Thats full 1080p upscaled higher than usual. We don't even have a full1600p screen yet. We got full 1440p to get to first before we even get there yet. Plus the HDMI cables are so well made, we'd be using it for the next decade or so. Since its new years 2003 release, we haven't even max it out all the way. Matter of fact, 3880p is the maximum it can handle. I-Max is considered UHD at 4400p. Before we get I-Max quality TV in homes, we're going to hit a problem. A 128" TV won't fit in my house.
What I know is that Phenom X4 9950 is a powerfull CPU. I use Phenom X4 9550, I love it. People, I can play Crysis at High settings / Full HD, it isn't good? For em isn't fail or fake, Phenom X4 9950BE plus HD4870 for me is a good gaming rig.
I have been using Intel for 5 years and i have been using an Intel Core 2 Duo 2.13ghz. I just got a new Computer with an AMD Turion x2 ultra cual core @ 2.54ghz. The Intel is on a PC with 2gb of ram and the AMD pc is on 4gb of RAM. Brand new the AMD CPU cant even handle me listening to music and opening up another program without it lagging and my song skipping. On the Intel i could do so many more function and even at 2.13ghz, Its performance is way better, You just simply get more for ur mony
@Adiokid60 lol u got cheated i think. i got amd turion 2.2ghz and an intel c2d @ 2.4ghz. both 2gb ram . the intel one takes like 30 secs to boot up and amd takes 20-25. the intel one is tweaked and the amd one is not tweaked one bit! - both hv same os's btw!
@nine9live5 Im not talking about boot up, the Hard Drive can effect the boot up, im talking about the lack of work load the AMD's cant handle. Intel was just built to run better and handle loads better. AMD was made to just run better graphics with ATI in my opinion.
@Adiokid60 a lot goes into compare these type of things. 2 gigs is more than enough to run media players let alone 4 gigs. the program or programs used and running. the operating system, how full a hard drive is, anything you may think is unimportant can hinder performance dude. i'm not saying a turion is more powerful than a core2duo. it isn't. a more fair comparison would be the high end pentium ds or a penium dual core. those turions did not bench that well. next time do you research.
ok it wont 'die' but it will be overloaded, resulting in a lowered life length. if u oc the hardware will be overloaded even more and besides it's most likely to make artifacts when doing such a hard rendering process.
rlly shortening the gpu life 0.0 we got a pc from 1992 and the hdd failed load of times but not the cpu and gpu.. u can load cpu /gpu 80 jears i gues.. well maibe u shorten it to 20 sowhat then u got a new alreaddy...
not to burst your bubble but i'm sitting behind a 2560x1600 screen right now. An dell 30" 3008w panel. If you don't believe me, look it up. Don't spread nonsense on the web, there's enough already.
ok thanks...I've been doing alot of research trying to find out about 2560x1600 screens....none have appeared so far.
However....mainly replying to Skipan2 here........well I went to my freinds house yesterday and played XBOX360 on a PC monitor screen which doesn't even clarify as 'HD' but displays at 1920x1080 and is amazing picture quality.......so yea I can see what you mean now.
haha no they are 1080p but what i meant was (and i said it a bit crucked sorry) if i open a blu ray without upscaling it to 1600P it looks tiny.
But i'm selling my screen, colege is too damn expensive and so was the screen. I'm buying a dell 2709w which is a normal 1920x1200 screen. No use in such a monster screen when you´re not gaming, right? :P
ok fair enough........I would never sell a 1600p screen and if i did i would not waste the chance of gaming.
I just use a 720p screen for my Xbox 360 and probably a 1250x768 screen for my PC so yea...nothing to special...if I could I would hook up a 1600p screen to my XBOX360...wow just imagine that. =) However.......Xbox is only 720p i think........so DAM IT!
haha so true, but the problem is ii need 1600 euro's for my colege and i can sell my screeen for around 1.5k... sso i'll have too else i have to loan the money and pay interest.
But i had a good 3 year with the screen.
Oh and if you connect the xbox via hdmi you should be given the choice to select 1080p IF your screeen supports it.
thanks, i'm studying computer science so maybe that explains my nerdness :p
And with 19" you don't really need 1080p, you won't see the difference anyways. If you have 200-300 euro you can always opt for an 24" computer monitor for your xbox, as long as it has hdmi you'll be good.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
AMD and ATI is economy stuff. Intel and Nvidia are better and more expensive had an AMD laptop, it like freezed all the time (WHEN SIMPLE TASKS) AND (TAKES MORE THAN 3 MINUTES TO START UP)
AMD/ATI: Gay takes 3 minutes to start up! hahah
Intel/Nvidia: Best gaming stuff ive ever heard, seen and experienced
ya i wonder how old that laptop was, rofl. such biased information, you should learn more about computers. sure, intel is worth it if you like spending twice as much for 15% performance increase, but be logical and save a few hundred dollars.
the i7 920 + an asus p6t and a decent 6gb ddr3 kit is 420 euro's. And ii will whoop everything amd can throw at it. Amd is good price/performance and they always have been, just like intel but don't expect a i7 975 or C2q 9770 to be something which is worth its money. But some people want to like at the bleeding edge and pay for it.
absolutely. i couldnt agree more. i personally wouldnt spend over 1k on a new system, not counting the screen or other peripherals, just due to the fact that theres always somehting better around the corner. some people love spending big bucks for a kickass system. i just dont think 10-20% more performance is worth twice the cost. i7's will eventually become affordable, and i might get one once the p55 boards come out for the i7, or whatever, and ddr3 prices fall. otherwise im fine with my setup
well i spent alot of money on my pc but i use it for my computer science study plus i enjoy hd so i decode and encode alot. But heck if you wanna play a few games now and then i see no reason to with an i7. Like you said spending 1k+ is nonsense in that case.
And for all you people out there. Stop buying lga 775 procs. The socket is (how sad it might be) dead. Wait either for the new lga 1156 based i7's and i5's or go am3.
ya, am3, i7, and i5 are the ways to go. i was actually going to get an e8400, due to the rumored awesome gaming performance and guarunteed 4ghz+ oc's, but i did my research, and i could get a cheaper phenom 2 x2 550 system with ddr3 and a caviar black 640gb hd, that outperforms the e8400 by as much as 10%. the 550 i got unlocked to a quad, so in some cases it will totally smack an e8400, so it was indeed a better buy.
plus the S775 isn't upgradable anymore since is practically dead. Am3 and 1156/1366 are alive and kicking. I would have waited for the I5 750 it appeares be trail the i7 920's heels. Considering the p55 mobo's will start at around 100 dollar and the i5 750 at 190 it would have been an excellent choice :p
well, this was my first build, and i couldnt wait till the i5's :), i was too anxious. and even if i did wait for the i5's it would have costed 100-200 dollars more than my setup (not to mention the parts i ordered falling in price a tad.)
but the i5's do look pretty cool. my 100 dollar quad core processor is more than enough for me :)
That case, buy an prolimatech megahalems. They are quit expensive but tested as the best cooler by alot of sites. I changed my zalman 9900LED for it. I have just one fan on it right now and it performs miracles. Highest core temp is 65 degrees at 4.07 ghz (194x21) which is remarkable. If now take the thermalright ultra extreme 120, also reffered to as the true-120 which is the second best. These 2 are by far the best regular coolers. I'm talking talking about the 2.1 kg heavy true-120 copper etc
the freezer 64 is under 30 dollars, and i look at the ultra 120, and those sell for over 40 dollars, and would only have a difference of 1-5 degrees celsius at most. it is a good cooler, as well as the xigmatek dark knight, but for under 30 dollars, the freezer 64 is definitely a good buy.
read more review. The prolimatech shaves around 15 degrees of the freezer the ultra is slightly worse so my guess is more like 10-12. And i've taken a look at the freezer. And it's not suited to handle a grand quadcore at 4ghz. If you want a stable 24/7 4ghz oc with such a chip you need to buy a top of the line cooler in order to protect the chip from heatwearing.
Have you oced alot before or is this your first go?
well this is my first custom build, so i guess its my first overclock. i havent touched the voltages yet, and im sitting at 3.5ghz stable at 35c idle and 48c load on stock cooling which is complete garbage
with 4 ghz you probably have to set the voltage to around 1.475 which mean alot of more heat. better het a top op the line cooler like everyone with a 4ghz oc does. Just my 2 cents.
You obviously do not understand what role resolution plays, and how increasing it increases visuals. Playing on 2560x1600 means that every pixel is tiny and so there is no visible difference, unless the screen size is huge or the viewing distance is miniscule. But from the same viewing distance and screen, 1900x1080 pixels will be larger and thus the difference pixel-pixel becomes more noticable.
Once a screen reaches 50", with a 7' viewing distance, 1080p will no longer look as good as it does on smaller screeens. (Note that if you shorten the viewing distance, the screen size must be smaller or the resolution must be higher to achieve the same viewing experience) The only reason NOT to need a higher resolution would be if your screen is very small (Eg. A 17" screen would look just as good in 720p as it would in 1080p) or if you ALWAYS have a large viewing distance. And I stress ALWAYS.
not true....720p on small screens is not as good as 1080p at all...I have seen the difference and anyway.....22" TV's can have 1080p setting.......but thats the smallest. 19" TV's don't have that setting coz it's not powerful enough.
small screens with 720p are still a little fuzzy on the resolution.
i think intel are much better than AMD,but i go in AMD because intel are more expensive,and if u compare a Phenom X4 black edition 955 to a core extreme,i cant see the diference
there is a HUGE difference in video encoding and rendering, but if you are doing that, most likely you are running a business and have the money to spend on that. in gaming, probablly 1-2 fps difference. haha, save 800 bucks and get the 955.
well not many knew it but we been watching HD in our computer for a long time. This whole gimmick with "HD" is just a label for corporate giant to pressure consumer to upgrade their existing component. Don't fall for HD crap.
uh SD is almost 60 years old now.How is giving us a way better picture a gemick? sd tvs can only do 640x480i . its time for an upgrade. dont be a technophobe
this is silly because only like 2 people viewing this video actually have that resulution and anyway youtube dosant support it anyway so everyone saying it looks fantastic are a but stupid, ive never seen that reolution but im sure its very realistic compared to my old lg 19" monitor lol
Being as i own 2 amd/ati rigs and 1 intel/nvidia rig.
Sorry i dont see were your coming from.
I simply stated that i7s are beter, that being said the phenom II's were designed to take on the core 2 quads NOT the i7's. Their for, they are both beter in their own right... especially concidering amd is 1/4 of the price in some case's.
I'd just like to ask again how am i the fan boy?..... FANBOY
"The phenom II chips were designed to kil the Core 2 quads NOT! the i7's... In benchmarks th i7 will be on top plain and simple."
sorry but I saw the word "NOT!" witch means adding "!" to the "NOT" just put it in a completely different meaning! also saying you're a fanboy does NOT mean that I'm a fanboy too..both companeis are putting a great effort to do an exellent job! thank you, have a nice day!
Im pretty sure you have mis-understood my 1st comment in some way.
I did not mean to sound as though i prefered amd over intel, i simply meant for those people whoom keep comparing i7's to the phenom II. Their in a totaly diferent class, and price range.
Also your very right... both company's are great... I simply called you a fanboy as you did to me. I said it at random, as it apeared you did also.
i agree with you i 7 are better i was once a intel guy but there prices are extremely high so i switch to AMD cant complain you get good performace for less it may not be the best but perfromance/price wise amd wins in my book
funny how AMD only compare games. try comparing encoding, decoding, compressing and extracting performance and then you'll see how much an i7 own. even the i7 920 kills all phenom II.
i owned a i7 and went to a phenom and the phenom was faster it destryed the performance of my old crappy i7 intel stuffs shit inside thier porcessors.
Hmm, my mobo that i am planning to buy, doesnt support SLI but Hybrid SLI still have to look that up so see what that means, but XFX ATI Radeon 4870 DRR5 1GB is the card and planning to get,. It has 1 PCIe x16 and one PCI x1 can i put in XFX ATI Radeon 4870 DDR5 on both?
whats the point of having 1600p and best graphic (crysis) when the gameplay is bad? i dont really bother about graphics since i have high end pc as well as consoles, i enjoy metal gear solid series, Gran turismo series, god of war series, gears of war series, halo series, shenmue series and all these games which i get on consoles and i'm really happy with it even though i did play crysis at very high setting on my pc and i never really enjoy it:p
pcs can own any console and if u have the money it will look better i got my xbox elite for $299 i paid $400 for my pc itself
then $200 22inch widescreen monitor th $60 for keyboard then $40 for my mouse and my xbox 360 still looks better but alien ware has a laptop that owns the xbox360 and ps3 but its $7400 and its true the pc is the better system but xbox360 and ps3 still compeat with the pcs and is much cheaper
console fan boys annoy me, I own ps3/xbox and enjoy them both, but if I want a high end game if I have the option I get it on PC any day of the week, I'm amazed how many console fan boys claim pc is shit for gaming. I own both and can't for the life of me find one good reason not to choose a pc over a console. Ok maybe price, a good pc will be hundreds more. So it takes a little extra work to save up, big deal. A computer does so much more, offers map creation, level design, more options,etc
Well shit a console is not easier to play on, well true but with a pc you could get much better preformance + much better graphics if you just add some more cash.
ye but i just buy a game and put it in where u have to have certan specs and o/s and there could be issues my poinbt still stands tht u wont find 2 tfopls of performace for 399$ in yrs to come
and what console gamers don't know... when you buy a game for example farcry2 on xbox360 it says 1080p on the package but for real its just 1280x720 and upscaled.
and the ps3 isn't better.
they use 960x1080 and call it 1080p.
actually a 400€ pc can handle farcry2 on 1600*1200 and even without higher resolution most games (fc2 too) are looking better on pc (better shadows, textures, AA). also consoles only suport SM3.
960x1080 and then upscale the width only??? that would look fucking freaky having pixels double as wide as high. no way, pretty much all games run at either 720p or 640p on consoles and are upscaled to whatever you want if it isnt 720p today. (=are you sure about your information?)
the price point is irrelevant, the 360 cost 400 bucks when a similar pc was 2000 worth or more. also name the rig that costs 400 and runs BETTER settings at a higher resolution. and isnt the 360 300 $ by now anyway?
Update: Jetzt ist eine kleine Gegendarstellung zum Thema native Auflösung aufgetaucht. So läuft die PlayStation 3 mit einer höheren nativen Auflösung von 960x1080 (1.036.800 Pixel) als die Xbox 360 Fassung, die nur mit 1280x720 (921.600 Pixel) über die HD-Bildschirme flimmert.
ich hab nen 720p fernseher und ne 360. solange die spiele nich ein auf halo3 oder cod4 (beide 640p) machen hab ich kein problem. 640p sieht einfach scheiße aus wegen der treppenbildung beim umrechnen in 720p, man hat immer das gefühl das bild is irgendwie unsauber, dass man nich alles sieht was man eigentlich sehen müsste.
im pretty sure i know what your problem is - you dont understand the difference between past and present. i said "... 360 cost 400 $ when a similar pc was 2000 ..." => back when the 360 was released its price was the best offer on the market and that lasted for about two years, before a technically equal pc was available for 400. now you can buy a pc for say 600 dollars (ps3) and youll get better than killzone2 graphics in crysis. gameplaywise ...not
when killzone 2 only uses 60% of your HIGHENDCONSOLE power
why is there no native 1080p?
and also i never said ps3 couldn't output 1080p. my 100€ graphiccard can output 1600p but this doens't mean it can render all games with that resolution.
and cod5 runs at exactly 1024*600 at 2*AA on ps3 and 360
the ps3 has a 3 year old graphics card. end of story.
seriously when will you people learn that consoles are nothing else than a special computer system produced in masses and aimed for future profits? theres no magic in the economy.
end of story lol the way a ps3 processe is totally different than ur computer when it comes to games all the grephics card does it throw the pic on the screen the cell processer actually calcualtes the fabricseffects physics ect... wich makes the graphics card do nothing but shaders and taking the processed info form the cell processor and throw it on the screen
the processor does the physics. yes. thats normal. its the same thing on 360 and for pc games like crysis. nvidia wants to have physics on their gpu now (physx) but so far no game really counts on it.
the cell processor does what a processor does and its a particularly good one, even though its complicated to work with.
the graphics cards of 360 and ps3 are about the same and you found a great description - they "throw it on the screen".
ye thats why i think it can pull off what a omp can do with a better graphics card is because teh cell takes a huge workload to lessen the load on the many times weaker graphics card
98% more, not 198%...
Crysis2isOnline 2 months ago
480p?Where'ya'hidin'at?
TheMiltos21 2 months ago
is there any 2560x1600 monitor sold out there?
ZenithZephyroth 3 months ago
@ZenithZephyroth Yes there have been for years
kraken2109 2 months ago
LOL i can see the pixels on that car so fake this one.
GTAstuntking 6 months ago
Thats full 1080p upscaled higher than usual. We don't even have a full1600p screen yet. We got full 1440p to get to first before we even get there yet. Plus the HDMI cables are so well made, we'd be using it for the next decade or so. Since its new years 2003 release, we haven't even max it out all the way. Matter of fact, 3880p is the maximum it can handle. I-Max is considered UHD at 4400p. Before we get I-Max quality TV in homes, we're going to hit a problem. A 128" TV won't fit in my house.
scaryred24 6 months ago
fuck the 3 guys who dislikes
loardali 6 months ago
2 gigs of ram on vista, someone was on a budget.
bro589 7 months ago
To true HD? lol
vBDKv 7 months ago
@NocredRS hahah fail
ZombieKillzoneOps 8 months ago
Where's the 1600p button
liangmason 9 months ago 8
I still play cs 1.6 at 800x 600 and most games in that resolution.
btw most games on the xbox 360 and ps3 are not 1080p, they are 720p upscaled to 1080p.
ex. halo, gears of war, resistance... The current console simply can not run graphic intense games at 1080p.
warlockskz 9 months ago
Console games aren't even in 1080P XD
Daxter609 9 months ago
well..this video was uploaded in 2008, when youtube didn't had the 1080p
SkinnyMethods 1 year ago
consoles still arnt 1080p. the xbox is 1280x720...........
xxsolidsteelxx 1 year ago
@xxsolidsteelxx ps3 has many games made for 1080p..
eternyman 11 months ago
@sabbathcrazy That's preposterous! In real you get 99% increase with 6000 series and far more with triple or quadfire...
waltibaba 1 year ago
i still play grid at 640x480
assadissa2 1 year ago
Set YouTube player to 720p....
PRETEND IT'S 1600P
pshotwell 1 year ago 2
I can see a slight difference there... :D
DeathDude72 1 year ago
what's so great about a ati radeon motherboard???
yoogrant 1 year ago
@yoogrant i lol`d at this can not help it sorry. What do you think? its not nvidia that let you down thats 1 certain thing.
Xextreem 1 year ago
What I know is that Phenom X4 9950 is a powerfull CPU. I use Phenom X4 9550, I love it. People, I can play Crysis at High settings / Full HD, it isn't good? For em isn't fail or fake, Phenom X4 9950BE plus HD4870 for me is a good gaming rig.
PCsReviews 1 year ago
"AMD takes you beyond HD" and the video itself isn't 1080p haha
I got an AMD rig but this vid is really fail
Rovelius 1 year ago
2560X1600 is super HD they also wanted it for movies but it would take up too much space.
basbas63 1 year ago
@basbas63 just get a 500 gb or 600 gb hard drive
rpop996 1 year ago
I have been using Intel for 5 years and i have been using an Intel Core 2 Duo 2.13ghz. I just got a new Computer with an AMD Turion x2 ultra cual core @ 2.54ghz. The Intel is on a PC with 2gb of ram and the AMD pc is on 4gb of RAM. Brand new the AMD CPU cant even handle me listening to music and opening up another program without it lagging and my song skipping. On the Intel i could do so many more function and even at 2.13ghz, Its performance is way better, You just simply get more for ur mony
Adiokid60 1 year ago
@Adiokid60 lol u got cheated i think. i got amd turion 2.2ghz and an intel c2d @ 2.4ghz. both 2gb ram . the intel one takes like 30 secs to boot up and amd takes 20-25. the intel one is tweaked and the amd one is not tweaked one bit! - both hv same os's btw!
nine9live5 1 year ago
@nine9live5 Im not talking about boot up, the Hard Drive can effect the boot up, im talking about the lack of work load the AMD's cant handle. Intel was just built to run better and handle loads better. AMD was made to just run better graphics with ATI in my opinion.
Adiokid60 1 year ago
@Adiokid60 a lot goes into compare these type of things. 2 gigs is more than enough to run media players let alone 4 gigs. the program or programs used and running. the operating system, how full a hard drive is, anything you may think is unimportant can hinder performance dude. i'm not saying a turion is more powerful than a core2duo. it isn't. a more fair comparison would be the high end pentium ds or a penium dual core. those turions did not bench that well. next time do you research.
blueovalfan23 10 months ago
well if you got the buck what is the best processor to get when you look for performance?
lillen300 1 year ago
dey bot good jus good fo diff thingj amf is bes for cheapr an inte is bes for teh bes for pric is ams thoh
AncestralViews 1 year ago
intel sucks amd owns
38mert 2 years ago 4
Or, "More Bang For Your Buck"
Jarvile 2 years ago
well, AMD makes cheaper products at a performance range
Jarvile 2 years ago 43
how are we supposed to watch this? 720p cant show 1600p...
Jarvile 2 years ago
but can your monitor?
Jarvile 2 years ago
@Jarvile eum you will need to use a projector probably
themassau 1 year ago
:P i bet my geforce 280gtx+280gtx can run 2560 by 1600 :^^^
PhotoXhop 2 years ago
@PhotoXhop
not at DX11...
qwertyuploader 2 years ago 2
lol i know it can ;D its Really powerfull my grpahics cards ;]
PhotoXhop 2 years ago 2
not as much as a 5970 -.-
qwertyuploader 2 years ago
nice music
bogdan1748 2 years ago
if i got a phenom x4 vs a phenom ii x4 amd and put the same parts other than that would i get anything close to the same preformance?? for gaming??
cokacutter 2 years ago
Dudes, its time for AMD+Intel :)
Aqwert76 2 years ago
Can I do this with my HD 4870X2 and my core I7 965?
koukilou2 2 years ago
daaa, i7 is better than all amd CPUS lol this video is from 2008
cobrastomas 2 years ago
@cobrastomas well, you choose, a phenom x4 or an intel i7 and paying more money for a processor that even crysis doesn't need
savagemessiah82 1 year ago
so..what is the absolute highest resolution?
wisdomseeker40 2 years ago
like a gtx 9800 GX2 cant do that .....
EPIC FAIL !
FOGoticus 2 years ago
love my amd i play nfs shift 1920x1080 on a gts250 no lagg + aax4!!
alltimegamer247 2 years ago
i have a phenom 9600 Black Ed. + Geforce 9500gt 1gb but i get low fps (20 or 30) on 1280x1024 Res, ideas?
nadeox1 2 years ago
all i see is shit youtube quality
Numsefisk43 2 years ago 66
LOL true, this was uploaded on September 05, 2008. Which was over a year ago.
YouTube will be allowing full HD 1080p uploads this/next week.
Xc6ersPride 2 years ago
play crysis on such a resolution and ur hardware will die in just a few seconds.
h4x0y 2 years ago
no true becouse it will only lower fps... unless u oc ofcourse....
frank12444 2 years ago
ok it wont 'die' but it will be overloaded, resulting in a lowered life length. if u oc the hardware will be overloaded even more and besides it's most likely to make artifacts when doing such a hard rendering process.
h4x0y 2 years ago
rlly shortening the gpu life 0.0 we got a pc from 1992 and the hdd failed load of times but not the cpu and gpu.. u can load cpu /gpu 80 jears i gues.. well maibe u shorten it to 20 sowhat then u got a new alreaddy...
frank12444 2 years ago
no your hardware would die not mine!!
Thet3 2 years ago
mine certainly will, because I'm stuck with a crappy 7600gs. i know i know, it'll soon be replaced.
h4x0y 2 years ago
guys this isn't true...it's just 1920x1080p thats all......2560x1600 doesn't exist.....latest is still 'HD' (high definition)
but it's 'LED' so it has better contrast....colour and might even tighten down the resolution.
JEUXolim 2 years ago
high definition is just a fucking marketing name for selling tvs to rich people.
1920*1080 and 1920*1200 already existed before that hd label.
my 22"screen has no hd label and still displays native 1920*1080 and costs only 160€.
and 2560*1600 screens exist at least over 2 years(i don't know exactly)
Skipan2 2 years ago
yea..i kinda see what u mean....'HD' is just a name...for very sharp resolutuon......why call it that?
=)
JEUXolim 2 years ago
@JEUXolim
btw i saw your comment on another video saying you only have a 720p tv.
could you just go on the desktop of your pc and check the max resolution? i bet it's even more than your 720p screen.
even my 10 years old crt screens displays 1280*1024
Skipan2 2 years ago
ok....i am going to try and find that out
JEUXolim 2 years ago
not to burst your bubble but i'm sitting behind a 2560x1600 screen right now. An dell 30" 3008w panel. If you don't believe me, look it up. Don't spread nonsense on the web, there's enough already.
Thekilldevilhill 2 years ago
ok thanks...I've been doing alot of research trying to find out about 2560x1600 screens....none have appeared so far.
However....mainly replying to Skipan2 here........well I went to my freinds house yesterday and played XBOX360 on a PC monitor screen which doesn't even clarify as 'HD' but displays at 1920x1080 and is amazing picture quality.......so yea I can see what you mean now.
JEUXolim 2 years ago
blu rays at 2560x1600 look like postage stamps :P
Thekilldevilhill 2 years ago
really i thought blu-ray was only 1920x1080.....?
but if u say so boss. =)
JEUXolim 2 years ago
haha no they are 1080p but what i meant was (and i said it a bit crucked sorry) if i open a blu ray without upscaling it to 1600P it looks tiny.
But i'm selling my screen, colege is too damn expensive and so was the screen. I'm buying a dell 2709w which is a normal 1920x1200 screen. No use in such a monster screen when you´re not gaming, right? :P
Thekilldevilhill 2 years ago
ok fair enough........I would never sell a 1600p screen and if i did i would not waste the chance of gaming.
I just use a 720p screen for my Xbox 360 and probably a 1250x768 screen for my PC so yea...nothing to special...if I could I would hook up a 1600p screen to my XBOX360...wow just imagine that. =) However.......Xbox is only 720p i think........so DAM IT!
JEUXolim 2 years ago
haha so true, but the problem is ii need 1600 euro's for my colege and i can sell my screeen for around 1.5k... sso i'll have too else i have to loan the money and pay interest.
But i had a good 3 year with the screen.
Oh and if you connect the xbox via hdmi you should be given the choice to select 1080p IF your screeen supports it.
Thekilldevilhill 2 years ago
good luck at your college =)
and btw; It gives me the option to display at 1080p but when I bought my screen not long ago it said on the 'Screen' information that it is only 720p
look up the TV it's only 19" though.
Samsung SM933HD
JEUXolim 2 years ago
thanks, i'm studying computer science so maybe that explains my nerdness :p
And with 19" you don't really need 1080p, you won't see the difference anyways. If you have 200-300 euro you can always opt for an 24" computer monitor for your xbox, as long as it has hdmi you'll be good.
Thekilldevilhill 2 years ago
Comment removed
JEUXolim 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
AMD and ATI is economy stuff. Intel and Nvidia are better and more expensive had an AMD laptop, it like freezed all the time (WHEN SIMPLE TASKS) AND (TAKES MORE THAN 3 MINUTES TO START UP)
AMD/ATI: Gay takes 3 minutes to start up! hahah
Intel/Nvidia: Best gaming stuff ive ever heard, seen and experienced
peterinfamilyguy 2 years ago
ya i wonder how old that laptop was, rofl. such biased information, you should learn more about computers. sure, intel is worth it if you like spending twice as much for 15% performance increase, but be logical and save a few hundred dollars.
foxracer927 2 years ago
You>> "Im a hippie from iraq and i like these video becuze im trying to be american!" Duh, asshole, stop this hippie shit or ill bomb your family
peterinfamilyguy 2 years ago
the i7 920 + an asus p6t and a decent 6gb ddr3 kit is 420 euro's. And ii will whoop everything amd can throw at it. Amd is good price/performance and they always have been, just like intel but don't expect a i7 975 or C2q 9770 to be something which is worth its money. But some people want to like at the bleeding edge and pay for it.
Thekilldevilhill 2 years ago
absolutely. i couldnt agree more. i personally wouldnt spend over 1k on a new system, not counting the screen or other peripherals, just due to the fact that theres always somehting better around the corner. some people love spending big bucks for a kickass system. i just dont think 10-20% more performance is worth twice the cost. i7's will eventually become affordable, and i might get one once the p55 boards come out for the i7, or whatever, and ddr3 prices fall. otherwise im fine with my setup
foxracer927 2 years ago
well i spent alot of money on my pc but i use it for my computer science study plus i enjoy hd so i decode and encode alot. But heck if you wanna play a few games now and then i see no reason to with an i7. Like you said spending 1k+ is nonsense in that case.
And for all you people out there. Stop buying lga 775 procs. The socket is (how sad it might be) dead. Wait either for the new lga 1156 based i7's and i5's or go am3.
Thekilldevilhill 2 years ago
ya, am3, i7, and i5 are the ways to go. i was actually going to get an e8400, due to the rumored awesome gaming performance and guarunteed 4ghz+ oc's, but i did my research, and i could get a cheaper phenom 2 x2 550 system with ddr3 and a caviar black 640gb hd, that outperforms the e8400 by as much as 10%. the 550 i got unlocked to a quad, so in some cases it will totally smack an e8400, so it was indeed a better buy.
foxracer927 2 years ago
plus the S775 isn't upgradable anymore since is practically dead. Am3 and 1156/1366 are alive and kicking. I would have waited for the I5 750 it appeares be trail the i7 920's heels. Considering the p55 mobo's will start at around 100 dollar and the i5 750 at 190 it would have been an excellent choice :p
Thekilldevilhill 2 years ago
well, this was my first build, and i couldnt wait till the i5's :), i was too anxious. and even if i did wait for the i5's it would have costed 100-200 dollars more than my setup (not to mention the parts i ordered falling in price a tad.)
but the i5's do look pretty cool. my 100 dollar quad core processor is more than enough for me :)
(phenom 2 x2 550 unlocked, @ 3.5ghz)
foxracer927 2 years ago
i7 920 @ 3.8ghz all the way ;)
No but seriously, good on your X2. Not all have 2 locked cores that work.
Thekilldevilhill 2 years ago
im going to purchase a arctic cooling freezer 64 soon, i want to hit 4 ghz :)
foxracer927 2 years ago
That case, buy an prolimatech megahalems. They are quit expensive but tested as the best cooler by alot of sites. I changed my zalman 9900LED for it. I have just one fan on it right now and it performs miracles. Highest core temp is 65 degrees at 4.07 ghz (194x21) which is remarkable. If now take the thermalright ultra extreme 120, also reffered to as the true-120 which is the second best. These 2 are by far the best regular coolers. I'm talking talking about the 2.1 kg heavy true-120 copper etc
Thekilldevilhill 2 years ago
the freezer 64 is under 30 dollars, and i look at the ultra 120, and those sell for over 40 dollars, and would only have a difference of 1-5 degrees celsius at most. it is a good cooler, as well as the xigmatek dark knight, but for under 30 dollars, the freezer 64 is definitely a good buy.
foxracer927 2 years ago
read more review. The prolimatech shaves around 15 degrees of the freezer the ultra is slightly worse so my guess is more like 10-12. And i've taken a look at the freezer. And it's not suited to handle a grand quadcore at 4ghz. If you want a stable 24/7 4ghz oc with such a chip you need to buy a top of the line cooler in order to protect the chip from heatwearing.
Have you oced alot before or is this your first go?
Thekilldevilhill 2 years ago
well this is my first custom build, so i guess its my first overclock. i havent touched the voltages yet, and im sitting at 3.5ghz stable at 35c idle and 48c load on stock cooling which is complete garbage
foxracer927 2 years ago
with 4 ghz you probably have to set the voltage to around 1.475 which mean alot of more heat. better het a top op the line cooler like everyone with a 4ghz oc does. Just my 2 cents.
Thekilldevilhill 2 years ago
thats rlly hard u know... try some dryice or liquid nitrogen ^^
frank12444 2 years ago
yea right
kidowner 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheWolfLoki 2 years ago
the 2560x1600 dont have difference too 1080P, i have not notted diference... i go to 1080p
alonestar7 2 years ago
You obviously do not understand what role resolution plays, and how increasing it increases visuals. Playing on 2560x1600 means that every pixel is tiny and so there is no visible difference, unless the screen size is huge or the viewing distance is miniscule. But from the same viewing distance and screen, 1900x1080 pixels will be larger and thus the difference pixel-pixel becomes more noticable.
TheWolfLoki 2 years ago
Once a screen reaches 50", with a 7' viewing distance, 1080p will no longer look as good as it does on smaller screeens. (Note that if you shorten the viewing distance, the screen size must be smaller or the resolution must be higher to achieve the same viewing experience) The only reason NOT to need a higher resolution would be if your screen is very small (Eg. A 17" screen would look just as good in 720p as it would in 1080p) or if you ALWAYS have a large viewing distance. And I stress ALWAYS.
TheWolfLoki 2 years ago
not true....720p on small screens is not as good as 1080p at all...I have seen the difference and anyway.....22" TV's can have 1080p setting.......but thats the smallest. 19" TV's don't have that setting coz it's not powerful enough.
small screens with 720p are still a little fuzzy on the resolution.
JEUXolim 2 years ago
@JEUXolim You're a fool! HAHA!
TheWolfLoki 1 week ago
i think intel are much better than AMD,but i go in AMD because intel are more expensive,and if u compare a Phenom X4 black edition 955 to a core extreme,i cant see the diference
alonestar7 2 years ago
there is a HUGE difference in video encoding and rendering, but if you are doing that, most likely you are running a business and have the money to spend on that. in gaming, probablly 1-2 fps difference. haha, save 800 bucks and get the 955.
foxracer927 2 years ago
What game is this?
mitsostsagka 2 years ago
Grid
xXxTr0xXx 2 years ago
Thanks!
mitsostsagka 2 years ago
I love this music.
AMVDawg 2 years ago 2
well not many knew it but we been watching HD in our computer for a long time. This whole gimmick with "HD" is just a label for corporate giant to pressure consumer to upgrade their existing component. Don't fall for HD crap.
gocaitygo 2 years ago
uh SD is almost 60 years old now.How is giving us a way better picture a gemick? sd tvs can only do 640x480i . its time for an upgrade. dont be a technophobe
jordler 2 years ago
Even at 60" HDTVs are still limited to 1080p resolution. XD
RetroGameLover 2 years ago
this is silly because only like 2 people viewing this video actually have that resulution and anyway youtube dosant support it anyway so everyone saying it looks fantastic are a but stupid, ive never seen that reolution but im sure its very realistic compared to my old lg 19" monitor lol
mrh112 2 years ago
i bet none of you guys have ever gotten laid
all the resolution in the world dont compare to real pussy
skugglerthrash 2 years ago 2
2 kids baby but only 18 so nothign to brag about
cochranand 2 years ago
hahahhahahaahaha :D True, TRUE :P
Lukkmaestro 2 years ago
I bet you never got laid.
All the "I bet non of you guys have ever gotten laid because you have hi-tech hardware" don't guarantee real pussy.
VEKKIO 2 years ago
Thats more of the graphics card thats at work.
oasiac 2 years ago
Yeah the failure ATi cards.
YoungTeufelhunden 2 years ago
AMD Fails on me everytime... i have good cooling and dont overclock it. it fails on me after 2 or 3 years,
Intel last a loooooong time. had a p4 for 10 years and still lasts. i dont use p4 anymore of course. i have quad intel !!!
kpoloboy 2 years ago
what do you mean fails? do you mean it just brake? if it does, then couldnt you just get it replaced?
kidowner 2 years ago
not after a certain time frame. i beleive the overheating problem is the cuase of this.
a lot of amd processors overheat. i dont know if its due to the heatsink/fan or the whole set up.
kpoloboy 2 years ago
well mine is at about 71 degress at full load and im gonna buy a CPU cooler called the Zalman 9700. is that good?
kidowner 2 years ago
YES... I higly reccomend that.
that will take off about 20 degrees C.
the best cooler in the market
kpoloboy 2 years ago
:) even if room tempreture is about 31 degrees? coz in summer it gets rly hot here
kidowner 2 years ago
once, again... it will take off 20 degrees celcius minnimum..
this is the best cooler in the world and who ever made it should make sunscreen for those higly sensitive skin people.
kpoloboy 2 years ago
ok thank you very much :D
kidowner 2 years ago
yup.
intel for the win,
but amd for the price
=D
ki11joy92 2 years ago
What the guy said below is bollox... no pII is faster than an i7.
However in real world apps... their about the same.
The phenom II chips were designed to kil the Core 2 quads NOT! the i7's... In benchmarks th i7 will be on top plain and simple.
But AMD aim at the price, and power, so cost half the amount, but do not sacrafice half the power!. Plain and simple.
Im an AMD/ATI guy just for the price, but im a realist, and am not a biast fan boy like alot of you seem to be.
wantedlonewolf 2 years ago
HARDCORE FANBOY!!!!!
L0000000000000L 2 years ago
Oh right care to explain how i am a fan boy?
Being as i own 2 amd/ati rigs and 1 intel/nvidia rig.
Sorry i dont see were your coming from.
I simply stated that i7s are beter, that being said the phenom II's were designed to take on the core 2 quads NOT the i7's. Their for, they are both beter in their own right... especially concidering amd is 1/4 of the price in some case's.
I'd just like to ask again how am i the fan boy?..... FANBOY
wantedlonewolf 2 years ago
"The phenom II chips were designed to kil the Core 2 quads NOT! the i7's... In benchmarks th i7 will be on top plain and simple."
sorry but I saw the word "NOT!" witch means adding "!" to the "NOT" just put it in a completely different meaning! also saying you're a fanboy does NOT mean that I'm a fanboy too..both companeis are putting a great effort to do an exellent job! thank you, have a nice day!
L0000000000000L 2 years ago
Im pretty sure you have mis-understood my 1st comment in some way.
I did not mean to sound as though i prefered amd over intel, i simply meant for those people whoom keep comparing i7's to the phenom II. Their in a totaly diferent class, and price range.
Also your very right... both company's are great... I simply called you a fanboy as you did to me. I said it at random, as it apeared you did also.
-Paul
wantedlonewolf 2 years ago
i agree with you i 7 are better i was once a intel guy but there prices are extremely high so i switch to AMD cant complain you get good performace for less it may not be the best but perfromance/price wise amd wins in my book
cochranand 2 years ago 2
Cool man..
Its nice to hear from more people that acttually have a clue.
Im just really sick of biast fan's comparing apple's to orange's
-Paul
wantedlonewolf 2 years ago
i7 are for workstations,not gaming.
RenatoCervati 2 years ago
funny how AMD only compare games. try comparing encoding, decoding, compressing and extracting performance and then you'll see how much an i7 own. even the i7 920 kills all phenom II.
nawaz2kx 2 years ago
i owned a i7 and went to a phenom and the phenom was faster it destryed the performance of my old crappy i7 intel stuffs shit inside thier porcessors.
tazss159 2 years ago
i owned a i7 and went to a phenom and the phenom was faster it destryed the performance of my old crappy i7 intel stuffs shit inside thier porcessors
tazss159 2 years ago
Are you serious?! Cool!
funnybun123 2 years ago
if u wanna do sli use nvidia but buy a goddamn crossfire x mobo and use 2 ATi xfx xxx 4890 in crossfire
pr0surf3r 2 years ago
Hmm, my mobo that i am planning to buy, doesnt support SLI but Hybrid SLI still have to look that up so see what that means, but XFX ATI Radeon 4870 DRR5 1GB is the card and planning to get,. It has 1 PCIe x16 and one PCI x1 can i put in XFX ATI Radeon 4870 DDR5 on both?
Mobo= ASUS M3N... Something
JetsuSeal 2 years ago
You can only have one 4870, and it will not work with Hybrid SLI.
firestormcomputers 2 years ago
its 300% more, and intel graphics are just as good, but nvidia kills ati for the moment
kavudiego 2 years ago
They will always be like that on any game?
YukiLT 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I can see no difference LOL
papcskris3 2 years ago
Of course you can't, you're watching it on youtube.
FortunexenutroF 2 years ago 5
I got that and i got for free of m8
SoftwareTutorial 2 years ago
¤ø„¸¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¸„ø¤º°¨
¨°º¤ø„¸--AMD--¸„ø¤º°¨
¸„ø¤º°¨4EVER``°º¤ø FROM GERMANY
soon Phenom II X4 940
RazerSpooner 2 years ago
I wonna something like PhysX by AMD :D
ExtremalZ 2 years ago
whats the point of having 1600p and best graphic (crysis) when the gameplay is bad? i dont really bother about graphics since i have high end pc as well as consoles, i enjoy metal gear solid series, Gran turismo series, god of war series, gears of war series, halo series, shenmue series and all these games which i get on consoles and i'm really happy with it even though i did play crysis at very high setting on my pc and i never really enjoy it:p
v7nc3nt 2 years ago
its multi platform so its shittier than an exclusive duh
hbkfitz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
pcs can own any console and if u have the money it will look better i got my xbox elite for $299 i paid $400 for my pc itself
then $200 22inch widescreen monitor th $60 for keyboard then $40 for my mouse and my xbox 360 still looks better but alien ware has a laptop that owns the xbox360 and ps3 but its $7400 and its true the pc is the better system but xbox360 and ps3 still compeat with the pcs and is much cheaper
omgomgya 2 years ago
Comment removed
omgomgya 2 years ago
console fan boys annoy me, I own ps3/xbox and enjoy them both, but if I want a high end game if I have the option I get it on PC any day of the week, I'm amazed how many console fan boys claim pc is shit for gaming. I own both and can't for the life of me find one good reason not to choose a pc over a console. Ok maybe price, a good pc will be hundreds more. So it takes a little extra work to save up, big deal. A computer does so much more, offers map creation, level design, more options,etc
shotgunson 3 years ago
its not shit but its easier to play games on a console plus not 360 but ps3 has more power than a pretty good gaming comp for only 399$
hbkfitz 2 years ago
Well shit a console is not easier to play on, well true but with a pc you could get much better preformance + much better graphics if you just add some more cash.
Avandus 2 years ago
ye but i just buy a game and put it in where u have to have certan specs and o/s and there could be issues my poinbt still stands tht u wont find 2 tfopls of performace for 399$ in yrs to come
hbkfitz 2 years ago
and what console gamers don't know... when you buy a game for example farcry2 on xbox360 it says 1080p on the package but for real its just 1280x720 and upscaled.
and the ps3 isn't better.
they use 960x1080 and call it 1080p.
actually a 400€ pc can handle farcry2 on 1600*1200 and even without higher resolution most games (fc2 too) are looking better on pc (better shadows, textures, AA). also consoles only suport SM3.
Skipan2 3 years ago 2
960x1080 and then upscale the width only??? that would look fucking freaky having pixels double as wide as high. no way, pretty much all games run at either 720p or 640p on consoles and are upscaled to whatever you want if it isnt 720p today. (=are you sure about your information?)
the price point is irrelevant, the 360 cost 400 bucks when a similar pc was 2000 worth or more. also name the rig that costs 400 and runs BETTER settings at a higher resolution. and isnt the 360 300 $ by now anyway?
NiNm62 3 years ago
zizat von areagames:
Update: Jetzt ist eine kleine Gegendarstellung zum Thema native Auflösung aufgetaucht. So läuft die PlayStation 3 mit einer höheren nativen Auflösung von 960x1080 (1.036.800 Pixel) als die Xbox 360 Fassung, die nur mit 1280x720 (921.600 Pixel) über die HD-Bildschirme flimmert.
Skipan2 3 years ago
ich hab nen 720p fernseher und ne 360. solange die spiele nich ein auf halo3 oder cod4 (beide 640p) machen hab ich kein problem. 640p sieht einfach scheiße aus wegen der treppenbildung beim umrechnen in 720p, man hat immer das gefühl das bild is irgendwie unsauber, dass man nich alles sieht was man eigentlich sehen müsste.
NiNm62 3 years ago
I think only a few games used 960X1080, most are 720P or bellow and then upscaled.
Halo3=640P NO AA and NO AF
COD4=600P 4XAA
Protoking 3 years ago
I would pay the extra 1600$ to be able to play with a mouse.
daivuk 2 years ago 3
both ps3 and x360 are able to use a mouse and keyboard
omgomgya 2 years ago
xbox can sue keyboard but not mouse
kavudiego 2 years ago
oh and i no what im talking about there is a update for it it works with mouse
omgomgya 2 years ago
to the morons who thumbed me down:
im pretty sure i know what your problem is - you dont understand the difference between past and present. i said "... 360 cost 400 $ when a similar pc was 2000 ..." => back when the 360 was released its price was the best offer on the market and that lasted for about two years, before a technically equal pc was available for 400. now you can buy a pc for say 600 dollars (ps3) and youll get better than killzone2 graphics in crysis. gameplaywise ...not
NiNm62 2 years ago
u didnt just say bttr than killzone 2 graphics lol btw killzone 2 only uses 60% of ps3 power sooo just wait
hbkfitz 2 years ago
omg
when killzone 2 only uses 60% of your HIGHENDCONSOLE power
why is there no native 1080p?
and also i never said ps3 couldn't output 1080p. my 100€ graphiccard can output 1600p but this doens't mean it can render all games with that resolution.
and cod5 runs at exactly 1024*600 at 2*AA on ps3 and 360
Skipan2 2 years ago
ask the developers that one and it says right on the game case native 1080p trust me i play it the game is 1080p
hbkfitz 2 years ago
the ps3 has a 3 year old graphics card. end of story.
seriously when will you people learn that consoles are nothing else than a special computer system produced in masses and aimed for future profits? theres no magic in the economy.
NiNm62 2 years ago
end of story lol the way a ps3 processe is totally different than ur computer when it comes to games all the grephics card does it throw the pic on the screen the cell processer actually calcualtes the fabricseffects physics ect... wich makes the graphics card do nothing but shaders and taking the processed info form the cell processor and throw it on the screen
hbkfitz 2 years ago
the processor does the physics. yes. thats normal. its the same thing on 360 and for pc games like crysis. nvidia wants to have physics on their gpu now (physx) but so far no game really counts on it.
the cell processor does what a processor does and its a particularly good one, even though its complicated to work with.
the graphics cards of 360 and ps3 are about the same and you found a great description - they "throw it on the screen".
forget console war, its just marketing.
NiNm62 2 years ago
ye thats why i think it can pull off what a omp can do with a better graphics card is because teh cell takes a huge workload to lessen the load on the many times weaker graphics card
hbkfitz 2 years ago