[QUOTE=ghostofme;23306033]LCDs are superior to CRT in a way that they get better contrast and dynamic ratios. However, CRTs are more capable of having a higher resolution and display frequency.
I can see you not wanting to switch. I have two 21" CRTs as monitors at the moment. My LCD had a dying capacitor for a year and finally kicked the bucket last week.
Mine still displays a nice image, but my LCD looked better. Yet I have a higher resolution on this one (1600x1200) than my old LCD which was 1400x1050. I can also force one of my CRTs into 2048x1536.[/QUOTE]
A good CRT has better resolution, frequency, dynamic ratios, and often color accuracy. LCD has better geometry and occasionally better contrast
[QUOTE=FINLEY;23378453]Just because it's a 128 bit CPU doesn't mean it'll be incompatible with 64 bit OSs[/QUOTE]
Well, you said it was going to be a completely different architecture, i wasn't sure how "completely" you meant it. Also who said it was going to be 128bit?
[url]http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/4/15/amds-next-gen-bulldozer-is-a-128-bit-crunching-monster.aspx[/url]
[editline]02:44PM[/editline]
This has a nice picture which explains architecture well:
[url]http://www.anandtech.com/show/2872[/url]
[QUOTE=Dysplasia;23361552]Funny how nobody gives a damn when someone says this, yet if someone says;
a fucking shitstorm erupts.
With biased posts like these it's no wonder why the H&S went to shit tbh.[/QUOTE]
Funny how the discussion in this thread has remained mostly on track because the OP said that, rather than having every other post be a recommendation for something that he wouldn't buy anyway for the simple fact that he doesn't want to.
[QUOTE=FINLEY;23378728][url]http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/4/15/amds-next-gen-bulldozer-is-a-128-bit-crunching-monster.aspx[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]According to our sources, GPR [General Purpose Registers] were increased to 128-bit. Once that we learned of this alleged GPR depth, we asked does that mean we can, theoretically, call Bulldozer a "128-bit CPU" and is "x86-128" on the way? I will openly admit that I asked such a question without giving it a second thought.
I was explained that focus of AMD's design was to increase the number of instructions processed on-the-fly, meaning that most instructions should use registers in a 64+64-bit or 32+32+32+32-bit fashion, significantly raising the IPC when compared to current K10.5 architecture. So, no "x86-128". For now. [/QUOTE]
He stated clearly in his OP that he does not wish to get an intel/nvidia. If he does not want to, then don't suggest it. OP is obviously not going to get an intel/nvidia anyway, so there is just zero point in suggesting one.
I suggest a 955 BE because of the overclocking capabilities and the pretty cheap price.
OP, could you tell us what exactly you are planning to do?
[QUOTE=derlicious;23315110]Go for an i7 920 with a gtx 480[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=derlicious;23329290]He doesn't NEED to go AMD. I say go intel because you have the money. Intel are better when you get higher up the price range. Either go i5 750 or if you want something with some oomph go for an i7 920[/QUOTE]
Please stop posting, thanks.
You remind me of that darkride196 kid or whatever the fuck his name was that used to post on here and was fucking annoying and dumb and was a full fledged Nvidia fanboy that went apeshit anytime someone mentioned ATI
[QUOTE=BrQ;23387695]He stated clearly in his OP that he does not wish to get an intel/nvidia. If he does not want to, then don't suggest it. OP is obviously not going to get an intel/nvidia anyway, so there is just zero point in suggesting one. [/QUOTE]
if they're too stupid to take our advice then there's no point in us helping them then
fanboy nonsense is retarded, and bending over backwards to meet their requirements is even more retarded
[editline]11:39PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Dark-Energy;23389463]Please stop posting, thanks.
You remind me of that darkride196 kid or whatever the fuck his name was that used to post on here and was fucking annoying and dumb and was a full fledged Nvidia fanboy that went apeshit anytime someone mentioned ATI[/QUOTE]
great post, bitch at someone who's ignoring the fanboy bullshit then say he reminds you of a fanboy
[QUOTE=reapaninja;23389718]if they're too stupid to take our advice then there's no point in us helping them then
fanboy nonsense is retarded, and bending over backwards to meet their requirements is even more retarded[/QUOTE]
Eh bro, at least, OP seems okay to take BE 955/965 over the 1090T previously, and take the 5870 over the 5970, so I don't think he's so stubborn to hear ours advices.
And clearly, you managed to show you are not okay with his choices. Why?
gtx480 man
[QUOTE=OCELOT323;23391715]gtx480 man[/QUOTE]
it wasn't funny 3 months ago, and it still isn't funny...:downs:
[QUOTE=GWeasel;23391973]it wasn't funny 3 months ago, and it still isn't funny...:downs:[/QUOTE]
what
[QUOTE=OCELOT323;23392237]what[/QUOTE]
You haven't read the thread, have you?
[editline]01:36AM[/editline]
I would recommend the 5870 over the 5970 though in your case.
The fact of the matter is that the best performing CPU that AMD make (for gaming) is the 965, however this is not the best performing CPU you can buy by a long way. AMD CPUs are for people on a budget. If you have as much money as the OP is proposing to spend you will get the best value for your money and the best performance if you go with intel. There is no debate about this
[editline]08:15PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=BrQ;23387695]He stated clearly in his OP that he does not wish to get an intel/nvidia. If he does not want to, then don't suggest it. OP is obviously not going to get an intel/nvidia anyway, so there is just zero point in suggesting one.
I suggest a 955 BE because of the overclocking capabilities and the pretty cheap price.
OP, could you tell us what exactly you are planning to do?[/QUOTE]
Have you not considered the fact that we know more about hardware than the OP, and know what's best for him? Anyone who knows anything in this thread would recommend him an intel CPU and if he ignores our advice then he's a retard
It's AMD, not ATI, even if they are on the same brench, it's just to avoid confusion.
And no, AMD plateforms have the advantage to be upgraded more easily than Intel. And it's less or more the same performance actually.
And please stop debating about AMD-ATI/Intel-Nvidia.
[QUOTE=ADT;23406802]It's AMD, not ATI, even if they are on the same brench, it's just to avoid confusion.
And no, AMD plateforms have the advantage to be upgraded more easily than Intel. And it's less or more the same performance actually.
And please stop debating about AMD-ATI/Intel-Nvidia.[/QUOTE]
Urgh, my mistake. Dunno why I did that, have changed them
[editline]08:25PM[/editline]
Also I will carry on debating until the OP (who appears to have forgotten about this thread) admits he is wrong!
He never said that Intel and nVidia is bad, so he's not wrong in that fashion. I'm pretty certain he hopes that the bulldozer will be (atleast) compatible with AM3, and he therefore doesn't have to buy a new mobo when he wants a new CPU. Most games is still most denpendant on the GPU and not the CPU. The CPU's difference in FPS becomes obsolete when the GPU is strong enough. I would say that possible upgradeability is better than a for now, better, but dead-end, CPU, that will still only do a marginal difference in games. The difference between these CPU's is really too small to discuss if OP prefers a possibly upgradeable CPU, over a better, but dead-end, CPU.
Even if it was speculation, it was true speculation:
[QUOTE=Fudzilla]We recently reported that AMD's 32nm Zambezi eight-core processor, the first to release in the Bulldozer lineup, will use a modified AM3 r2 socket and should feature 8MB of L3 cache, should support DDR3 1866MHz speeds, and should be paired with the Scorpio platform[/QUOTE]
I'll just leave this here: [url]http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/processors/processors/amd-tapes-out-its-bulldozer-core[/url]
TL;DR: The physical socket, as predicted (for one version Bulldozer) did not change from AM3 standard.
I say go for AMD Phenom x4 then. OP seems dead though, probably already bought the shit.
[QUOTE=GWeasel;23438830]Even if it was speculation, it was true speculation:
I'll just leave this here: [url]http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/processors/processors/amd-tapes-out-its-bulldozer-core[/url]
TL;DR: The physical socket, as predicted (for one version Bulldozer) did not change from AM3 standard.[/QUOTE]
What part of the word modified don't you understand?
[QUOTE=FINLEY;23443535]What part of the word modified don't you understand?[/QUOTE]
What part of the word "physical" don't you understand? I'd be willing to bet, as with AM2 => AM2+ and AM2+ =>AM3 that old motherboards will support it with a BIOS update.
Modified can mean physically modified too
[QUOTE=FINLEY;23445406]Modified can mean physically modified too[/QUOTE]
now, THAT'S speculation
I have a question that should fit in this thread. Will a GTX 460:
[url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130562[/url]
Work with this motherboard:
[url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131366[/url]
[QUOTE=xxncxx;23445950]I have a question that should fit in this thread. Will a GTX 460:
[url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130562[/url]
Work with this motherboard:
[url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131366[/url][/QUOTE]
It will indeed, so long as it's a PCI-E card then it'll work with almost every modern motherboard
[QUOTE=ADT;23406802]It's AMD, not ATI, even if they are on the same brench, it's just to avoid confusion.
And no, AMD plateforms have the advantage to be upgraded more easily than Intel. And it's less or more the same performance actually.
And please stop debating about AMD-ATI/Intel-Nvidia.[/QUOTE]
AMD and Intel do not perform the same...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
