Finalyzing my computer build - need advice.

[vesseblah]

have you looked at the AMD Phenom 2 x6 1100t? It has a physical 6 cores vs. the intel 4 physical 3 virtual. its a much cheaper option and not a loss in performance by any means. I'm just ultimately not impressed with what you get vs. what you pay with the intels.

Ahem... Yeah, not a loss in performance...

[Anakso]

Well...nice to see my current CPU doesn't even make the above list, means when I get my new one It'll be a pretty big upgrade xP

[Gandilf]

Yea I'll probobly go for an 80GB one, coudn't find any 80GB ones on the newegg site but a friend of mine who recently build a new comp got a OCZ Vertex II 80gb. I could possibly go for the 120GB one it just seems a bit much, that graphics card seems to be a good one I see a lot of people suggesting it or having it in their build, seems like thats the card I'll go for if the store stocks them.

As for the I7 that just is the best card that I can afford atm, the price difference between the i7 and i5 is minimal but getting the top range i7 seems to be incredibly expensive.

Only Intel makes the 80GB ones and though they're still good I'll go with a 120/128 on myself. My current setup has a Corsair P120 (2nd gen) and my new setup with I've ordered today will go with a Corsair P120 (3rd gen). I too thought the P60 would be a bit too low since the usable size aren't 60 but more like 48-50 GB. (Just checked. Corsair makes some P80's and OCZ made one also).

Depending on your daily chores on your computer and your choice of GPU the CPU is overkill. The main difference between i5 and i7 is that i7 have Hyper-threading enabled and i5 has not. Effectively making Windows think you have 8 cores instead of 4. - WoW cannot utilize more than 2 cores anyway and this is almost true for any other game. Only very VERY few uses 4 cores and when they do they do it poorly.

I currently have a Core 2 duo 3.0Ghz and AMD 4850 GPU. This computer suits my need and according to what you're looking at using your computer for it would much more likely that you would get much more from your setup if you spec a little less on the CPU and went with a larger GPU.

My new setup will have an AMD 6950 and i5-2500k which is more than enough for most games and I too only play Wow for the most part and once in a while some (alot) more demanding games.

[DarknessofFT]

considering when i play my FPS is locked at 60, i have no problem. you are aware that the human eye sees no difference in anything over 60fps...right? so framerate being your performance benchmark...not really a great argument. I'm aware in OTHER aspects, the i7 outperforms the P2x6, personally, i haven't seen any significant difference to make me pay 200+ more for it. The processes that I use it for (gaming, maya, adobe work, etc) run perky and without issue. Thats just me.

[Gandilf]

Ahem... Yeah, not a loss in performance...

WoW is VERY CPU demanding compared to many other games so the faster your CPU is the better performance you'll get.

However it's only half the story and GPU (of cause) have some effect too.

[glo]

considering when i play my FPS is locked at 60, i have no problem. you are aware that the human eye sees no difference in anything over 60fps...right? so framerate being your performance benchmark...not really a great argument. I'm aware in OTHER aspects, the i7 outperforms the P2x6, personally, i haven't seen any significant difference to make me pay 200+ more for it. The processes that I use it for (gaming, maya, adobe work, etc) run perky and without issue. Thats just me.

The human eye has no limits to what it can detect fps wise. It varies from person to person. Why do you think they're making 240hz tvs? Just for the hell of it?

[Gandilf]

The human eye has no limits to what it can detect fps wise. It varies from person to person. Why do you think they're making 240hz tvs? Just for the hell of it?

Tbh for the most part it really IS a marketing thingy. When we went from 50 to 100hz TVs there was a very real difference. This is not the case with 200 and even the 600hz TVs.

[DarknessofFT]

.:sigh:. i'm aware, what I said means, fluid motion is detected by the human eye over 30fps. Anything over the 30fps is STILL considered fluid motion and the eyes won't see a difference in the framerate your monitor is displaying because fluid motion is fluid motion. your eyes don't see in frames per second at all. I said "the human eye sees no difference in anything over 60fps" not "the human eye can only see up to 60fps". On top of that, if you're monitors refresh rate is 60hz and you're getting 120fps...guess what, those extra 60fps aren't actually being displayed.

[glo]

.:sigh:. i'm aware, what I said means, fluid motion is detected by the human eye over 30fps. Anything over the 30fps is STILL considered fluid motion and the eyes won't see a difference in the framerate your monitor is displaying because fluid motion is fluid motion. you eyes don't see in frames per second at all. I said "the human eye sees no difference in anything over 60fps" not "the human eye can only see up to 60fps". On top of that, if you're monitors refresh rate is 60hz and you're getting 120fps...guess what, those extra 60fps aren't actually being displayed.

I'm fully aware how refresh rates work. However, you can -easily- tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps. If you can't, then I don't know what to tell you. You're probably just trying to self justify a crappy computer rig that can't pull decent fps.

[DarknessofFT]

Clearly you're not, but that's fine. you know that feature films are all filmed at 24 fps, right? and as I said, my computer pulls 60fps at all times, thats exactly where i want it to be at. but hey, believe what you want. What i told you, its not opinion, its science. Look it up, if you think i'm making it up, then it just shows what you know.

i do enjoy you're troll tactics though, you must play a DK as your main...or maybe its a hunter, that would probably identify the chip on your shoulder and the inability to process information correctly.

[glo]

Tbh for the most part it really IS a marketing thingy. When we went from 50 to 100hz TVs there was a very real difference. This is not the case with 200 and even the 600hz TVs.

True to an extent, however higher refresh rates = less judder (jerkiness). Your brain may not be able to differentiate between all 240 frames for some subject matter, but for panning and fast movement there definitely is a difference.

I suggest you take a look at these TVs at an electronics store. It really is astounding. Things have an almost dream-like fluidity. It's hard to explain without seeing it.

[vesseblah]

Clearly you're not, but that's fine. you know that feature films are all filmed at 24 fps, right?

Actually, feature films are done at 48fps mostly on digital cameras.

24fps does not look bad on old films because there is high amount of motion blur, but 24fps on computer game looks bad since there's zero blur and the movement is not smooth enough to fool the eye.

[DarknessofFT]

all it did was remove motion blur. its a feature, you can turn it on and off like closed captioning.

---------- Post added 2011-08-02 at 12:58 PM ----------

Actually, feature films are done at 48fps mostly on digital cameras.

24fps does not look bad on old films because there is high amount of motion blur, but 24fps on computer game looks bad since there's zero blur and the movement is not smooth enough to fool the eye.

fair point.

[glo]

Clearly you're not, but that's fine. you know that feature films are all filmed at 24 fps, right? and as I said, my computer pulls 60fps at all times, thats exactly where i want it to be at. but hey, believe what you want. What i told you, its not opinion, its science. Look it up, if you think i'm making it up, then it just shows what you know.

i do enjoy you're troll tactics though, you must play a DK as your main...or maybe its a hunter, that would probably identify the chip on your shoulder and the inability to process information correctly.

This, coming from the same guy that's recommending Phenoms over i5 2500ks. I'm not even going to bother arguing.

You should really, really research persistence of vision and how the human eye works. We don't see in frames (this is common knowledge), we see in a constant flow of light. The more changes in light passed through our retinas = the more fluidity of our perceived vision.

You should really get informed before making ignorant posts and arguments. It just makes you look bad.

[Skelly]

Clearly you're not, but that's fine. you know that feature films are all filmed at 24 fps, right? and as I said, my computer pulls 60fps at all times, thats exactly where i want it to be at. but hey, believe what you want. What i told you, its not opinion, its science. Look it up, if you think i'm making it up, then it just shows what you know.

Look, all the regulars in this forum know what you're saying and we all know you're wrong. We've had the fps debate many times, and have to deal with people like you on a regular basis. You're the guy who suggested the 1100T, so its not like you have any credibility anyway.

[glo]

Look, all the regulars in this forum know what you're saying and we all know you're wrong. We've had the fps debate many times, and have to deal with people like you on a regular basis. You're the guy who suggested the 1100T, so its not like you have any credibility anyway.

Hey now! He's using "science", and we can't argue with that!

[DarknessofFT]

i think i said that we don't see in Frames Per Second...hmm wait, yea, I did. Yea, i suggested the 1100t, i have it, it works like a dream. I've suggested it to people I know and they have said the same thing. I like that you base my credibility on personal preference, when all you've done is repeat what I already said. It doesn't make you smarter than me to make a smarmy comment and wrap the information I've already posted around it. just sayin'.

actually, scroll up, i made it bold for you to read again, see how accommodating i am.

[glo]

i think i said that we don't see in Frames Per Second...hmm wait, yea, I did. Yea, i suggested the 1100t, i have it, it works like a dream. I've suggested it to people I know and they have said the same thing. I like that you base my credibility on personal preference, when all you've done is repeat what I already said. It doesn't make you smarter than me to make a smarmy comment and wrap the information I've already posted around it. just sayin'.

actually, scroll up, i made it bold for you to read again, see how accommodating i am.

You didn't personally recommend it, you made a statement as fact that it would do just as well as the i5 2500k, which is simply not true whatsoever. You then continued on in the thread and stated AGAIN as fact that "you realize the human eye can only see up to 60 fps". And again, that is simply not true at all.

You're not going to win this. I would just suggest that you stop posting and digging your hole.

[DarknessofFT]

I said the Human eye SEES NO DIFFERENCE, not it can only see up to...the human eye does NOT SEE IN FRAMES PER SECOND. I said that multiple times, if you're going to quote me, learn to read dude. If you play a video at 60 fps and a video at 120 fps, your eyes will not see a difference. And it was a recommendation, I said its not a loss in performance, to which you posted a FPS fact, to which i responded that FPS is hardly a benchmark if you lock at 60fps like I do. Yes, the Intel is better and outperforms in a lot of areas, depending on what you use it for, but the P2X6 is a good CPU that I have had no issues with for what I need it for...you completely missed most of my post as it seems as I stated all of this...oh yea, it must have been when you were trolling my post instead of reading it. I didn't start the argument, i mearly posted an opinion...i keep forgetting we're not allowed to have them...

[glo]

I said the Human eye SEES NO DIFFERENCE, not it can only see up to...the human eye does NOT SEE IN FRAMES PER SECOND. I said that multiple times, if you're going to quote me, learn to read dude.

This entire post contradicts itself. If you're saying the human eye doesn't see in fps, yet it can't see the difference between 60+fps video, then you're making no sense.

Just stop please...