So what sort of time frame are we looking at for noticable leaps in technology use by the gaming industry? It seems like we have a whole lot of new technology becoming available to game companys (64-bit, multi-core processors, multi-gpu, DDR3)... seems like it's going to be years before the full potential is even scratched..

7/18/2007 12:32:32 PM

^For example compare it to when DX9 came out. Took a while to get the bugs worked out of all the cards/drivers but it eventually far surpassed what DX8 was.

7/18/2007 12:36:44 PM

It depends on the developer. Bethesda's products are probably your best bet to see something that really utilizes multiple cores and some of the other new technologies. Since their upcoming fallout game is being released on 2 consoles with multi-core processors (yes I know a cell isn't quite the same thing as a full core) and on PC's, I'd expect to see multi-core optimizations for certain.

7/18/2007 12:40:02 PM

^Oblivion kicks ass. Yeah i'm sure Fallout will use 2+ cores.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/video/dualcore.html

Good article about dual core gaming.

7/18/2007 12:45:12 PM

Bah. At least SupCom gets a substantial benefit. I think I've decided against SLI since most of the research I've done and reviews I've read leads me to believe it can be more of a pain in the ass than a good thing.

Now the new X38 boards just need to come out.

7/19/2007 7:30:10 AM

^and many would agree with you... it's just not common enough to justify producers modifying their software for

7/20/2007 10:18:00 AM

^Don't most newer games support sli though? It adds a great performance boost and it's the only way to max out settings at higher resolutions. I have a single 8800gtx way overclocked, close to an ultra, with 4 gigs of ram, and a core 2 duo at 3.6, plus a raptor 10k for the os. And i still can't max out some games at 1920 by 1200. Sli would do the trick though. Might get another 8800 hopefully. I have 3 pci-e16x slots !! Well 2 at 16x, and one at 8x. Might get a physics card soon too. Any one have any experience with those?

7/20/2007 10:26:47 AM

^physics cards aren't worth it, since the release of dual-core CPU's, PPU's have yet to be utilized since obviously developers have plenty of processing power left at their disposal (since most games haven't even utilized multi-threaded games for dual/quad core CPU's)

and SLI is the biggest waste of money

i wouldn't call 20-30% increase in performance a "huge" boost, especially since you're paying for a 100% increase in performance and aren't getting it

[Edited on July 20, 2007 at 11:07 AM. Reason : .]

7/20/2007 11:04:43 AM

^ Yeah probably not going with the physics card. Sli on the other hand is not a waste of money if you want the extra options at higher resoultions. It's kinda like saying a M6 is a waste of money compared to an M5. If you're already going to spend $$ on a computer, and you want the top of the line then you might as well do SLI. Obviously if you're on a budget, then it's a waste of money, but if there's no budget it does add a considerable performance boost.

^Still though it's 20-30%. That's a lot when it comes to gaming. I agree it's a waste of money for the majority of people. But some people are into computer hardware, and want the performance boost.

[Edited on July 20, 2007 at 11:10 AM. Reason : .]

7/20/2007 11:07:30 AM

honestly there's only a handful of cards (dx9) that you have to run in SLI that are better than one single 8800 series card... sad but true.. (then again the last review i saw was when the 8800 came out) so maybe SLI still has a future... i dunno. it's just never a good upgrade path either.

[Edited on July 20, 2007 at 11:11 AM. Reason : .]

7/20/2007 11:08:50 AM

^What do you mean? I was saying 2 8800GTXs. My old 7950gx2 will beat the 8800gts 320 in most cases, and even beat the 8800gts in some cases.

Here's an example of why sli IS NOT a waste of money. Lets say i have my 8800gtx right now. The 8900gtxs are coming out later this year, and i have two choices. I can either scrap the 8800gtx, buy a 8900gtx. OR i can buy another 8800gtx, and with 2 8800gtxs i'd get better performance than ONE 8900gtx. So i'd be saving money, saving a card, and getting better performance. Not to mention the second 8800gtx will be a whole lot cheaper than the new 8900gtx when it comes out.

THAT'S why many people do SLI, to save them money, and get a huge performance boost compared to a single newer card. So how can it be a waste if you're saving money, saving your old card, and getting better performance than a single newer card???

It allows people to get more performance out of older cards, rather than upgrading right away. I think you're thinking about it in terms of "buying 2 of the fastest newest cards out, for the performance gain!", whereas most people think, "well i can save money by just doubling my old card, rather than buying a newer card, and it'll perform better, and be cheaper!".

[Edited on July 20, 2007 at 11:18 AM. Reason : .]

7/20/2007 11:13:31 AM

like i said, only a handful of dx9 cards, of course the 7950 is one of them it's one of the fastest dx9 cards out there, but a 7950 right now are $400+ whereas you can get the 8800 for $220 and have one card, save money on power every month and in some cases best the 7950 and have the latest features (dx10).

it's a bit unfair i know to compare two generations of cards, but i'm making the point for buying one (1) of the fastest cards on the market versus (2) of the older gen cards.

of course you are arguing if you have the money, why not? and i completely agree with you... if you have the money to spend, then you SHOULD get SLI, but it doesn't mean that it's still not a good deal.

when you buy the second card you are only saving money at that time, if you take the total worth of both cards versus buying one 8900, then you aren't saving money.... next time you upgrade you have to buy two cards at one time. you are only arguing saving money going from one card to two cards, not two cards to two cards, which most SLI upgraders fall into.

also most people sell their old card so a new upgrade only costs $100-200 at a time, versus spending $200-300 and not getting anything in return but two older cards that won't command the same resale price later on.

Quote :

"THAT'S why many people do SLI, to save them money, and get a huge performance boost compared to a single newer card. So how can it be a waste if you're saving money, saving your old card, and getting better performance than a single newer card???"

this is only valid if you are a first time upgrader to SLI, after you've gone SLI you have to do both cards at one time, else go back to one card... we are talking about two different upgrade paths. But once you go SLI, if you want to continue using SLI we're talking about buying two cards at one time... not saving you any money unless you buy 6-12 months after the card came out.

[Edited on July 20, 2007 at 11:48 AM. Reason : .]

7/20/2007 11:37:44 AM

^I meant the 7950gx2 (1 gig of ram), two gpus built in, one pci-e slot. 2 7950gx2 would be quad sli, and that's crazy. You're right though. It would be better to buy a newer generation card (DX10) then getting another older (DX9) card.

I think you're right for the most part, but i do know there's a trend of people buying 6800/7800s, then instead of getting 6900/7900s, they just buy another 6800/7800 card, and it performs much faster than a single 6900/7900 card. In this process they skip the last card of that generation the 6900/7900, and move to the newer generation. So in the end, they'd be saving money if they did it that way. That's the way i hear most people do SLI. You'd be saving money and gaining performance if you went:

7800+7800, then 8800.
Rather then:
7800, then 7900, then 8800.
See my point? You could argue that the prices might be around the same(after selling old card in second scenario), but the first choice gives you much better performance than the later choice.

Then you'd get another 8800 in time, and start the cycle over again. Which would save you money i believe, or break you even, but give you much better performance.

Basically my point is you can sometimes save money, and get much better performance by doing sli. Like in the scenario i listed above.

[Edited on July 20, 2007 at 11:56 AM. Reason : .]

7/20/2007 11:45:05 AM

other than having to buy the sli stuff to begin with....

ill give you that

7/21/2007 12:53:27 AM

^exactly, although most motherboards today come with an option for sli, for only a little more than the non-sli model.

7/21/2007 2:18:51 PM

SLI as an upgrade path is a complete gimmick.

Seriously. The number of people who buy it for the ability to upgrade, versus the number of people who actually use it as an upgrade path is a very very large gap.

The ONLY advantage SLI has is in the top 2-5% of desktop computers where that 30% performance boost is cost justified. Which is: gamers with holes in their pockets. I've yet to see a viable business use for SLI. Do GL cards even use SLI?

I mean really, every 12-18 months a new generation GPU comes out. And it's not about raw numbers anymore, it's about features and breadth of experience. All the SLI in the world doesn't get you hardware h.264 when its not on the card. It doesn't get you the new shaders, the new EXPERIENCE, which is what is driving the video market today.

If you get a board with multiple x16 slots because it's the best board, absolutely go for it. But paying extra (and unfortunately, the way the market is setup, to get the high end performance you have to buy all the bells and whistles too) is retarded for a feature that's effectively made worthless by the market.

7/21/2007 2:33:35 PM

^

Quote :

"The ONLY advantage SLI has is in the top 2-5% of desktop computers where that 30% performance boost is cost justified. Which is: gamers with holes in their pockets. "

Exactly that's all i'm saying. Compare it to cars, or cameras or anything with that type of price range. There's always that top percentage that can justify the cost of something like sli. Someone who has the money, and likes to mess around with computers.

But I do know, and have read reviews of people who DO use sli in the "upgrade" specific sense i'm speaking of ^^ above. Nvidia makes that idea easy with the last few generations of cards. So it does exist.

[Edited on July 21, 2007 at 2:44 PM. Reason : .]

7/21/2007 2:43:49 PM

Have any of you 3dmark'd your systems yet? I"m curious as to what kind of scores are considered the norm for higher end PC's now.

7/21/2007 6:58:40 PM

3DMark06 - 10,566
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=1874827
E6600 OC'd to 3.4Ghz, MSI P6N-SLI nforce 650, 2GB PC2-8500, 8800GTS 320MB, 74GB Raptor

not sure i'd call this high-end though, but mid-range.

8800's make a hugh difference in 3Dmark scores, if you're talking about all-around benchmark you might need PCMark scores.

[Edited on July 21, 2007 at 7:10 PM. Reason : .]

7/21/2007 7:09:09 PM

3DMark06 - 10,676
E6600 @ 3.15, Asus P5n32-e sli, 4 gigs of ddr2 6400, 8800gtx 768MB evga ko. 150GB raptor. Vista 64.

SM2.0:4927
SM3.0:4820
CPU :2510

cOMMEEEE on Prospero yours is a high end build. Calling it midrange is unfair. I'm surprised how close ours are considering the difference in cards. We have almost the same build, except i'm running on vista 64 bit, and cpu at 3.15. I've heard 3dmark06 should be run on xp for much better results though.

Now on the other hand, we pale in comparison to the extreme high-end builds. Makes me sick. heh.

ie:



18,240!!!!

Computer is rediculous...
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/abs_ultimate_x_striker_extreme/

[Edited on July 21, 2007 at 9:45 PM. Reason : .]

7/21/2007 9:43:09 PM

ok, maybe it's in the upper portion of the mid-range
it's not quad, it's not SLI, only a $250 gfx card, not watercooled, there are just so many more high-end systems.. but all things considered it is within the top 10% of all 3dmark scores, so maybe it is, maybe just not imho.

^i had to work hard for that score, a lot of it was OC'ing the cpu, my 8800gts OC'd pretty favorably as well.

in response to the original question posed about 3dmark scores, it really depends, most high-end scores are with the 8800, if you don't have one, chances are your score is going to be below 8,000 or lower

for instance, i had an AMD X2 3800+ dual core with a 6800GS and only had 2,000 pts or so (1-year) ago, take a E6600 with an 8800 and you're almost guaranteed 9,000, so take it for what it's worth

[Edited on July 22, 2007 at 1:56 AM. Reason : /]

7/22/2007 1:45:20 AM

OK, critique away. Anything bad about any of these parts?


ASUS P5W DH DELUXE/WIFI-AP LGA 775 Intel 975X ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail
Antec NeoPower 650 Blue ATX12V / EPS12V 650W Power Supply - Retail
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz LGA 775 Processor Model BX80557E6600 - Retail
Crucial Ballistix 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit
Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme CPU Cooler - Retail


I've already got the video card, I'm just fixing a machine that busted during my move down to SC. Only thing I'm curious about is the power supply. Is 650W overkill for this w/ "SLI"? I'd like a modular cable design this time around, and I figured I'd need 600W+, even though I'm not gonna be going with the dual video cards anytime soon. What about a possible upgrade to QuadCore when the prices come down? WIll 650W handle that as well?

7/23/2007 7:23:43 PM

looks good.

is the PSU overkill? depends on efficiency, if it's over 80% then yes. i have an enermax liberty 500w (80% eff, .99PF) and it handles E6600/8800GTS, 3 SATA drives, 10+ peripherals, etc just fine

but it can never hurt to have more power to draw from if needed

as always just make sure the large cpu cooler will clear everything on that motherboard... it should but good thing to check

[Edited on July 23, 2007 at 7:34 PM. Reason : .]

7/23/2007 7:33:03 PM

http://www.extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jsp

That thing is pretty accurate i hear. Of course i have a 1010W psu just for kicks, and in case i get another 8800. Might as well have the power just in case it needs to draw that much.

^and yeah the biggest issue is making sure your cpu cooler fits in the case. You won't have as much trouble with a full tower, but with a mid tower you wanna make sure the cooler doesn't run into other parts.

[Edited on July 24, 2007 at 9:35 AM. Reason : .]

7/24/2007 9:34:26 AM

aftermarket cpu coolers are sexy

7/24/2007 11:27:17 AM

Specter

Im a couple of days late and more than a dollar short but I got 3dmark pics in my photo gallery.

e6600
evga 680i
evga 8800gts
2gigs patriot ddr2-800

7/24/2007 1:19:58 PM

Damn, you got the 6600 stable a 4.0 at 35c?? nice. What's your vcore at? and ram voltage?

[Edited on July 24, 2007 at 1:35 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2007 1:31:24 PM

Not stable my friend... I could superpi all i wanted but i could never get it to finish any other benchmark programs. It was at 1.65v with probably around 0.05 droop and the ram was at 2.3v at 5.5.5.15 IIRC ddr2-950 speeds.

I can get stable 3.825Ghz with 1.6v btw but for 24/7 usage i run 3.6 at 1.4v


aaronburro
my friend runs that mobo and loves it btw

[Edited on July 24, 2007 at 2:11 PM. Reason : ]

7/24/2007 2:05:40 PM

^Having trouble getting mine above 3.2. Sent you a pm in regard to voltages.

7/24/2007 2:21:18 PM

I've got an E6600 and mine overclocks to 3.3 with no voltage increases. I'm going to up it a little and see if I can hit 3.6, then run prime95 and 3dmark.

7/30/2007 9:19:40 AM

J33Pownr, what version of the 8800gts? 320mb or 640?
also, what cpu cooling device are you using? air or water? i don't believe i've seen any air cooled 6600 hit 4ghz before... much less at 35'C

my highest was 3.6 @ 40'C w/ my E6600 but that's because i didn't want to go over 1.5v, but i am on a 650 board not a 680

here are my settings:
Freq : 3599.93 MHz (399.99 * 9) = 3.6Ghz = 66% OVERCLOCK
RAM Size : 2048 MB
RAM Freq : 400 MHz
RAM Type : DDR2-SDRAM Dual Channel
RAM Ratio : 1:1
RAM Timings : 5-5-5-15

CPU Feature:
# Execute Bit - Enabled
# C1E - Disabled (F4)

Chipset Feature:
# HPET - Enabled

Cell Menu:
# D.O.T Control - Disabled
# EIST - Disabled
# Spread Spectrum Settings - (all disabled)
# System Clock Mode - Manual
# FSB Clock: 1600mhz
# Mem Clock: 800mhz
# CPU multiplier: 9

# CPU voltage 1.45v (+.175)
# NB voltage 1.45v
# SB voltage 1.5v stock
# FSB VTT 4%
# memory voltage 2.3v

[Edited on July 30, 2007 at 12:04 PM. Reason : /]

7/30/2007 12:00:39 PM

I have an EVGA 8800gts 640 (plain..no OC) Ive used both the stock fan and recently upgraded to water. I can only hit 4ghz when the air conditioning is on with a box fan in the door for benching.

IIRC with the stock fan at 3.6ghz with 1.45v i was seeing 50C idle and over 65C load. When it got hot the fans were so loud i couldnt stand it so thats why i went to water. I had heat/noise issues that with water i could go higher and quieter. When i went to water i lapped my cpu and found that my heatspreader was concaved allowing 1mm of TIM between the cpu and stock fan which made it really hot.

my board is a little different but my voltages are pretty much what you have except for SB and FSB i think. Im out of state for the next three weeks and not infront of my computer to give exactly what i use for voltages but here goes anyways

at 1600FSB and 800mem with multi at 9 just like yours i think i use

# CPU voltage - 1.4065v water (1.45v air)
# NB voltage - I usually give 1.4v around 3.6ghz and 1.5v over 3.6ghz. I only have 1.3v, 1.4v and 1.5v to choose from in my bios
# SB voltage - my board goes up to 1.75v and i usually run 1.65 at 3.6 and higher
# FSB voltage - 1.5 (max)
# memory voltage 2.2v (stock)


Prospero have you tried disabeling the HPET and is the 1.5v before or after the vdroop. My cpu at 1.675v is actual 1.6v (friggin rediculous droop)

7/30/2007 7:13:07 PM

if you're going to get 2 8800gtx's, that's way overboard.

just buy 1 for now, then get the 2nd one if/when needed.

7/30/2007 7:40:26 PM

^not if you wanna play current games at high resolution. Try playing lost planet or call of juarez with a single 8800gtx maxed out at 1920 by 1200 or 2560 by 1600. Won't happen.

7/30/2007 7:42:36 PM

i'm actually pretty sure i could go higher than 3.6, those are the settings in the BIOS so it was before vdroop and as you can see i had another .1v to play with on cpu/nb/sb, not to mention i now have mosfet coolers which may help a bit too

on my board i can get .05 increments on my nb and sb

i've just heard anything over 1.5v after vdroop was dangerous to the components (except maybe sb which can go higher to 1.6-1.7), but i'm not that daring to risk losing a component... i run 3.0ghz for 24/7 operation, mostly due to heat, i heard 3.3Ghz is sweet spot for e6600 on air

disclaimer: these settings are for e6600 with an MSI / nforce 650i chipset, voltages may vary drastically from one manufacturer to another

[Edited on July 30, 2007 at 8:01 PM. Reason : .]

7/30/2007 8:00:34 PM

nice disclaimer

7/31/2007 12:19:53 PM

So who wants free hardware? Once i get back to raleigh i'll give a reward to anyone who can OC my cpu past like 3.6, and it's on water so it's cool. I just feel like i've tried every volt/clock combination and it seems like i'm just missing something obvious. Haven't gotten anyone else to check it out, so that might be the reason.

[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 2:24 PM. Reason : ..]

7/31/2007 2:21:11 PM

e6600? if so what's the date of your CPU? (also make/model of motherboard)

also have you tried jumping the wall? (sometimes some motherboards have fsb gaps)

[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 2:57 PM. Reason : .]

7/31/2007 2:55:54 PM

I'm running an old 500W PSU and I have only slightly upped the voltages. I got it up to 3.51GHz, but beyond that and it just won't boot. I don't think I'll be able to get it any higher on air-cooling

http://xrsphere.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=2074

[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 3:06 PM. Reason : link]

7/31/2007 2:57:04 PM

^^

Quote :

"also have you tried jumping the wall? (sometimes some motherboards have fsb gaps"

This is my first build. Do you mean i should like change the multiplier to 8 instead of 9? Try to hit higher speeds that way? I couldn't get it past 3.15 on my old motherboard either. Went from a Asus p5b-e to a Asus p5n32-e. Different chipsets. Still the 3.15 limit.

I'll check the dates when i get home.

[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 3:03 PM. Reason : ..]

7/31/2007 3:02:00 PM

here's a good resource:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1138241

you'll notice 3.6 is pretty darn good for the e6600, not many have gotten above it, a lot of it could be the week or stepping of your CPU, or your motherboard. no matter how cool your CPU is, your northbridge / southbridge and mosfets should also be adequately cooled for the best output.

7/31/2007 3:07:27 PM

^thanks i'll check out the stepping/week when i get home and see if anyone has high OC with my chip. I hope it's not the chip. I guess 3.15 is alright. I'd just like to get higher.

7/31/2007 3:09:49 PM

^^^yes & no, specifically i was talking about jumping up to a higher FSB to see if there is a FSB gap on your motherboard. sometimes people hit a wall and think that's it...

for example you start at 266mhz, you keep bumping it up and it won't post past 370mhz, well try 400mhz and see if it'll post, certain motherboards have gaps like this that may not be a true reflector on how high your motherboard can go.

in terms of the multiplier, typically the first step to overclocking is lowering the multiplier and memory settings for the sole purpose of maxxing out the FSB limit on your motherboard. once you know the highest FSB speed, you can then bring the multiplier back up and modify the FSB slightly until it's stable, thus ensuring you're not hitting a wall at a lower FSB than what it may be capable of.

a guide specific to C2D's:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1198647

[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 3:13 PM. Reason : .]

7/31/2007 3:11:50 PM

I went through a lot of this guide (225 pages) and i tried almost everything i could. I think it's more of an issue of someone else looking at it. That guide is specifically for my mobo so i thought it would help.

http://www.overclock.net/intel-motherboards/167489-asus-p5n32-e-overclocking-guide.html

I'll keep messing around though.

7/31/2007 3:21:02 PM

just posted this:


too bad my room is 78'F and only air cooled, otherwise i'm pretty sure i could get it to windows

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 1:35 AM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 1:33:53 AM

^^You do realize that processors are binned right? It's a fucking crapshoot.

8/1/2007 2:00:09 AM

^ Oh yeah, that's what i'm worried about. Maybe i just got a crappy CPU. That's why we were talking about the week or stepping earlier in this thread so i could compare it to other OCers.

8/1/2007 8:33:25 AM

Figured it was about time for an upgrade....

-EVGA 320-P2-N815-AR GeForce 8800GTS 320MB Factory OC'd
-GIGABYTE GA-P35-S3L LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX Intel Motherboard (cheap but decent)
-A-DATA Value Series 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400)
-Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 Conroe 3.0GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor

and throw on that 22" wide LCD deal at best buy a few days ago, I figure it's a pretty good budget lower high-end rig, ~$950

what I like about this is its potential for upgrading, I can go up to the quad cores when they get cheaper in a few years and I can double my memory at some point or bump it up to DDR2 1066 later on


you guys think a 400W power supply will be sufficient for that? I won't have many other peripherals besides a mouse and maybe an external drive...

I put it through a power supply wattage calculator online and it said it would need 353 W

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 9:34 AM. Reason : ]

8/1/2007 9:05:49 AM

^ I'd recommend a 500W minimum, if you're going to overclock, maybe more

8/1/2007 9:41:56 AM

http://www.extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jsp

^Yeah atleast a 500watt. They're getting so cheap now-a-days. Might as well have the overhead in case you need it later for a Qcore, more HDs, or as ^ said OCing.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 9:46 AM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 9:45:48 AM