It'll be bottlenecked by the CPU but almost certainly not the slot.Originally Posted by y2kbos
Its has no 8 pin, but has 6 pin, I have a 6 pin to 8 pin adapter..
Getting worried now, it did handle the 3870X2 fine, good sign?
Worried about my mobo too, its a p31 ds3l with no pci-e 2.0, will my super video card be bottlenecked by the slot?
Feck I will make a new thread
Gaming on a 24" samsung
This article says it all about the gpu...
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-sc...e-processors/3
Sorry but like most of the Guru 3D stuff it's not tested extensively enough. From what I've read of their reviews lately it's wise to take all their conclusions with a large pinch of salt(not Inquirer large but large nonetheless). Besides looking at WiC results paints a very different picture.
Last edited by Linchpin; 05-20-2008 at 10:40 AM.
Lots of CPU intensive games out there. I'm on 1920X1200 and I upgraded from a +3800 X2 @ 2.7Ghz to a E6420 @ 3.2Ghz, both running an 8800GTS 640MB, and I saw huge improvements in my Source based games (DOD:S, CS:S, HL2), Supreme Commander, and lots of RTS games. Most games there was little to no difference, but there were too many games that saw improvements for me to ignore. I went with the E6420 because of the extra cache, which CPU intensive games really like.
Last edited by YukonTrooper; 05-20-2008 at 11:18 AM.
For my part I know nothing with any certainty, but the sight of the stars makes me dream.
.
.
AMD does not need the extra cache, Intel does. This is because AMD has integrated memory controller and lower latency to the actual RAM than Intel CPUs have. So basically it doesn't matter if AMD CPU has 1 MB or 24 MB's of L2, but for Intel CPUs it makes a huge difference.
Going from my old x2 3800+ to Q6600 I saw a MASSIVE difference at 1920x1080P(42" plasma) as well. Crysis went from chop-chop-chop to playable, UT3 lost it's various slow-downs here and there in warfare, and a few other titles had similiar effects.
Generally speaking, faster cpu's do better in the minimum frame-rate department.
Specs confirmed
http://www.dailytech.com/Nextgen+NVI...ticle11842.htm
Q9450(341x8, C1)(50, 47, 47, 50 Load, AC MX-2)(Apogee GT,non-bow)
TRI-SLI 8800GTXs (575/1800)(EK 8800GTX Full Covers)
Asus Striker II Formula Mobo (BIOS 1101)
4 GB Corsair Dominator DDR2-800(4-4-4-12/2.1v)
4 x Segate 320GB Raid 0(~175MB/s Avg.)(~280Mb/s Burst)
Asus 16x Dvd-Rom 2MB Cache, Lite-On 16x Burner/Lightscribe
Enermax Galaxy DXX 1000w, MM U2-UFO DUALITY (JUST BOUGHT U2-UFO CYO!!!! Duality Front, Standard Back, Smoked Grey Acrylic Side Panels)
Windows Vista Ultimate
42" Westinghouse 1080p LVM-42W2 Monitor, Logitech Z-5500 Speakers, 2 x MCP655 Pump, 2 x EK-200 Reservoir, 2 x Thermochill 120.3 Rads
(Signature Pic is when I had the HORRIBLE Evga 680i board)
~~~~~~~~~
AMD PX4 9600BE($75), DFI LP DK 790FX($130), 2GB OCZ DDR2-800($40), Zotac 8800GTS 640 ($120), OCZ 600w($60), Rocketfish Case($100)
Nice to see confirmation but nothing we really didn't already know.
I'd like to see more info on clocks, pricing, and what exactly 50% higher shader performance is supposed to mean.
Each shader has 50% higher performance clock vs clock. So, even if it was just 128shaders, it'd have 50% higher shader performance at the same clock speed. Now remember they almost doubled the shader count, and you're talking about ~187% higher shader performance at the same clock, unless my math is off, which is possible, because working all day makes me slow when I'm finally off the clock.
Last edited by DilTech; 05-20-2008 at 01:24 PM.
Bookmarks