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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Loading comparison

gorgepir said:
redspear said:

Kwaad:

Oh yeah post a picture from a fake CGI tailer as in game graphics.

SSJ12:
Are you running Vista 64 otherwise you wasted your money on 8 Gigs of ram as vista 32 cannot recognize 8gigs of RAM or even 4 gigs of RAM because of bios memory and video card memory and since you claim to have 2 8800 graphics card running in SLI that is at least 750 megs of memory or 1.5 gigs of memory there meaning your computer can only recognize 3.25 gigs - BIOS memory - Virtual memory(if you haven't turned it off which you should) but is on average 750MB)=roughly anywhere from 3.2GB to 2.75 GB of physical RAM. IF you stated that you were running Windows 2003 enterprise edition I might believe you. However owning a vista machine with over 4 GB of memory I know you are lieing or that you wasted your money on unused memory. While OS X can recognize more than 4 gigs you said vista.

 

You also managed to OC a Xeon faster than it has ever been OC before and I have not read about that on an Overclocker board BTW why not get a 7140n. So either you are a god of a modder or a liar and miracilously do not promote your work.

 

Before you jump on me I know the QX6700 is a core 2 but I have not seen evidence of that core being pushed passed 4.2 gigs. So if you got it to 5.7 what voltage did you use?


why would anyone get a vista 32? It seam like a strange question to ask. The why I see it, the real enhancement of vista over xp was the whole jump to 64 


Vista 64 has some major compatibility problems especially if you want to do any type of video editing or DVD-mastering. there are also driver issues with it as well.

 Entroper. hehe yeah I missed that. I was fiarly drunk when I posted thet.

 



Around the Network

PC 100000 :S I don't get it :/



One person's experience or opinion never shows the general consensus

PSN ID: Tispower

MSN: tispower1@hotmail.co.uk