Posts from "Iron" theme. Auto-translated

I'm starting to doubt the power of the green Californians. I was thinking about switching to an ATI graphics card. I wanted to say that the GTX 260 has only 25 Hz less performance than the GTX 280. I think Nvidia should come up with something interesting for us to see.

The tests don't say that yet. The GTX 280 remains the most powerful graphics card.

I haven't looked into the tests yet. My question is: Why is Nvidia reducing the price of it and similar graphics cards? Test - Judge for yourself

But you can still put it in a 3-way SLI configuration...

Doesn't ATI have a 3-way configuration? I think they do, I even saw it in a 4-way configuration...

M... a new mobile phone hit my finances hard, and I also had to give up on a super-powerful video card... And I also need to upgrade the cooling system for a more powerful card. Therefore, I'll go with an 8800GT. Here's the complete list of what I'm going to buy:)

Video card: Asustek 512 Mb EN8800GT 5789 rubles.
RAM: Corsair DDRII 4096 Mb (pc-6400) 2x2048Mb Corsair XMS2 C5DHX 2696 rubles.
Hard drive: Western Digital WD 640GB 2621 rubles.
PSU: Thermaltake Toughpower 650W 2900 rubles.
Case: Thermaltake Soprano BWSED 2864 rubles. [ http://www.oldi.ru/catalog/show.php?idx=7821&cod=25935&pgf=%2Fcatalog%2Findex.php%3Fmgrp%3D477%26nch%3D0%26idf%3D135%26str%3D%25EA%25EE%25F0%25EF%25F3%25F1%26sort_by%3D1 ]
Mouse:cool:: Razer Diamondback 3G 1418 rubles. [ http://www.razer.ru/product/mouses/diamondback/ ]

Added 5 minutes ago

Regarding the tests, I haven't looked into them yet. My question is: Why is Nvidia reducing the price on it and similar video cards?

Marketing, marketing... not everyone is ready to pay a lot of money for top-end hardware and prefers something cheaper, even if it's not as good.

Doesn't ATI have a 3rd one? I think they do, I even saw it in a 4th configuration...

Or does it? There definitely isn't one in the x4 series.

Is there even such a thing? There definitely isn't one in x4.

Found an x4 -->here<--.
I wonder how they will work? And at what speed should the air be replaced and circulated within the block? One board heats up like a kettle, and you can't even stop it. And here, 4 of them are next to each other, at a distance equal to the width of a thumb. It turns out that the coolers take away all the heat and maintain an already high temperature. The only option is to install 8 120mm Zalman fans (I think they are the most cost-effective). Or buy an "Arctic" block (that's what I call it), which has a large fan on the side panel. See for yourself. And even then, it will be difficult to manage the heat.

Water cooling is an option. But it's not cheap. Although, I doubt the price matters to someone who installs 4 graphics cards =)
P.S.: The Asus G70 laptop is impressive. I wonder how much it will cost? Probably around 2000 euros.
http://www.3dnews.ru/news/asus_predstavila_igrovoi_noutbuk_g70/

Water cooling is an option. But it's not cheap. Although, the price probably isn't a concern for someone who's installing 4 graphics cards.

The whole point is that water cooling barely manages to keep things cool. If you're playing something demanding (like Crysis), the graphics cards will overheat one after another. And no amount of water will help. The only solution is liquid nitrogen.

By the way, as is well known, Crysis can run perfectly well on a decent dual-core processor and 2 GB of RAM (please don't try to argue that Crysis needs at least 4 GB, and preferably 8 GB. I've heard similar opinions a thousand times. However, no professional test, no measurement I've done, has shown memory usage exceeding 2 GB, averaging 1.5 GB on XP). The main requirements for the video system. So, the latest GeForce GTX 280 is capable of running Crysis at the highest available settings with optimal fps. So, everything is fine, especially considering that in the upcoming Warhead expansion, the requirements will be lowered, and the optimal choice for a video card will be the 8800GT, which, according to the developers, will run the game perfectly. I'm just wondering, where can the performance be increased even more? :) If the 8800GT can already handle high settings... Will it be able to handle very high settings? In any case, this is only a good thing for us gamers :)

So, the latest GeForce GTX 280 is capable of running Crysis at the highest available settings with optimal fps.

Few computers (home or gaming) will likely meet the full requirements. If anyone is interested, I can explain why, and what kind of computer could run Crysis at its highest settings, allowing you to enjoy the incredibly beautiful graphics! :)

Would I lie or make things up? :) For me personally, the test from a reputable IT resource speaks volumes. Therefore, I advise you to familiarize yourself with the attached image. The video cards are listed there, and the test configuration is as follows:

Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad X6850 3.0 GHz
Motherboard: ASUS P5E3 based on the Intel X38 chipset
RAM: Corsair Dominator DDR3 2 x 2 GB 1333 MHz 6-6-6-18 1T
Operating system: Windows XP+SP2+DirectX 9.0c / Windows Vista for DX10 tests
Power supply: Thermaltake Toughpower 750 W

I wasn't really talking about that. It's just that apparently, no one has heard about how they tried to run Crysis at maximum settings. It was a scientific computer created by NASA and (I forgot the name, but some cool) institute in America. They built a computer. I can say one thing about it: it had 18 TB of RAM (that's what I remember). So, this computer ran at maximum settings for 5 minutes, and then the system crashed! But when Crysis started at maximum settings, the whole team shouted "Hooray" and rejoiced! Draw your own conclusions.

Or maybe the video card was weak?))) But seriously, it kind of looks like a regular duck.

No, the graphics card wasn't weak. The computer was great. I watched it in the May issue of "Igrovania" magazine. On the video disc.

So, it remains a mystery to me why a new engine would be developed for Crysis 2 if the old one can't even run on a supercomputer. But honestly, I don't care about the tests and other things. What matters to me is the fact that now anyone, even with a fairly large budget, can run Crysis at the maximum available settings. That was my main point. Actually, a friend told me that there are supposedly hidden "Ultra High" graphics settings in Crysis that can't be launched right now, but when hardware capable of running the game with such graphics appears, a patch will be released to unlock these parameters. He said he read it on some gaming resource. I haven't encountered such information myself, so I'm not 100% sure about it.

In Crisis, there are hidden "Ultra High" graphics settings that cannot be launched at the moment, but when hardware capable of running the game with such graphics appears, a patch will be released to unlock these parameters. He said he read it on some gaming resource.

I think they wrote about it in Igromania.

So, let me start with Crisis :) Most likely, I was wrong about the new engine and so on. They will probably continue to use CryENGINE 2 throughout the trilogy, it will just be improved a lot, from one part to another. And considering how much time it usually takes to develop a full-fledged sequel (not an expansion or add-on), we can assume that in the 3rd part, the graphics will be no worse than in movies like Final Fantasy or in the CG trailers that are often made for games. And, of course, the hardware will be appropriate too. On Thursday, I bought a new motherboard with an Intel P35 chipset and a corresponding processor (Intel Core 2 Duo E8400). As you know, when changing platforms, you need to reinstall Windows. I spent one day preparing for this, and on Friday evening, I was ready. With the help of four hands (2 mine, 2 my father's), the old board and processor were replaced with new ones. This immediately caused several problems: the inconvenient mounting mechanism for the boxed processor cooler made things difficult, and it wasn't attached right away... Then, when it came to connecting the video card, it turned out that the new motherboard has the PCI-Express 16x slot located slightly higher, and the hard drive and video card started to interfere with each other. I had to lower the hard drive. Then, when it came to connecting the drives, it turned out that the length of the cable for their connection was not enough in the previous position. They also had to be lowered. And there were other minor problems, I can't even remember them all. In general, it took quite a long time. Next, I started connecting peripherals to the system unit. I turn it on... It boots, but the screen is blank. A second later, it shuts down (this could be judged by the case lighting and the spinning fans). We started to think that something was connected incorrectly, although it's quite difficult to make a mistake when assembling a computer, especially when you have experience. In general, all our efforts were in vain. We were also upset by the fact that the sales consultant assured us that, according to his experience, there had not been a single return of Gigabyte motherboards due to malfunction. Nevertheless, this was obviously the case. Well, what could we do? The next day (that was yesterday), we took it to Sunrise. The product was returned... Or rather, the money was returned (strangely enough), which was used to buy a similar board. All this took a little longer... For example, the procedure for returning the money. A lot of unnecessary formalities. And the distance to the hypermarket also played a role. But everything worked out... The new board worked without problems, Windows was successfully reinstalled, and here I am. For comparison, I tested the old and new processors in the SuperPi program. The processors being tested are: 1. Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 2. Core 2 Duo E8400 Both operate at a frequency of 3 GHz. The second processor has 3 times more level 2 cache (2 MB versus 6), the core is made using a finer process technology (90 nm versus 45 nm for the Intel processor), and the bus frequency is also in favor of the Core 2 Duo E8400 (1333 MHz versus 1000 MHz). However, the Athlon has twice as much level 1 cache. So, here are the results (first time - 1 million digits, second time - 8 million): Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 29.985 s; 05 m 33.906 s Core 2 Duo E8400 15.531 s; 03 m 26.391 s

Yesterday, I accidentally posted some news on Mail.ru. Basically, Intel Core i9 is coming out. The price is 100k. Well, I was a little surprised, of course, why pay so much. They wrote something about overclocking to 6 GHz, and some other stuff. 8 cores, I think. So, I figured that a laptop with that would cost around 200k.