PC Discussion Thread - All PC related in here.

[BraTTy 0]

Just hit enter and you wont have a password for default admin account

and that screen wont show next time as long as you only have one account

[gsleighter 0]

Thanks guys, something was screwed up with the install, so I had to do a complete re-format. But, it's all set up, and I'm setting up Arma again, with a new patch.

Sucks I work in retail sales, I'm going to work all day tomorrow, won't get a chance to play till tomorrow night.

Thanks again,

-Gabe-

[Rebel Man 431]

Hi everybody.

I heard that the "Intel Core 2 Quad" is the best for PC games.

Is that right ?.

If right, please i need to know more about it.

(And if right, Can i run arma 2 for example through it)

thanks .

[Supernova 0]

Where did you hear that ?. The Core i7 is the best cpu for games period. What do you need to know about it , you ask a very vague question.

[Deadfast 43]

Core i7 mainly is the same price as a whole new mainstream system with a monitor.

It's like saying the best vehicle for family tours is a private jet...

[echo1 0]

Hi everybody.

I heard that the "Intel Core 2 Quad" is the best for PC games.

Is that right ?.

If right, please i need to know more about it.

(And if right, Can i run arma 2 for example through it)

thanks .

Well, Core 2 Quad is pretty decent. Core i7 is quite expensive at the moment (about twice the price) so if you want to save money, and need a new PC now, go for a Core 2 Quad. If you can, I'd wait 6 months or so before they become affordable. Are you building yourself or buying?

Quote[/b] ]Where did you hear that ?. The Core i7 is the best cpu for games period. What do you need to know about it , you ask a very vague question.

Funny, not so long ago you were saying that they were a piece of shit and no one should buy them

[VictorTroska 0]

Quote[/b] ]Where did you hear that ?. The Core i7 is the best cpu for games period. What do you need to know about it , you ask a very vague question.

Funny, not so long ago you were saying that they were a piece of shit and no one should buy them  

[Lepardi 0]

Doesn't the i7 suck for games because of the tiny cache?

[echo1 0]

Nope, that was completely over-exaggerated. Games aren't really affected by cache that much, and the benchmarks show that the i7 completely trumps the Core 2 architecture.

[Supernova 0]

True. I was skeptical of the i7's because of preliminary reports that stated that game performance will suffer and that they will overclock horribly compared to the C2Q/C2D's. But those 40+ reviews I read changed my mind and ch_123 that bit-tech review I read before but I still consider it to one of the best i7 reviews. i7 is the way to go if you want to be futureproof as socket 775 will eventually will go the way of extinction like socket 478. Oh and you can laugh and criticize me about my earlier speculation and distaste of the i7 but in the end I still have a high-end i7 system whereas you are stuck with socket 775. So who's laughing now ?.

[echo1 0]

i7 is the way to go if you want to be futureproof as socket 775 will eventually will go the way of extinction like socket 478.

That's why I said he should wait a while to before getting an upgrade would be best. But come on, future proofing is a myth By the time a Q6600 or the like is completely obsolete, it would probably be time to replace your Core i7 CPUs too. Knowing Intel's atrocious backwards compatibility record from the socket 775 and 478, getting a Socket B motherboard probably isn't an insurance of compatibility with future CPUs.

Quote[/b] ] I still have a high-end i7 system whereas you are stuck with socket 775. So who's laughing now ?.

If you are trying to assert that you know more then me based on the fact that you have a faster PC, then I would be the one who is laughing.

Back on topic now

[Supernova 0]

Quote[/b] ]That's why I said he should wait a while to before getting an upgrade would be best. But come on, future proofing is a myth By the time a Q6600 or the like is completely obsolete, it would probably be time to replace your Core i7 CPUs too. Knowing Intel's atrocious backwards compatibility record from the socket 775 and 478, getting a Socket B motherboard probably isn't an insurance of compatibility with future CPUs.

Intel plans to introduce another socket socket LGA-1156 for Lynnfield the mainstream desktop variant of Bloomfield (i7). The 32nm Westmere's will use LGA 1366 so I can say until quite possibly Sandy Bridge LGA 1366 is futureproof.

Quote[/b] ]

If you are trying to assert that you know more then me based on the fact that you have a faster PC, then I would be the one who is laughing.

No that's not what I tried assert. I believe you misunderstood that.

[MehMan 0]

Quote[/b] ]

If you are trying to assert that you know more then me based on the fact that you have a faster PC, then I would be the one who is laughing.

No that's not what I tried assert. I believe you misunderstood that.

It didn't sound like anything else.

[echo1 0]

Intel plans to introduce another socket socket LGA-1156 for Lynnfield the mainstream desktop variant of Bloomfield (i7). The 32nm Westmere's will use LGA 1366 so I can say until quite possibly Sandy Bridge LGA 1366 is futureproof.

The Pentium 4, Pentium D, Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad all used Socket 775. Yet, every time Intel made a new chip (or revision to a chip) it would in most of the cases not be backwards compatible with the older motherboards. It's quite possible that this defect has been fixed now that they have the integrated memory controller, but I'm going to sit back and see if that really is the case.

[savedbygrace 2]

I've heard so many varying opinions about dual vs. quad core but no one to actually list the pros and cons for each. Some say that Dual runs faster in certain circumstances than quad so why even bother with quad? I myself am still stuck on an old DDR with an AGP for video card and it seemed to run Arma fine with adjusted settings but now I am at a crossroad where I'm presented with the opportunity to upgrade as I need to accomodate the only game that I play on PC and I am unsure what to get. I see all the numbers but I don't understand them fully. Does the latest hardware necessarily mean the best? Which is better quad or dual? What is the favored manufacturers of motherboards, videocards, memory? What do the numbers mean? How do you know what type of fan works best for your system or CPU? All these questions are meandering through my mind as I contemplate how my next build will go. I have decided to purchase an Asus motherboard as it seems to be the preferred brand in many areas. I think I have settled on quad core technology for the simple reason that I want to be more than ready but is there more to it? And then there is the investment in a video card...oh boy, I want a good one that is leading edge but I'm not sure if I want to sink 300.00 into a graphics card that is over rated when a less expensive one will accomplish what I need. There is also the mere fact that if I get a PC that blows everyone elses' away and runs AA2 as smooth as glass on the highest settings with a loaded screen then all of my projects will be for nought because no one else will want to play them due to the fact that they can't run the stuff themselves. So where is the happy meduim? Can anyone help me determine whats good enough?

[Mr_Tea 0]

Works for Arma, will work for Arma 2.

That`s not sure, and in my case false.

I run ArmA on an AthlonXP 3200+ which has 1 Core, so i can run ArmA but off course not, by any means, ArmA 2.

Looks like i have to use ArmA for some time longer, even if ArmA 2 is out in a few month, as i run on a very tight budget.

[Pyronick 21]

Q9550

Maximus Extreme (quality board with lots of useless onboard/integrated/embedded crap on it)

HD4870 1GB

4GB DDR3-1333 (soon to be upgraded to 8GB, once I have x86-64 Windows)

29320LPE Ultra320 controller (SCSI owns SATA anyday)

I just need to know if Mega SEF takes advantage of X-Fi hardware, just so I can replace this SoundMAX crap.

Already saving up for the next-gen Core i7 "Westmere", but that means I need a new board aswell.

[TwentyFourSeven 0]

My PC cant run Arma,

its

2ghz Processor

Radeon x550

1gig Ram,

Credit crunch means no money to buy $1000 machine to play 1 game lol.  So sadly it means, i'll have the best of OFP (or have had from start), but as for the Arma series goes. By the time I can afford a PC to run it Arma will be in the days of old age.  Upgrading PC would be cheaper of course but still money is tight.  

[Pyronick 21]

My PC cant run Arma,

its

2ghz Processor

Radeon x550

1gig Ram,

Credit crunch means no money to buy $1000 machine to play 1 game lol.  So sadly it means, i'll have the best of OFP (or have had from start), but as for the Arma series goes. By the time I can afford a PC to run it Arma will be in the days of old age.  Upgrading PC would be cheaper of course but still money is tight.  

You don't need an entirely new machine. :P

If you do a partial upgrade to your current system, you'll be able to play it.

Sure, it won't be max graphics and visuals all the way but at least you'd be able to play.

Look in to your RAM memory, what type. If your graphics card is PCI-Express you'll be fine.

Based on those two factors, you could purchase a new processor + mainboard.

The Q9450 is good value and works with both DDR2 (I assume you have this type of memory) as DDR3 memory.

You'd need a compatible mainboard though. This way you can use your old PSU, memory, graphics card and other hardware.

I never do full upgrades, way too expensive. Computers are nice and all and even though most people spend more time on the computer than in their car it's not really that important imo.

[ziiip 1]

Well, ArmA runs awful on my machine equipped with 1 GB RAM, 4850 HD and a dusty X2 4000+ CPU. Hopefully E6750s will drop by a mere 100 dollars by the time ArmA2 is out.

[PTV-Jobo 820]

Here's my current:

-------------------

Processor: Intel Core2 Duo E6300 1.86Ghz Socket 775

Memory: OCZ XTC 2048MB PC5400 DDR2 667MHz

Hard Drive: 200 GB Total

Video Card: Radeon X1650 Series

Monitor: Proview PL713s 17" LCD Monitor (Silver)

Sound Card: Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Fatal1ty

Keyboard: Logitec G15

Mouse: Logitec G5

Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition SP 3

Motherboard: Intel DG965RYCK Socket 775

--------------------

Not sure if it's going to handle ArmA2 or not, so will probably be building a new system--but not one of these fancy $3,000+ numbers. Doesn't make sense to me putting that kinda cash into something that's going to be old news a few months later (ok I exaggerate, but that's how it feels sometimes, heh).

I'm unsure whether to use the new Intel or wait for the new AMD's, though.

[Kristian 47]

I am dont know shit of computers, and I know you fellas cant answer precicelly to this, but if I run my ArmA Armed assault with FPS about 40 with all settings full, will I run ArmA II with full too? I got 3 Ghz dual prosessor, thats what I know

The place I bought my comp form doesnt sell this anymore so I dont know place to find infos regarding my computer anymore. but any guessses, will I even be able to run it?

[savedbygrace 2]

@kristian

From my understanding of dual core, you should be fine as long as you have adequate ram and a decent graphics card. But I'm not for certain.

@TwentyFourSeven

Don't worry mate, I have played arma for over a year now and other than the graphics, it just does not do it for me like OFP "Still" does. I have just recently returned to OFP to build missions rather than continue using the Arma engine.

Consider this...OFP took a few years to get established and well modded with good addons and islands and such....Arma2 will be similar I believe so that when you are able to play it, it may very well be capable of living up to the immersion level of OFP.

BTW, judging by your banner, if you have SP missions that you have created, why not submit them at OFPEC OFP beta boards for beta testing and review?

[Heatseeker 0]

Guys.. i know this is so debated out there that you're all going to throw tomatoes but..

How much physical RAM can a 32 bit OS really USE?

I understand there is a 4 GB limit, i understand the system will reserve memory space for installed devices and you wont get to use all 4 GB and i've read everything from tech-geek mumbo jumbo that doesnt help from people that say they run well because Vista reports 4 gigs after SP1 << .

I've read all about this before the low prices of DDR2 convinced me to install more ram, even if i couldnt use all 4 i expected i would be able to have atleast ~3 GB put to use.

My mobo reports 4 GB of RAM and so does Vista but task manager shows 2 and thats all my system can use as a whole.

I have a 2x2 set, apparently half of it is just sitting there.

If i had 1x3 or 2+1 would the system be able to use atleast 3 GB?

I know... Vista 64... but if i wanted to go that route i wouldnt be asking all this .

[echo1 0]

What sort of graphics card do you have? Often a graphics card with a large quantity of RAM or an SLI setup can reduce the amount of available RAM. I know you said not to ask, but is there any reason why you wouldnt go to 64bit Vista other than the cost of switching over?