By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - My Retinas got burned. And I outdated the PS3 and 360. Bugger.

leatherhat on 27 October 2011

At last you finally see



ǝןdɯıs ʇı dǝǝʞ oʇ ǝʞıן ı ʍouʞ noʎ 

Ask me about being an elitist jerk

Time for hype

Around the Network
Xen on 27 October 2011
disolitude said:
Xen said:
disolitude said:
Xen said:
disolitude said:
Do you ever post without hyping something?

I played Battlefield 3 on absolute max on 3 monitors last night. It looks great...but there are at least 10 Wii games I found more fun and I'd rather play than Battlefield 3...in all their SD glory.

Kind of the reason I cheapened out with a single 6850 HD and went for a Phenom II X4 965 and oc'd it to 4ghz. Emulators. PCSX2, Dolphin - all the good stuff in HD and with a good dose of AA. Consoles have the generally far far far more fun games, or at least I think so. The games, on their original hardware, are just so incredibly jagged.

Thats what I like to hear. :)

Off topic...when you overclocked it, did you increase FSB frequency or just the multiplier. I actually had the x4 955 and I had it at 4 ghz as well using only the multiplyer. It didn't really help much. However when I brought the multiplyer to stock and increased the FSB frequency, it helped a lot more despite only being able to get up to 3.8 ghz on the CPU. Higher memory controller and ram speed helped me run games better than CPU speed alone.

Multi. only. Used the PCSX2 "FFX-2 metric" (if it doesn't stutter - you will manage to emu pretty much ANY PS2 game) - at stock, its cinematics stuttered a little, at 4ghz, it's a constant 50fps (my game is a PAL one). No other games stutter, either (currently playing SMT: Nocturne on it, using my PS3 controller ;) ). Sonic Colors and MKWii are also perfect.

The board is a Gigabyte GA-990XA-UD3, and the cooler a Mugen 2 Rev.b, for reference's sake.


Right on. But yeah if you see things starting to stutter with games, try doing the FSB increase and lowering the multiplyer to stock.  It added about 1000 points to my CPU and GPU score each in 3D mark Vantage (performance), despite being only 3.8 ghz rather than 4.

I will! Thanks for the advice. You never know what wrench PCSX2 will throw at you next.



brendude13 on 27 October 2011

I doubt the difference is actually that big, I've seen comparison videos and they are very similar.

To get that 60fps and 1080p you are going to have to pay through the nose. Unless you want launch prices higher than the PS3, I think next-gen can hold off another year or two.



disolitude on 27 October 2011
brendude13 said:
I doubt the difference is actually that big, I've seen comparison videos and they are very similar.

To get that 60fps and 1080p you are going to have to pay through the nose. Unless you want launch prices higher than the PS3, I think next-gen can hold off another year or two.

Thats actually not true.

I have 2 computers which are fairly good specs wise and my old computer which has an Phenom x4 955 and an overclocked GTX 560Ti was able to run this game at max with no AA at 50-60 fps. Those are not very expensive parts these days and one can easily get extremely good visuals out of battlefield 3 with a 600 dollar PC.

Adding AA obviously would slow it down, but oyu really don't need AA at 1080p and 24 inch or smaller monitors.



brendude13 on 27 October 2011
disolitude said:
brendude13 said:
I doubt the difference is actually that big, I've seen comparison videos and they are very similar.

To get that 60fps and 1080p you are going to have to pay through the nose. Unless you want launch prices higher than the PS3, I think next-gen can hold off another year or two.

Thats actually not true.

I have 2 computers which are fairly good specs wise and my old computer which has an Phenom x4 955 and an overclocked GTX 560Ti was able to run this game at max with no AA at 50-60 fps. Those are not very expensive parts these days and one can easily get extremely good visuals out of battlefield 3 with a 600 dollar PC.

Adding AA obviously would slow it down, but oyu really don't need AA at 1080p and 24 inch or smaller monitors.

My PC cost me £400 (about $600 too) and it can only just max Crysis at 720p with no AA. Battlefield Bad Company 2 runs terrible on my PC, it says 40fps but to be honest it looks like 20fps.



Around the Network
disolitude on 27 October 2011
brendude13 said:
disolitude said:
brendude13 said:
I doubt the difference is actually that big, I've seen comparison videos and they are very similar.

To get that 60fps and 1080p you are going to have to pay through the nose. Unless you want launch prices higher than the PS3, I think next-gen can hold off another year or two.

Thats actually not true.

I have 2 computers which are fairly good specs wise and my old computer which has an Phenom x4 955 and an overclocked GTX 560Ti was able to run this game at max with no AA at 50-60 fps. Those are not very expensive parts these days and one can easily get extremely good visuals out of battlefield 3 with a 600 dollar PC.

Adding AA obviously would slow it down, but oyu really don't need AA at 1080p and 24 inch or smaller monitors.

My PC cost me £400 (about $600 too) and it can only just max Crysis at 720p with no AA. Battlefield Bad Company 2 runs terrible on my PC, it says 40fps but to be honest it looks like 20fps.


Yeah, my 600 dolalr quote was a "build it yourself" price.

If you go to BestBuy, dell or whoever...600 will get nothing worthwhile.



SecondWar on 27 October 2011

I am tempted to to try Battlefield 3 on the PC, just I am more likely to buy a new graphics card for the family desktop as its the only part of it that would probably do Battlefield 3 an injustice. Wouldn't be able to to convince myself to get a brand new gaming PC due to the cost. And still feel I will get enjoyment out of the Xbox version of the game, which will save me the trouble of setting up online on the PC. With all the Origin stuff, EA have made it seem a bit of a hassle.



thetonestarr on 27 October 2011

Looks like I should get a new video card.



 SW-5120-1900-6153

brendude13 on 27 October 2011
disolitude said:
brendude13 said:
disolitude said:
brendude13 said:
I doubt the difference is actually that big, I've seen comparison videos and they are very similar.

To get that 60fps and 1080p you are going to have to pay through the nose. Unless you want launch prices higher than the PS3, I think next-gen can hold off another year or two.

Thats actually not true.

I have 2 computers which are fairly good specs wise and my old computer which has an Phenom x4 955 and an overclocked GTX 560Ti was able to run this game at max with no AA at 50-60 fps. Those are not very expensive parts these days and one can easily get extremely good visuals out of battlefield 3 with a 600 dollar PC.

Adding AA obviously would slow it down, but oyu really don't need AA at 1080p and 24 inch or smaller monitors.

My PC cost me £400 (about $600 too) and it can only just max Crysis at 720p with no AA. Battlefield Bad Company 2 runs terrible on my PC, it says 40fps but to be honest it looks like 20fps.


Yeah, my 600 dolalr quote was a "build it yourself" price.

If you go to BestBuy, dell or whoever...600 will get nothing worthwhile.

I bought a basic PC and began switching out old components. I have saved up plenty of money to upgrade further but I'm stepping away from PC gaming for a while. When I do get back into it I'll probably only use it for emulators and use basic components, enough to max games on Dolphin.



VGKing on 27 October 2011

Too bad Battlefield 3 is Ps1-quality on most new Xbox 360s.(Check Amazon customer reviews).
The suckers thought they got a good deal on that $200 4gig 360....sorry dudes.