Snarkpit question of the day..

Crono said:
video compression might be the only place you'd legitimately notice something like this.

Yes, my point...

Crono said:
Athlon IIs have a reduced instruction set and cache. It's akin to i3. Comparing it to an i7 just isn't fair.

No one stinkin mentioned anything about I7's. I said 1.7 dual core.

Crono said:
Your lack of listening skills amazes me.

How you can know me so well, and know me not at all equally never ceases to amaze.

You gotta admit, most times you do promote AMD. This is not a bad thing since it makes sense to do so. BUT, even though I game a lot, I NEVER BUY any pc with games in mind. Always its rip/burn. It just so happens that the machine also plays games exceptionally well.

Thanx for the advance search heads up. I tried several different ways, but nothing gave me nVidia for laptops. nVidia everything else, but no laptops.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

The difference is in milliseconds in same classed processors. What I was saying is you're comparing two separate class processors and drawing general conclusions about their manufacturers and that it's not an accurate conclusion.

If you buy a PC based on fast it could rip a DVD ... that's a bit silly. Similarly classed CPUs are all going to do that about the same. Chances are the ripping program doesn't even utilize various instructions sets. They can all decode in real-time (since they can play the DVD in real-time) ... so what's left is a memory and bus bandwidth issue ... not a CPU instruction set one.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

As you say.. So shall I listen.

Anyway its all moot since if I only have a 4 year old 1.7 intel and a new 2.1 AMD to go by. AND you feel its not a fair comparison then debating it further is not important.

In the end, I will end up buying whatever falls within my monetary bracket at the time of purchase. Since I own both kinds, I obviously don't dislike either.

Al I know is I am not buying another PC with intel vid card. They suck... End of story.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Well, with laptops ... the prices are about the same. It's when you look at desktop configurations that the price gap appears. And it's a big one.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Next question: display types. What's good and not so.

I cannot remember what type my Acer has but it sucks in daylight. I mean if any bright light hits it you cannot see anything. Its an Aspire5570z.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

They're all LCD TFT ... so ... it doesn't really matter. Most laptops have an anti-glare surface now, though.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Thanx bud. Good to know I won't need to concentrate on one thing to much then. I was just noticing things like "Backlight" and such and wondered if it was something to worry about.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Two new questions:
1) some of these laptops boast longer battery life. Are they sacrificing anything to get this longer life or are they using better batteries?

2) I have been noticing that these flat screen TV sets can be hooked to your PC. I have also notice that there isn't that big a difference in price between them and these new big screen monitors. Does it take a bigger video card or more horse power to run TV screens vs. monitors? Also, while we are on new TV's, if you used one as a display for your PC would you notice the difference in a 720 or a 1080?

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

If you hook your computer up to a HDTV ... don't use the VGA port on the TV, the highest resolution it'll support in that mode is usually 1024x768. What you want to do is convert from DVI to HDMI and you'll get full 1080P resolution.

You'll notice plenty of stuff. Higher resolution, so you'll see more compression in things, and text won't look as spiffy. Computer text is near unreadable in 720.

Keep in mind that those big screen monitors go far above HD resolutions.

It's all about resolution. If you have a monitor and a TV and they're both running at 1920x1080 ... then, no the video card isn't going to be doing more work on one over the other.

You can control, in the software settings of the battery, how you want the laptop to operate, High Power mode, balanced, or power saving. It's up to you.

If you want a legitimately long lasting battery buy one with the most cells. Standard is 6-cell, you can usually buy 9-cell.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

That's cool to know. I saw a 12 cell I think. The only reason I ask is because I have an inverter in my truck and could care less about batteries since I have an unending power source. I was just wondering if they cheat on the processor or something is all. I would of course like longer/better batteries but my thinking was more "How did they attain this longer life?"

So you think a 28 inch monitor would be a better deal than a 28 inch TV used as a monitor then?

I always wanted a great big monitor but I also wonder if turning your heard to view the whole thing would be worth it. Kinda like sitting in the first 10 rows at the walkin theater.

Thanx Adam. I'm ff to bed. 5 hours sleep just ain't cuttin it.

Nite guys

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Well, hardware is more efficient and reduced in a mobile processor ... but it's always been that way, power consumption isn't really the enemy here, it's heat.

Well, monitor vs tv, monitors are cheaper for better quality. I mean, a 32" TV vs 27" monitor (can't really go above that without being large format and adding $200), both LED backlight, the TV will be $600 the monitor will be $350, and the TV will have an impressive 3 million to 1 contrast ratio ... but the monitor will be like 12 million to 1 contrast ratio. So, they're expensive compared to monitors ... but cheaper than TVs ... but you can't use it as a TV. Thankfully, most devices like your satellite box will hook up to monitors.

30" ... it'll just fill up your view ... if you have something like 60" you'll have to sit back. Which is nice, I mean if you had something like this in your living room with wireless mouse and keyboard it'd be pretty damn sweet.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Kinda sorta new questions: With new laptops is the better video card always the bigger number? (5650 vs 4250)

Is dedicated memory or shared memory better? (1 gig D vs 1650 S)

Lastly I read that a ATI 5650 is better than a nVidia 340. Since there are way more ATI driven machines, should I stop looking for an nVidia?

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Something to keep in mind ... you can't compare an ATI model number to an nVidia model number. They don't translate.

The first number is the generation. So, nvidia 340 is generation 3 (from GTX, I think, it was used only in laptops), the second number (for the most part) delegates the chipset, and the last number is like the iteration, sometimes it's used to signify that it's between two chipset levels.

the ATI model numbers work similarly.

Dedicated memory is always better than just shared. I mean, why would you want it to use system memory if you can help it? System memory is far away and you get less of it to use for the CPU. This should be obvious.

If you want to compare two cards, find a benchmark on each and compare their results in games. Obviously, finding a common game would be best. It's really the only way to do it, no amount of specs can really tell you how it'd perform.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

I've been looking at a lot of benchmarks, they always feel wrong. Kinda like a survey that tends to lean a certain way. But I will look some more and get a commonality.

Yeah I figured the shared thing was bunk, but with machine mostly using it AND so many with shitloads of ram I was hoping for a better reply.

OK, another question: Is bigger screen size better? Yes I want bigger, but I'd rather have clarity. My wifes 15.6 is way sharper than my old 14.1 but it may be just newer technology not just size.

BTW I found my dream machine 2 days ago online. It was under 700 bucks. Was an I5 and had a 340 nVidia. It was no longer available. Oh well. I will keep searching.

Thanx again Adam.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Processors:

-Im an Intel fan, and will be for a while, however that being said, AMD's motto is about power conservation, and in a laptop thats a good thing for heat dispersion reasons - you don't want it crashing in a game after heating up. My suggestion is use Adam's cross-platform ability to draw similarities. eg: Whats an equivalent of an i3, and an i5 - I would shoot for i5 performance, however if the price proves too much, you should go for i3 performance.

Batteries:

-12 cell is bulky. 6-8 cells are fine. I will say this about laptops however: when they are plugged into a wall they perform much better, than when they run off battery.

GPU:

-I'm an nVidia fan again, and I know that they 420m series are powerful and reliable. However they are hot. AMD might be the better way to go again because of this. I'm not sure whats equivalent to the 420m series, but I'm sure Adam can pont you in some good directions.

Display:

-You should only check for a couple of things:
--Size (15.4, 14.1, etc)
--Max Resolution (1080 is good IMO)
--Matt or Glossy Finish (Matt looks better and you can use it in sunlight)

External Display:
-Any will really do based of your specifications. I would look for a laptop with an HDMI port (or at the very least a DVI port) on it to hook it up to an HDTV.

Gee, thanx bud. I appreciate it bunches.

As it stands these are the 2 I am leaning toward.

Now, it will be more than a month at least till I can do anything but still. If you have any suggestions about these two, or something comparable to substitute please feel free to speak up.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Its funny... a whole 100 extra dollars for 1 more core.

Its rumored actually that AMD's tripple core processor was meant to be a quadcore, but due to a manufacturing defect, one of the cores was dead. So they marketed them as tri-cores.

Its a toss up, 100$s more for an extra core? I don't really know. Crono?

You know, I can see selling a functional mistake but not continuing to manufacture them. If what you say is true, they should have run out of the defects already.

You know what it puts me in mind of? When the DX486's came out, they deliberately harmed the processors to make them SX486's. They actually spent time and money to sell a pc that was less powerful, for less money. Go figure.

I've also been leaning heavy toward this machine.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

2 new questions:

[*]When you buy a laptop, some form of an operating system is pre-installed. You get your windows activation key, but you get no disc to reinstall windows if you have to format for some reason. Is the windows hidden on an invisible partition perhaps?

[*]My wife saw a news article on TV. She claims that they are gonna pass a new procedure into law that will prevent copy right infringement by destroying the culprits pc in some fashion. Like a virus or some such. Has anyone else heard this?

Assuming they would ever try such a thing, I wonder if they know that its against the law, to break a law in order to enforce a law. I mean, assuming someone is trespassing on your property, its against the law to electrify the fence, no matter how low the voltage. In other words, its against the law to booby trap something to prevent theft.

I know some naive person will try to argue that harming a person is different than harming a machine but the premise is identical. You cannot harm a person,place or thing in an endeavor to prevent theft. For those still thinking its silly, this is also gonna be used for music.. hears collective gasp Yup, no more music guys.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Orpheus said:
2 new questions:

[*]When you buy a laptop, some form of an operating system is pre-installed. You get your windows activation key, but you get no disc to reinstall windows if you have to format for some reason. Is the windows hidden on an invisible partition perhaps?

My friend has a computer with windows vista and got no windows vista disc either. I think he went back to the store and they formatted it for him. Perhaps a boot disc would do the trick too, not sure though.

---

Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/Nibgames

Niborius said:
My friend has a computer with windows vista and got no windows vista disc either. I think he went back to the store and they formatted it for him. Perhaps a boot disc would do the trick too, not sure though.

Well that's fine and dandy but what about those rare people who want the makers software package? I personally wouldn't but I bet there are some who would. What are they supposed to do I wonder??

Another question:

I have seen that the I3's are dual core and the I7's are quad core. I have seen some list theI5's as quad cores and some sites don't say nothin at all. Are the I5's all quads?

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Since my pit here at Snarkpit is inoperative I am at a loss as to where to host some critiques/reviews.

I'd kinda like to do something for the competition entries (when I get back home)

Does anyone know a really reliable free web host I can use?

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I use Freehostia for my website. Apparently they offer the fastest down-speed for any free hosting plan available and I find they are pretty reliable. Only thing is on the free/cheap plans you have a max file size limit of 512kb.

For file hosting I've been using MediaFire ever since FileFront decided to lose all my files I had uploaded with them. The max file size for free users is 200mb and I've never had any reliability issues with them.

---

Aaron's Stuff

Question:
[*]Exactly how slick is owl shit?
[*]Does temperature effect it in any way?
[*]Does the slickness vary from bird to bird or type of bird?
[*]Will a screech owl have less slick shit than a great horned owl?
[*]Does food type effect slickness?

These questions have been bothering me for minutes now and I really need them resolved.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

OK this is driving me fucking nuts. Is there a way to see exactly what is being downloaded at a specific time??

Now, this doesn't happen every time but since I keep tabs on my band usage now I notice that sometime for no fucking reason at all my PC is downloading something. If I do not shut it off every time it will continue to do it until......

Its not windows update, or at least I have it set to NOT do anything until I tell it to.

It is not spyware, cause I scan almost daily. AND if it were wouldn't it download continuously until it was removed?

Right this moment, nothing at all is happening, but 5 minutes ago I had to shut my net off because it had downloaded something unknown to the tune of 11 megs.. AND it was still running at the time I shut my net off.

OK.. it has been 24 minutes with nada happening.. BUT before I had been online less than 5 minutes. This problem, which normally wouldn't matter if I had unlimited connection is really annoying. If anyone knows how to determine what is using download time please let me know.

Thanx

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

There is a tool out there called wireshark. It monitors every packet sent/received on the computer on the hardware level. So your only going to see small pieces of information being sent. It gives you the IP address, and what kind it is. Wireshark also comes with a database of that packet types are so it can kinda tell you what a packet is.

Bear in mind too though: This is a tool for people who have understanding of what packets look like on the byte level (as in 8 1s and 0s). Its used more for network architects trying to actually see the address resolution packets being sent from the computer to the nearest DHCP server (in your case the router).

Operating Disks: Also to answer an older question of yours: Most companies had stopped including the "disks" with computers, the extra 6$ (if even that) was too much. So they've included a recovery partition in which you may re-install windows off of by hitting a key combination at the POST screen as the computer is turning on. In many cases too you can go out and buy some blank DVDs to burn them yourself. There will be a program in the start menu somewhere that will say something along the lines of recovery disk creation. In dells its in their back-up-recovery program. In lenovo its called one-key-recovery. Acer/HP/Toshiba/ASUS all have some program that does this similar function.

i series processors: the i3 is the same as a core2duo, so it has 2 cores. The i5 has 4 cores. The i7 also has 4 cores BUT each core has two logical cores, thus 4 cores x 2 logical cores = 8 cores total.

So I take it that there nothing designed for stupid people like me then..

You know, if this wasn't an intermittent problem I might be able to figure it out but its odd that for no real reason it just seems to start. Now, I am not staring at the connection every moment, so I am not even sure what I was looking at when it started. I tend to look at it just before I log off and try to keep tabs on my usage.

Sometimes, even though I check the task manager and nothing is running, the damned connection is downloading full speed.

This is very frustrating because under normal conditions it wouldn't matter, and I'd never even look at the damned download side of my connection.

Thanx Omega. I'm afraid that your program sounds way over my noggin.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

A logical core is not as fast as a full physical processor core. It just allows for an extra thread to be ran. If it were a literal extra core, it'd have it's own memory, it doesn't, it pools it with the physical core it's part of.

While it is faster (obviously you have another thread), it's erroneous to equate it to doubling the number of cores because their operations are bound by common data.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

omegaslayer said:
i series processors: the i3 is the same as a core2duo, so it has 2 cores. The i5 has 4 cores. The i7 also has 4 cores BUT each core has two logical cores, thus 4 cores x 2 logical cores = 8 cores total.

Is this the new I's or the old I's?
I read someplace that the old I5's were two categories. 2 and 4 core depending on the numbers/manufacture of the chip.

I also read that the I5's were split also in the threading IE, 1/2 acted like I3's and half acted like I7's. If this is so, which would be the better bang for your buck? The ones that acted like I'3's or I'7's. (I am not referring to ghz speeds but hyperthreads)

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

... All "i chips" are manufactured by Intel Nobody besides Intel manufactures Intel chips. Just like nVidia is the only company to manufacture nVidia chips (manufactures use those chips on a card design, sure, but they don't build the chips themselves) And AMD manufactures their own chips.

These aren't outsourced to other companies. (They would never release their current chip designs to outside people)

Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about with the difference in processors there ... maybe you have a misconception of what the differences between the levels of chip are?

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

No, its not that. I cannot recall the chip #'s but say there was an I5 chip 1-500 and an I5 chip 500-999.

Some have hyperthreading on. Some have them off. (or was it hypertransport) shrugs

I was wondering since the 5's are the middle ground price wise, which would be the better deal for a gaming laptop for instance.

I know I may be forced to get an I3 due to costs or even a triple core AMD but if I can swing it I'd really rather get an I5 with a decent dedicated video card.

Besides.. Even if I'm mistaken somehow, think of the opportunities to make me feel more like a stupid old man.

In the end, I trust you and Omega more so than some guy filling out a questionnaire at Newegg.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

The ambient ratings on newegg are actually pretty accurate.

Anyway, there's only like 3 mobile i5 processors currently. And it's i5 generation 2, and they all support Hyperthreading (Hypertransport is AMD) The only real difference outside of clock speed is power consumption.

i5-2540M 3 MB 2.60 GHz 2C/4T 35 W DDR3-1066/1333
i5-2520M 3 MB 2.50 GHz 2C/4T 35 W DDR3-1066/1333
i5-2537M 3 MB 1.40 GHz 2C/4T 17 W DDR3-1066/1333

Here's a couple you might want to look at, they both have pros and cons

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220875
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834152218

(The MSI model being sold out, isn't much of an issue)

The Asus model is about $200 more, but it also has a BluRay drive and a higher resolution monitor.

The MSI model has a slightly faster processor ... and is cheaper ... that's about it.

Both cards have a nvidia GeForce 425M GPU (decent, it'll play stuff like Black Ops at like 60fps) with 1GB of dedicated memory.

Both are fairly reasonably priced for laptop land. The MSI would probably run games better ... just because it has a faster CPU, the same exact GPU setup, but a lower native resolution, so the same setup has to do less work.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Still the MSI looks good. Will keep it in mind.
Thanx bud.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Steam locked up on me 3 times tonight just trying to update. Anyone else having issues?

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Orpheus said:
Steam locked up on me 3 times tonight just trying to update. Anyone else having issues?

I have this happen to me off and on, normally when im behind on a lot of updates, or when its syncing with the steam cloud servers. Just let it sit without doing anything with steam (browsing games, trying to stop updating processes, etc)

I feel my question will be within the same vein that this thread was meant for, but let me know if I'm out of line....

So about two weeks ago, I had a graphics card of 4 years finally fail on me. It BSOD, and I am now attempting to use my lifetime warranty with EVGA to get it replaced. I'm currently in the support ticket phase. But I diligently registered it when I bought the card, so everything should be in order there; I look forward to seeing what they replace it with.

The card in question is an Nvidia 8800 GTS 640mb. It ran pretty well these past four years, but it finally BSODed on me when I tried to run a game of HL2 to play Finger's competition entry and now only displays in blacks and whites with blue streaks on the left side of the screen and only within a 640x480 resolution.

Anyhow, I'm looking to getting the latest card, but I don't want to spend over $400.

I've looked into the AMD Radeon HD 6970, 6950 and the Nvidia GTX 580 and GTX 570. And after having done my homework, I'm ready to settle with the Nvidia GTX 570. It seems to me the best price per performance.

Regardless though, I'm looking for an opinion on this devious plan of mine...

I will be buying this card: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130622
-Notable for the limited lifetime warranty.

As I understand it, the GTX 580 was released in November, and probably should be coming down in price soon, no?

I want to use EVGAs Step-up program to send in this GTX 570 that I'll purchase, and in turn pay the possibly then discounted difference to get the 580, but waiting within the 90 day period to do so hoping it will come down in price by then.

What do you guys think of this idea, will it work to my advantage like I'm planning? Do you guys expect the card to come down in price within 90 days from now? I'd like to hear thoughts from those who know a thing or two about video cards and the market.

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202

You will prolly end up with your card before I can scrape up the bucks for mine. Be sure to post your views on whichever you get so I know to buy it or avoid it. (I have also looked at the same cards you listed and am hesitant to decide)

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I think the 70s and 80s are a complete waste of money.

The 560Ti is a far better performance per dollar.

Take a look at this: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-560-Ti-Video-Card-Review/1180/6 and http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/EVGA-GeForce-GTX-570-Superclocked-Video-Card-Review/1153/7

The EVGA GTX 570 SC (the card you want) gets 26 fps in Crysis Warhead (more efficient than Crysis, but still one of the most graphically demanding games) at 2560x1600 no AA no AF. The EVGA GTX 560 Ti SC gets 20 fps. 6 fps less ... HOWEVER, the card is $100 cheaper! And that's after the $10 mail in rebate on the 570 card.

For $150 more than the GTX 570 ... you could just get two 560s and have higher performance than even the 580. (Or down the road)

And if you're gaming at a resolution at like 1680x1050 ... then it's at least 30fps in everything anyway with a single 560.

Also, power requirements are 50W higher on the 570 over the 560 (which is 100W higher than the 460 ... which two of THOSE in SLI, which is like $380 will get you 60FPS in Crysis also)

This is also per card, just to note.

Anyway, since they introduced the GTX 4 series ... it looks like the 6 cards are really a much better deal. Also, in about 6 months ... that 560 card is probably going to be $50 cheaper, while the 570 is likely going to stay around where it is. Maybe lowering $30 or so. In which case that's a $200 card vs a $320 card ... where you could spend $80 more and get $550 card worthy performance.

Just something to think about.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Exactly how big a monitor would you have to have to have a resolution of 2560x1600?

I know I am using a paltry 19" screen but I cannot imagine resolutions that large.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Well, they usually only start showing up on 30"+ monitors. Namely LFD monitors (Large Format Display)

They cost about $500 ... but are very gorgeous and 30" is about as small as you can get them.

But I'm sure there's some normal monitors that can go to those kinds of resolutions.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

WOW, think of the possibilities. We'll soon have to deal with 5 meg screenshots.
The screens will be so big that the scroll bars, will have scroll bars of their own.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Orpheus said:
The screens will be so big that the scroll bars, will have scroll bars of their own.

ROFL!

---

Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/Nibgames

Ah, ok, looking into it still....

I'm thinking about purchasing two GTX 560 Ti cards and running them SLI....

But here's the deal: My monitor setup consists of one 26" with a 1920x1200 res that I do all my gaming on, 3D modeling and drafting. I also have two 22" monitors with each a res of 1680x1050. I use these mainly for web surfing, maybe Photoshop every now and then, (Photoshop will get done on the 26 mostly). But those monitors might play a video or just hold a bunch office progs. I don't care to do any 3 monitor span gaming.

With two of these cards in my system going in SLI, and all three monitors hooked up, I'm guessing it doesn't matter to which cards the monitors are hooked up to once the cards are in SLI? I understand two of these things will perform better than a single 580, but will my performance decrease significantly with the two 22"s just displaying a web page or the desktop? (e.g. no graphics load from the extra monitors while gaming).

I agree, the 560 Ti is a much better deal for performance and price, but as it stood initially, I was looking for the best single card solution only because I'm running out of room in my case. I do have room for a two card solution, but I was planning on using whatever EVGA RMAs to me for my 8800 GTS. -And that's a two slot card too. If I could get the best single card in my budget, and hook back up my 8800GTS replacement (or equivalent), that would drive the other two monitors, while not worrying about performance decrease on my gaming monitor. -Or would that decrease from the SLI solution be negligible? -and if so, what to do with my replacement?

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202

You fill the primary card's ports, then the secondary.

The problem is, when in SLI mode (set in the nvidia control panel) is on. When using SLI, the second card gets set to a number crunching mode and all display features get turned off.

So, if you have SLI on, then you can only have 2 monitors, the 2 hooked up to the main card.

However, SLI can be turned on and off very easily. I'm thinking the only issue you could run into if you use something like triple view or something and the driver requires it to be restarted every time (I don't think so, and I think it's more a property of Windows, since the nvidia drivers do not act the same in Linux)

Um, but yeah, I think that's about the only way you can do it.

I'm pretty sure, even if you had a 570 and 8800, you'd run into the same issues if you tried to use the 8800 for a PhysX card.

As far as I can tell, all this really means is ... you don't have the third desktop monitor while playing games. (which actually doesn't sound like a big deal) ... But I've heard people having issues with it, you should probably look some stuff up on it. Keep in mind, triple monitor setup is not exactly common

As for performance ... you could render enormous 2D images on these cards and they won't even break a sweat. You have nothing to worry about in performance. I used to have video up and playing on one screen, full screened, while playing a game on the other and it worked pretty well. (Single card) ... but triple monitors is a little trickier than dual. It really depends on how you have it set up. (Multiple desktops, or desktop extension. etc)

Also, if you do decide to go with SLI. You should be aware that many games run better with a custom made SLI profile. While can be made available by nvidia, or your card manufacturer, or even the developers. The games will still run properly, of course, but the SLI profiles are optimizations to make them run much better.

I'd also like to point out ... that if you have a 3-way SLI board (I know losing space) ... you can do 3 monitors just fine and even dedicate the third card to PhysX in games. (For example the 8800GTS you're getting back)
But, maybe that's something to keep in mind for later. It really looks like you'd have to manually enable SLI when going to play a game, and disable it when done ... might be able to make a script to do it for you and you just click it or something.

http://multimonitor.net/2008/12/how-to-sli-and-three-monitors/

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

I just got a tiger direct catalog recently. The Sapphire 6950 2 gig cards are on sale. ($259 after rebate)
I dunno if this is what you're looking for but it has more than enough ram to play around on. I hear Sapphire are above average cards.

/2cents

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=1225&page=14

560 Ti SC and 6950 are relatively similar in performance ... but the 560 is cheaper and has a lifetime warranty through EVGA ... Sapphire only offers 2 year warranty.

Also, I'm finding different benchmarks on the card now. For example,they have Crysis Warhead running at 60fps with a single 560 Ti.

The 560 also runs cooler and uses less power.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

FPS isn't everything but it may be enough.

This old 4850 I got now does great however it runs out of ram running Clearsky. If I set everything to maximum, the barbed wire and camo netting disappear. If I lower the grass and some other non-essentials the barbed wire and cammo netting return.

Obviously 512 megs isn't enough. Perhaps 1024 is.. For now.
My thoughts were 2048 might compensate for the price.
That 560 looks sweet.
Anywho's

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

For the VGA it's more important what's hidden behind the codename (or umber). So even if your VGA has only 512 MB memory it can perform good, if the model is good.

HD 5770:
Memory: 512MB / 128-bit GDDR5
Clock speed: 850 MHz Eclk / Effective 4800 MHz Mclk
And other features...

HD 4850:
Memory: 512MB / 256-bit GDDR3/4
Clock speed: 993MHz (625MHz DDR3)
And other features...

(Info taken from different places)

But I think you should tell us at how much FPS does, for example, Clear Sky runs.

Also, if you haven't noticed, the VGA is not the only thing that takes care of the graphics. The CPU also deals with that (for example with the quality of the textures). You can test that by changing the in-game options without changing the resolution and you might notice that the FPS rate, in some cases, does not change noticeably.

But if you want to make the game start running at a lower FPS because of the VGA and without changing the resolution, you might want to play with the 3D options of catalyst of the VGA.

I might be wrong.
But I have been testing the Source engine at 800x600 resolution once with most of the other in-game option at the max and once at the recommended (using a hyper old ATI 9550), without any changes in the catalyst. And I have been testing the Fallout 3 engine at 1920x1080 resolutions and maximum in-game options and once at higher than the maximum catalyst options and once at the maximum (using an Sapphire ATI HD5770 512 MB VGA). The Source engine was working at similar FPS in both cases. But the Fallout 3 engine was running at a lower FPS rate all time in the first case and smoothly at the second.

So I have noticed that the VGA takes care globally of the graphics and the CPU of the in-game graphics.

And with in-game graphics I mean the game's custom graphics.

So I'd say don't look at the VGA's memory, look at the contents of the codenmae (or number).

---

Never think about bad things!
TNKqwe:The New Killer qwe
[img]http://images.quiz.wegame.com/production/personalities/22/badge.jpg[/img]
I am Engineer - Play Free Online Games
[img]http://media.moddb.com/images/global/moddb_88x31_v12.png[/img]
Citizen Arms

Orpheus said:
FPS isn't everything but it may be enough.

This old 4850 I got now does great however it runs out of ram running Clearsky. If I set everything to maximum, the barbed wire and camo netting disappear. If I lower the grass and some other non-essentials the barbed wire and cammo netting return.

Obviously 512 megs isn't enough. Perhaps 1024 is.. For now.
My thoughts were 2048 might compensate for the price.
That 560 looks sweet.
Anywho's

Well. It depends on the game and engine and how it draws these things, just to note.

But, in general, things dealing with textures (not just visible ones) have to be loaded into video memory. So that's really the main advantage of huge amounts of dedicated video memory. You know, world objects and junk like that is still stored in system memory and they're fed to the GPU when they're needed in the next rendering batch.

The main advantage of larger video memory, again, is larger textures. So, you could have high resolution visual textures that are skinned on objects. Or you could have higher resolution shadow maps (which are stored in a texture). Or higher resolution lightmaps (which are stored in a texture). Stuff like that.

The main difference between those 4850 and 5770 cards is, even though they're the same memory size ... the 4850's memory has a larger bus (double the size), but has one less access per cycle. Also, the clock speeds are higher. (It's important to note that the first number is the generation, and the following numbers denote class. 8, 7, etc. the number after that is variation on the chipset and are only comparable within the same class. So, a 48XX card may likely perform better than a 57XX card, just based on chipset classes. Then again, the new generation could have all around optimizations that make them all perform better ... it really depends on the cards)

So, when running a game ... the GPU is the primary determination of how well a game will run based on graphics settings. HOWEVER, CPU speed, RAM size, and HDD access time DO play a part. If the CPU doesn't have enough speed or threads ... you could see noticeable stuttering in a game, simply because the CPU is operating as fast as it can, but can't service render batches as fast as the GPU is operating. So, even though it's stuttering, it doesn't mean the GPU is the bottle neck.

Something I ran into today was a limitation in RAM space. With the Crysis 2 demo. There was no operation lag. But the movements were stuttering like crazy. To note, animations and looking around, firing the weapon, etc, operated at normal speed. When I minimized the game, I looked at its resources, and the physical RAM was maxed out (~1.8GB) and the swap space was around 2.5GB ... what this means is, the streaming of the level was slowing the game down, so when I moved, it'd have to stream in new data ... but it just can't operate fast enough for it to be playable.

So, I need more RAM, so it doesn't go to disk for things it's going to need every other frame (slow)

So, yes, in these capacities, CPU, RAM, and HDD speed and size do have an impact on your performance ... however ... it's important to note that ... unless you did like what I did, which was, take a 5 year old system and simply put in a new GPU ... you'll likely not come into issues regarding bottlenecks outside of the GPU. It's still possible, of course, but it's pretty unlikely.

All generations of cards have different base chipset architectures. That's what a new generation is. The second number sort of specifies chipset class. So, the higher the number the more chipset features it has enabled. And the third and fourth numbers are further granularity of that.

It's very possible that one card will perform worse, just because it's missing a very specific register. (GTX 460 SE cards, for example, are missing hardware that the GTX 460 cards have)

Anyway, what I listed was two systems that were either identical ... or very similar (If they were in the same test, the only thing they would change is the GPU) and the game was at the EXACT same settings. It's the reason why I linked it! It's one of the only ways you can show comparison of performance ... only change the one thing you're measuring. So in that respect, YES, fps IS a pretty good measure of their performance in relation to one another, because the card being used was the only variable in the benchmarks.

To note, you should probably put fps requirements above eye candy. I can understand going down to even 25 fps. That's still playable without noticeable lag (consider that most cell animation is actually 15 frames a second, we're not as sensitive to this as people believe). But, sacrificing more than that ... I wouldn't recommend. That's where you get into a situation that the game feels "sluggish" (It's still not noticeable lag at that point even)

So, while I don't think your games HAVE to run at 60fps to just be "playable" like a lot of people will claim (most games don't run at 60fps anyway), playing under 25-30 should be unacceptable for you. (might even be a contributing factor to your motion sickness, since motion sickness is from surprising movements and that's exactly what choppy frame-rates are)

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Ok, I don't know if I've found my solution yet, but here's what I've put together:

For reference sake, I have one 26" that does everything 3D I want to do, and two 22" monitors that do everything not 3D or CAD. In my old setup I had my 8800 GTS hooked up only to the 26" and not SLI'ed to anything. Both of the 22"s were hooked up to the 7800. The 7800 is a single slot card, and the 8800 is a dual slot card.

As I'm researching, I'm not finding an adequate solution involving SLI. I understand I will have two cards in my system, but I think it will be best for neither of these cards to be SLIed. I understand I could get the advantages of SLI simply by turning it on and loosing sync with one of the monitors, but to me that defeats the purpose of a multi-display setup, especially when my system lets me switch between programs so easily and without any hangups. I'm sure I would do it occasionally, when I'm not attempting to multi-task, and when I'd want to show off, but it's really novelty. Getting a single card solution to my gaming monitor allowing me to maintain full graphics support and all display functionality would be worth the extra $100 for me, especially since I'm getting back my 8800GTS. If I had the space however, you bet I would definitely buy the two 560 Ti SC cards and fit my 8800 GTS as a PhysX card, that would be the perfect setup for me.

Below is a diagram I made of my board, its slots and the cards I will be keeping.
All of those cards require a PCIe x16 slot to operate. A two card solution that is similar to what I organized before I think is my best fashion to operate my monitors in. The more powerful one operates my gaming monitor, and the less one operates the other two monitors.

Unless you have any better recommendations, I think this is the best I can do while maintaining space.

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202