so........dont forget the winchesters 5% IPC boost

[deception``]

Going off from deception heck im on S754 and laughin about the fact that Grov spent, about $320 more then i did and his oc is only 58mhz more then me...


I would have gone to S939 but i did S754 cuss 4 months ago S939 was expensive. Now i think its not a good choiice to go Winchester because i hear the new Venice cpu's will be a Winchester with a updated revision and SSE3. I really feal sorry for people who rushed the bandwagon and got a Winchester right when they came out cuss like 1 month later a newer revision with SSE3 is comming.

I didn't mean to say that people should laugh at him. On the contrary, I simply wanted him to understand that a) it was wrong for him to say what he said to Oc550 and b) he wouldn't be so happy if he was on the other side of the situation and someone else was mocking his choices.

deception``

 

[gvblake22]

Going off from deception heck im on S754 and laughin about the fact that Grov spent, about $320 more then i did and his oc is only 58mhz more then me...


I would have gone to S939 but i did S754 cuss 4 months ago S939 was expensive. Now i think its not a good choiice to go Winchester because i hear the new Venice cpu's will be a Winchester with a updated revision and SSE3. I really feal sorry for people who rushed the bandwagon and got a Winchester right when they came out cuss like 1 month later a newer revision with SSE3 is comming.

Will there be lower PR'd Venice CPU's (like 3000+ or 3200+) or just >4200+?

 

[Optimus Prime]

Going off from deception heck im on S754 and laughin about the fact that Grov spent, about $320 more then i did and his oc is only 58mhz more then me...


I would have gone to S939 but i did S754 cuss 4 months ago S939 was expensive. Now i think its not a good choiice to go Winchester because i hear the new Venice cpu's will be a Winchester with a updated revision and SSE3. I really feal sorry for people who rushed the bandwagon and got a Winchester right when they came out cuss like 1 month later a newer revision with SSE3 is comming.

well as for that I don't think it matters... I already have my mobo and I got my proc for 170... the damn thing was so cheap that in 3 months i can sell it for 90-100 and look at the 70-80bux i spent to have 939 worth every penny. My winny does great at 2.5 and it has dual ddr so i am very happy with it. As for those new chips... i assume that just like most other processors the pape launch will be in a month, the actual availablility will be some where near the end of january, and you'll prob be able to get them from newegg some where around mid Februrary. So like i said... my 25 dollars a month to have 939 right now and some upgrading options later... qwns.

 

[Grov]

Going off from deception heck im on S754 and laughin about the fact that Grov spent, about $320 more then i did and his oc is only 58mhz more then me...


I would have gone to S939 but i did S754 cuss 4 months ago S939 was expensive. Now i think its not a good choiice to go Winchester because i hear the new Venice cpu's will be a Winchester with a updated revision and SSE3. I really feal sorry for people who rushed the bandwagon and got a Winchester right when they came out cuss like 1 month later a newer revision with SSE3 is comming.

Im English, use proper money, not dollars.

I bought it cause i can, i have a well payed job. I also wasn't being dragged into the whole "you will definatly get this clock speed from a 3000+, etc", as my mobile was pretty disapointing. LOL your on watercooling, bit different, most A64's won't do your speeds. And you have a newcastle, so.......

Theres always something better out there, who cares, it's hardly much faster at all.

Anyways why the hell am i justifying my PC to you?

 

[Grov]

Ok i apologise about the post, it was a bit lame, but i was just trying to get my point across.

 

[CandymanCan]

On Air cooling 60c+ i can still get 2500mhz. All watercooling did was get rid of the noise from cpu fan and keep it cooler.

 

[Overclocker550]

LOL he NEEDS a WINCHESTER to push a modded 9700, LMAO!.

Hmmmmmmmmmm, yeah really great thinking there.

DO you play any games, are you a benchmark geek, no offense but come on, a Newcastle at 2.5ghz is fast, that is if it's actually stable at that and you want to get a new cpu/board memory for 5% increase.

So you'll need 2.4ghz at least then. Who says it will reach that, not all do.

A x800/6800 will give you a lot more of a boost than 5%, probably 205%

I hope it goes wrong, so we can all laugh at your noobness.

my cpu is way too slow for an x800 or 6800, it will be bottlenecked so bad I wont be using most of the cards power. Like putting a lawnmower engine in a jet. the x800/6800 is the jet and my cpu is the lawnpower trying to push the jet. I have checked reviews and believe it or not, an a64 and 9800xt will kill a 3200+ barton and x800xt in farcry among other games without aa/af and I dont care for aa/af! Let me back it up:


http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjMyLDI=


****************On the AMD platforms we do notice a pattern right off the bat. Performance improves so much in this game with faster CPUs that we are able to run at higher resolutions and in-game settings as the CPU speed scales up.

Let’s first take a look at the graph representing performance on the AthlonXP “Barton” 2500+ platform. All three of these video cards were severely being held back in this game with this CPU. Not only did we have to drop the resolution on each video card, but we also had to lower the in-game settings in order to get playable performance on this platform.

With the GeForce 6800Ultra we had to set the in-game settings of Particle Count, Environment, and Shadows to “High” instead of “Very High”. We also had to turn down the water from “Ultra High” to “Very High”. With these settings at 1024x768 2XAA/8XAF, we achieved playable performance in this game.

We also found setting Particle Count, Environment, and Shadow quality to “High” and Water on “Very High” were the best settings for the Radeon X800XT-PE as well. However, the X800XT-PE was able to run at 1280x1024 with 2XAA and 8XAF smoothly. Basically at the same performance of the 6800Ultra, the X800XT-PE was able to run with a higher resolution setting.

With the X800Pro we had to set Particle Count and Environment to “High”, but for the Shadows we had to set them to “Medium” and set Water to “Very High”. At these settings we found 1024x768 with 2XAA and 8XAF to be the best settings in this game, and performance was generally faster than a 6800Ultra, though the shadows are one notch below the shadow level on the 6800Ultra.

On the Athlon64 platforms we were able to run the game at its maximum in-game settings on all three cards. Looking at the Athlon64 3000+ at 2.45GHz, the results we see are a large improvement over the AthlonXP 2500+. We are able to run the 6800Ultra and X800Pro at 1280x1024 with 2XAA and 8XAF and experience higher performance compared to the results we saw on the AthlonXP 2500+. The X800XT-PE is able to run at 1600x1200 with 2XAA and 8XAF. Basically what we have with the X800XT-PE is the same performance of the 6800Ultra at a higher resolution.

On the Athlon64 3500+ Socket 939 system the same pattern remains, with the X800XT-PE able to run at a higher resolution and the 6800Ultra being on par with the X800Pro.***********


see this? the barton is such a bottleneck, you need to lower the res and details to make it smooth. Believe it or not, a faster cpu is responsable for letting you make the most of the card, thus running it at 1600x1200. With a winchester, I can push my softmodded 9500np pretty good and raise the details a notch or two higher than what I could do now with this cpu. There is no point getting a faster card, mine is plenty fast, I already upgraded my ti4200 to a 9500np which I modded to a 9700pro! I gotta keep a balance not to create bottlenecks. slower cpus get slower gpus, faster cpus go nice with 9700s and 9800s. Tomorrows cpus will push the x800s and 6800s better.


an excerpt:

http://www.pcstats.com/NewsView.cfm?NewsID=37722

I also have seen benchmarks where a 9800xt and a64 crushes an athlonxp and x800xt for the reasons percisely stated above. I know I dont game much but I will get into gaming more when I get my winchester and run 1600x1200 I know I really enjoy 3dmark 2001 too, that I cant deny but you know very well my real world gaming will improve and not just 3dmark

 

[Gautam]

my cpu is way too slow for an x800 or 6800, it will be bottlenecked so bad I wont be using most of the cards power.

No crap, but it would still be loads faster than a 9700, which will on the other hand bottleneck your processor.

Also the proc bottleneck disappears past 2.5-2.6 gigs usually.

 

[Vengance_01]

my cpu is way too slow for an x800 or 6800, it will be bottlenecked so bad I wont be using most of the cards power. Like putting a lawnmower engine in a jet. the x800/6800 is the jet and my cpu is the lawnpower trying to push the jet. I have checked reviews and believe it or not, an a64 and 9800xt will kill a 3200+ barton and x800xt in farcry among other games without aa/af and I dont care for aa/af! Let me back it up:


http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjMyLDI=


****************On the AMD platforms we do notice a pattern right off the bat. Performance improves so much in this game with faster CPUs that we are able to run at higher resolutions and in-game settings as the CPU speed scales up.

Let’s first take a look at the graph representing performance on the AthlonXP “Barton” 2500+ platform. All three of these video cards were severely being held back in this game with this CPU. Not only did we have to drop the resolution on each video card, but we also had to lower the in-game settings in order to get playable performance on this platform.

With the GeForce 6800Ultra we had to set the in-game settings of Particle Count, Environment, and Shadows to “High” instead of “Very High”. We also had to turn down the water from “Ultra High” to “Very High”. With these settings at 1024x768 2XAA/8XAF, we achieved playable performance in this game.

We also found setting Particle Count, Environment, and Shadow quality to “High” and Water on “Very High” were the best settings for the Radeon X800XT-PE as well. However, the X800XT-PE was able to run at 1280x1024 with 2XAA and 8XAF smoothly. Basically at the same performance of the 6800Ultra, the X800XT-PE was able to run with a higher resolution setting.

With the X800Pro we had to set Particle Count and Environment to “High”, but for the Shadows we had to set them to “Medium” and set Water to “Very High”. At these settings we found 1024x768 with 2XAA and 8XAF to be the best settings in this game, and performance was generally faster than a 6800Ultra, though the shadows are one notch below the shadow level on the 6800Ultra.

On the Athlon64 platforms we were able to run the game at its maximum in-game settings on all three cards. Looking at the Athlon64 3000+ at 2.45GHz, the results we see are a large improvement over the AthlonXP 2500+. We are able to run the 6800Ultra and X800Pro at 1280x1024 with 2XAA and 8XAF and experience higher performance compared to the results we saw on the AthlonXP 2500+. The X800XT-PE is able to run at 1600x1200 with 2XAA and 8XAF. Basically what we have with the X800XT-PE is the same performance of the 6800Ultra at a higher resolution.

On the Athlon64 3500+ Socket 939 system the same pattern remains, with the X800XT-PE able to run at a higher resolution and the 6800Ultra being on par with the X800Pro.***********


see this? the barton is such a bottleneck, you need to lower the res and details to make it smooth. Believe it or not, a faster cpu is responsable for letting you make the most of the card, thus running it at 1600x1200. With a winchester, I can push my softmodded 9500np pretty good and raise the details a notch or two higher than what I could do now with this cpu. There is no point getting a faster card, mine is plenty fast, I already upgraded my ti4200 to a 9500np which I modded to a 9700pro! I gotta keep a balance not to create bottlenecks. slower cpus get slower gpus, faster cpus go nice with 9700s and 9800s. Tomorrows cpus will push the x800s and 6800s better.


an excerpt:

http://www.pcstats.com/NewsView.cfm?NewsID=37722

I also have seen benchmarks where a 9800xt and a64 crushes an athlonxp and x800xt for the reasons percisely stated above. I know I dont game much but I will get into gaming more when I get my winchester and run 1600x1200 I know I really enjoy 3dmark 2001 too, that I cant deny but you know very well my real world gaming will improve and not just 3dmark

GRRR Tbird, I really give up. Even with an A64 your 9500 Flashed 9700 card is gonna choke on any new game at 1600-1200 un-less you really like 20-25FPS in games where imo 45 is around a good decent fps for most.

 

[mustrum]

I just bought a 3200+ winchester and it should be here by ext week but just for your information: The 6800 GT@ULTRA runs extremely smooth with any resolution or anythign i throw at it together with my 2.45ghz barton.
Bottlenecked? Well the card will perform better on the winchester but the ULTRA with my barton is still twice as fast as a 9700 in an OCed 3ghz FX55!
There's allways some sort of bottleneck. The question is how bad it is and a 9700 PRO on a high clocked AMD64 is just a horrible bottleneck!
I know you don't play games. I wrote this to the guys that think a barton +x800 or 6800 is a bad combo. IT ISN'T!!!!!!
There's no game out there i couldn't play at high resolution +4xAA.

Why did i upgrade then? In about 6 months my barton + mobo combo isn't worth anything. Right now i can sell it quite well still. It's cheaper to upgrade now since the 3200+ winchester wont drop that low in 6 months.
I saw this with my 2500+: It's 10 bucks cheaper than it was when i bought it 14 months ago!
10 bucks!
The winchester was 189€. I highly doubt it will drop below 150 anytime soon.

 

[Grov]

my cpu is way too slow for an x800 or 6800, it will be bottlenecked so bad I wont be using most of the cards power.

I read this, and i stopped reading.

Your full of complete and utter bull **** man.

Your CPU is as fast a FX-53 basically. It's a bottleneck?

Please do us all a favour, and shut up.

 

[Grov]

Ok you bring up that link and start talking about the Barton 3200 being a bottleneck?

What the hell?

You have an A64 at 2.5ghz+

Your an idiot.

 

[fateshammer]

Ok you bring up that link and start talking about the Barton 3200 being a bottleneck?

What the hell?

You have an A64 at 2.5ghz+

Your an idiot.

With all due respect, I don't think that last comment was totally necessary. Please leave him be. Regardless how he annoys most in this thread, being harsh won't take any discussion into sane levels. Thank you.

 

[mustrum]

With all due respect, I don't think that last comment was totally necessary. Please leave him be. Regardless how he annoys most in this thread, being harsh won't take any discussion into sane levels. Thank you.

I agree. No need to call him names! He's totaly wrong obviously but no need to call him an idiot.

 

[spazzmattah]

LOL he NEEDS a WINCHESTER to push a modded 9700, LMAO!.

Hmmmmmmmmmm, yeah really great thinking there.

DO you play any games, are you a benchmark geek, no offense but come on, a Newcastle at 2.5ghz is fast, that is if it's actually stable at that and you want to get a new cpu/board memory for 5% increase.

So you'll need 2.4ghz at least then. Who says it will reach that, not all do.

A x800/6800 will give you a lot more of a boost than 5%, probably 205%

I hope it goes wrong, so we can all laugh at your noobness.

Come on now, we all have our own cup of tea. And this is his, can't just accept that? If not, just ignore it.