wikipedia.

Besides, whatever, even if wikipedia wasnt accurate, which I believe it largely is, how does that mean Doom 3 was a badly coded POS? You still havent provided any proof for you statements that Doom 3 was coded like shit, ran badly and looked badly. I'm waiting.


Hey, you asked-- I just provided. Your problem with it is your problem alone.

-f

[Schnoogs]

You know you can always put the "-f" in your signature so you don't always have to type it. Or you could omit it since we know your username already! :p

[Ancalagon]

Hey, you asked-- I just provided. Your problem with it is your problem alone.

-f

No, I'm not the only one who has a problem with you "sources".

But hey, you seem pretty set in your ignorant ways. Hey, I only studied computer science for 4 years, and do OpenGL code for a living, what do I know? You obviously know how to code graphics engines well enough to say that id are lazy pieces of shit. I congratulate you sir, you can tell an awful lot with zero understanding of how graphics are really rendered, and without even seeing the source code. Truly you must be amazing.

[fiercey]

and do OpenGL code for a living

Must suck, what with that little thing called DirectX running the show.

-f

[Ancalagon]

Must suck, what with that little thing called DirectX running the show.

-f

Well now I recognize you for what you are - an immature troll.

As it would happen, when is the last time you saw DirectX code running on Linux?

You know fuckall, so shut the fuck up.

[51|RandoM]

Which is probably why many have moved back to consoles. The whole yearly updating of a computer just to play games.

I honestly don't know wtf you are talking about. My PC plays every game and I built it three years ago. Three years later I dropped in a new video card and I'm playing the latest games at 1920x1200.

People who have to upgrade every year need to rethink their purchases because they're screwing up somewhere along the line.

Good thing I wasn't around for this little spat, I probably would've got the boot too. Evil is nitpicking the article because it goes against his stance with respect to PC gaming. I mean come on, you're sweating shipping costs? Lol.

[Schnoogs]

Must suck, what with that little thing called DirectX running the show.

-f

DirectX doesn't quite work on Linux and MacOS. I hate to break the news to you but outside of gaming DirectX is of little use to the professional world. I've seen countless jobs for OpenGl in a wide array of industries other than gaming.

The more you know.

[Schnoogs]

My PC plays every game and I built it three years ago. Three years later I dropped in a new video card and I'm playing the latest games at 1920x1200..

I'm pretty much in the same boat. My system is two years old and plays everything BUT Crysis no problem despite the fact that I upgraded to a 2560x1600 display. If you spec your system intelligently upfront and know how to find deals it can last two years easily.

If it wasn't for Crysis I could easily see myself enjoying this rig til next summer.

[fiercey]

DirectX doesn't quite work on Linux and MacOS. I hate to break the news to you but outside of gaming DirectX is of little use to the professional world. I've seen countless jobs for OpenGl in a wide array of industries other than gaming.

The more you know.


Isn't gaming what we're talking about here? ...or are you guys wanting to play bait-n-switch to Linux/Mac.

-f

[Schnoogs]

Isn't gaming what we're talking about here? ...or are you guys wanting to play bait-n-switch to Linux/Mac.

-f

You're the one who mentioned DirectX when he said he worked in OpenGL.

Last time I checked they have games for both the Mac and Linux. Plus there's this little thing called the PS3 which clearly doesn't use DirectX.

[Slack3r78]

Isn't gaming what we're talking about here? ...or are you guys wanting to play bait-n-switch to Linux/Mac.

-f

Gaming is the only use for 3D graphics? It's only possible to be a real innovator in terms of 3D graphic engine design in the gaming field? Your ignorance is showing again.

[Philonious]

Wow... This thread is like the devil, causing fights left and right. Anyone know how much I'd need to spend on a system to get NWN2 and the Witcher running smoothly? The empty promise of a $500 upgrade has me wanting a better PC.

[BlackPete]

/Pauses before typing, then thinks better of it.
/Walks away whistling.

[Chameleo]

i need a new PC badly. should i read through this thread?

[51|RandoM]

Ignoring the wikipedia tangent, anyone who says the DOOM 3 Engine was poorly optimized is either a blind unreasonable fanboy, or completely ignorant.

As mentioned before, it's STILL superior to the much revised Source engine in some ways, given that Source still does not do fully dynamic lighting. Episode 2's grass was still fucking SPRITES for heaven's sake. DOOM 3 ran at a very respectable clip on my old 9800pro with all the eye candy on, and ran amazingly well on my 7800gt.
Where HL 2 trumps Doom 3 is in the artt department, the Valve art department's shader + texture artists + animtors were were able to produce superior assets than the three guys tasked with churning out all the art assets for Doom3.

I'm not going to rehash megatexture tech since Schnoogs essentially said it all. It's an entirely new feature not something they had to shoehorn in to be able to texture the area. I for one also think that the entire megatexture concept is amazing as far as the technical implementations go. Carmack is the god of graphics engines, period fucking dot. The Unreal guys have a massive team to work on theirs, Carmack does his solo. Have you ever sat through one of his keynotes? The guy essentially decided "Hey, I would like to see an engine that fairly accurately simulates real-time fully dynamic lighting, none exist, I guess I might as well write one. I guess a DOOM storyline might show it off, let's revive that franchise." Couple months down the road, engine's done, and all that's left to do is wait for the content guys to catch up... "Hmmm, I'm bored, I guess I'll write a basic physics engine. Art guys still aren't done... Damn it, Fine I guess I might as well write the sound engine." "Ah we have some basic art assets, guess it might be time to write the netcode." In between time he's designing building, and testing space rockets.
The guy is insanely talented.

Also, I do believe the english language lacks adequate words to describe the ps2 analogy. Is is beyond heinous in how faulty it is. The entire point of a console is it's a closed system, everything, from the hardware to the software is strictly specced out and does not vary over the lifetime of the system. That right there, is the complete antithesis of the PC industry is, and needs to be.

No development team has the time to put out a AAA title which is as optimised for every existing PC hardware+software platform combination to the extent a console title can be, and have a prayer of ever releasing it, much less staying in the financial black long enough to do so. Which scenario do you prefer, the PC game refusing to even run on your sys period because you don't have the exact platform it was optimized for? Would you like to have to reboot your PC everytime you wanted to load a game so that the it could have full access to the CPU+RAM without having to deal with whatever fluctuating resources the programs you chose to install on your PC and run at the same time, might impose? How bout not even being able to run multiple programs at the same time?

You can't bitch about a developper not catering to you simply because you're too poor or niggardly to pay for a system that would run a game at what you might consider an acceptable visual+performance level.

There's a reason that AAA PC titles look superior to their console counterparts as well, and that is the fact that PC hardware improves far more regularly. Don't try to cripple those of us who care enough to shell out for a better experience just because you feel it's not fair that you can't get the same for less.

I nominate this for post of the week.

[fiercey]

Gaming is the only use for 3D graphics? It's only possible to be a real innovator in terms of 3D graphic engine design in the gaming field? Your ignorance is showing again.

Hey, dumbass up there said the following:

DirectX doesn't quite work on Linux and MacOS. I hate to break the news to you but outside of gaming DirectX is of little use to the professional world.

I never intimated anything regarding 3D applications in other fields, etc. I asked aren't we talking about gaming. Some here denounced the machine in question because it doesn't run Crysis so well, etc. If you had read the thread, you'd realize the person I was talking to, Schnoogs, was going on and on about Doom 3 vs. the world-- which, again, is about gaming. In the microcosm of Schnoogs' posts, he/we/aliens were talking about gaming.

The other twat pulled out "I'm an OpenGL coder", as if he is privvy to some special gaming knowledge because of it. In that context, I inferred that he must be hurting in this day and age. Linux and MacOS aren't exactly smokin' it up in cutting edge games. I too have my degree in computer science, although I now get paid on the network design side of things for the better part of a decade. Big whoop, half of us probably do.

You jumped in to the defense, and didn't exactly know what the fight was about.

-f

[Slack3r78]

I never intimated anything regarding 3D applications in other fields, etc. I asked aren't we talking about gaming. Some here denounced the machine in question because it doesn't run Crysis so well, etc. If you had read the thread, you'd realize the person I was talking to, Schnoogs, was going on and on about Doom 3 vs. the world-- which, again, is about gaming. In the microcosm of Schnoogs' posts, he/we/aliens were talking about gaming.

The other twat pulled out "I'm an OpenGL coder", as if he is privvy to some special gaming knowledge because of it. In that context, I inferred that he must be hurting in this day and age. Linux and MacOS aren't exactly smokin' it up in cutting edge games. I too have my degree in computer science, although I now get paid on the network design side of things for the better part of a decade. Big whoop, half of us probably do.

You jumped in to the defense, and didn't exactly know what the fight was about.

-f

What you did was act like 3D theory is somehow special and different when it comes to gaming. It's not, and the fact that you suggest it is pretty much shows your hand when it comes to having no idea what you're talking about on the subject.

[Schnoogs]

Must suck, what with that little thing called DirectX running the show.

-f

I'm going to point out AGAIN the post that got you into trouble.

The fact that he works with OpenGL does not suck because DirectX exists. If you think visualization software for university research or the military is written solely with DirectX you really need to expose yourself to a world outside of gaming.

For all you know he's writing OpenGL software for medical imaging software that's going to be used to save someone's life.

That must "suck". :p

[Schnoogs]

What you did was act like 3D theory is somehow special and different when it comes to gaming. It's not, and the fact that you suggest it is pretty much shows your hand when it comes to having no idea what you're talking about on the subject.

I like his prolific use of quotes in RED

[AzSinistar]

All this talk about upgrading systems is making my NewEgg account itch.

Mine got scratched.. but not for $500.00

Intel Q6700 Quad Core $279
2 eVGA 8800GT SuperClocked $279 ea.
eVGA SLI motherboard $105 after rebate
OCZ 4GB Platinum RAM $130.00 after rebate

sigh.... had to do it :)

[Philonious]

Mine got scratched.. but not for $500.00

Intel Q6700 Quad Core $279
2 eVGA 8800GT SuperClocked $279 ea.
eVGA SLI motherboard $105 after rebate
OCZ 4GB Platinum RAM $130.00 after rebate

sigh.... had to do it :)

Jeebus.

How feasible is sticking new stuff into an old shell? How hard would it be for someone who has never done it before (I've added RAM and changed videocards, but that's about it.) Cause what you've done is more along the lines of what I've been things (w/o the dual-cards).

[SuicideKing]

I'd say.... easy as heck. Really no issue as long as your case has right standoffs, which is pretty much guaranteed for any standard ATX board, and then of course enough slots for your drive bays. Not all cases are equal though, biggest issue might be heat. The rest is pretty much foolproof, just be careful setting the heatsink on the CPU, but don't be too afraid to apply pressure. Most fiddly bits, regardless of how many times you do it is getting all your case connections to mobo (HDD LED, speaker, etc...)

[J Arcane]

News flash - Doom 3 sucked on your system because your card is crap.

Nope. Doom 3 ran fine on my machine. The last time I played it in fact, was on the very machine I write this post from, the very machine with the infamouse 5200 card.

It also wasn't my point at all. Try rendering a nice open outdoors scene like you get in HL2 or FarCry in the D3 engine on the exact same hardware, and D3 will grind down to a slideshow.

Again, the only reason D3 runs the way it does at all, is because the environments are incredibly cramped and limited, largely to cut corners on how much the engine has to render, because the performance for anything larger isn't there.

[Schnoogs]

Again, the only reason D3 runs the way it does at all, is because the environments are incredibly cramped and limited, largely to cut corners on how much the engine has to render, because the performance for anything larger isn't there.

I'm calling this section out because it validates the notion that you know next to nothing about game engines.

You clearly know NOTHING about scene management. NOTHING!

But that doesn't stop you from spewing nothing but FUD and nonsense in this thread.

[J Arcane]

I thought I explained to you that you'd already lost? Or do you want to cite more horribly sourced articles from Wikiland?

[Schnoogs]

This coming from the guy who cited ZERO sources and has demonstrated little to no understanding of game engines in general let alone Doom 3.

Perhaps in your mind you've "won" this argument but it's a matter of record for anyone who visits this thread that you have presented ZERO sources to back up your stance and you've been shot down by some of the most knowledgeable members of this forum.

Consider this conversation over and as far as I'm concerned this thread has been derailed to the point that it should be closed.

[J Arcane]

Yawn. "Most knowledgeable members". I like that one at least. Provides at least a chuckle. A litte full of yourself there, aren't you kiddo?

[Schnoogs]

Yawn. "Most knowledgeable members". I like that one at least. Provides at least a chuckle. A litte full of yourself there, aren't you kiddo?

I wasn't referring to myself.

So how are those sources coming kiddo?

[J Arcane]

Well, I think J Arcane is wrong on the topic of discussion, but his point here was valid. He wasn't saying wiki is a bad reference, rather that citing the absence of information on wikipedia as supporting evidence for a point isn't particularly valid.
I find it advisable to take anything Wikipedia says with a massive truckload of salt. Even the "well-sourced" articles generally involve sources that are nothing more than "what some guy said on some obscure website no one cares about".

And on top of that, he cites one of the most poorly edited and sourced articles I've seen in a while (thought the iD Tech 4 one is even worse), and tops it off by failing at pretty basic logic by trying to prove a negative.

[Schnoogs]

I find it advisable to take anything Wikipedia says with a massive truckload of salt. Even the "well-sourced" articles generally involve sources that are nothing more than "what some guy said on some obscure website no one cares about".

And on top of that, he cites one of the most poorly edited and sourced articles I've seen in a while (thought the iD Tech 4 one is even worse), and tops it off by failing at pretty basic logic by trying to prove a negative.

Again this is coming from someone who has cited ZERO sources. Then again that's to be expected since he's flat out wrong. :p

Falling back on the "Wikipedia attack" doesn't make up for the fact that you haven't provided a singe piece of corroborating evidence. That's desperation on your behalf. Either cite some sources or admit they you were wrong.

Why they reluctance to provide any supporting evidence? Employing the "Wikipedia is teh sux" argument doesn't count. :rolleyes:

[KingGorilla]

I am confused, are you both measuring your pathetic e-peens over Wikipedia or over the Doom 3 engine?

[J Arcane]

Uh huh. Pot. Kettle. Black. Nice attempt at a smokescreen though, but again, largely useless. Just keep diggin' that hole deeper boy. Now you're an idiot AND a hypocrite. Awesome.

[Schnoogs]

I am confused, are you both measuring your pathetic e-peens over Wikipedia or over the Doom 3 engine?

Padding your post count?

[KingGorilla]

Genuinely curious. Especially to see if either of you realized that about 4 pages ago you quit arguing, and just tried to prove the other guy wrong.

[J Arcane]

I am confused, are you both measuring your pathetic e-peens over Wikipedia or over the Doom 3 engine?
"Measuring"? I ain't measuring shit. I'm just here for the comedy relief.

The act is getting stale though, think I need to go find a better troll, this guy's pretty lame.

[Schnoogs]

Uh huh. Pot. Kettle. Black. Nice attempt at a smokescreen though, but again, largely useless. Just keep diggin' that hole deeper boy. Now you're an idiot AND a hypocrite. Awesome.

I'm accusing you of not citing sources...I cited some.

So you first you use the "Wikipedia sux" defense and now you're flat out lying by suggesting that I'm guilty of what I'm accusing you of which is hilarious since you've posted NUMEROUS times now that I referenced Wikipedia.

Explain that to me. How can I be both a hypocrite for not citing a source AND guilty of using Wikipedia as my source?

The irony of you calling anyone an idiot. :rolleyes:

[KingGorilla]

So um, is there any way that my being an atheist could send you two into a tirade of posting homosexual, geriatric porn and you could get banned?

[Schnoogs]

Genuinely curious. Especially to see if either of you realized that about 4 pages ago you quit arguing, and just tried to prove the other guy wrong.

Does that even make sense? We stopped arguing and now we're just trying to prove each other wrong. :confused:

I guess your definition of an argument is a bit different than the one I know. :p

[J Arcane]

Well, I mean, I could get my buddy Jew to log on and go on about how Farcry is teh bestest like he used to in the old days. That'd be about as relevant as Wikipedia.

If we're talking about legit sources though, we're both coming up trumps. I'm cool with that, because I don't really give a shit about "proving" anything. You're the one who brought up "sources".

I'm just here for the entertainment and the witty banter.

[Schnoogs]

So um, is there any way that my being an atheist could send you two into a tirade of posting homosexual, geriatric porn and you could get banned?

I'm just waiting for him to cite a source. For a guy who goes out of his way to dismiss Wikipedia as a source you'd think he could provide one of his own. :p

[J Arcane]

So um, is there any way that my being an atheist could send you two into a tirade of posting homosexual, geriatric porn and you could get banned?
You got some wierd kinks, dude.

[Schnoogs]

You're the one who brought up "sources".

That was my bad...I apologize for that. I have this silly problem where I like people to back up definitive, absolute statements.

What's even crazier is that I believe the burden of proof lies with the person proposing the argument.

I know, I know...that's batshit crazy.

[J Arcane]

More commentary on the blackness of the kettle from a guy who fails basic logic.

I'm done with this though. At this point it's sort of like baiting the retarded monkey at the zoo. Funny for a little while, but now it's just getting dull. Plus it seems to have brought out some very distrubing repressed fetishism in KingGorilla I could've gone without.

Sorry world, didn't mean for that to happen, I apologize.

[Schnoogs]

More commentary on the blackness of the kettle from a guy who fails basic logic. .

More deflection from the guy who doesn't cite sources.

First it was "wikipedia sux". Then it was "you're a hypocrite who accuses others of not citing sources" which made zero sense after the wikipedia thing and now it's "you are illogical" for appearantly STILL wanting some sort of validation or source to back up your argument.

How you can honestly think that noone is going to see right through you. You actually think these petty insults and deflections somehow make up for the fact that you STILL haven't backed up your argument.

[Schnoogs]

I'm still baffled by the "you're a hypocrite" comeback after accusing you of not citing sources.

Did that entire page worth of discussion about Wikipedia slip your mind? :p

[J Arcane]

If a guy comes into my restaurant and orders a yakisoba, and instead I give him a shit sandwich, do I then respond to his protests with "Well, you got a meal, didn't you?"

Some substitutions aren't really substitutions at all. You could as well have cited nothing at all and it would've made as much difference, so criticizing someone on the basis of having "cited a source" is indeed, pretty much completely hypocritical by definition, especially when you then go on about "burden of proof", especially what with the actual context of said cite being smack dab in the middle of a logical fallacy.

Keep digging the hole deeper, the food's really good in China, and it's only a few more foot-in-mouths away!

[Schnoogs]

What's sad is he could end this by simply citing a source instead of playing the lame "wikipedia sux" card which hardly makes up for a lack of supporting evidence.

You have put forward ZERO evidence defending your statement.

Why? Because there is no evidence. You were wrong, you know it and you're resorting to a strawman defense to try and deflect attention from your pathetically weak and unsubstantiated claim that it is a matter of fact that Doom 3 was poorly optimized. (It's such a matter of fact that noone in 3 years had decided to add this to not only the wikipedia page but any other site).

Citing Wikipedia only strengthened my skepticism of your claim. Your constant hiding behind the fact that Wikipedia has on occasion been wrong does nothing to strengthen your claim at all. I never once said "if its not in the Wiki then it can't be true". It was brought up to cast considerable doubt on it.

I've never met anyone who thinks their own unsubstantiated claims are validated because of the sheer existence of Wikipedia. I could make a ridiculous claim that Steve Jobs was the child of an Alien...someone checks Wikipedia and points out that something so extraordinary was somehow overlooked in his bio...I would look like an idiot, much like you are now, if I then went on to say that I must be right because Wikipedia can contain erroneous info.

I stated several pages back that the PROBABILITY of this criticism of the engine being overlooked in the Wiki entry despite being as profound as you implied is unlikely given the amount of detail and thoroughness in that section. The fact that it's absent either indicates that you simply made it up OR that it isn't nearly as pronounced as you claim. You then compound that with the fact that nothing came up in Google and the icing on the cake is the small fact that you yourself have offered up ZERO supporting evidence other than criticism of wikipedia and a complete misunderstanding of the word hypocrite (which in your mind is when you DON'T do what you accuse someone else of doing).

Bringing up Wiki was a bad idea not because the page is full of errors...it was a bad idea because it gave you an instant out from your argument. You began to focus on that instead of citing sources, etc. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

For the record I will clarify my use of the wiki page so that you can no longer use it as a scapegoat. The fact that the Wiki page contains a detailed section highlighting 13 criticism of Doom 3 BUT DOES NOT mention optimazations as one of them leaves me very SKEPTICAL that something so profound could have been overlooked. I am not saying it completely invalidates your claim but it goes a long way to validate my skepticism. In other words we've eliminated it as a possible source of supporting evidence for your claim. Please provide us with another one.

The ball is in your court man.

[Ancalagon]

Schnoogs I think we should abandon this one, the wall of either stupidity or reluctance to consider that someone else might be right is just too strong.

Seriously, J Arcane and fiercey, everyone else on the forum has been saying, in no uncertain terms, that you guys are wrong. Doesnt that say something to you?

Again, the only reason D3 runs the way it does at all, is because the environments are incredibly cramped and limited, largely to cut corners on how much the engine has to render, because the performance for anything larger isn't there.

Sigh. What do you know about polygon count? How easy do you think it is to render shadows in real time? Do you know how much more detailed Doom3's normal maps are than half life 2s? do you know what a normal map is?

The whole OpenGL vs DirectX argument.... Oh my God, you stupid shits. The company I work for makes real time VR and telestration software. We have to produce HD output at 50 FPS with anti aliasing all the time, without exception.

DirectX is used largely for games. For all other industrial applications, OpenGL is the platform of choice. Please write to nvidia and tell them they are wasting their time with Quadro boards and OpenGL drivers, because you guys only use DirectX, therefore everybody must use direct x.

To me, this whole argument stinks of fanboy. You guys, for whatever reason, think Doom 3 sucks. And HL2 is king. I own both - HL2 does not have as good graphics as D3. HL2 is more fun to play, but the D3 engine is more advanced, except in terms of physics, AI and lip sync.

You still have not provided a single shred of evidence, not even a blog entry from Gordon Freemans Biggest Fan or some other stupid shit. Not a single shred of evidence. Just "It runs shitty on my FX5200, therefore it is shit." You guys understand zero about what each engine actually does or how it does it, and then suddenly you say D3 is badly coded? What about FEAR? Is that badly coded? Please trade in your computers and never play games again, you dont appreciate the fucking hard work people do to let you play games, solely because of your own ignorance.

[KingGorilla]

D3 is also shinier Ancalgon, it has a more powerful Crisco engine.

[Ancalagon]

D3 is also shinier Ancalgon, it has a more powerful Crisco engine.

I hear they had to sacrifice lots of children to get that working.

[Disgustipated]

You have to remember, Schnoogs, that J Arcane will make up random bullshit and then backpedal (as seen in this last page). He'll make baseless, out of left-field accusations to try to make himself feel better.

He's called me a child molester, gay, all sorts of shit. He's got some deep-rooted issues and fears that start to show when confronted.

Basically, when he said

At this point it's sort of like baiting the retarded monkey at the zoo

he was talking about himself. :P

Oh, and he's a fucking idiot. Ignorant, too. Gotta love the FUD he spreads in almost every thread he appears in, though. Entertaining as hell!

[PathMaster]

So......the article in question is good, no?

[Ancalagon]

So......the article in question is good, no?

What article?

Jokes.

Dunno, Evil didnt like it. Myself, I think $500 is a bit small for a gaming pc, but enough to upgrade a regular pc to a gaming pc depending on motherboard.

[Slack3r78]

Dunno, Evil didnt like it. Myself, I think $500 is a bit small for a gaming pc, but enough to upgrade a regular pc to a gaming pc depending on motherboard.
They did cheat a little bit on the memory by going with a MIR, but beyond that, it looked fine to me. I'd probably expand the budget to about $600 just for good measure, which, incidentally enough, is all I've ever spent on any of my gaming boxes. It's really not that hard if you're smart with your component selection.

[Ancalagon]

They did cheat a little bit on the memory by going with a MIR, but beyond that, it looked fine to me. I'd probably expand the budget to about $600 just for good measure, which, incidentally enough, is all I've ever spent on any of my gaming boxes. It's really not that hard if you're smart with your component selection.

depending on what you already have, yes.

If you need to buy a whole new PC, $500 is not enough.

If you need to buy a new graphics card, you might also need a new PSU, which quickly gets expensive.

My PC cost about £1400, but now upgrading it will be relatively cheap (it does leave with the problem of what to do with my old components though). also it will run crysis decently, and run games released next year pretty well, and games released the year after that.... um probably alright, but by then I will have upgrade CPU, GPU and RAM, so....

[Voodoo]

So......the article in question is good, no?

I think it is a great article.

[NotJeff]

Oh, my, what have I done?!

[PathMaster]

Oh, my, what have I done?!
You caused untold HAVOC on the EvAv masses. BURN HIM!

I think it is a great article.
Honestly, so did I. It is a great primer on the subject at hand. Would I follow it? No, but I have some different expectations for what I would want and need.