Crysis Warhead real laggy, CPU?

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: aclim
at low Resolution like that a better GPU probably wont do you any better. At low resolution its more CPU/RAM taxing. Thats where you may need an upgrade.

While your statement is true for most games out there. Then again we are talking about Crysis at gamer settings.

and its true for the most part in Crysis for the OP too. in his particular case I guarantee you the OP would get a bigger performance jump going to a 8400 core 2 dou and more ram than going with a 4850 over his 9600. at 1024x768 its his slow cpu and lack of ram that killing his performance and going with a stronger card than his 9600gt wont fix that. yes the gpu is the most important factor but if the rest of the specs arent up to par then the gains are minimal at best.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: aclim
at low Resolution like that a better GPU probably wont do you any better. At low resolution its more CPU/RAM taxing. Thats where you may need an upgrade.

While your statement is true for most games out there. Then again we are talking about Crysis at gamer settings.

and its true for the most part in Crysis for the OP too. in his particular case I guarantee you the OP would get a bigger performance jump going to a 8400 core 2 dou and more ram than going with a 4850 over his 9600. at 1024x768 its his slow cpu and lack of ram that killing his performance and going with a stronger card than his 9600gt wont fix that. yes the gpu is the most important factor but if the rest of the specs arent up to par then the gains are minimal at best.

You guarantee how? If he doesn't will you pay for his upgrade?

Depending on his operating system which he didn't mention he could easily get away with 1.5gigs in Warhead which I already mentioned my first replied post.

He is going to get no more than 10fps increase with E8400 and a new mobo as shown by my benchmarks that cost him $250-300? For that much you could buy a 4870 or GTX 260 which would give him more than 10fps increase even at that resolution. He could even turn up some AA, raise resolution, or even play enthusiast with GPU upgrade which the CPU upgrade will not be able to do.

E6300 @ default 1.86ghz compares to his opteron @ 2.2ghz
1024x768 gamer 36fps

E6300 @ 3.22ghz compares to E8400
1024x768 gamer 47fps


So tell me which upgrade would benefit more? :roll:

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: aclim
at low Resolution like that a better GPU probably wont do you any better. At low resolution its more CPU/RAM taxing. Thats where you may need an upgrade.

While your statement is true for most games out there. Then again we are talking about Crysis at gamer settings.

and its true for the most part in Crysis for the OP too. in his particular case I guarantee you the OP would get a bigger performance jump going to a 8400 core 2 dou and more ram than going with a 4850 over his 9600. at 1024x768 its his slow cpu and lack of ram that killing his performance and going with a stronger card than his 9600gt wont fix that. yes the gpu is the most important factor but if the rest of the specs arent up to par then the gains are minimal at best.

You guarantee how? If he doesn't will you pay for his upgrade?

Depending on his operating system which he didn't mention he could easily get away with 1.5gigs in Warhead which I already mentioned my first replied post.

He is going to get no more than 10fps increase with E8400 and a new mobo that cost him $250-300? For that much you could buy a 4870 or GTX 260 which would give him more than 10fps increase even at that resolution. He could even turn up some AA or raise resolution with GPU upgrade which the CPU upgrade will not be able to do.

I dont think it would. he is too bottleneck with that extremely slow cpu. back when I played around with the 9600gt and 8800gt in this comp I came away very displeased. in fact the 8800gt over ZERO performance increase in Crysis over the 9600gt. Im 100% confident that with his much weaker cpu his performance would increase more with a really good cpu at 1024x768 then a better gpu. I think you need to get a crappy X2 cpu so you can understand just what its like. I KNOW because I have one and have used many different cards.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: aclim
at low Resolution like that a better GPU probably wont do you any better. At low resolution its more CPU/RAM taxing. Thats where you may need an upgrade.

While your statement is true for most games out there. Then again we are talking about Crysis at gamer settings.

and its true for the most part in Crysis for the OP too. in his particular case I guarantee you the OP would get a bigger performance jump going to a 8400 core 2 dou and more ram than going with a 4850 over his 9600. at 1024x768 its his slow cpu and lack of ram that killing his performance and going with a stronger card than his 9600gt wont fix that. yes the gpu is the most important factor but if the rest of the specs arent up to par then the gains are minimal at best.

You guarantee how? If he doesn't will you pay for his upgrade?

Depending on his operating system which he didn't mention he could easily get away with 1.5gigs in Warhead which I already mentioned my first replied post.

He is going to get no more than 10fps increase with E8400 and a new mobo that cost him $250-300? For that much you could buy a 4870 or GTX 260 which would give him more than 10fps increase even at that resolution. He could even turn up some AA or raise resolution with GPU upgrade which the CPU upgrade will not be able to do.

I dont think it would. he is too bottleneck with that extremely slow cpu. back when I played around with the 9600gt and 8800gt in this comp I came away very displeased. in fact the 8800gt over ZERO performance increase in Crysis over the 9600gt. Im 100% confident that with his much weaker cpu his performance would increase more with a really good cpu at 1024x768 then a better gpu. I think you need to get a crappy X2 cpu so you can understand just what its like. I KNOW because I have one and have used many different cards.

0% increase 9600gt vs 8800gt? There are dozens of hardware sites who says other wise. 8800gt is roughly 20-25% faster than 9600gt with Crysis. 9600gt shader is particularly weak for high settings in Crysis. Even my GS will beat a 9600gt.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...radeon-hd-4670-512mb/7

I've had many computers before this 2 year old computer I have now since 1989. Even had a Pentium D a while back which is worse than X2 cpu. X2 cpu is roughly 400mhz slower than a core 2 duo per clock. A game for the most part are bottlenecked by GPU. If you get 50fps in mainstream with a powerful GPU you will also get 50fps in gamer or enthusiast settings. That's the true meaning of what CPU bottleneck is.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: aclim
at low Resolution like that a better GPU probably wont do you any better. At low resolution its more CPU/RAM taxing. Thats where you may need an upgrade.

While your statement is true for most games out there. Then again we are talking about Crysis at gamer settings.

and its true for the most part in Crysis for the OP too. in his particular case I guarantee you the OP would get a bigger performance jump going to a 8400 core 2 dou and more ram than going with a 4850 over his 9600. at 1024x768 its his slow cpu and lack of ram that killing his performance and going with a stronger card than his 9600gt wont fix that. yes the gpu is the most important factor but if the rest of the specs arent up to par then the gains are minimal at best.

You guarantee how? If he doesn't will you pay for his upgrade?

Depending on his operating system which he didn't mention he could easily get away with 1.5gigs in Warhead which I already mentioned my first replied post.

He is going to get no more than 10fps increase with E8400 and a new mobo that cost him $250-300? For that much you could buy a 4870 or GTX 260 which would give him more than 10fps increase even at that resolution. He could even turn up some AA or raise resolution with GPU upgrade which the CPU upgrade will not be able to do.

I dont think it would. he is too bottleneck with that extremely slow cpu. back when I played around with the 9600gt and 8800gt in this comp I came away very displeased. in fact the 8800gt over ZERO performance increase in Crysis over the 9600gt. Im 100% confident that with his much weaker cpu his performance would increase more with a really good cpu at 1024x768 then a better gpu. I think you need to get a crappy X2 cpu so you can understand just what its like. I KNOW because I have one and have used many different cards.

0% increase 9600gt vs 8800gt? There are dozens of hardware sites who says other wise. 8800gt is roughly 20-25% faster than 9600gt with Crysis. 9600gt shader is particularly weak for high settings in Crysis. Even my GS will beat a 9600gt.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...radeon-hd-4670-512mb/7

I've had many computers before this 2 year old computer I have now since 1989. Even had a Pentium D a while back which is worse than X2 cpu. X2 cpu is roughly 400mhz slower than a core 2 duo per clock. A game for the most part are bottlenecked by GPU. If you get 50fps in mainstream with a powerful GPU you will also get 50fps in gamer or enthusiast settings. That's the true meaning of what CPU bottleneck is.

yep the 9600gt got the same numbers in the Crysis benchmark at 1024x768 and all high settings. remember thats the res the op is at. if you really want me too I can easily go get a 4850 and run the benchmarks at 1024 just to prove to you that it wont be much faster at 1024 than the 9600gt is. I still have the benchmark numbers written down from the last 9600gt so all I need is to run them on the 4850.

 

[ComputerDude67]

I use Vista x64 and Crysis Warhead uses the most memory I have ever seen but runs great on my box as I have 4GB Ram. I find that the game uses 2GB for itself. Running the game I have a memory load of about 3.1GB (Vista x64 & Warhead) with no other apps open. I run the game at 1680*1050 w 2xAA w all highest settings and it plays well for most part. I like eye candy and will scarifice frames.

I would build a new box as it is best to have a balanced system. If you can't do that then 3GB Ram may help. Open Task Manager and run the game and look at the CPU and Ram load.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: aclim
at low Resolution like that a better GPU probably wont do you any better. At low resolution its more CPU/RAM taxing. Thats where you may need an upgrade.

While your statement is true for most games out there. Then again we are talking about Crysis at gamer settings.

and its true for the most part in Crysis for the OP too. in his particular case I guarantee you the OP would get a bigger performance jump going to a 8400 core 2 dou and more ram than going with a 4850 over his 9600. at 1024x768 its his slow cpu and lack of ram that killing his performance and going with a stronger card than his 9600gt wont fix that. yes the gpu is the most important factor but if the rest of the specs arent up to par then the gains are minimal at best.

You guarantee how? If he doesn't will you pay for his upgrade?

Depending on his operating system which he didn't mention he could easily get away with 1.5gigs in Warhead which I already mentioned my first replied post.

He is going to get no more than 10fps increase with E8400 and a new mobo that cost him $250-300? For that much you could buy a 4870 or GTX 260 which would give him more than 10fps increase even at that resolution. He could even turn up some AA or raise resolution with GPU upgrade which the CPU upgrade will not be able to do.

I dont think it would. he is too bottleneck with that extremely slow cpu. back when I played around with the 9600gt and 8800gt in this comp I came away very displeased. in fact the 8800gt over ZERO performance increase in Crysis over the 9600gt. Im 100% confident that with his much weaker cpu his performance would increase more with a really good cpu at 1024x768 then a better gpu. I think you need to get a crappy X2 cpu so you can understand just what its like. I KNOW because I have one and have used many different cards.

0% increase 9600gt vs 8800gt? There are dozens of hardware sites who says other wise. 8800gt is roughly 20-25% faster than 9600gt with Crysis. 9600gt shader is particularly weak for high settings in Crysis. Even my GS will beat a 9600gt.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...radeon-hd-4670-512mb/7

I've had many computers before this 2 year old computer I have now since 1989. Even had a Pentium D a while back which is worse than X2 cpu. X2 cpu is roughly 400mhz slower than a core 2 duo per clock. A game for the most part are bottlenecked by GPU. If you get 50fps in mainstream with a powerful GPU you will also get 50fps in gamer or enthusiast settings. That's the true meaning of what CPU bottleneck is.

yep the 9600gt got the same numbers in the Crysis benchmark at 1024x768 and all high settings. remember thats the res the op is at. if you really want me too I can easily go get a 4850 and run the benchmarks at 1024 just to prove to you that it wont be much faster at 1024 than the 9600gt is. I still have the benchmark numbers written down from the last 9600gt so all I need is to run them on the 4850.

I don't see the point because there are dozens of websites says it doesn't. You are less credible than these websites. Here's another one.

1024x768 dx9 high settings included too.

http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...ercolor/HD_4670/9.html

9600gt 42.7fps
8800gt 52.4fps
HD4850 60.8fps

I can also downclock my GPU to show the same effect but what's the point? Some people will just never get it I suppose.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: ComputerDude67
I use Vista x64 and Crysis Warhead uses the most memory I have ever seen but runs great on my box as I have 4GB Ram. I find that the game uses 2GB for itself. Running the game I have a memory load of about 3.1GB (Vista x64 & Warhead) with no other apps open. I run the game at 1680*1050 w 2xAA w all highest settings and it plays well for most part. I like eye candy and will scarifice frames.

I would build a new box as it is best to have a balanced system. If you can't do that then 3GB Ram may help. Open Task Manager and run the game and look at the CPU and Ram load.

You probably never played BF2. BF2 is more hog than Crysis.

In my task manager Crysis warhead is using approximately 1043,948K of ram (about a gig of ram). That's with Vista 32bit. I have 3 gigs of ram. With so many programs opened right now including Warhead and firefox. I still have 700mb of ram available for other programs.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: aclim
at low Resolution like that a better GPU probably wont do you any better. At low resolution its more CPU/RAM taxing. Thats where you may need an upgrade.

While your statement is true for most games out there. Then again we are talking about Crysis at gamer settings.

and its true for the most part in Crysis for the OP too. in his particular case I guarantee you the OP would get a bigger performance jump going to a 8400 core 2 dou and more ram than going with a 4850 over his 9600. at 1024x768 its his slow cpu and lack of ram that killing his performance and going with a stronger card than his 9600gt wont fix that. yes the gpu is the most important factor but if the rest of the specs arent up to par then the gains are minimal at best.

You guarantee how? If he doesn't will you pay for his upgrade?

Depending on his operating system which he didn't mention he could easily get away with 1.5gigs in Warhead which I already mentioned my first replied post.

He is going to get no more than 10fps increase with E8400 and a new mobo that cost him $250-300? For that much you could buy a 4870 or GTX 260 which would give him more than 10fps increase even at that resolution. He could even turn up some AA or raise resolution with GPU upgrade which the CPU upgrade will not be able to do.

I dont think it would. he is too bottleneck with that extremely slow cpu. back when I played around with the 9600gt and 8800gt in this comp I came away very displeased. in fact the 8800gt over ZERO performance increase in Crysis over the 9600gt. Im 100% confident that with his much weaker cpu his performance would increase more with a really good cpu at 1024x768 then a better gpu. I think you need to get a crappy X2 cpu so you can understand just what its like. I KNOW because I have one and have used many different cards.

0% increase 9600gt vs 8800gt? There are dozens of hardware sites who says other wise. 8800gt is roughly 20-25% faster than 9600gt with Crysis. 9600gt shader is particularly weak for high settings in Crysis. Even my GS will beat a 9600gt.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...radeon-hd-4670-512mb/7

I've had many computers before this 2 year old computer I have now since 1989. Even had a Pentium D a while back which is worse than X2 cpu. X2 cpu is roughly 400mhz slower than a core 2 duo per clock. A game for the most part are bottlenecked by GPU. If you get 50fps in mainstream with a powerful GPU you will also get 50fps in gamer or enthusiast settings. That's the true meaning of what CPU bottleneck is.

yep the 9600gt got the same numbers in the Crysis benchmark at 1024x768 and all high settings. remember thats the res the op is at. if you really want me too I can easily go get a 4850 and run the benchmarks at 1024 just to prove to you that it wont be much faster at 1024 than the 9600gt is. I still have the benchmark numbers written down from the last 9600gt so all I need is to run them on the 4850.

I don't see the point because there are dozens of websites says it doesn't. You are less credible than these websites. Here's another one.

1024x768 dx9 high settings included too.

http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...ercolor/HD_4670/9.html

9600gt 42.7fps
8800gt 52.4fps
HD4850 60.8fps

I can also downclock my GPU to show the same effect but what's the point? Some people will just never get it I suppose.

what does that link have to do with using a slow cpu? they used an Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.6 GHz for their tests so of course the better cards will perform noticeably better. take those same three cards with the OPs cpu and you will see the results are different at the low resolutions. anything past the 9600gt on his slow cpu will be worthless at 1024x768. you are the one that doesnt get.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: aclim
at low Resolution like that a better GPU probably wont do you any better. At low resolution its more CPU/RAM taxing. Thats where you may need an upgrade.

While your statement is true for most games out there. Then again we are talking about Crysis at gamer settings.

and its true for the most part in Crysis for the OP too. in his particular case I guarantee you the OP would get a bigger performance jump going to a 8400 core 2 dou and more ram than going with a 4850 over his 9600. at 1024x768 its his slow cpu and lack of ram that killing his performance and going with a stronger card than his 9600gt wont fix that. yes the gpu is the most important factor but if the rest of the specs arent up to par then the gains are minimal at best.

You guarantee how? If he doesn't will you pay for his upgrade?

Depending on his operating system which he didn't mention he could easily get away with 1.5gigs in Warhead which I already mentioned my first replied post.

He is going to get no more than 10fps increase with E8400 and a new mobo that cost him $250-300? For that much you could buy a 4870 or GTX 260 which would give him more than 10fps increase even at that resolution. He could even turn up some AA or raise resolution with GPU upgrade which the CPU upgrade will not be able to do.

I dont think it would. he is too bottleneck with that extremely slow cpu. back when I played around with the 9600gt and 8800gt in this comp I came away very displeased. in fact the 8800gt over ZERO performance increase in Crysis over the 9600gt. Im 100% confident that with his much weaker cpu his performance would increase more with a really good cpu at 1024x768 then a better gpu. I think you need to get a crappy X2 cpu so you can understand just what its like. I KNOW because I have one and have used many different cards.

0% increase 9600gt vs 8800gt? There are dozens of hardware sites who says other wise. 8800gt is roughly 20-25% faster than 9600gt with Crysis. 9600gt shader is particularly weak for high settings in Crysis. Even my GS will beat a 9600gt.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...radeon-hd-4670-512mb/7

I've had many computers before this 2 year old computer I have now since 1989. Even had a Pentium D a while back which is worse than X2 cpu. X2 cpu is roughly 400mhz slower than a core 2 duo per clock. A game for the most part are bottlenecked by GPU. If you get 50fps in mainstream with a powerful GPU you will also get 50fps in gamer or enthusiast settings. That's the true meaning of what CPU bottleneck is.

yep the 9600gt got the same numbers in the Crysis benchmark at 1024x768 and all high settings. remember thats the res the op is at. if you really want me too I can easily go get a 4850 and run the benchmarks at 1024 just to prove to you that it wont be much faster at 1024 than the 9600gt is. I still have the benchmark numbers written down from the last 9600gt so all I need is to run them on the 4850.

I don't see the point because there are dozens of websites says it doesn't. You are less credible than these websites. Here's another one.

1024x768 dx9 high settings included too.

http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...ercolor/HD_4670/9.html

9600gt 42.7fps
8800gt 52.4fps
HD4850 60.8fps

I can also downclock my GPU to show the same effect but what's the point? Some people will just never get it I suppose.

what does that link have to do with using a slow cpu? they used an Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.6 GHz for their tests so of course the better cards will perform noticeably better. take those same three cards with the OPs cpu and you will see the results are different at the low resolutions. anything past the 9600gt on his slow cpu will be worthless at 1024x768. you are the one that doesnt get.

That 8800gt is faster than 9600gt for crysis by 20~25% which you said 9600gt and 8800gt performed same.

Just for you....

E6300 @ 1.86ghz about as fast as a 2.25ghz opteron

ambush gamer 1024x768
8800gs @ 550/1375/800
30fps

8800gs @ 741/1782/1058
36fps

20% faster with my GPU that has similar performance to 8800gt once overclocked. But performs about 9600gt when it's not overclocked in Crysis.

What does this all mean? That there's a bigger gain to be had @ gamer settings in Crysis with better GPU.

You don't have the slightest idea where this bottleneck comes from if you did you would be saying the same thing as I. As many gurus on this board will tell you the exact same thing which you got shot down dozens of times if not more. You even took a vacation because of it. :laugh:

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: aclim
at low Resolution like that a better GPU probably wont do you any better. At low resolution its more CPU/RAM taxing. Thats where you may need an upgrade.

While your statement is true for most games out there. Then again we are talking about Crysis at gamer settings.

and its true for the most part in Crysis for the OP too. in his particular case I guarantee you the OP would get a bigger performance jump going to a 8400 core 2 dou and more ram than going with a 4850 over his 9600. at 1024x768 its his slow cpu and lack of ram that killing his performance and going with a stronger card than his 9600gt wont fix that. yes the gpu is the most important factor but if the rest of the specs arent up to par then the gains are minimal at best.

You guarantee how? If he doesn't will you pay for his upgrade?

Depending on his operating system which he didn't mention he could easily get away with 1.5gigs in Warhead which I already mentioned my first replied post.

He is going to get no more than 10fps increase with E8400 and a new mobo that cost him $250-300? For that much you could buy a 4870 or GTX 260 which would give him more than 10fps increase even at that resolution. He could even turn up some AA or raise resolution with GPU upgrade which the CPU upgrade will not be able to do.

I dont think it would. he is too bottleneck with that extremely slow cpu. back when I played around with the 9600gt and 8800gt in this comp I came away very displeased. in fact the 8800gt over ZERO performance increase in Crysis over the 9600gt. Im 100% confident that with his much weaker cpu his performance would increase more with a really good cpu at 1024x768 then a better gpu. I think you need to get a crappy X2 cpu so you can understand just what its like. I KNOW because I have one and have used many different cards.

0% increase 9600gt vs 8800gt? There are dozens of hardware sites who says other wise. 8800gt is roughly 20-25% faster than 9600gt with Crysis. 9600gt shader is particularly weak for high settings in Crysis. Even my GS will beat a 9600gt.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...radeon-hd-4670-512mb/7

I've had many computers before this 2 year old computer I have now since 1989. Even had a Pentium D a while back which is worse than X2 cpu. X2 cpu is roughly 400mhz slower than a core 2 duo per clock. A game for the most part are bottlenecked by GPU. If you get 50fps in mainstream with a powerful GPU you will also get 50fps in gamer or enthusiast settings. That's the true meaning of what CPU bottleneck is.

yep the 9600gt got the same numbers in the Crysis benchmark at 1024x768 and all high settings. remember thats the res the op is at. if you really want me too I can easily go get a 4850 and run the benchmarks at 1024 just to prove to you that it wont be much faster at 1024 than the 9600gt is. I still have the benchmark numbers written down from the last 9600gt so all I need is to run them on the 4850.

I don't see the point because there are dozens of websites says it doesn't. You are less credible than these websites. Here's another one.

1024x768 dx9 high settings included too.

http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...ercolor/HD_4670/9.html

9600gt 42.7fps
8800gt 52.4fps
HD4850 60.8fps

I can also downclock my GPU to show the same effect but what's the point? Some people will just never get it I suppose.

what does that link have to do with using a slow cpu? they used an Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.6 GHz for their tests so of course the better cards will perform noticeably better. take those same three cards with the OPs cpu and you will see the results are different at the low resolutions. anything past the 9600gt on his slow cpu will be worthless at 1024x768. you are the one that doesnt get.

That 8800gt is faster than 9600gt for crysis by 20~25% which you said 9600gt and 8800gt performed same.

Just for you....

E6300 @ 1.86ghz about as fast as a 2.25ghz opteron

ambush gamer 1024x768
8800gs @ 550/1375/800
30fps

8800gs @ 741/1782/1058
36fps

20% faster with my GPU that has similar performance to 8800gt once overclocked. But performs about 9600gt when it's not overclocked in Crysis.

What does this all mean? That there's a bigger gain to be had @ gamer settings in Crysis with better GPU.

You don't have the slightest idea where this bottleneck comes from if you did you would be saying the same thing as I. As many gurus on this board will tell you the exact same thing which you got shot down dozens of times if not more. You even took a vacation because of it. :laugh:

you have your numbers and I have mine. I have an X2 so I know how it performs with different cards. I never took a vacation even though it said so in forums. I logged in that day and never had a prob so it never took affect. maybe it was only to humor you. :laugh:

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: toyota
you have your numbers and I have mine. I have an X2 so I know how it performs with different cards. I never took a vacation even though it said so in forums. I logged in that day and never had a prob so it never took affect. maybe it was only to humor you. :laugh:

When your numbers do not match with people who do this for a living you might want to go over those numbers again.

BFG who's a mod here told me directly you took a vacation. I have PM to prove it. :laugh:

<Azn, FYI Toyota has been given a 3 day vacation for his actions.

Thanks for bringing the issue to my attention.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota
you have your numbers and I have mine. I have an X2 so I know how it performs with different cards. I never took a vacation even though it said so in forums. I logged in that day and never had a prob so it never took affect. maybe it was only to humor you. :laugh:

When your numbers do not match with people who do this for a living you might want to go over those numbers again.

BFG who's a mod here told me directly you took a vacation. I have PM to prove it. :laugh:

<<Azn, FYI Toyota has been given a 3 day vacation for his actions.

Thanks for bringing the issue to my attention.

show me someone testing a 5000 X2 and the cards in question.

like I ALREADY said it never took effect. I stayed logged in and was never actually banned for those 3 days.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota
you have your numbers and I have mine. I have an X2 so I know how it performs with different cards. I never took a vacation even though it said so in forums. I logged in that day and never had a prob so it never took affect. maybe it was only to humor you. :laugh:

When your numbers do not match with people who do this for a living you might want to go over those numbers again.

BFG who's a mod here told me directly you took a vacation. I have PM to prove it. :laugh:

<<<<Azn, FYI Toyota has been given a 3 day vacation for his actions.

Thanks for bringing the issue to my attention.

show me someone testing a 5000 X2 and the cards in question.

like I ALREADY said it never took effect. I stayed logged in and was never actually banned for those 3 days.

Are you calling BFG a liar? He's the video card forum moderator who gave you the vacation. If you want you could PM if you'd like.

X2 or Core 2duo.. Does it mater? I have actual frames to prove it and my core 2 duo clocked competitive with OP's overclocked Opteron. If you don't believe a Core 2 duo @ 1.86ghz is competitive with Opteron @ 2.25 ghz there's always the web that will tell you other wise.

FYI you are arguing the exact same thing you were trying to argue before when you got shot down by many forum veterans on this board including the moderator. When that didn't work you started to call names and insulting people.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota
you have your numbers and I have mine. I have an X2 so I know how it performs with different cards. I never took a vacation even though it said so in forums. I logged in that day and never had a prob so it never took affect. maybe it was only to humor you. :laugh:

When your numbers do not match with people who do this for a living you might want to go over those numbers again.

BFG who's a mod here told me directly you took a vacation. I have PM to prove it. :laugh:

<<<<Azn, FYI Toyota has been given a 3 day vacation for his actions.

Thanks for bringing the issue to my attention.

show me someone testing a 5000 X2 and the cards in question.

like I ALREADY said it never took effect. I stayed logged in and was never actually banned for those 3 days.

Are you calling BFG a liar? He's the video card forum moderator who gave you the vacation. If you want you could PM if you'd like.

X2 or Core 2duo.. Does it mater? I have actual frames to prove it and my core 2 duo clocked competitive with OP's overclocked Opteron. If you don't believe a Core 2 duo @ 1.86ghz is competitive with Opteron @ 2.25 ghz there's always the web that will tell you other wise.

well some benchmarks had the 1.86 Core 2 right along with the 5000 X2 but it just depends on the game. for the most yeah those should be pretty close though.

Im not calling anybody a liar. he said I was banned but IT NEVER TOOK EFFECT. thats the THIRD time I have told you that so why do you not understand?

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota
you have your numbers and I have mine. I have an X2 so I know how it performs with different cards. I never took a vacation even though it said so in forums. I logged in that day and never had a prob so it never took affect. maybe it was only to humor you. :laugh:

When your numbers do not match with people who do this for a living you might want to go over those numbers again.

BFG who's a mod here told me directly you took a vacation. I have PM to prove it. :laugh:

<<<<<Azn, FYI Toyota has been given a 3 day vacation for his actions.

Thanks for bringing the issue to my attention.

show me someone testing a 5000 X2 and the cards in question.

like I ALREADY said it never took effect. I stayed logged in and was never actually banned for those 3 days.

Are you calling BFG a liar? He's the video card forum moderator who gave you the vacation. If you want you could PM if you'd like.

X2 or Core 2duo.. Does it mater? I have actual frames to prove it and my core 2 duo clocked competitive with OP's overclocked Opteron. If you don't believe a Core 2 duo @ 1.86ghz is competitive with Opteron @ 2.25 ghz there's always the web that will tell you other wise.

well some benchmarks had the 1.86 Core 2 right along with the 5000 X2 but it just depends on the game. for the most yeah those should be pretty close though.

Im not calling anybody a liar. he said I was banned but IT NEVER TOOK EFFECT. thats the THIRD time I have told you that so why do you not understand?

Okay now you say it compares but I guess my benchmarks and all these websites are wrong and you are benchmarks are right?

That's why I said PM BFG. He'll tell you if you were banned or not. he's the moderator. I'm just telling you what he told me.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota
you have your numbers and I have mine. I have an X2 so I know how it performs with different cards. I never took a vacation even though it said so in forums. I logged in that day and never had a prob so it never took affect. maybe it was only to humor you. :laugh:

When your numbers do not match with people who do this for a living you might want to go over those numbers again.

BFG who's a mod here told me directly you took a vacation. I have PM to prove it. :laugh:

<<<<<<Azn, FYI Toyota has been given a 3 day vacation for his actions.

Thanks for bringing the issue to my attention.

show me someone testing a 5000 X2 and the cards in question.

like I ALREADY said it never took effect. I stayed logged in and was never actually banned for those 3 days.

Are you calling BFG a liar? He's the video card forum moderator who gave you the vacation. If you want you could PM if you'd like.

X2 or Core 2duo.. Does it mater? I have actual frames to prove it and my core 2 duo clocked competitive with OP's overclocked Opteron. If you don't believe a Core 2 duo @ 1.86ghz is competitive with Opteron @ 2.25 ghz there's always the web that will tell you other wise.

well some benchmarks had the 1.86 Core 2 right along with the 5000 X2 but it just depends on the game. for the most yeah those should be pretty close though.

Im not calling anybody a liar. he said I was banned but IT NEVER TOOK EFFECT. thats the THIRD time I have told you that so why do you not understand?

Okay now you say it compares but I guess my benchmarks and all these websites are wrong and you are benchmarks are right?

That's why I said PM BFG. He'll tell you if you were banned or not. he's the moderator. I'm just telling you what he told me.

yes its comparable for the most part. lets try this one more time...yes he said I was banned for a few days BUT I never actually was. I logged in just fine for that time period and may have even posted. Im too lazy to go back and see but youre more than welcome too. lol

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota
you have your numbers and I have mine. I have an X2 so I know how it performs with different cards. I never took a vacation even though it said so in forums. I logged in that day and never had a prob so it never took affect. maybe it was only to humor you. :laugh:

When your numbers do not match with people who do this for a living you might want to go over those numbers again.

BFG who's a mod here told me directly you took a vacation. I have PM to prove it. :laugh:

<<<<<<<<<<<Azn, FYI Toyota has been given a 3 day vacation for his actions.

Thanks for bringing the issue to my attention.

show me someone testing a 5000 X2 and the cards in question.

like I ALREADY said it never took effect. I stayed logged in and was never actually banned for those 3 days.

Are you calling BFG a liar? He's the video card forum moderator who gave you the vacation. If you want you could PM if you'd like.

X2 or Core 2duo.. Does it mater? I have actual frames to prove it and my core 2 duo clocked competitive with OP's overclocked Opteron. If you don't believe a Core 2 duo @ 1.86ghz is competitive with Opteron @ 2.25 ghz there's always the web that will tell you other wise.

well some benchmarks had the 1.86 Core 2 right along with the 5000 X2 but it just depends on the game. for the most yeah those should be pretty close though.

Im not calling anybody a liar. he said I was banned but IT NEVER TOOK EFFECT. thats the THIRD time I have told you that so why do you not understand?

Okay now you say it compares but I guess my benchmarks and all these websites are wrong and you are benchmarks are right?

That's why I said PM BFG. He'll tell you if you were banned or not. he's the moderator. I'm just telling you what he told me.

yes its comparable for the most part. lets try this one more time...yes he said I was banned for a few days BUT I never actually was. I logged in just fine for that time period and may have even posted. Im too lazy to go back and see but youre more than welcome too. lol

So my benchmarks show exactly 20% improvement from faster GPU with a Opteron 2.25ghz like performance. Same can be said about 9600gt vs 8800gt in Crysis which you've been saying 8800gt has no performance gains over 9600gt in Crysis.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...TMP=Linear&#lastunread

You were warned less than three hours ago by BFG10K to stop with the personal attacks. It didn't seem to make an impression on you. Take a few days off and consider trying to be civil towards your fellow members. esquared Anandtech Senior Moderator

Is that why you didn't reply after that? :brokenheart:

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota
you have your numbers and I have mine. I have an X2 so I know how it performs with different cards. I never took a vacation even though it said so in forums. I logged in that day and never had a prob so it never took affect. maybe it was only to humor you. :laugh:

When your numbers do not match with people who do this for a living you might want to go over those numbers again.

BFG who's a mod here told me directly you took a vacation. I have PM to prove it. :laugh:

<<<<<<<<<<<<Azn, FYI Toyota has been given a 3 day vacation for his actions.

Thanks for bringing the issue to my attention.

show me someone testing a 5000 X2 and the cards in question.

like I ALREADY said it never took effect. I stayed logged in and was never actually banned for those 3 days.

Are you calling BFG a liar? He's the video card forum moderator who gave you the vacation. If you want you could PM if you'd like.

X2 or Core 2duo.. Does it mater? I have actual frames to prove it and my core 2 duo clocked competitive with OP's overclocked Opteron. If you don't believe a Core 2 duo @ 1.86ghz is competitive with Opteron @ 2.25 ghz there's always the web that will tell you other wise.

well some benchmarks had the 1.86 Core 2 right along with the 5000 X2 but it just depends on the game. for the most yeah those should be pretty close though.

Im not calling anybody a liar. he said I was banned but IT NEVER TOOK EFFECT. thats the THIRD time I have told you that so why do you not understand?

Okay now you say it compares but I guess my benchmarks and all these websites are wrong and you are benchmarks are right?

That's why I said PM BFG. He'll tell you if you were banned or not. he's the moderator. I'm just telling you what he told me.

yes its comparable for the most part. lets try this one more time...yes he said I was banned for a few days BUT I never actually was. I logged in just fine for that time period and may have even posted. Im too lazy to go back and see but youre more than welcome too. lol

So my benchmarks show exactly 20% improvement from faster GPU with a Opteron 2.25ghz like performance. Same can be said about 9600gt vs 8800gt in Crysis which you've been saying 8800gt has no performance gains over 9600gt in Crysis.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...TMP=Linear&#lastunread

You were warned less than three hours ago by BFG10K to stop with the personal attacks. It didn't seem to make an impression on you. Take a few days off and consider trying to be civil towards your fellow members. esquared Anandtech Senior Moderator

Is that why you didn't reply after that? :brokenheart:

and in my system it didnt. in the Crysis gpu benchmark the 8800gt was just over ONE fps better at 1024x768 on high setting than the 9600gt. same drivers and everything. of course now I must be doing something wrong since only a tech guru can click on a built in benchmark.

as far as that ban goes, you obviously have some problems getting things through that brick head of yours. I did not reply any more to that thread but the ban NEVER happened and now thats FIVE times I have told you that. sorry I didnt have a video camera to document me being on the forums during those days but I was.

 

[NoSoup4You]

2 Gig's of RAM with Vista is plenty to run Crysis/Warhead with. I routinely get close to 1.8-1.9Gig's worth of total system useage but the game is still smooth without any memory related hitching. In the past, I've played BF2 on a system with only 1 Gig of RAM so I know what memory-related hitching looks and feels like. Crysis doesn't do that with my rig, at all. Is it a little unsettling to see system useage bordering on 1.9Gig's? Yes. But is the game noticeably suffering? No.

I'm also still heavily gpu bottlenecked with my GTS 640MB, although I game at 1600x1200 and 1440x900 as opposed to 1024x768. I see a significant improvement just from overclocking my gpu from 513/792/1188 to 630/950/1525. It's a huge difference and makes the game far more playable with some of the eyecandy turned up. I'm willing to sacrifice performance for some of the graphical options available in Crysis, most notably the High/Gamer shader setting. It's huge, and leaves no doubt that a GTX 260 would still give me a monster improvement in performance and allow me to up some graphics settings despite my AMD X2 cpu.

But, I don't game at 1024x768 like the OP obviously.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota
you have your numbers and I have mine. I have an X2 so I know how it performs with different cards. I never took a vacation even though it said so in forums. I logged in that day and never had a prob so it never took affect. maybe it was only to humor you. :laugh:

When your numbers do not match with people who do this for a living you might want to go over those numbers again.

BFG who's a mod here told me directly you took a vacation. I have PM to prove it. :laugh:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<Azn, FYI Toyota has been given a 3 day vacation for his actions.

Thanks for bringing the issue to my attention.

show me someone testing a 5000 X2 and the cards in question.

like I ALREADY said it never took effect. I stayed logged in and was never actually banned for those 3 days.

Are you calling BFG a liar? He's the video card forum moderator who gave you the vacation. If you want you could PM if you'd like.

X2 or Core 2duo.. Does it mater? I have actual frames to prove it and my core 2 duo clocked competitive with OP's overclocked Opteron. If you don't believe a Core 2 duo @ 1.86ghz is competitive with Opteron @ 2.25 ghz there's always the web that will tell you other wise.

well some benchmarks had the 1.86 Core 2 right along with the 5000 X2 but it just depends on the game. for the most yeah those should be pretty close though.

Im not calling anybody a liar. he said I was banned but IT NEVER TOOK EFFECT. thats the THIRD time I have told you that so why do you not understand?

Okay now you say it compares but I guess my benchmarks and all these websites are wrong and you are benchmarks are right?

That's why I said PM BFG. He'll tell you if you were banned or not. he's the moderator. I'm just telling you what he told me.

yes its comparable for the most part. lets try this one more time...yes he said I was banned for a few days BUT I never actually was. I logged in just fine for that time period and may have even posted. Im too lazy to go back and see but youre more than welcome too. lol

So my benchmarks show exactly 20% improvement from faster GPU with a Opteron 2.25ghz like performance. Same can be said about 9600gt vs 8800gt in Crysis which you've been saying 8800gt has no performance gains over 9600gt in Crysis.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...TMP=Linear&#lastunread

You were warned less than three hours ago by BFG10K to stop with the personal attacks. It didn't seem to make an impression on you. Take a few days off and consider trying to be civil towards your fellow members. esquared Anandtech Senior Moderator

Is that why you didn't reply after that? :brokenheart:

and in my system it didnt. in the Crysis gpu benchmark the 8800gt was just over ONE fps better at 1024x768 on high setting than the 9600gt. same drivers and everything. of course now I must be doing something wrong since only a tech guru can click on a built in benchmark.

as far as that ban goes, you obviously have some problems getting things through that brick head of yours. I did not reply any more to that thread but the ban NEVER happened and now thats FIVE times I have told you that. sorry I didnt have a video camera to document me being on the forums during those days but I was.

Obviously some kind of user error. Probably do to not installing drivers properly or didn't even benchmark the cards altogether. You sticking a 8800gt on a 300 watt HP OEM power supply might have something to do with it. Now it's 1 fps difference before it was 0 difference.

Brick head of mine? Is that another personal attack? I'm just posting what happened. Who to believe? 1 moderator PM and told me you have been suspended for 3 days. Senior moderator posts on your thread that you took a vacation for few days to clear you head off. You deny it but the truth of the matter is someone is lying. I pretty much have an idea who. :laugh:

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota
you have your numbers and I have mine. I have an X2 so I know how it performs with different cards. I never took a vacation even though it said so in forums. I logged in that day and never had a prob so it never took affect. maybe it was only to humor you. :laugh:

When your numbers do not match with people who do this for a living you might want to go over those numbers again.

BFG who's a mod here told me directly you took a vacation. I have PM to prove it. :laugh:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Azn, FYI Toyota has been given a 3 day vacation for his actions.

Thanks for bringing the issue to my attention.

show me someone testing a 5000 X2 and the cards in question.

like I ALREADY said it never took effect. I stayed logged in and was never actually banned for those 3 days.

Are you calling BFG a liar? He's the video card forum moderator who gave you the vacation. If you want you could PM if you'd like.

X2 or Core 2duo.. Does it mater? I have actual frames to prove it and my core 2 duo clocked competitive with OP's overclocked Opteron. If you don't believe a Core 2 duo @ 1.86ghz is competitive with Opteron @ 2.25 ghz there's always the web that will tell you other wise.

well some benchmarks had the 1.86 Core 2 right along with the 5000 X2 but it just depends on the game. for the most yeah those should be pretty close though.

Im not calling anybody a liar. he said I was banned but IT NEVER TOOK EFFECT. thats the THIRD time I have told you that so why do you not understand?

Okay now you say it compares but I guess my benchmarks and all these websites are wrong and you are benchmarks are right?

That's why I said PM BFG. He'll tell you if you were banned or not. he's the moderator. I'm just telling you what he told me.

yes its comparable for the most part. lets try this one more time...yes he said I was banned for a few days BUT I never actually was. I logged in just fine for that time period and may have even posted. Im too lazy to go back and see but youre more than welcome too. lol

So my benchmarks show exactly 20% improvement from faster GPU with a Opteron 2.25ghz like performance. Same can be said about 9600gt vs 8800gt in Crysis which you've been saying 8800gt has no performance gains over 9600gt in Crysis.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...TMP=Linear&#lastunread

You were warned less than three hours ago by BFG10K to stop with the personal attacks. It didn't seem to make an impression on you. Take a few days off and consider trying to be civil towards your fellow members. esquared Anandtech Senior Moderator

Is that why you didn't reply after that? :brokenheart:

and in my system it didnt. in the Crysis gpu benchmark the 8800gt was just over ONE fps better at 1024x768 on high setting than the 9600gt. same drivers and everything. of course now I must be doing something wrong since only a tech guru can click on a built in benchmark.

as far as that ban goes, you obviously have some problems getting things through that brick head of yours. I did not reply any more to that thread but the ban NEVER happened and now thats FIVE times I have told you that. sorry I didnt have a video camera to document me being on the forums during those days but I was.

Obviously some kind of user error. Probably do to not installing drivers properly or didn't even benchmark the cards altogether. You sticking a 8800gt on a 300 watt HP OEM power supply might have something to do with it. Now it's 1 fps difference before it was 0 difference.

Brick head of mine? Is that another personal attack? I'm just posting what happened. Who to believe? 1 moderator PM and told me you have been suspended for 3 days. Senior moderator posts on your thread that you took a vacation for few days to clear you head off. You deny it but the truth of the matter is someone is lying. I pretty much have an idea who. :laugh:

as usual you arent listening. I already told you that I didnt use the stock power supply with the 8800gt but you probably know that and figure its more fun to start crap. also yes I said they get the same performance but the exact amount is 1.2 fps difference so is that better? sorry next time I will document everything just for you. why in the hell would I lie about something so damn stupid? if I hadnt tested all this stuff for myself then I wouldnt even have an opinion on it.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: toyota
as usual you arent listening. I already told you that I didnt use the stock power supply with the 8800gt but you probably know that and figure its more fun to start crap. also yes I said they get the same performance but the exact amount is 1.2 fps difference so is that better? sorry next time I will document everything just for you. why in the hell would I lie about something so damn stupid? if I hadnt tested all this stuff for myself then I wouldnt even have an opinion on it.

Oh really what power supply did you use? How did you fit it in to your HP? You bought and returned bunch of computer parts just to benchmark? You've got some ethics there.

Not my fault you didn't benchmark it correctly as shown by every single website that benchmark Crysis says other wise. Then you blame others for your short comings. :disgust:

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota
as usual you arent listening. I already told you that I didnt use the stock power supply with the 8800gt but you probably know that and figure its more fun to start crap. also yes I said they get the same performance but the exact amount is 1.2 fps difference so is that better? sorry next time I will document everything just for you. why in the hell would I lie about something so damn stupid? if I hadnt tested all this stuff for myself then I wouldnt even have an opinion on it.

Oh really what power supply did you use? How did you fit it in to your HP? You bought and returned bunch of computer parts just to benchmark? You've got some ethics there.

Not my fault you didn't benchmark it correctly as shown by every single website that benchmark Crysis says other wise. Then you blame others for your short comings. :disgust:

why dont you read through the other thread since you like to link to it so much and it should be in there? If not I told you at least 2 or 3 times on tr forums exactly what power supply I used when you kept starting crap over there.

first I tried the 8800gt but once I had it I couldnt justify the cost(they were over $200 at the time) of it with the power supply. later I got a PNY 9600gt that ran too loud and had no fan adjustment.

I bought the 4670 which I have now and wasnt really impressed so figured I would try another 9600gt and just sell the 4670 to someone else. this XFX had the noisy as hell cooler from the 6800 series but was going to try to live with it.

My parents wanted a new comp and so I thought about selling them mine and getting that Dell with the E7300. I got the Dell and 9600gt wouldnt fit so that was why it was scratched. I then just went ahead and bought my parents a cheaper Compaq comp so they could have a brand new comp instead of my year and half old one.

of course since I had all this hardware I ran benchmarks to fulfill my curiosity. in the end I obviously kept the 4670. I probably will just build or buy another pc soon so the 4850 is probably what I will go with. thats why I told you that I could go pick one up now.

you always try to twist things I say no matter what. there have been many things that you have made blanket statements about that were at least partly wrong but then you try to insult me or or go another way so you dont ever look wrong. thats just your personality I guess.

I have not lied about anything and have no reason to. I sure as hell would not argue with someone if I hadnt done what I said. I actually took a picture of the Dell, 4670 and the 9600gt just in case someone like you questioned me. I could post them here along with copy of the receipt for the Compaq I bought for my parents so let me know if you want proof.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota
as usual you arent listening. I already told you that I didnt use the stock power supply with the 8800gt but you probably know that and figure its more fun to start crap. also yes I said they get the same performance but the exact amount is 1.2 fps difference so is that better? sorry next time I will document everything just for you. why in the hell would I lie about something so damn stupid? if I hadnt tested all this stuff for myself then I wouldnt even have an opinion on it.

Oh really what power supply did you use? How did you fit it in to your HP? You bought and returned bunch of computer parts just to benchmark? You've got some ethics there.

Not my fault you didn't benchmark it correctly as shown by every single website that benchmark Crysis says other wise. Then you blame others for your short comings. :disgust:

why dont you read through the other thread since you like to link to it so much? I told you there and on tr forums exactly what power supply I used.

first I tried the 8800gt but once I had it I couldnt justify the cost of it with the power supply. later I got a PNY 9600gt that ran too loud and had no fan adjustment.

I bought the 4670 which I have now and wasnt really impressed so figured I would try another 9600gt and just sell the 4670 to someone else. this XFX had the noisy as hell cooler from the 6800 series but was going to try to live with it.

My parents wanted a new comp and so I thought about selling them mine and getting that Dell with the E7300. I got the Dell and 9600gt wouldnt fit so that was why it was scratched. I then just went ahead and bought my parents a cheaper Compaq comp so they could have a brand new comp instead of my year and half old one.

of course since I had all this hardware I ran benchmarks to fulfill my curiosity. in the end I obviously kept the 4670. I probably will just build or buy another pc soon so the 4850 is probably what I will go with. thats why I told you that I could go pick one up now.

you always try to twist things I say no matter what. there have been many things that have made blanket statements about that were at least partly wrong but then you try to insult me or or go another way so you dont ever look wrong. thats just your personality I guess.

I have not lied about anything and have no reason to. I sure as hell would not argue with someone if I hadnt done what I said. I actually took a picture of the Dell, 4670 and the 9600gt just in case someone like you questioned me. I could post them here along with copy of the receipt for the Compaq I bought for my parents so let me know if you want proof.

Why the hell should I read every garbage you type? You replied to my post and I replied back. You brought this on yourself toyota and spewing the same garbage you were trying in that other thread which everyone was trying to put some sense into you.

I've backed up everything I said and providing evidence and proof to my claims. You however can't back anything up and says oh "my numbers" or point to a 280gtx that has higher threshold cpu limits than a 9600gt would and says 9600gt will have the same bottlenecks. Did you ever think for a second that your numbers are wrong when all these credible websites says 8800gt is 20-25 faster than 9600gt for crysis?

Seems to me you buy and return constantly. It's still not ethical when you weren't planning on keeping it.

I don't remember what power supply you used yet you can't even answer the question. If I did know what power supply you used I wouldn't be asking you would I now? Who knows it could just be a made up story by a 16 year old who wants to swap his computer with his parents. Make up some stupid story to cover his ass. By the looks of it I've pretty much hit the nail in the coffin.

How do I twist everything you say? You told me 9600gt and 8800gt perform same. later you told me 8800gt is 1 fps faster. Later on you said 1.2fps. I provide proof which the 8800gt is roughly 20-25% faster than 9600gt in Crysis high settings. You wouldn't believe because the CPU was E8400 was @ 3.6ghz while your computer is x2 5000. So I run my computer to emulate the OP's computer and benchmark warhead. Guess what. Same 20-25% difference which you seem to agree yet that was this thread was about. Which would benefit more? A cpu and mobo or GPU. :roll:

You say you weren't banned. I say you did. I provide proof. You deny it. I guess I've twisted everything you said. :disgust: