GTX 295

[apoppin]

The OP is using an x38.

what is wrong with x38? .. it is the same [basically] as X48 and offers all the necessary functionality
-x58 is brand new for i7

what *might* hold him back with either card is his q6600 at only 3.0Ghz
--it might not really make any practical gaming difference running a 295 over an x2
[PhysX vs. DX10.1 is the only really "choice" imo]

i'd save the $100 just considering the gaming performance at 19x12 with a 3.0 q6600

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: apoppin

The OP is using an x38.

what is wrong with x38? .. it is the same [basically] as X48 and offers all the necessary functionality
-x58 is brand new for i7

what *might* hold him back with either card is his q6600 at only 3.0Ghz
--it might not really make any practical gaming difference running a 295 over an x2
[PhysX vs. DX10.1 is the only really "choice" imo]

i'd save the $100 just considering the gaming performance at 19x12 with a 3.0 q6600

nRollo keeps pointing out driver problems with the 4870x2 on the x58, that is why I pointed that out... that the OP is not using the x58.

 

[chizow]

Why are people recommending 4870X2 when he said he wants to get rid of the 4870 1GB and wants to go back to the green side?

Anyways, these reviews using the latest 8.12 Hot Fix and 181.20 clearly show the GTX 295 is the fastest single card part available.

Tech Report
FiringSquad
PCGH
Anandtech

Its not even close really. I'm not sure how much faith I'd put in that Computerbase review, as they weren't able to replicate their 9.x Beta Results. Also depending what resolution you run, you'll see the GTX 285, particularly overclocked starts getting pretty close to those multi-GPU solutions.

Microstutter is still an issue, although many reviewers have commented it has been reduced with GTX 295. Some have even said they think its due to a driver optimization normalizing delay between frames. Generally, Microstutter will be less noticeable with frame rates above your refresh rate, so with a faster multi-GPU solution it should be less of an issue due to higher FPS than older/slower multi-GPU solutions.

 

[SlowSpyder]

If he says he definitely wants to go Green then that's fine. But I think most of us were just trying to show him that there is an alternative that will work on his single working PCIE slot that is a better buy in my opinion.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
If he says he definitely wants to go Green then that's fine. But I think most of us were just trying to show him that there is an alternative that will work on his single working PCIE slot that is a better buy in my opinion.

Thank you for you're recommendations. As said previously in this thread, ATI's drivers are terrible, even on non X58 platforms.

-Vsync and Triple buffering have to be enabled through a 3rd party program such as D3D overider. I didn't have to worry about this while using my 8800GTS, everything worked fine from the driver settings

-If you have AA turned on in CCC as well as in game, the AA will NOT work.

-No gaming profiles

-Weird and random video crashes on a fresh install of Vista 64

-Low fps in games where it should be running maxed (My 8800GTS ran WoW just as well as this 4870 1gb)

I remember when I use to laugh at "The way it's meant to be played" logos while gaming on my X850XT PE, but I don't anymore. Nvidia is just way ahead in terms of drivers and working with game developers.

I decided that I'm going to go with the GTX 285. I will probably upgrade my mobo down the line, and at that time I will just pick up another GTX 285 for SLI.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: chizow
Why are people recommending 4870X2 when he said he wants to get rid of the 4870 1GB and wants to go back to the green side?

Anyways, these reviews using the latest 8.12 Hot Fix and 181.20 clearly show the GTX 295 is the fastest single card part available.

You really don't get it?

he has a slow CPU ..

the GTX is kind of a waste paired with a e6600 @ 3.0 Ghz
- so is X2 but a $100 less "waste"


i'd just get 285 if i were in his position wanting to go with Nvidia

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
If he says he definitely wants to go Green then that's fine. But I think most of us were just trying to show him that there is an alternative that will work on his single working PCIE slot that is a better buy in my opinion.

Thank you for you're recommendations. As said previously in this thread, ATI's drivers are terrible, even on non X58 platforms.

-Vsync and Triple buffering have to be enabled through a 3rd party program such as D3D overider. I didn't have to worry about this while using my 8800GTS, everything worked fine from the driver settings

-If you have AA turned on in CCC as well as in game, the AA will NOT work.

-No gaming profiles

-Weird and random video crashes on a fresh install of Vista 64

-Low fps in games where it should be running maxed (My 8800GTS ran WoW just as well as this 4870 1gb)

I remember when I use to laugh at "The way it's meant to be played" logos while gaming on my X850XT PE, but I don't anymore. Nvidia is just way ahead in terms of drivers and working with game developers.

I decided that I'm going to go with the GTX 285. I will probably upgrade my mobo down the line, and at that time I will just pick up another GTX 285 for SLI.

well, i don't find you mentioned as "issues" .. what you describe is not what the rest of us have -

i think your PC has driver conflicts you never resolved

Nvidia is NO better

try enabling centered timings for a LCD that does not have it built it and their CP looks like it was stuck in a time warp since '06
:roll:

i do agree with your new choice for you, however

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: chizow
Why are people recommending 4870X2 when he said he wants to get rid of the 4870 1GB and wants to go back to the green side?

Anyways, these reviews using the latest 8.12 Hot Fix and 181.20 clearly show the GTX 295 is the fastest single card part available.

You really don't get it?

he has a slow CPU ..

the GTX is kind of a waste paired with a e6600 @ 3.0 Ghz
- so is X2 but a $100 less "waste"


i'd just get 285 if i were in his position wanting to go with Nvidia

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
If he says he definitely wants to go Green then that's fine. But I think most of us were just trying to show him that there is an alternative that will work on his single working PCIE slot that is a better buy in my opinion.

Thank you for you're recommendations. As said previously in this thread, ATI's drivers are terrible, even on non X58 platforms.

-Vsync and Triple buffering have to be enabled through a 3rd party program such as D3D overider. I didn't have to worry about this while using my 8800GTS, everything worked fine from the driver settings

-If you have AA turned on in CCC as well as in game, the AA will NOT work.

-No gaming profiles

-Weird and random video crashes on a fresh install of Vista 64

-Low fps in games where it should be running maxed (My 8800GTS ran WoW just as well as this 4870 1gb)

I remember when I use to laugh at "The way it's meant to be played" logos while gaming on my X850XT PE, but I don't anymore. Nvidia is just way ahead in terms of drivers and working with game developers.

I decided that I'm going to go with the GTX 285. I will probably upgrade my mobo down the line, and at that time I will just pick up another GTX 285 for SLI.

well, i don't find you mentioned as "issues" .. what you describe is not what the rest of us have -

i think your PC has driver conflicts you never resolved

Nvidia is NO better

try enabling centered timings for a LCD that does not have it built it and their CP looks like it was stuck in a time warp since '06
:roll:

i do agree with your new choice for you, however

I have a Q6600, not E6600

I have spent the past 2 weeks doing everything to get this 4870 1gb stable, but no matter what I do, it will never be 100% perfect and it still lacks the quality drivers Nvidia has. I know most computer issues are user error, but I have been at this for a very very long time. If I can't fix it, then no one else can.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I have a Q6600, not E6600

I have spent the past 2 weeks doing everything to get this 4870 1gb stable, but no matter what I do, it will never be 100% perfect and it still lacks the quality drivers Nvidia has. I know most computer issues are user error, but I have been at this for a very very long time. If I can't fix it, then no one else can.

Appopin has different standards for hardware then a lot of us.

Didn't you say your motherboard is flakey? I'm not saying you're not having problems with you AMD card, but seeing as you mentioned motherboard problems I wouldn't be shocked if that's the root of your problems. I have yet to have a problem with my card. If you're having issues with a single GPU, I don't know that you'd want a GTX295/4870x2... maybe try a GTX285 then. But I would do everything to rule out your motherboard first, which you say you can't even use the second PCIE slot in, so that makes me think your problems may not be your card or your cards drivers.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

I have a Q6600, not E6600

I have spent the past 2 weeks doing everything to get this 4870 1gb stable, but no matter what I do, it will never be 100% perfect and it still lacks the quality drivers Nvidia has. I know most computer issues are user error, but I have been at this for a very very long time. If I can't fix it, then no one else can.

Appopin has different standards for hardware then a lot of us.

Didn't you say your motherboard is flakey? I'm not saying you're not having problems with you AMD card, but seeing as you mentioned motherboard problems I wouldn't be shocked if that's the root of your problems. I have yet to have a problem with my card. If you're having issues with a single GPU, I don't know that you'd want a GTX295/4870x2... maybe try a GTX285 then. But I would do everything to rule out your motherboard first, which you say you can't even use the second PCIE slot in, so that makes me think your problems may not be your card or your cards drivers.

howso ?


q or e, 3.0Ghz is still slow for x2 OR 295 to see much performance difference between them at 19x12

... i run BOTH Nvidia and AMD cards and i don't find those driver issues.

To the OP, did you reformat? As part of "everything" you tried?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

I have a Q6600, not E6600

I have spent the past 2 weeks doing everything to get this 4870 1gb stable, but no matter what I do, it will never be 100% perfect and it still lacks the quality drivers Nvidia has. I know most computer issues are user error, but I have been at this for a very very long time. If I can't fix it, then no one else can.

Appopin has different standards for hardware then a lot of us.

Didn't you say your motherboard is flakey? I'm not saying you're not having problems with you AMD card, but seeing as you mentioned motherboard problems I wouldn't be shocked if that's the root of your problems. I have yet to have a problem with my card. If you're having issues with a single GPU, I don't know that you'd want a GTX295/4870x2... maybe try a GTX285 then. But I would do everything to rule out your motherboard first, which you say you can't even use the second PCIE slot in, so that makes me think your problems may not be your card or your cards drivers.

howso ?


q or e, 3.0Ghz is still slow for x2 OR 295 to see much performance difference between them at 19x12

... i run BOTH Nvidia and AMD cards and i don't find those driver issues.

To the OP, did you reformat? As part of "everything" you tried?

That's not good advice- you don't need to reformat to install video cards- ever.

Uninstall the drivers, reboot. Reboot to safe mode and clean with Guru3ds Driver Sweeper, reboot.

Install drivers.

That "reformat" option is tossed out way too often.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

I have a Q6600, not E6600

I have spent the past 2 weeks doing everything to get this 4870 1gb stable, but no matter what I do, it will never be 100% perfect and it still lacks the quality drivers Nvidia has. I know most computer issues are user error, but I have been at this for a very very long time. If I can't fix it, then no one else can.

Appopin has different standards for hardware then a lot of us.

Didn't you say your motherboard is flakey? I'm not saying you're not having problems with you AMD card, but seeing as you mentioned motherboard problems I wouldn't be shocked if that's the root of your problems. I have yet to have a problem with my card. If you're having issues with a single GPU, I don't know that you'd want a GTX295/4870x2... maybe try a GTX285 then. But I would do everything to rule out your motherboard first, which you say you can't even use the second PCIE slot in, so that makes me think your problems may not be your card or your cards drivers.

howso ?


q or e, 3.0Ghz is still slow for x2 OR 295 to see much performance difference between them at 19x12

... i run BOTH Nvidia and AMD cards and i don't find those driver issues.

To the OP, did you reformat? As part of "everything" you tried?

I just meant that what I consider pretty quick you call slow. I was quite happy with an overclocked 2900Pro for 16x10, I think you'd just about consider that torture.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

I have a Q6600, not E6600

I have spent the past 2 weeks doing everything to get this 4870 1gb stable, but no matter what I do, it will never be 100% perfect and it still lacks the quality drivers Nvidia has. I know most computer issues are user error, but I have been at this for a very very long time. If I can't fix it, then no one else can.

Appopin has different standards for hardware then a lot of us.

Didn't you say your motherboard is flakey? I'm not saying you're not having problems with you AMD card, but seeing as you mentioned motherboard problems I wouldn't be shocked if that's the root of your problems. I have yet to have a problem with my card. If you're having issues with a single GPU, I don't know that you'd want a GTX295/4870x2... maybe try a GTX285 then. But I would do everything to rule out your motherboard first, which you say you can't even use the second PCIE slot in, so that makes me think your problems may not be your card or your cards drivers.

howso ?


q or e, 3.0Ghz is still slow for x2 OR 295 to see much performance difference between them at 19x12

... i run BOTH Nvidia and AMD cards and i don't find those driver issues.

To the OP, did you reformat? As part of "everything" you tried?

That's not good advice- you don't need to reformat to install video cards- ever.

Uninstall the drivers, reboot. Reboot to safe mode and clean with Guru3ds Driver Sweeper, reboot.

Install drivers.

That "reformat" option is tossed out way too often.

it's not my advice .. period !!

do you have trouble reading *questions* as supposed 'options' ?

:roll:

... and ..
sometimes reformat is the only way .. never say "never"

just meant that what I consider pretty quick you call slow. I was quite happy with an overclocked 2900Pro for 16x10, I think you'd just about consider that torture.

i had one then also .. i notice you upgraded too

a 3.0Ghz q6600 is a slow CPU to pair with a X2, nevermind 295
- it is not a slow CPU by any other standards

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: apoppin

a 3.0Ghz q6600 is a slow CPU to pair with a X2, nevermind 295
- it is not a slow CPU by any other standards

An OCd E8600 isn't what I'd call a fast CPU for modern gaming with the 3 way CF either.

All of our systems have weak links, it's not a good reason to avoid buying video cards. Not like he won't get scaling with a 3GHz quad.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

a 3.0Ghz q6600 is a slow CPU to pair with a X2, nevermind 295
- it is not a slow CPU by any other standards

An OCd E8600 isn't what I'd call a fast CPU for modern gaming with the 3 way CF either.

All of our systems have weak links, it's not a good reason to avoid buying video cards. Not like he won't get scaling with a 3GHz quad.

Who really cares what you call e8600@4.0 Ghz? it is not about my system
--rather, it is about bang for buck with a 3.0Ghz q6600 .. and your recommendation of GTX295 is not practical for 19x12 with that CPU

And what would you recommend for me?

- i am getting the new low-power q9550 this coming week .. to compare with my e8600 - which OCs well above 4.0Ghz but was kept artificially low because of my articles and reviews comparing older platforms

i just finished all of my benchmarking - ten minutes ago [!!] - my last 'GPU Shootout' review compares 8 sets of drivers to each other, since last August thru the end of last year. i am making the graphs tonight and Now i am free to Overclock for my new set of benches and articles that start with Dual Core vs. Quad Core for gaming.

i7 is not faster than Penryn *for gaming* yet; certainly not bang-for-buck .. and when it is and the i7 MBs are more mature, i will be changing to that platform and continuing on with my reviews of HW as it comes out.

Are there any other "weak links" you'd care to point out in my system, while we are on the subject?

- i am also changing to Vista64 with the Q9550 .. for fun .. and while i am replacing my Thermalright/Scythe120 CPU cooler to try out a brand-new Coolermaster, my Asspire eX-Gamer case is being replaced by a brushed aluminum classic Lian Li


. . . . are you OK with that?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

a 3.0Ghz q6600 is a slow CPU to pair with a X2, nevermind 295
- it is not a slow CPU by any other standards

An OCd E8600 isn't what I'd call a fast CPU for modern gaming with the 3 way CF either.

All of our systems have weak links, it's not a good reason to avoid buying video cards. Not like he won't get scaling with a 3GHz quad.

Who really cares what you call e8600@4.0 Ghz? it is not about my system
--rather, it is about bang for buck with a 3.0Ghz q6600 .. and your recommendation of GTX295 is not practical for 19x12 with that CPU

And what would you recommend for me?

- i am getting the new low-power q9550 this coming week .. to compare with my e8600 - which OCs well above 4.0Ghz but was kept artificially low because of my articles and reviews comparing older platforms

i just finished all of my benchmarking - ten minutes ago [!!] - my last 'GPU Shootout' review compares 8 sets of drivers to each other, since last August thru the end of last year. i am making the graphs tonight and Now i am free to Overclock for my new set of benches and articles that start with Dual Core vs. Quad Core for gaming.

i7 is not faster than Penryn *for gaming* yet; certainly not bang-for-buck .. and when it is and the i7 MBs are more mature, i will be changing to that platform and continuing on with my reviews of HW as it comes out.

Are there any other "weak links" you'd care to point out in my system, while we are on the subject?

- i am also changing to Vista64 with the Q9550 .. for fun .. and while i am replacing my Thermalright/Scythe120 CPU cooler to try out a brand-new Coolermaster, my Asspire eX-Gamer case is being replaced by a brushed aluminum classic Lian Li


. . . . are you OK with that?

No offense intended, but i7 destroys Pennryn right now, especially with 3 way rigs like yours.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/...-performance-review/19

 

[SlowSpyder]

i had one then also .. i notice you upgraded too

a 3.0Ghz q6600 is a slow CPU to pair with a X2, nevermind 295
- it is not a slow CPU by any other standards

The wife got it for me for Christmas, otherwise I would still have the 2900. I wasn't going to say no.

 

[HOOfan 1]

or at least the X58 destroys the 790i

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

a 3.0Ghz q6600 is a slow CPU to pair with a X2, nevermind 295
- it is not a slow CPU by any other standards

An OCd E8600 isn't what I'd call a fast CPU for modern gaming with the 3 way CF either.

All of our systems have weak links, it's not a good reason to avoid buying video cards. Not like he won't get scaling with a 3GHz quad.

Who really cares what you call e8600@4.0 Ghz? it is not about my system
--rather, it is about bang for buck with a 3.0Ghz q6600 .. and your recommendation of GTX295 is not practical for 19x12 with that CPU

And what would you recommend for me?

- i am getting the new low-power q9550 this coming week .. to compare with my e8600 - which OCs well above 4.0Ghz but was kept artificially low because of my articles and reviews comparing older platforms

i just finished all of my benchmarking - ten minutes ago [!!] - my last 'GPU Shootout' review compares 8 sets of drivers to each other, since last August thru the end of last year. i am making the graphs tonight and Now i am free to Overclock for my new set of benches and articles that start with Dual Core vs. Quad Core for gaming.

i7 is not faster than Penryn *for gaming* yet; certainly not bang-for-buck .. and when it is and the i7 MBs are more mature, i will be changing to that platform and continuing on with my reviews of HW as it comes out.

Are there any other "weak links" you'd care to point out in my system, while we are on the subject?

- i am also changing to Vista64 with the Q9550 .. for fun .. and while i am replacing my Thermalright/Scythe120 CPU cooler to try out a brand-new Coolermaster, my Asspire eX-Gamer case is being replaced by a brushed aluminum classic Lian Li


. . . . are you OK with that?

No offense intended, but i7 destroys Pennryn right now, especially with 3 way rigs like yours.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/...-performance-review/19

none taken
Those of us that work hard for our HW find it hard to justify buggy new MBs and DDR3 that is rather OVERpriced at a premium for early adopters like you that will probably upgrade again when i do this Spring

that link you show me has both processors running at 3.2Ghz

i will put my own e8600 system at 4.5Ghz against that i7 with CFx-3 .. or if my new q9550 gets to 4.0Ghz it will eat that stock q9770 for breakfast

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

a 3.0Ghz q6600 is a slow CPU to pair with a X2, nevermind 295
- it is not a slow CPU by any other standards

An OCd E8600 isn't what I'd call a fast CPU for modern gaming with the 3 way CF either.

All of our systems have weak links, it's not a good reason to avoid buying video cards. Not like he won't get scaling with a 3GHz quad.

Who really cares what you call e8600@4.0 Ghz? it is not about my system
--rather, it is about bang for buck with a 3.0Ghz q6600 .. and your recommendation of GTX295 is not practical for 19x12 with that CPU

And what would you recommend for me?

- i am getting the new low-power q9550 this coming week .. to compare with my e8600 - which OCs well above 4.0Ghz but was kept artificially low because of my articles and reviews comparing older platforms

i just finished all of my benchmarking - ten minutes ago [!!] - my last 'GPU Shootout' review compares 8 sets of drivers to each other, since last August thru the end of last year. i am making the graphs tonight and Now i am free to Overclock for my new set of benches and articles that start with Dual Core vs. Quad Core for gaming.

i7 is not faster than Penryn *for gaming* yet; certainly not bang-for-buck .. and when it is and the i7 MBs are more mature, i will be changing to that platform and continuing on with my reviews of HW as it comes out.

Are there any other "weak links" you'd care to point out in my system, while we are on the subject?

- i am also changing to Vista64 with the Q9550 .. for fun .. and while i am replacing my Thermalright/Scythe120 CPU cooler to try out a brand-new Coolermaster, my Asspire eX-Gamer case is being replaced by a brushed aluminum classic Lian Li


. . . . are you OK with that?

No offense intended, but i7 destroys Pennryn right now, especially with 3 way rigs like yours.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/...-performance-review/19

none taken
Those of us that work hard for our HW find it hard to justify buggy new MBs and DDR3 that is rather OVERpriced at a premium for early adopters like you that will probably upgrade again when i do this Spring

that link you show me has both processors running at 3.2Ghz

i will put my own e8600 system at 4.5Ghz against that i7 with CFx-3 .. or if my new q9550 gets to 4.0Ghz it will eat that stock q9770 for breakfast

You can overclock i7s as well though, the link was just to point you at an article that shows you too would be better served by a newer cpu.

The OP will still get plenty of scaling, just less.

 

[Pelu]

OP... I dont like the micro stuttering, so we are in the same boat lol... but i hear.. a little bird told me.. that all this micro stuttering problem isnt about drivers... the problem is in the OS kernel... if what this bird is yelling all day is true.. then we should start hoping the next OS fix up this lol.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

a 3.0Ghz q6600 is a slow CPU to pair with a X2, nevermind 295
- it is not a slow CPU by any other standards

An OCd E8600 isn't what I'd call a fast CPU for modern gaming with the 3 way CF either.

All of our systems have weak links, it's not a good reason to avoid buying video cards. Not like he won't get scaling with a 3GHz quad.

Who really cares what you call e8600@4.0 Ghz? it is not about my system
--rather, it is about bang for buck with a 3.0Ghz q6600 .. and your recommendation of GTX295 is not practical for 19x12 with that CPU

And what would you recommend for me?

- i am getting the new low-power q9550 this coming week .. to compare with my e8600 - which OCs well above 4.0Ghz but was kept artificially low because of my articles and reviews comparing older platforms

i just finished all of my benchmarking - ten minutes ago [!!] - my last 'GPU Shootout' review compares 8 sets of drivers to each other, since last August thru the end of last year. i am making the graphs tonight and Now i am free to Overclock for my new set of benches and articles that start with Dual Core vs. Quad Core for gaming.

i7 is not faster than Penryn *for gaming* yet; certainly not bang-for-buck .. and when it is and the i7 MBs are more mature, i will be changing to that platform and continuing on with my reviews of HW as it comes out.

Are there any other "weak links" you'd care to point out in my system, while we are on the subject?

- i am also changing to Vista64 with the Q9550 .. for fun .. and while i am replacing my Thermalright/Scythe120 CPU cooler to try out a brand-new Coolermaster, my Asspire eX-Gamer case is being replaced by a brushed aluminum classic Lian Li


. . . . are you OK with that?

No offense intended, but i7 destroys Pennryn right now, especially with 3 way rigs like yours.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/...-performance-review/19

none taken
Those of us that work hard for our HW find it hard to justify buggy new MBs and DDR3 that is rather OVERpriced at a premium for early adopters like you that will probably upgrade again when i do this Spring

that link you show me has both processors running at 3.2Ghz

i will put my own e8600 system at 4.5Ghz against that i7 with CFx-3 .. or if my new q9550 gets to 4.0Ghz it will eat that stock q9770 for breakfast

You can overclock i7s as well though, the link was just to point you at an article that shows you too would be better served by a newer cpu.

The OP will still get plenty of scaling, just less.

i still don't think you really get it
--i would have to change my entire platform for an overpriced "maybe"
. . . if my new i7 did not OC much, i am MUCH better off with my new Penryn Q9550 which will OC
[and it it doesn't, i will be shocked, give it away and keep my e8600 as high as it will go - well over 4 Ghz, to keep up with most any current i7 rig]

it is silly for those of us gamers who still value bang-for-buck to upgrade the CPU prematurely just to have "the latest" i7

Are you not Nvidia Focus Group?
--Does not your own Parent Company try to show the importance of the GPU over the CPU, IN GAMING? .. now you sound like intel


i think it would be SILLY for me to buy i7 now .. soon the next gen of I7 MBs will be here and they will be much more stable; i7 will OC much further and DDR3 will also be cheaper

but then some people evidently spend a lot of money on the latest and greatest cutting-edge HW to impress - for the sole purpose of making their Video cards "look good"
:Q

 

[Compddd]

Why do people always insist that you NEED SLI or Crossfire for playable 30", you don't.

Screw dual cards and SLI and all the problems that come with it.

Get a GTX 285 and overclock the hell out of it.

Also seeing realistic big sheets of surane wrap floating around in the wind on Mirror's Edge with PhysX is neat

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

a 3.0Ghz q6600 is a slow CPU to pair with a X2, nevermind 295
- it is not a slow CPU by any other standards

An OCd E8600 isn't what I'd call a fast CPU for modern gaming with the 3 way CF either.

All of our systems have weak links, it's not a good reason to avoid buying video cards. Not like he won't get scaling with a 3GHz quad.

Who really cares what you call e8600@4.0 Ghz? it is not about my system
--rather, it is about bang for buck with a 3.0Ghz q6600 .. and your recommendation of GTX295 is not practical for 19x12 with that CPU

And what would you recommend for me?

- i am getting the new low-power q9550 this coming week .. to compare with my e8600 - which OCs well above 4.0Ghz but was kept artificially low because of my articles and reviews comparing older platforms

i just finished all of my benchmarking - ten minutes ago [!!] - my last 'GPU Shootout' review compares 8 sets of drivers to each other, since last August thru the end of last year. i am making the graphs tonight and Now i am free to Overclock for my new set of benches and articles that start with Dual Core vs. Quad Core for gaming.

i7 is not faster than Penryn *for gaming* yet; certainly not bang-for-buck .. and when it is and the i7 MBs are more mature, i will be changing to that platform and continuing on with my reviews of HW as it comes out.

Are there any other "weak links" you'd care to point out in my system, while we are on the subject?

- i am also changing to Vista64 with the Q9550 .. for fun .. and while i am replacing my Thermalright/Scythe120 CPU cooler to try out a brand-new Coolermaster, my Asspire eX-Gamer case is being replaced by a brushed aluminum classic Lian Li


. . . . are you OK with that?

No offense intended, but i7 destroys Pennryn right now, especially with 3 way rigs like yours.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/...-performance-review/19

none taken
Those of us that work hard for our HW find it hard to justify buggy new MBs and DDR3 that is rather OVERpriced at a premium for early adopters like you that will probably upgrade again when i do this Spring

that link you show me has both processors running at 3.2Ghz

i will put my own e8600 system at 4.5Ghz against that i7 with CFx-3 .. or if my new q9550 gets to 4.0Ghz it will eat that stock q9770 for breakfast

You can overclock i7s as well though, the link was just to point you at an article that shows you too would be better served by a newer cpu.

The OP will still get plenty of scaling, just less.

i still don't think you really get it
--i would have to change my entire platform for an overpriced "maybe"
. . . if my new i7 did not OC much, i am MUCH better off with my new Penryn Q9550 which will OC
[and it it doesn't, i will be shocked, give it away and keep my e8600 as high as it will go - well over 4 Ghz, to keep up with most any current i7 rig]

it is silly for those of us gamers who still value bang-for-buck to upgrade the CPU prematurely just to have "the latest" i7

Are you not Nvidia Focus Group?
--Does not your own Parent Company try to show the importance of the GPU over the CPU, IN GAMING? .. now you sound like intel


i think it would be SILLY for me to buy i7 now .. soon the next gen of I7 MBs will be here and they will be much more stable; i7 will OC much further and DDR3 will also be cheaper

but then some people evidently spend a lot of money on the latest and greatest cutting-edge HW to impress - for the sole purpose of making their Video cards "look good"
:Q

Apoppin-
I'm sorry, but your advice to the OP was just very bad advice, and your own system is more mismatched than his.

Unless for some reason you believe a GTX295 would scale differently than GTX260 SLi or GTX280 SLi, he should get GREAT scaling with his 3GHz Quad on a GTX295:

GTX260 and 280 single and SLi benchmarks on a 3.2GHz Quad

Yet you said:

Originally posted by: apoppin
You really don't get it?

he has a slow CPU ..

the GTX is kind of a waste paired with a e6600 @ 3.0 Ghz
- so is X2 but a $100 less "waste"


i'd just get 285 if i were in his position wanting to go with Nvidia

Which is just very, very bad advice. Even with your being mistaken about his dual vs quad CPU, it's very bad advice- the benchmarks plainly show great scaling in games like HL2 and Oblivion which aren't multi threaded for Quad.


Now as for you being more mismatched, I believe that is true as well.

1. You don't have a Quad core CPU for the games that are multi threaded.

2. No amount of OCing possible is going to make a C2D a good match for your 3 way CF:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/...-performance-review/19

Look at the difference in Brothers in Arms, FarCry2, and CrysisWarhead with 3 way Sli- do you honestly think the 6.6% (200MHz) clock difference between the E8400 and the QX9770 creates those big performance differences? If so, based on what?

Now consider the HUGE differences between the i7 and E8400, do you honestly think you can make that up with OCing? Based on what?


His system is well suited to a GTX295, your system is unbalanced, and your advice was misleading. I hope the OP/anyone else didn't believe you.

As for "I should be promoting GPU over CPU" because of my Focus Group involvement:

People scrutinize what I say because of my Focus Group involvement, so I have to be very careful that what I say is accurate. If I posted incorrect information like you did in this thread, there would be a line of people waiting to correct me, and then they would use this post to try and discredit me in the future. You know it, I know it.

I can't be of any of any use to the Focus Group if people can disprove what I say, I'm kind of locked in to telling the truth by being in the NFG.

 

[Grinja]

I would say stick with your current card. Are you experiencing poor performance in any of the titles you are currently playing?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

a 3.0Ghz q6600 is a slow CPU to pair with a X2, nevermind 295
- it is not a slow CPU by any other standards

An OCd E8600 isn't what I'd call a fast CPU for modern gaming with the 3 way CF either.

All of our systems have weak links, it's not a good reason to avoid buying video cards. Not like he won't get scaling with a 3GHz quad.

Who really cares what you call e8600@4.0 Ghz? it is not about my system
--rather, it is about bang for buck with a 3.0Ghz q6600 .. and your recommendation of GTX295 is not practical for 19x12 with that CPU

And what would you recommend for me?

- i am getting the new low-power q9550 this coming week .. to compare with my e8600 - which OCs well above 4.0Ghz but was kept artificially low because of my articles and reviews comparing older platforms

i just finished all of my benchmarking - ten minutes ago [!!] - my last 'GPU Shootout' review compares 8 sets of drivers to each other, since last August thru the end of last year. i am making the graphs tonight and Now i am free to Overclock for my new set of benches and articles that start with Dual Core vs. Quad Core for gaming.

i7 is not faster than Penryn *for gaming* yet; certainly not bang-for-buck .. and when it is and the i7 MBs are more mature, i will be changing to that platform and continuing on with my reviews of HW as it comes out.

Are there any other "weak links" you'd care to point out in my system, while we are on the subject?

- i am also changing to Vista64 with the Q9550 .. for fun .. and while i am replacing my Thermalright/Scythe120 CPU cooler to try out a brand-new Coolermaster, my Asspire eX-Gamer case is being replaced by a brushed aluminum classic Lian Li


. . . . are you OK with that?

No offense intended, but i7 destroys Pennryn right now, especially with 3 way rigs like yours.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/...-performance-review/19

none taken
Those of us that work hard for our HW find it hard to justify buggy new MBs and DDR3 that is rather OVERpriced at a premium for early adopters like you that will probably upgrade again when i do this Spring

that link you show me has both processors running at 3.2Ghz

i will put my own e8600 system at 4.5Ghz against that i7 with CFx-3 .. or if my new q9550 gets to 4.0Ghz it will eat that stock q9770 for breakfast

You can overclock i7s as well though, the link was just to point you at an article that shows you too would be better served by a newer cpu.

The OP will still get plenty of scaling, just less.

i still don't think you really get it
--i would have to change my entire platform for an overpriced "maybe"
. . . if my new i7 did not OC much, i am MUCH better off with my new Penryn Q9550 which will OC
[and it it doesn't, i will be shocked, give it away and keep my e8600 as high as it will go - well over 4 Ghz, to keep up with most any current i7 rig]

it is silly for those of us gamers who still value bang-for-buck to upgrade the CPU prematurely just to have "the latest" i7

Are you not Nvidia Focus Group?
--Does not your own Parent Company try to show the importance of the GPU over the CPU, IN GAMING? .. now you sound like intel


i think it would be SILLY for me to buy i7 now .. soon the next gen of I7 MBs will be here and they will be much more stable; i7 will OC much further and DDR3 will also be cheaper

but then some people evidently spend a lot of money on the latest and greatest cutting-edge HW to impress - for the sole purpose of making their Video cards "look good"
:Q

Apoppin-
I'm sorry, but your advice to the OP was just very bad advice, and your own system is more mismatched than his.

Unless for some reason you believe a GTX295 would scale differently than GTX260 SLi or GTX280 SLi, he should get GREAT scaling with his 3GHz Quad on a GTX295:

GTX260 and 280 single and SLi benchmarks on a 3.2GHz Quad

Yet you said:

Originally posted by: apoppin
You really don't get it?

he has a slow CPU ..

the GTX is kind of a waste paired with a e6600 @ 3.0 Ghz
- so is X2 but a $100 less "waste"


i'd just get 285 if i were in his position wanting to go with Nvidia

Which is just very, very bad advice. Even with your being mistaken about his dual vs quad CPU, it's very bad advice- the benchmarks plainly show great scaling in games like HL2 and Oblivion which aren't multi threaded for Quad.


Now as for you being more mismatched, I believe that is true as well.

1. You don't have a Quad core CPU for the games that are multi threaded.

2. No amount of OCing possible is going to make a C2D a good match for your 3 way CF:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/...-performance-review/19

Look at the difference in Brothers in Arms, FarCry2, and CrysisWarhead with 3 way Sli- do you honestly think the 6.6% (200MHz) clock difference between the E8400 and the QX9770 creates those big performance differences? If so, based on what?

Now consider the HUGE differences between the i7 and E8400, do you honestly think you can make that up with OCing? Based on what?


His system is well suited to a GTX295, your system is unbalanced, and your advice was misleading. I hope the OP/anyone else didn't believe you.

As for "I should be promoting GPU over CPU" because of my Focus Group involvement:

People scrutinize what I say because of my Focus Group involvement, so I have to be very careful that what I say is accurate. If I posted incorrect information like you did in this thread, there would be a line of people waiting to correct me, and then they would use this post to try and discredit me in the future. You know it, I know it.

I can't be of any of any use to the Focus Group if people can disprove what I say, I'm kind of locked in to telling the truth by being in the NFG.

You are getting more inattentive to what i am writing all the time and attempting your old tricks of putting words in my mouth for your strawman arguments
:thumbsdown:

Your entire reply to me is filled with inaccuracies and repeated bad examples that do not relate to what we are discussing
- i have e8600, not e8400 ... over 4.0 Ghz; where games do not use quad core, an OC'd DC is faster .. and most games do not, yet. You ignore my Quad core upgrade and keep harping on "e8400". You also use 3-way SLI in a review to supposedly support what you are saying - yet it is faster than my own Cf-X3 and much faster than a GTX295!

What 200mhz difference? Your *repeated* QuadCore example runs at 3.2Ghz .. my own e8600 Dual Core runs well over 4.0Ghz .. 4.2Ghz is a 25% core speed difference; not 6.66%!!
i think your system [i7/gtx295/16x12 and 25x16] is FAR more unbalanced than my system {e8600/CF-X3/19x12} which IS getting a superfast penryn q9550 QuadCore; it will not remain stock like in that review - this week!
- did you miss my statement deliberately or just ignore it because it does not fit in with your own preconceived ideas?

Nvidia *stresses* the importance of GPU over CPU [period!!!]
- now to repeat, i AM getting a QuadCore q9550 Penryn that will be faster than your own stock i7 in gaming - this week!
:Q

"great scaling inHalfLife2 and Oblivion" .. OLD games that even run great on 8800GTX; what are you trying to show anyone and by repeating your tired old benches with a STOCK CPU and ancient DC vs. QC reviews - from last August? No worries, i will update it for you as i do a NEW comparison of Dual Core vs. Quad-core
- it has always been easy for me to disprove what you say. i stick to facts. i don't think Focus Group is of much use here