Ultimate Gaming PC... are you SURE you have too?

HA, and i just realized i am right on the 9800 pro, the 9700 pro on price watch is after shipping costs and the 9800 pro is before so it comes to 200 not 180. LAst one for real =I

I thought you were leaving? Anyways, here's a comparison between the 9800 and 9700 pro. A bit more then a 10% difference.

http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1794&p=7

The cheapest 9800 I can find in a quick search on the 'net is $399.99, while the cheapest 9700 is $294.99 - only a $105 difference.

Yep. I'm going to be getting the 128 mb 9800 pro version now, it's a lot more practical for my price needs. Plus it will still run Doom 3 at the highest detail levels, with 4x aa and 8x af, at 1280x1024 at good framerates :)

Worlocked said:

180, wow off by so much! and i have seen the card in action, it is impressive, but not impressive enough to pay *180* extra dollars for it when i can have the radeon 9700 pro which can do 90% as well. and no offense but you don't seem adept enough to assemble a pc much less mod a case.

lol. You spurt off from the mouth easy frenchy. Yet you dont backup your random statements with any matter of fact. Get the fuck out and quit posting lamer

NiGHTMARE said:

The cheapest 9800 I can find in a quick search on the 'net is $399.99, while the cheapest 9700 is $294.99 - only a $105 difference.

pricewatch.com/videocards/radeon9700pro (<--not url) first item:$254 notice the arrow going up next to r9700 pro? means it has gone up in past few days...

sniperfrommars1 said:

lol. You spurt off from the mouth easy frenchy. Yet you dont backup your random statements with any matter of fact. Get the fuck out and quit posting lamer

First off, I am not french. Second you didnt back up a god damn thing you've said, third off ive refered you to hard ocp go check it out.

Worlocked said:

pricewatch.com/videocards/radeon9700pro

Invalid URL. BTW, Pricewatch seems to be for high street stores, so their prices might be a little high.

NiGHTMARE said:

Invalid URL.

Wasnt meant to be a url..i meant go to pricewatch.com go to video cards and go to r9700pro you cant direct link to it because of the interface.

Worlocked said:

First off, I am not french. Second you didnt back up a god damn thing you've said, third off ive refered you to hard ocp go check it out.

Read it on a daily basis fucktard. you sling shit but you dont back it up its not the other way around. So blah blah blah blah blah some more,

sniperfrommars1 said:

Read it on a daily basis fucktard. you sling shit but you dont back it up its not the other way around. So blah blah blah blah blah some more,

Maybe if you could read, this post could have gone the other way. I'd love to argue with you forever, but I grow tired of your singular wit retorts. I'm done with you, fuckwit, go bore someone else.

Wor why the hell are you still here? I thought you were leaving?

Worlocked said:

Maybe if you could read, this post could have gone the other way. I'd love to argue with you forever, but I grow tired of your singular wit retorts. I'm done with you, fuckwit, go bore someone else.

Quit your bitching; you're giving me a headache.

Alientank said:

Wor why the hell are you still here? I thought you were leaving?

Because you can call me alot of things, but french is not one of them.

Worlocked said:

Because you can call me alot of things, but french is not one of them.

French isn't an insult. Being compared to the french government, ok. I'd understand then.

ravage said:

French isn't an insult. Being compared to the french government, ok. I'd understand then.

(OT)I noticed you have diablo 2 icon as your avatar, do you still play diablo 2?

Are you going to fuckin leave or what?

1. Xaser 3 = overpriced peice of shit
2. you = french asshole
3. diablo = just another gay game
4. We thought = you were leaving

sniperfrommars1 said:

Are you going to fuckin leave or what?

1. Xaser 3 = overpriced peice of shit
2. you = french asshole
3. diablo = just another gay game
4. We thought = you were leaving

5. kthxbye

sniperfrommars1 said:

2. you = french asshole

Better watch it there slappy, you're gonna insult the Long Nick of the Law!

:pets Alientank: Yes, Worlocked is an idiot. We have established that. Moving on...

I'm going to avoid the hardware discussion as best as possible in this thread, because I've said my piece on that topic in this forum. Instead, I'll respond to the original post by saying that - well, I'm not going to be happy with any game without a horizontal resolution of at least 1080, and preferably 1600 or higher. I play Half-Life in 2048x1536, and that required a registry hack. I can play the alpha moderately smoothly at 1024x768, so I'm pretty sure the system I will probably have when the game actually comes out will devour it. But as far as the issue of whether someone HAS to upgrade is concerned, it really depends the most on a person's preferences, rather than the specs of their system. Any gaming system built in the last 18 months, or any normal system built within the past 6-9 months or so, should play the game acceptably to most people, but there are always those of thus that want more. Personally, I think that for the full experience, you're going to want to have a top-of-the-line system, but I think that about everything.

Regarding your comment about Doom 3 being DirectX 8.1 - that's actually not necessarily true. It's more likely that Doom 3 will be pure DirectX 8 at the lowest level, with some 8.1 and 9 functionality exposed for cards which support it.

You also have to define what it means to say a game is running "fine" or even "acceptably" or "well", and you can only do that on an individual basis. That really affects this argument quite a bit. For a game to be running "well" in my opinion, you need to have every possible graphic and sound option maxed, in the highest resolution you can still average over sixty frames per second with infrequent dips no lower than thirty. I can manage this in 1600x1200 in quite a few games (Morrowind, Unreal 2, UT2003, Duke Nukem: Manhattan Project, and Red Faction II, to name a few), and it really does add something to the experience.

I want 8192x6144 damnit!

Yes, because playing at stupidly high resolution is the only thing that makes a game worth playing.

I always wonder why these people who care more about resolution than gameplay don't just out and buy a DVD.

Well, first of all, a DVD isn't very interactive. Second of all, DVD players are a lot less fun to customize than computers. Thirdly, DVDs aren't very high-resolution compared to a nice game on a nice computer with a good monitor. In fact, I daresay they're pretty low-resolution.

And of course, DVDs these days generally don't have the plot complexity nor the memorable characters that games do. ;D

[disclaimer]Even though you probably aren't talking about me, I'd like to add a little disclaimer that says that I in fact do not care more about resolution than gameplay. I do, however, care more about framerate than resolution - to a point. I will still play a game if I can't run it in 16x12 or even 1280x1024, but I will not play a game at all if I can't get a decent framerate even in 1024x768. Some people will call me an elitist and perhaps I am, but I really think it's silly if a high-end system can't run a game at around 60FPS in that resolution. And, if I can't run it the way I want, I don't completely abandon the game - I merely set it aside for when I can. To me, it ruins the experience to play with graphics turned down, or at a low framerate. Otherwise, you're not experiencing the game the way the designers intended.[/disclaimer]

Katarhyne said:

[disclaimer]Even though you probably aren't talking about me, I'd like to add a little disclaimer that says that I in fact do not care more about resolution than gameplay. I do, however, care more about framerate than resolution - to a point. I will still play a game if I can't run it in 16x12 or even 1280x1024, but I will not play a game at all if I can't get a decent framerate even in 1024x768. Some people will call me an elitist and perhaps I am, but I really think it's silly if a high-end system can't run a game at around 60FPS in that resolution. And, if I can't run it the way I want, I don't completely abandon the game - I merely set it aside for when I can. To me, it ruins the experience to play with graphics turned down, or at a low framerate. Otherwise, you're not experiencing the game the way the designers intended.[/disclaimer]

I'm pretty much the same way. I won't play games if I can't play on the full detail settings typically. My 9800 pro should be able to handle whatever Doom 3 has in store for it.

Worlocked said:

(OT)I noticed you have diablo 2 icon as your avatar, do you still play diablo 2?

What do you think?

I agree that it's the framerate that really matters. After all which would you prefer, missing segments of the animations or seeing pixelated enemies?

I think I shuld mention though that I am not worried about it- currently I can manage to run the alpha at a damn spiffy res with 90 fps.

But he just keeps comming back...

Hadeumdi said:

I think I shuld mention though that I am not worried about it- currently I can manage to run the alpha at a damn spiffy res with 90 fps.

Im sure id themselves would be interested in the PC you have there. Its a debug version, an alpha one at that. *Rolls eyes..