The New System [HD Enabled]

[zlyvex]

Most newer systems with the newer nvidia cards can get graphics like this but those fps's kick azz. Love it when u went into maximum speed in Warhead that sht is fcn fast as hell. My system can run similar looking graphics but the speed of this and smoothness goes far beyond it. Excellent job.

[Ps3PlayerSammyRawR]

i Dont Have Full Version And I Cant Seem To Record. Anyone Help me?

[dufur55]

Wow man your completely into hardcore PC gaming.

I'm stuck with my PC until I graduate. I still have 3 years left until I'm 16 and I have 5 years until I graduate.

My computer Specs:

AVG 7600 gs 512 VRAM

1GB RAM

AMD 2.60 Ghz single-core processor

500 GB hard drive

I'm tired of my PC, but its all I got for another 3 years.

Then I'm going to try to get the best Alien Ware laptop there is.

Its going to be so fun.

[TheGGES]

wooo i got 4 years man

but luckly i got a beast :P

[CobraGMW2]

@dufur55 what makes you think that.

Alienware is crap btw

[ANiggaNamedShaquil]

i tryd to play this game with a geforce 7800 GT, 1 gig of ram, 500W, 160 gig hdd it was a failure

[TheAnonymouz]

An extra GB of RAM would greatly reduce or eliminate game stuttering and improve FPS. Depending on your CPU, you should then be able to handle Medium at pretty good FPS.

[ANiggaNamedShaquil]

thx :D, sadly my motherboard died :,(

[TheAnonymouz]

That sucks. The ironic thing is that my motherboard just died too. Fortunately I actually had a backup motherboard that I bought a year ago that I thought was defective, but have since fixed the issue.

[ANiggaNamedShaquil]

so lucky, i cant even find mine in stcok any more.

[evankowalski]

I can play it mixed medium-high-tweaked on a 7600 GS 2 gigs DDRII 533 ram 500W 320 gig HDD with around 40 most of the time

Life is great

[ANiggaNamedShaquil]

Lucky! lol, my cousin had a dual core 1.5, same size hDD, 750W, 4gigs of ram and a geforce 8 series and his comp had problems playing it

[evankowalski]

I'm not really sure why since it's AGP8x and the motherboard is from the late 90s

[ANiggaNamedShaquil]

U SERIOUS!! i didnt know that shit was that old, so shud i jus buy the same mobo again or completely rebuild?

[alltimegamer247]

dule core 1.5 is not that good for gameing

[YetAnotherProg]

i had lower specs. my pc choked i loled

[TheAnonymouz]

Nice rig. I disagree with your theory on hard disks. With 6GB of your RAM, the page cache is going to be populated with game files. Your RAM is going to do more reads than your actual disk is. Especially with Superfetch, since instead of the disk having to first access the files and placing them into your RAM, Superfetch fills it for you whenever RAM is unused. I'm unconvinced that with that amount of RAM that the hard disk is going to make a difference in game stuttering levels & load times.

[TheAnonymouz]

The confusing this is that cached RAM is reported as "free" RAM with the NT kernal, with the exception of Vista at least having a "Cached" figure in Task Manager. As demonstrated when turning off SuperFetch, your unused RAM is cached eventually (but Supefetch does it faster because it looks for iifnromation). As mentioned, wtih 6GB of RAM, the hard disk is redundant, save maybe for boot-up times, but I noticed no real difference between the VelociRaptor and a standard 7,200RPM disk in OS bootup.

[Gamez4eveR]

i'm planning on getting a new PC, but i can't decide, whether to buy a GTX285, or a GTX295.

[lagartixaphone]

me too that's my main problem. but i think i'll go with the 285 cause i have a 22 inch monitor so you can see he is playing crysis at good frames and he is using 1920x1200 resolution and the max i'm going to use is 1680x1050 so yeah

[Gamez4eveR]

I have some questions:

1. Is there a 2GB version of the GTX285??

2. How overclockable is the intel core i7 920???

3. Will the core i7 bottleneck a GTX285?

please reply!!

[Smuczerproductions]

no, wont tell, and ya if its overclocked.

happy?

[gamingUSA]

Just buy a fucking pc over 2000 dollar and you fuckiing don't have to worry about overclock and bla bla bla, stop the fucking bitching, youtube is not a fucking forum box.

[TheAnonymouz]

1. Don't think so.

2. Very. A lot of people get 4.0GHZ on air.

3. No

[0sebastiank0]

YEAH MAN! Yesterday I ordered an i7 system, nearly similar to yours. - Antec 1200 - Corsair HX1000w - Asus P6T Deluxe v2 - Core i7 920 @ 2,66 Ghz - Corsair Dominator DHX+ DDR3 1600MHz 6GB - Asus GTX 285 - Samsung 750 GB Spinpoint F1 - DVD Brenner, Samsung - Noctua NH-U12P SE1366 - Windows Vista Home Premium English 64-bit Got an HP w2408h also. Thought of buying another GTX 285 but it seems I can run crysis great anyway. Thnx so much for sharing m8

[Flamie12]

Nice!!!!!!!!!!

[englishrule54]

SLI (2 GTX 285) is good only if you play with 2 monitors. So that way you get the advantage to play in 2 screen for your 2 eyes without the loss of performance. If you only have a single monitor and you have 2 video cards in SLI you will not noticed a significant increase of performance and end up with problems.

[TheAnonymouz]

Nice rig, but 1000W is kind of overboard. You would only safely need between 500 and 600W. The most important thing to look at is the ampage on the 12V rail(s).

[0sebastiank0]

Yeah I know 1000w is much, but I know it will be future-proof and I can add a second gtx 285 if I want. :)

[englishrule54]

Vista is total garbage. I have Windows 7 RC right now and all the problems I had with Vista are all gone. More XP compatible. Only deamon-tool is incompatible so far but I used Power-iso and works great.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

A lot of hate on an OS is due to ignorance. If you you were open to knowledge of how said OS works (TGTC provides) you would know why I question your severe compatibility issues.

You may as well say Ubuntu is garbage because it can't use DirectX without Wine which takes extreme work to configure properly. It is 99.9% the time the applications fault if it is not updated to work with a new OS. Daemon Tools does not work with Windows 7, Daemon Tools has not been updated to work with Windows 7.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

So hence is Windows 7 not working with Daemon Tools a Windows 7 issue? Of course not. The SPTD driver and Daemon Tools itself simply are not made to be compatible with the new, currently in *beta *stage, Windows 7. Which is the dillema you face with *one* application you speak about for your buisness in the medical field and hence judge the quality of a whole OS based on the lack of that application supporting Windows Vista properly

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

What of all the games Koroush plays on WinVista? How he demonstrated the responsiveness of Vista even when recording FRAPS on a system built in 2005, everything opens up instantly and not a single hickup even though FRAPS is busy writing the recorded video to the disk in real-time. Windows Vista is not a monstrous OS and there are *many* improvements over Windows XP which makes me use it because of those *improvements*. Why are you using Windows XP? You should use Win98SE if you feel that way

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

Improved I/O management, SuperFetch RAM cache, improved IRQ management, a nicer GUI, compatibility improvements, UAC, new driver foundation for better driver compatibility and stability, built in Windows Update, better networking, etc. A seller for me.

[englishrule54]

You tell me that I speak ignorance? Look at you.

It is very important to keep XP. I dual boot XP and Windows 7 build 7068 RC and I am now happy. Vista was garbage, son.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

It is not important to keep XP.

You are the ignorant one.

[englishrule54]

I tested the medical applications with Windows 7. guess what? A success. Was working. Deamon tool just need and update. I use power-ISO anyway. Work great. These are very exeptional programs you know. berely illegal. So I don't worry if they are the only incompatible program so far.

[englishrule54]

I know my English is bad, I am french.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

I wasn't commenting on your English :))

[englishrule54]

My nick name said that I think that English is the best language but that doesn't mean I am English native but I am willing to improve it and stop any french improvement.

[BeyondResolution]

LMAO....Dude, that's so messed up! Have pride in who you are, man. It's ok to learn another language, but your native tongue always comes first! Remember that.

[englishrule54]

There is a website on Microsoft. who tell you what applications on XP that are not compatible with Vista. Please, you are fooling yourself. Stop it.

As I said. Windows 7 is more XP compatible and of course 100% vista compatible.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

LInk.

[englishrule54]

I can't give your the link in youtube. They will automatically delete my reply. Go to Microsoft and then vista then compatibility center.

Windows 7 does not have a compatibility center yet but some programs that didn't work on Vista now works on Windows 7. The medicals one for the x-ray.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

That does not mean it is Vista's fault because it is usually the programs fault. for not supporting the OS properly. A lot of applications were broken from Win98SE > WinXP because they did not yet support, and indeed, up until this day *never* did support WinXP.

Can you tell me this specific medical application so I can try it on my Vista install?

[englishrule54]

Efilm workstation by merge health care.

Expensive stuff. Many NASA applications not compatible also if you look on Vista compatibility center.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

Ok.

[englishrule54]

A lot of games are incompatible with Vista

and when they are compatible they have more issues than XP. Look at microsoft/windows/compatibilit­y website for more details.

Vista is a stupid piece of trash. Sorry but I reinstalled it again and I am again unhappy.

Vista is just not for gamer and not for the medical field yet. efilm xray are not vista compatible at all!.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

Most of your "compatibility" issues are due to system and user errors and nothing to do with the OS. I played StarCraft on Vista x64. You need to make sure you run those specific games as administrator and in XP compatibility mode. It is sickening that people are so ignorant to the lengths that Vista goes due for compatibly. Such as Symbolic Links and Directory Junctions. For your "Efilm Xray" find an update or another program that isn't a P.O.S if it can't support a new OS.

[englishrule54]

The medical field paid 2000$ for this software all over America. They will not update it tommorow.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

It would also to be smart to make sure you have installed SP1 and all the latest Windows updates, as well have the latest drivers for each component.

Not a single

compatibility/stability/perfor­mance issue to date. Infact those three sections are all improved over Windows XP.

[englishrule54]

I have all updated,

I have a website link but youtube will  block it.

They have hundreds of applications that they admitted being incompatible and so many games.

It is not user error. Take a look on the Microsoft website section vista compatibility.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

Koroush claims optimizing a PC with carefully chosen and maintained, un-overclocked hardware with a thoroughly and responsibly optimized and maintained OS install should experience no system errors at all. I have done just that and I always get some sort of occasional crash, it just *has* to happen for me. Most of them are NVIDIA related and hence I rollback but some are just odd. I have tested all my hardware with stressful benchmarks and I reinstall quite often. My luck might just suck!

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

In no way do I claim Koroush lies or that TGTC sucks, it's just my experience and TGTC always reduces the chance for stability issues and I highly recommend reading it word for word. (Well, maybe skip some boring things : ))

[Hunger4Power]

303 stimpacks !!

did u use cheat codes by any chance or are u just a pro gamer ??

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

I wouldn't call him a "pro" gamer but he does actually "play" the game :P

[geeknproud2110]

Nice work Koroush. Excellent build from a parts-matching and design viewpoint. Though I'm not a big fan of the Nvidia GTX200 series XD

Awesomely epic build though. Great work, really great work.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

What do you prefer? HD4000 series?

[geeknproud2110]

Yes. I want an HD4870 soon :)

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

What I read wasn't very good for the HD4000 series stability wise, I know it is up to Catalyst 9.3 but it still seems even worse than the problems I have with NVIDIA 18x.xx drivers.

[geeknproud2110]

I've read the opposite from other people. Nvidia having the bad driver support. So mileage may vary.

[englishrule54]

His machine is more stable however. Sometime my machine drop to 25 FPS in some places on Warhead. Games like Fallout I get 60FPS evrywhere all max.. World in confilct I get 20 FPS minimum can go up to 60 FPS in average.

* 20 FPS from the benchmark nuclear nuke. That game is worse than Crysis for performance. I tell ya.

[englishrule54]

Not bad but I am not impressed for a Quad core second generation and SLI (2) 295 GTX..

It should go like 120 FPS in my mind.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

What are you talking about? He is using a single GTX285.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

Technically it is the *First Intel* quad-core generation. The old quad cores are two dual cores and not true quad core.

[englishrule54]

Whatever, Quad core is not good for gaming. Best use for servers.

I stick with duo core at 3.2 GHZ for now.

Waiting for a 4GHZ processor until I will upgrade.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

Quad Core is future proof, it's the same thing as when Dual-Core first came out, barely anything used the two cores and as such a lot of people stuck with the single cores. The whole point of multiple cores is that we hit a limit of 3GHZ because a lot of voltage is needed to get a 100% rock solid 4GHZ, as such it makes them run HOT. So it will take a while to get that 4GHZ. Quad-Core is once, again, future proof. Overtime everything will be quad-core optimized.

[englishrule54]

Only the future will tell, but for now 2.6GHz quad core is shit compare to a 3.2GHz dual on games.

I repeat, on games. You think you are smarter than me? You don't know me.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

"Only the future will tell, but for now 2.6GHz quad core is shit compare to a 3.2GHz dual on games.

I repeat, on games. "

I repeat, it was the same thing with dual-cores, and I ment gaming.

That 2.6GHZ quad core will own that 3.2GHZ dual core in quad-optimized games like UT3 and GTAIV. It is future proof.

[englishrule54]

You are wrong because dual core was good only when they released the 3GHZ one.

Same shit with Quad core.2.3 GHZ will end up in the toilet and you will have to upgrade for a 3GHZ.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

"You are wrong because dual core was good only when they released the 3GHZ one.".

Wrong. The "3GHZ one" was the E8400, that is very recent dual core. When the Athlon X2's came out (4400+-- 5000+ series) dual-core was still very early. When Intel came out with the E6600 (that WASN'T 3GHZ) everything started to be much more optimized for dual-core. Clock speed does not make THAT much of a difference.

Also there are already quad cores that are 3GHZ stock and higher.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

And I'm not saying just around the E6600, dual-core started becoming more major before that.

For example the Q6600 overclocks beautifully to 3GHZ without issue.

[englishrule54]

I hate overclocking but thanks for the offer.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

So do I. I am just saying.

[englishrule54]

black edition Quad core are 3GHZ but too much expensive.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

the i7 extreme is 3.2GHZ and expensive.

An i7 920 is 2.6GHZ and is faster than your dual-coare @ 3.2GHZ due to a completely new architecture, especially in a quad-core optimized game.

[englishrule54]

I get the same FPS than him with a duo core maybe even more.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

a res of 1920x1200 with *DX10* and not *DX9*?

[englishrule54]

DX9

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

He is also using FRAPS which *does* reduce FPS by half.

[englishrule54]

We only see 30 FPS on youtube even on HD.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

Yeah but if it's cut in half, there is greater potential to drop below 30FPS and to add stuttering and other stuff such as that.

[englishrule54]

I remember now. It was when they released the 2.66 dual core that it started to be fine.

i7 is the second generation of Quad

like Phenom 2.

I use everest for benchmark and it tell me that they have already tested 16X core. So it will never go up to 3 GHz unfortunately.

AMD had a 6400+ at 3.2 GHZ they stop selling them because they burn.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

Yeah mate. That is why we have multi-core CPU's. 3GHZ was the limit before the dual-core, I'm sure we *could* possibly have gotten single cores to 4GHZ but the voltages would be high and the temperatures would be high.

With multiple cores we can have lower voltages and clock speed and yet better performance than the high-clocked single cores, provided the specific application supports multiple cores (most do).

[englishrule54]

Even a 2314543 cores will never beat a stable 4GHZ on games.

Multi-core are best use for server. DO I look like I use my computer as a server?

A single processor at 4GHZ can beat a Quad at 2.6GHZ anytime. The only reason I upgraded my computer for a duo core was for the PCI-express slot for my video and sound cards.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

You *are* an idiot.

1. It depends if the display drivers are multi-core optimized.

2. Depends if the OS is multi-core optimized.

3. Depends if the game is multi-core optimized.

Let's say we have a 3.0GHZ 16 core CPU with OS, drivers and a game that utilizes them 100%. You will see A BIG performance gain over a 4GHZ single-core. You are just wrong.

[englishrule54]

You are just wrong. I forget to mention also that Vista has no more EAX support. It just plain sux.

* I do know about Alchemy but it just works better on XP. Plain and simple.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

Vista removes HLA because it is a security issue. Vista actually has *better* sound even though it is a software buffer, making onboard a much better choice than before.

Performance on the OS depends on the drivers, updates to the OS and the tweaks done to the OS, so you cannot base an OS from person to person on that. However you are 100% wrong on the multi-core issue, it depends on the game. If the game uses them then it will own any single core and it is just a fact.

[geeknproud2110]

Yes the OS uses better sound technology, but it is also incompatible with my older X-Fi card, so give and take. Windows 7 fixed this issue BTW. It's more than a change to the GUI. They fixed loads of problems and bugs from Vista.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

I don't see many problems or bugs with Vista. In my opinion, the complete removal of hardware buffer was a design choice and not a "flaw".

[geeknproud2110]

Oh I though Vista was cool. I liked it a lot and thought it had a lot of great features. And it IS relatively bug free compared to XP at release. But it had a few specific problems for me that kept me from using it. I have it on a separate drive though for DX 10 games. But I use XP as my main OS.

[englishrule54]

Well said.

Now I use Window 7 as secondary.

Like I do will all beta or suspicious OS.

XP will stay my main OS for a long time.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

I find it funny how this is the only HD youtube video that doesn't go green for a second when I click watch in HD.

[Hunger4Power]

lol

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

Honestly, everyone elses HD videos lag and or fill with green for about a second before being watchable.

[Mahoyomako]

i have a high-end machine but dont have dx10

[Hunger4Power]

then how the hell is it high end :P

[geeknproud2110]

because you can run Dx10 components on Windows XP with Dx9 and get better performance. Windows 7 may change that though.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

Are you kidding me?

1: High-end graphics card *WILL* have DX10. There is no truly high end graphics card that just has DX9.

2. You can set it to DX9 and do "Cheap" or Real Very High with DX9 on Vista too.

3. You do not know what you are talking about. You will not gain like 15FPS over Vista with Windows XP. That is utter B.S. There are many superior things to XP that *will* make Vista perform better overall. Whether it be game or daily OS usage.

[englishrule54]

XP is faster than Vista.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

A dumb statement due to ignorance and lack of knowledge. I will continue the XP vs Vista argument in PM's. I sent you a long opening argument via PM.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

I don't know why I said IGNORANCE and lack of knowledge there when they are tied together, lol.

[englishrule54]

Ignorance? I get 10 FPS more on Crisis. This is the truth. You are bullshit. I tryed Vista SP1 and all you said are only theories because in actually real world experience it is not faster than XP.

As for the firewall I use COmodo and spyware doctor. Even On Vista I recommend these 2 terrific protection. You have been fooled. admit it.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

User error.

Comodo is a horrible firewall, and Spyware Doctor I wouldn't recommend as a scanner. They use up CPU time, RAM and I/O reads and writes. Windows Vista's built-in Firewall is good, especially since it blocks proper OUTGOING connections like your Comodo will unlike Windows XP's default.

You are basing the OS's performance off of one FPS game. You did not mention what patch you were using, what display drivers, what hardware, what chipset drivers, sound drivers, etc.

[englishrule54]

Have fun with spywares without it. I use anti-malwares also.

Spyware doctor can easy be disactivated white I play a game and re-activated. OK enough. I don't have time to teach you stuff, son.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

Read the Windows Vista and Windows XP TGTC, I follow it to heart. You do not need residence protection reducing performance and stability. I have 100% full-blown malware protection. You're calling me "son" which you are placing yourself superior to me.

I scan weekly with: A-Squared 4.0, AVG 8.5, Ad-Aware 2008 AE. They are all tweaked to use minimal resource usage, nothing runs from them because of this. Example, the A-Squared service can be disabled and retain 100% functionality.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

Windows Vista with UAC & Firewall 100% enabled, along with Mozilla Firefox tweaked and with NoScript, 3 excellent scanners to remove all malware that I might have has worked well for my 10 years of computing. I suffer no performance or reliability loss because of this.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

If you tested this with early NVIDIA drivers that is understandable but I will say this: You are being full of *****. With the latest NVIDIA display drivers Windows Vista runs Crysis equal to and in some cases better. Again you cannot base OS performance off of one FPS game.

[englishrule54]

I tested it with many games. Always slower than XP. never faster. Had more crash too.

Directx 10 was a stupid joke poor improvment for a major performance hit.

Even on directx 9 on Vista was not as good as XP.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

"Had more crash too."

Crashes are user error. I never get a single crash on Windows XP or Windows Vista. User error, once again.

[englishrule54]

User error, true. I fixed the problem with XP.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

I run Windows Vista 32 SP1 everyday and almost all day without a single hickup, crash or performance issue. Your problem is due to an un-optimized system and not with Windows Vista itself

[englishrule54]

I sended back my garbage Vista to the store and asked for a downgrade right. Now with XP I am more than happy. I still have updates from microsoft. Will have support until 2014. I will wait for Window 7.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

Yeah, no service packs, some minor security fixes. Windows 7 is no difference than Vista. They all have the same:

Improved ACPI managemnet

Improved I/O mangement

SuperFetch RAM cache

UAC

HLA removed

DirectoryJunctions & Symbolic links to ensure maximum reliability

Windows Update built-in.

Same stuff, re-worked interface, very slightly cut down kernal.

[englishrule54]

I will stick with XP then. Windows 7 is only beta for now. You maybe right but it is beta. Future will tell.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

Windows 7 is in RC now, actually. The jump from Vista > Windows 7 will not be very major. Windows 7 has no performance and reliability gains. Because Vista already has rock solid performance and reliability.

[englishrule54]

Window 7 no performance gain? You definitively out of tracks.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

Objective facts please. Vista already has major performance gains due to the ACPI management being wonderfully better and reducing IRQ conflicts greatly. The I/O management accepting HDD requests effectively and throttling background tasks while needed. The RAM cache reading off the disk and caching files into RAM for greatly improved responsiveness that Windows XP does not have.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

To give an idea, a standard set of PC6400 RAM can transfer at 2.2GB's a second if you use a RAM disk out of it. A standard 7,200RPM drive gets like 10-15MB/S transfer rate.

[englishrule54]

??? My SATA 2 HD get 80 MB/s 7.000 RPM.

You know what?

Ultra SCSI was faster than SATA 2.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

80MB/s, nice. My VelociRaptor can achieve 120MB/s and it still stands that a cheap set of RAM gets 2.2GB/S. Also your 7,200RPM will have around a 15MS access time, RAM is just instant (0.0MS), which is most important for gaming and application launch times.

[englishrule54]

I believe you but I am fine for now with 80mb/s.

Now significant shuttering.

Processor speed is the bottle neck for now. I would like 4GHZ

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

Significant stuttering is a HDD issue, and as such the bottleneck is your hard disk. I get no FPS dips or stuttering in ALL games with my VelociRaptor as an OS drive and a SSD as a game drive. That is with my E2200 at a stock of 2.2GHZ.

[englishrule54]

I was saying not significant stuttering.

I mispelled "not" with "now"

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

Is this silly dispute over now? :P

Sorry for any harsh words tossed out, I call everyone an "idiot", "fucktard", etc. If you have any specific points to pick out, it's better in PM's. The comment & character limit is annoying.

Take care, mate.

[geeknproud2110]

The jump isn't major. But the performance IS proven better. It's not by much, but it is faster than XP AND Vista.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

If you cannot reinstall the OS by yourself, why am I debating with someone like you? You obviously have little knowledge on anything, hardware and software both.

[englishrule54]

I can do more than you thank you. I bet you can't install in RAID, VIsta still have no fucking SATA/RAID driver. Have to slipstream them or do it on a USB key.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

Installing RAID drivers does not make you knowledgeable. I am using AHCI right now and I had to download and extract the drivers onto the USB.

Windows XP doesn't have RAID or AHCI drivers either, idiot. AND YOU NEED A FLOPPY DISK TO DO IT ON WINDOWS XP. Windows Vista lets you do it on a USB.

[englishrule54]

I slipstreamed my driver on XP.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

That's one way of doing thing's, I don't care having it on my USB anyways, it saves me from having to burn Windows on another disk that's not the official one.

[englishrule54]

I hope they will fix that and insert the driver in Windows 7. Intel matrix and AMD sata/raid

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

There's also NVIDIA, and they all usually make specific drivers for each specific motherboard, it would add quite a bit to the size of the install.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

DX10 is fine, developers do not utilize it.

[englishrule54]

No it is not fine, it is a joke. Windows 7 has directx 11. Directx was a flop.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

Give some objective facts other than reading what the idiots say about DX10. DirectX 10 has better multi-core support and other performance enhancing features, and a definite noticeable image quality gain in all games. The developers do not utilize it at all. For example if you enable DX10 in a UT3 engine game you will see less visual difference than on Crysis. You are again, wrong.

[englishrule54]

DX10 is slower. shut up already. I tested it myself.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

You are not reading what I am saying at all. It depends on the developers using it. DX10 has the potential. to perform and look better than DX9.

[geeknproud2110]

Agreed. Especially in Far Cry 2 I saw better performance in Dx 10 than in Dx 9. But so far Direct X 10 has proven pretty useless as far as visuals go.

[englishrule54]

Noticable difference?

I can play Crysis warhead on XP at euthusiam without any tweak. ( I had to do a litle correction to get the very high on the original crysis )

That has nothing to do with DX10. fool

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

I can play Crysis non-WARHEAD on Very High with tweaks on DX9 because I know how to edit the CVARgroups thanks to the Crysis TweakGuide. You mentioned DX10 so I am talking about DX10, also. You're an idiot.

[geeknproud2110]

Right. The idea of Direct X 10 was to improve performance and scalability for games. The eye candy can already be done with Direct X 9 but, theoretically, 10 will perform better and use high end setups better. It's only that the developers aren't using it. Multi-core support is a big plus. For example, Crysis in Direct X 10 shows bigger gains from quad cores than Direct X 9.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

Of course you could also of been using an ATI card and again it is understandable if you were using the earlier ATI Catalyst. However you should follow Koroush's TGTC on both Vista and XP and ultimately the results in gaming should be identical / or better with Windows Vista.

[Mahoyomako]

i have that game :)

[christpunchers]

I see that you went with a single gpu videocard. Is that to avoid microstuttering? I notice that stuff even from watching a few youtube videos, all dual and above gpu card(s) have little stuttering issues, especially during very intense scenes.

[ibloxProductionz]

u got a new system? XD now im jelous lol

[IntelExtremeGraphics]

I'm wondering: How much did this system cost you?

[yoavzi]

i actually wanted to add a channel comment but was unable for some reason, while i disagree with you on vista (i dislike it) i think you are very professional and trustworthy, i love what you do and i am super impressed with your honesty about hardware in general, way to go man!

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

In the end, I feel it comes down to that it simply does not matter what OS you chose. Any OS that is faster / slower, bloated / light will make 0 difference on a tweaked high-end machine :)

[iseslc]

much better!!

[KoroushGhazi]

Yes it's working finally - Full HQ 720P. If you don't see the option, just add &fmt=22 to the end of the URL and press Enter.

[Mozgus]

So even you cant seem to get youtube to produce the HD option here, huh? I swear, they pick videos randomly. Most of the time, I cant even get it to allow my videos in HQ. Even when I post an authentic 720 divx clip, it will just keep it at 320x240 LQ.

[KoroushGhazi]

I've uploaded the source as 1280x800 (closest 720P multiple of 1920x1200 resolution) - will have to see if YouTube accepts it and allows full HD playback.

[KoroushGhazi]

Doesn't seem to be working, I'll repost the HD video scaled exactly to 1280x720 with letterbox on sides this time and see if that works.

[AoDTheAnonymousPH]

YouTube recently induced a new codec, I believe that is the problem.

Either way, the video shows how excellent and robust the new system is. As much as I disagree with a few decisions, you gave long detailed reasons that I respect. Great performance obviously. AMazing job.

[Mozgus]

Looks like it has an HQ version now. I wish I could figure out what the trick is for my videos.