The New Rig - Testing Phase Begin

Post a reply

Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :angel: :angry: :beer: :bfg: :chaingun: :cheers: :blergh:
View more smilies
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Maximum filesize per attachment: 1.5 MiB.

Expand view Topic review: The New Rig - Testing Phase Begin

by jallamann » Thu Jun 29, 2006 20:55

I thought you'd never ask

by ellmo » Wed Jun 28, 2006 14:45

jallamann wrote:640 GB :D
Wow, now marry me.

by jallamann » Wed Jun 28, 2006 13:52

160 gig drive? lol wimp

2x200 GB SATA2 drives separate and 2x120 GB SATA drives in RAID 0 means approx. 640 GB :D

by Enjay » Tue Jun 27, 2006 21:51

Heh. Funny thing is, after watching that vid, I like IE the best of the choices. Firefox is a miserable spoilsport. Wheeeeeeee!


Oh, I think the compass is Safari - a Mac OS browser.

by ellmo » Tue Jun 27, 2006 21:37

Psycho Siggi wrote:Well... At least my hard drive is bigger ;)
[pimp]mine as well[/pimp]
But what I envy you the most, WW - is a Pentium 3.0GHz processor. I've been in love with AMD processors for as long as I've been using them (I still have an AMD64 Athlon, which is a monster if you ask me), but they all are "accelerated" beyond their nominal frequency. For instance, my AMD is theoretically 3000 MHz, but practically its 1800, that works as fast as 3000, but it's not that stable, and gets tired more quickly.

Intels were always more expenisve, but when you have Pentium 3GHz, you now it's 3GHz...

And also, I'm gonna need to upgrade my RAM... 1GB may not cut it in the next year.

EDIT:
WW, I've just checked that video. Omigosh :lol: . What was that compass-like logo? I laughed at it the most.

by wildweasel » Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:02

This might explain the E for you.

by Psycho Siggi » Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:22

What's with the trippy E?
And dude, that's probably the biggest rig I've seen to date. I know I'd be proud of buying something like that with my own hard earned cash.

Well... At least my hard drive is bigger ;)

by wildweasel » Mon Jun 26, 2006 16:50

It's actually a lot harder than you make it sound, Ellmo - especially when you're playing it on Veteran difficulty, at which point it's as intense as Doom on Nightmare.

Paul: The first two. Since I got my job, I've been saving up for this rig, and when I got it I've been paying off my parents to the tune of ~$150 a month (which means I'll be paying off this box for a while).

by Paul » Mon Jun 26, 2006 13:28

Out of vane curiousity, where do you get money for such a rig? Saving? Work? Rich parents?

by ellmo » Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:51

Please don't play Call of Duty 2, this is a shoot em up game for 12 year old retards (not to insult anyone here XD), it's exactly the same as the first part was, but less innovative and more repetitive:

1. Run where your compass shows and kill everything in sight.
2. Jump onto the 88 flak and kill a tank
3. Repeat point no 2. five times
4. Use the 88 to kill an uber tank that comes from nowhere!
5. Return to point 1. and repeat it unless you see "mission accomplished"

That game was a straightforward offense towards my intelect.

by Enjay » Sun Jun 25, 2006 22:06

I've never really understood what 3Dmark was really supposed to be about. It seems to deliberately do things that slow the fastest contemporary computers to a crawl and then gives you a crappy rating, despite the fact that the machine it just rated is more than capable of running any real current program with ease. A few years ago, the version of 3Dmark that was current then rated my machine badly (despite the fact I'd bought the best in every category of component I could find at the time), yet over 1 year later, I was able to run Doom3 on the same machine without any difficulties.

I think it's just a ridiculous tool to make people think they need to upgrade hardware (even when faster hardware may not even be available). And let's not forget, it is just a tool. Any program that you really want to run to actually do stuff will work much better than 3DMark does. I think it also inspires geek pissing contests as they brag to each other about the 3DMark rating their machines have. As for actual, practical use: I don't really believe it has any.

by wildweasel » Sun Jun 25, 2006 21:56

My system has met its match. 3dMark06 utterly destroys this thing in the CPU tests, achieving less than 1 frame per second. Every other test averaged about 30 FPS at 640x480.

by Chronoteeth » Sun Jun 25, 2006 16:06

Man, thats really great. ;-;

by wildweasel » Sat Jun 17, 2006 6:35

A bump with more benchmarks...

Works Perfectly At Max Details:
- Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory (full resolution with SM3.0 shaders)
- Doom 3 (no tweaks applied - may go looking for parallax shader mods)
- Half-Life 2 (with FakeFactory Cinematic mod)
- Deus Ex 2 (with Community Hi-Res Textures package)
- TES3: Morrowind (no mods applied - may go get Better Bodies and hi-res texture sets)
- FEAR demo (doesn't support my monitor's native resolution, so I have to put up with slightly fuzzy graphics)
- Condemned demo (very awesome and I want to buy it now =P)
- The Chronicles of Riddick demo

Works Well With Reduced Details:
- TES4: Oblivion (can't run full resolution without stuttering)
- Tomb Raider Legend 1.2 demo (next-gen content causes major lag - this is the first game that my computer actually has trouble with, outside of emulators)
- Myst V demo (can't run full resolution without some major performance issues)

Haven't Tried Yet:
- Battlefield 2 demo
- Quake 4
- GTA: San Andreas

by MasterOFDeath » Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:41

I would suggest Battlefield 2, its got rather steep requirements at times, but I've heard it doesn't support certain GeForce cards (a certain series I think, but yours may not be it). It should run, and if it does it should run maxed on that system, give it a shot.

Top