NZFF

by **HardCorePawn** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 1:10 pm

yeah figured as much... ascent is a good place to find stuff... mainly coz their website is relatively well put together... some of the other stores are a freaking nightmare to navigate! <_<

Cant beat free shipping!

by **NZ255** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:38 pm

Been looking and someone said that you don't need 1066 you can stick with the 800 if you're not overclocking it. Is OC'ing risky, void the warranty?

by **NZ255** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:18 pm

What about these fellers? http://www.ascent.co.nz/productspecificati...x?ItemID=362768 Better or worse compared to the 8800 GTS 512?

by **HardCorePawn** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:12 am

8800GTS (G92) > 8800GT > 9600GT

Check out the 9600GT review at Toms Hardware

As for the RAM... no idea to be honest... I dont bother overclocking any of my stuff anymore, but thats just because I cannot be bothered investing the time in tweaking it to get the best trade-off between performance and stability... and these days I am no longer a poor student, so I can afford to buy the performance I require

Overclocking may shorten the life of your components... i dont think there is any hard evidence either way... as they say "do it at your own risk"...

by **brownbox** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:16 pm

TBH, I wouldnt bother with the 512MB GTS. Its a lot of extra money, for a small performance gain over a $320 512MB GT

EDIT
I was going to leave it at that, but then I saw the word overclocking, and counldt help but join in

To simply asnwer your questions

Q: Is OC'ing risky?
A: No, not really, but take note of the fact that they say its at your own risk. I have overclocked nearly every comonent in every system ive had since my first laptop a few years ago, and have yet to see any component fail due to a reason which obviously points to overclocking

Q:void the warranty?
A: Not if you dont tell anyone

But technically yes.

by **NZ255** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:27 pm

brownbox wrote:
QUOTE (brownbox @ Mar 20 2008, 09:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
TBH, I wouldnt bother with the 512MB GTS. Its a lot of extra money, for a small performance gain over a $320 512MB GT

Yeah just looked at some vs. and they say only 10% increase overall, for $150 extra, thanks for the tip!

PS. Is there a better GFX card for the price around? Isn't the 8800GT kinda old now (prepared to be told I'm totaly wrong

)

by **Alex** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:09 pm

I think the 8800GT is less than a year old? Didn't it come out mid/late 2007? (I'm prepared to be told I'm totally wrong as well

)

Alex

by **brownbox** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:05 am

I just brought a 8800GT. It might be slightly old, but its still by far the best price/performane ratio

by **tdale** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:55 am

I'd like to pass on a few hints, although I use FSX.
I have collated all the tweaks etc, am happy to email them to you.

1. Download Memstatus 2.60 that will show you what system memory is in use and videoram, while you are using FS. You must keep them not fully utilised otherwise the system memory will use the hard disk, and video sending to the screen will be delayed, and cause FS to wait. You may apply other tweaks etc, but these may be lost if the issue is overuse of memory.

2. Set your Windows res to the same as you use in FS, and try 16 bit colour, that will heavily reduce the texture size. If you switch between 16 bit and 32 bit in both Windows and FS, you won't see a difference, so the 32bit is wasted and requires more CPU and video (speed and RAM) to do the job.

3. Turn any shadows off

My PC is:
AMD 6400 Dual Core 3.2Ghz
Albatron Nvidia 7900GTX 512Mb
2Gb DDR 800
Samsumg 22" LCD at 1680x1050 at 16 bit

I run high settings in FSX, and my worst case scenario is RealNZ Wellington for FSX, 20m Mesh, Topo Scenery and Landclass, and at 20 FPS Locked it is great. Dips to 18 or 19 at times when low. It's smooth.

I realise your PC is not fast, but FS9 is easier too. While you can play with settings in FS9, if you can avoid memory caused issues, and reduce the load in Windows, i.e. 16 bit colour, and even reduce the res as well, I am sure that will help, and maybe allow you to turn up FS settings, to regain visual quality.

by **tdale** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:02 am

Re VIDEO CARDS

Don't get hung up on the Nvidia 7 series, 8 series too much.
For example the 6600, 7600, 8600 are not that different in terms of raw power, The 8600 is DX 10 capable compared to the 7600.
The GS, GT, GTS, GTX do represent higher speeds and more pipelines, so more power

With my 7900GTX,
the 7 series means it is not DX10
The x900 means that it is better than the 7600, 7800
The GTX means that it is better than the GS, GT, GTS

See Toms Hardware for comparisons, but the bottom line is $ cost as a rough guide, and as some of you have said, there is sweet spot

by **NZ255** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:42 pm

OK, got a bit more stuff added to the trolly:

Please give your opinion, had to sacrifice some costly stuff, for more power (CPU GFX)

CPU:-------Probably - E8400 3 GHz ?? How come the older(?) one's (E6850(same specs) are more $$ than the higher number one's?
MOBO:-----ASUS P5KR
RAM:-------Corsair 2GB
CASE:------NZXT Alpha
GFX:-------ASUS 8800GT 512 (come down in price too, and free game

)
PSU:-------650W PSU
DVD:-------ASUS DVD+RW

Will probably start ordering as soon as the case is in stock :thumbup:

Please comment, and please check (if you have time) that everything is compatible

)

Thanks alot, :clap:

Nick

by **HardCorePawn** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:13 am

NZ255 wrote:
QUOTE (NZ255 @ Mar 23 2008, 11:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
CPU:-------Probably - E8400 3 GHz ?? How come the older(?) one's (E6850(same specs) are more $$ than the higher number one's?

older stock, higher prices etc... newer CPU's, newer cores, better yield, lower cost == lower prices etc...

by **NZ255** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:15 am

So the E8400 is newer then?

by **HardCorePawn** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:17 am

yeah... its using the new 'wolfdale' 45nm core... as opposed to the older 'conroe' 65nm core...

by **brownbox** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:10 am

Looking good. Just a side note though. Perhaps, seeing as you arent going to have dual video cards, you could look for a single card motherboard solution? Just seems like extra cost. Otherwise, looks like your good to go.

by **NZ255** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:55 am

brownbox wrote:
QUOTE (brownbox @ Mar 25 2008, 12:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Looking good. Just a side note though. Perhaps, seeing as you arent going to have dual video cards, you could look for a single card motherboard solution? Just seems like extra cost. Otherwise, looks like your good to go.

Like this or something? Does that support 45nm? Doesn't say on the overview

by **NZ255** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:32 pm

OK, so been looking while waiting to order parts and I was thinking do you have to have a SLI chipset in your motherboard to SLI videos cards? Also does the motherboard chipset affect anything else e.g. CPU?

Is it better to get an Nforce vs. Intel P** chipset if I'm getting a nVidia video card, and possibly SLI in the future?

Thanks

Nick

by **brownbox** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:34 pm

Nforce chipset mobos only support Nvidia SLI.
Intels chipsets are split. Some do SLI, some do ATI's Crossfire, and some do both.
It doesnt really matter which you choose, but remember they cannot swap (i.e if you get a nforce mobo, you will never be able to have dual ATI cards).
Please take into account, some motherboards chipsets are passively cooled (have no fans). This is not good if your case does not have sufficient cooling.

by **NZ255** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:25 pm

How many are fan cooled? I can't see any

by **brownbox** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:56 am

your best bet would be to read reviews on the mobos. Most that have fans dont show them in the pics, but include them in the box.

also, the p5Kr is passively cooled, and only supports crossfire.

NZFF

Your opinion needed please

Who is online