Cujo

my 1000w enermax should last me at least another year or two and i've had it for more than a year. you buy a psu like you buy a case. once every 3 or 4 years. which is why i spend more money than is initially necessary.

for the record i like antec, enermax, and thermaltake. ocz/pcpc should be good also. i really recommend checking hardocp for psu reviews. i'm sure they've done one in the last 6 months that got a good review and will fit your price range.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16817341011

from experience. that'll be loud. my 510w was annoying loud. 12cm fan ftw.

if all you play is css the gpu should be just fine. should be a pretty big improvement in fps with that new hardware. i have the same ram, p5q deluxe and my e6600 is clocked at 3.2. big improvement over my old x2 3800.

about 8 people i know got the dell w2409. it's 1920x1080 24". i bought one for my bro for christmas.

you should be able to get it for less than $300usd as it was $305cdn back in september.

that said, a 22" for $160 is ridiculous. and at least you won't need nearly as powerful a video card to run it.

oooo.. i would have bought the older model... but now adays i would buy the Evo X before buying that..

 

You'll have a blast with the AWD... make you look like a way better driver then you are. (handles the corners like butter)

already having a blast. evo x wass not an option as the sti has been my dream car for about 8 years. the looks of the new one really grow on you and it's a better daily driver than the evo x or the old one.

nightling, don't expect much better fuel economy with the lesser models. the rated difference isn't much and i'm barely managing the rated city mileage with mostly highway driving.

that keyboard is gross.

also, g15 ftw. never used the saitek but i can't say anything bad about my g15.

i wouldn't worry about the plug and play monitor bit. vista should recognize it better. oh and ignore the nvidia hd settings section as that's for tvs.

the 110% colour gamut is reason enough for me. extra inputs are nice. where are these negative reviews?

what did you change just before this started? looks like a driver issue to me...

dell ftw. 2408 is the way to go. "acer" and "really good" don't add up.

also, i did the same vid card upgrade and it's definitely faster in the newer games. no difference in css obviously.

running a 1024 res on any modern video card above $120 will make you cpu limited on even the fastest oc'd quad core cpus out there today. at least you can turn up the aa to ridiculous levels though. go for the 4850.

hahaha.

tek, i wasn't even thinking tek like tech but now that you mention it. i was just referring to the almighty part. anyway, i appreciate the kind words. i try not to be too snobby as i simply can't afford it. these days i really only upgrade when a new game comes out that i can't quite play at high settings or i have someone to pawn off my old hardware on. given that i only play coop games other than css and that most of my friends/family have relatively up to date computers i don't upgrade very often anymore.

btw, the 2405 i bought used off a buddy who bought a 30". i still love it though.

lol. i'm with hardocp in that the only benches that matter are the highest playable. i agree sli as an upgrade path makes sense but the 8800gt series was the first series to make that so. most other series are discontinued and hard to get by the time you actually want to do that upgrade. when i was debating new card vs second 8800gtx my biggest reasons for getting the new card were i had an intel board and the 8800gtx was still something like $300. it never got "cheap". my biggest thing with sli in recent years has been the need to buy an nvidia mobo as intel boards have been far superior.

btw, i still can't stand that nvidia control panel. this is an area where ati wins hands down. if it was reversed i might just have a 260 right now instead of my 4870.

edit - it's funny when call me "mighty one" and your name and avatar clearly indicate you believe yourself to be.

the random and temporary drops are a lack of vid ram. see the hardocp bench graphs for examples. the cpu usage difference is probably the difference of vista to xp. though my frames are better and i have a worse cpu and supposedly operating system so i don't know how you got the win. there's also no point in running 3d mark 06 cause i know you'll beat me.

i have crysis warhead so we could try that benchmark if there is one. there's not much point though as any game with high aa levels and resolutions i'm going to win. that was my whole argument about sliing those cards at the time they came out. i'd much rather have 2 x 8800gtxs cause at least you won't be held back by lack of ram.

bush, i have a 21" trinitron that does 16x12 at 100hz sitting on the floor here next to my desk.

* Total Frames: 1324, Total Time: 51.03s

* Average Framerate: 25.95

* Max. Framerate: 43.90 (Frame:0, 0.02s)

* Min. Framerate: 16.52 (Frame:1049, 41.82s)

hotfix didn't appear to change anything at all at your settings.

edit - it could be it didn't fix anything because i didn't do a proper uninstall of the regular drivers as i thought the hotfix was just that. turns out the hotfix installed just like a new regular driver. either way i'd still rather have my ~$320 single card than your 2 x ~$160 sli set up.

* Total Frames: 1588, Total Time: 51.03s

* Average Framerate: 31.12

* Max. Framerate: 55.15 (Frame:0, 0.02s)

* Min. Framerate: 22.37 (Frame:1254, 41.07s)

same settings but 4x aa. hitching is still present. while running this test i realized i've not installed the ati hotfix for farcry2 so these numbers are likely lower than they should be.

cpu usages was higher with 4x aa though vid card was still 100% utilized according to the driver control panel. i love having two monitors.

* Total Frames: 1076, Total Time: 51.01s

* Average Framerate: 21.09

* Max. Framerate: 51.94 (Frame:0, 0.02s)

* Min. Framerate: 12.28 (Frame:731, 34.14s)

just for fun, here's the results at ultra high overall quality and 8x aa. dx10 obviously.

very annoying "hitching" though in the video at these settings. not sure what the issue is but it'd be really annoying to try and play through.

also interesting is that my cpu usage wasn't even 50%. so my vid card musta been getting killed.

* Total Frames: 1301, Total Time: 51.01s

* Average Framerate: 25.51

* Max. Framerate: 43.56 (Frame:96, 2.49s)

* Min. Framerate: 16.98 (Frame:1025, 41.82s)

that's with the same settings exactly that you used in your 4x aa run. of course the game is not playable at these settings but you can clearly see the difference in minimum fps and avg framerate.

this is with my cpu running 200mhz slower and also it's an older gen e6600 compared to your newer e8400. vista 64bit as well though i'm not sure what you're running.

cool. when i say wasted i mean two 8800gt gpus are capable of running decent frames with aa enabled but the lack of ram/memory bandwidth just kills them. so essentially some of the raw gpu power is useless.

Ok...for now, I cannot get FarCry 2 to run 8x AA.

 

So here is results with Everything at Very High, DX9 mode (so no ultra), 1920 x 1200, and 4xAA. I have my e8400 @ 3.4 and 4GB ddr2.

 

Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1920x1200 (60Hz), D3D9, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(4x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Custom), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Very High), Terrain(Very High), Geometry(Very High), Post FX(High), Texture(Very High), Shadow(Very High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)

 

* Total Frames: 1098, Total Time: 51.00s

* Average Framerate: 21.53

* Max. Framerate: 50.74 (Frame:122, 2.97s)

* Min. Framerate: 6.99 (Frame:679, 22.52s)

 

What is odd with AA enabled every time, I see a drop of about 25% fps in the 2nd and 3rd runs. I have no idea.

 

This game scales horribly on my cards with AA.

seems like a blatant lack of ram to me. of course it'll scale horrible with only 512mb ram available.

weird how you get a drop on later runs.

anyway, my whole point was that those sli cards are wasted at the settings you'd actually game at. i'll install this tomorrow and mimic your settings. i'm confident i'll smash that min fps with my 1gb card.

i've yet to do a proper photo shoot. these are just 3 random pics from the day i got it.

edit - wth is wrong with posting images. it used to work just fine...

edit 50 or so - thx stutters.

damn right it's spelled with a u.

i replied in the other forum but as i don't have crysis i can't really compare. suggest farcry 2 as it's a for sure win for me.

oh and we have very similar systems assuming he's running vista 64. his cpu is 200mhz faster but it shouldn't make too big of a difference as the res we're talkin about.

from what i've heard the crysis benchmark isn't at all like actual in game. not sure though as i've never played it. still i don't think i could deal with that 19 fps minimum

care to give farcry 2 a go? i have it just not installed. i know it's got a built in benchmark that's realistic.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MT...W50aHVzaWFzdA==

i think i'd win though. look at the difference between ati 512mb and 1gb.

right. it's not specifically sli though. i don't like crossfire much either. except when you're talkin dual gpu cards.

i'd like to see your lowly ~$160 cards in sli beat my ~$320 1gb 4870 at 1920x1200 with 8x aa turned on...