SPECS:

RAM: 2GB ballystx DDR2
CPU: Q6600 quad core
MOTHERBOARD: ASUS p5n32-e SLI plus
CASE: lian-li
SPEAKERS: logitech 2.1
HDD: 2X 320GB HDD's in RAID 0
MONITOR: 24" Dell 2407WFP HC
GRAPHICS: 2X 640MB Nvidia 8800GTS in SLi setup
POWER SUPPLY: HX 620W
CD/DVD DRIVE: DVD drive/burner
WHEEL: Logitech G25
KEYBOARD: zboard gaming keyboard
MOUSE: razer diamondback gaming mouse
COOLING: fans on both graphics cards, on power supply, on front and rear of case, on CPU and 2 extra fans added as well.

Your rank means little - what was your score?

And what was the point in this thread...?

EDIT - 16k in 3DMark06 is my geuss. Shame 3DMark is so rediculously GFX biased with it's laughable CPU scores...

ah sorry mister.

hows this for an idea of what its capable of then?

plays bioshock maxed out on every setting available, its good enough for me. no idea on the 3d mark results but they were high.

the point of the thread is me being excited after using a laptop with 16mb of onboard graphics for the last 5 years and finally upgrading.

you are a bitter person lol.

Bitter? Why would i be bitter that my 1337 Quad with an overclocked Xeon scores 3x less than something with SLi'd GTS's...

EDIT - You should be able to max virtually everything apart from maybe SupCom and the Crysis Beta (and i mean BETA, not the retail game)

Can't wait for crysis:
unfortuntely the demo has being delayed: http://www.crysisdemo.com/

won't be able to try it out for another 32 days. i'm hoping to be able to max it out but we'll see.

The demo has been delayed (imo) because Crytek decided to sell "Beta" (i say that loosely - this is not a "test" in any way, merely a profit idea) keys to FilePlanet which they would give to their "Premium Subscribers".

Of course, NDA's won't let thum release screenies, but from the one's i "haven't" seen it looks like Far Cry crossed with BF2. High isn't enabled in it, but on "Med-High" it makes a set of SLi'd GTX's scream in agony on a 24" monitor.

EDIT - God i used some awful cliched shit in that post.

How much that set you back roughly? That seems like a pretty smart buildup. Any overclocks on it yet? If you have the G0 stepping for that quad, you could pump out SERIOUS overclocking numbers, assuming you bought a proper heatsink for it and didn't cheap out with the Intel HSF.
~Bryan~

Quote from dropin_biking :

How much that set you back roughly? That seems like a pretty smart buildup. Any overclocks on it yet? If you have the G0 stepping for that quad, you could pump out SERIOUS overclocking numbers, assuming you bought a proper heatsink for it and didn't cheap out with the Intel HSF.
~Bryan~

I will need to consult with my friend regarding this.

All up it set me back roughly 2300AUD$ sourcing the parts from different shops and building it. Havent compared the pricing to computer shops but im guessing it is slightly cheaper.

oh, obviously the monitor is not included in that price. that was like an extra 964AUD$ lol.

Damn rich people...I wish I had the cash to toss around on a 1337 PC.
~Bryan~

Lol I am the opposite of rich man!!
I am a uni student, on top of that I own a rotary that chews through the juice (petrol), I am constantly broke lol!

But, in the holidays and weekends i work my ass off to be able to buy shit like this and fund my car/rent/bills etc.

oh, you should see my old pc (laptop, 5 years old, 16mb graphics 128mb ram etc), it took me 5 years to upgrade hahah!

My friend just bought an '84 RX-7 actually. The rear rotor is gone, but he sent the whole engine out for a rebuild and bridgeporting So that will be fun as a bat out of hell when it gets back. The interior and body is in flawless condition. As for old PC's. I have a shitty 5 year old Celeron backed by 16MB intergrated graphics, I know how you feel If my gay-ass parents didn't have me paying rent I might be able to build up a decent Core 2. But congrats on the build, and good luck with that 7, looks like a beauty.
~Bryan~

building a similar rig probably this week. Got the money and a friend's work has the parts. I'm going to have just one 8800gts 320 card but a q6600 with g0 stepping.

What kind of framerates do you get in LFS? My current p4 with ati x800 pro and get 150+ so i bet this new rig is gonna be rediculous

You can see my rig in my sig, whilst I don't have a top of the range processor, I get between 150-250 fps single-player (with modded high-res textures) @ 1680x1250 res.
That seems to be the limit of either my CPU or the actual engine because it barely changes with different video driver options. Interested to hear what a good Quad-Core can do (even with a different GPU) at that res.

Hmm just did a quick run at 1920X1200 32bit.
also loaded high res skies, high res tracks, hi res everything really (steering wheel, wiper blades, lights etc all from lfs-database).

getting 200-240 fps with everything maxed out.

I dont really know what else to change to make it look even better but I think it looks fricken awesome compared to what im used to! I used to have it on low everything and like windowed and 1024X768

also tried it loading 20 AI cars and it ran smoothly but cant remember the fps.

Quote from Monkeymike :

You can see my rig in my sig, whilst I don't have a top of the range processor, I get between 150-250 fps single-player (with modded high-res textures) @ 1680x1250 res.
That seems to behehe liml of ei ber my iU or thit20actuel engine because it barely che2ges r%th donferentnt0video driver options. Interested to hear what a good Quad-Core can do (even with a different GPU) at that res.

You mean 1680*1050

A Quad at the same fe quencyagill have no performance advantage as LD% is sir%le-thr0Aded.%3ygr>

EDIT - F*CKING INERNET!

I *meant* to say that A Quad at the same frequency will have have no advantage as LFS is single threaded...

Oh just read your guide on how to make LFS look better jakg, nice.

I might try that, do you think the differences would be noticeable to what I currently run? I.e all maxed out with all hi-res packs.

I also must say a lot of effort has gone into those hi-res packs they are amazing. :jawdrop:

It'll look a LOT difference - imo you'd be an idiot to spend that much on hardware and not do it.

Hey jakg,
i have a slightly different screen, should i go for 64X?

EDIT: err, just uploaded your picture lol.
will upload mine now.

Also, see that text in red? Is that ok?
Thanks.

Ok well i wen't with SLI 32XQ

graphics are so good now, best ive seen in my gaming career (wouldnt be hard).

tried it on 62X but even my computer couldnt handle it to well, it played but then started to lag so thought no point, now im getting about 70-100 fps. i think that for the setting its on combined with all those hi-res packs this is good.

cheers.

TBH 16x is more than enough...

Quote from Jakg :

You mean 1680*1050

A Quad at the same fe quencyagill have no performance advantage as LD% is sir%le-thr0Aded.%3ygr>

EDIT - F*CKING INERNET!

I *meant* to say that A Quad at the same frequency will have have no advantage as LFS is single threaded...

Yes - I did mean 1050 (typing without checking)

I realised about the single thread, just wondered if the Quad chips had any additional enhancements (FSB, cache etc) over my E6600 other than the cores - I've not looked at CPU's for about 12 months so kinda missed the whole Quad explosion.

The FSB is "divided" between the cores so technically it would be a little slower, at least i think so.

They have 2 mb Cache PER CORE, just like your E6600

TBH I don't see a reason to update your current rig with a Quad (unless you DO need the four cores for rendering and INTENCE video editing) Your e6600 running at 3ghz is more then enough to deal with anything. It won't really be sensible to go Quad yet.
~Bryan~

well, when the q6600 is only $80usd more than the e6600 and overclocking on the g0 stepping models is outrageous then no reason NOT to. Only more and more programs will take advantage of quad cores in the future.

It was weird about the Q6600.
One day it was 800AUD, the next it was down to 360, so I never intended to go quad it was just much better value at the time.

I will put it back down to 16X and see if its noticeable, if it is ill leave it at 32 because it looks so smooth.