We were hacked. Several times over the past two weeks, in fact.
While all passwords are encrypted and salted, it's recommended that you change your password here when you can.
I got a Q9550 from ebay for about $250 shipped. My E6400 was bottle necking my 9800 GTX+ . Made a huge difference as my GPU usage is now 99% as it was 30% before the upgrade. I'm overclocking it to 3400 @ 1.25v. CPU usage is about 75% during game play.
Q6600, but overclock that baby to AT LEAST 3.05ghz. Aim for 3.2, but good luck, mine was way too unstable at first at 3.2. I had to mess with voltage and a bunch of other crap until I finally got it stable.
Sorry to go a bit off topic but I noticed your video card is similar to one I was considering purchasing. Was just wondering about how the card performs IG, cheers
btw the card in consideration:
GTX 260 Core 216 Superclocked Edition
Running Vista 64 in DX10 mode, in the multiplayer game with everything on HIGH and with 4FSAA + 16AA I am getting a solid 60FPS (V-Synch ON)...including times when buildings and trees are all crashing down around me.
I have HBAO turned off as I really dont see what difference it makes and it costs me around 10-15 Frames.
Regardless of the claimed quad core optimisation, the E8500 is better than a Q6600 as it runs a lot faster,cooler and can be overclocked much higher. If I can run the game maxed (as far as DX10 goes) with my setup, then you can surely do the same with your E8500.
Mat, youre a cat and dont know what you are talking about. Its already been proven all over the internet with various quad and dual cores that quad cores work much better than the duals with Bad Company 2. Even dual cores seriously overclocked.
Dont take my word for it, google it and let them umpteen million stats and reviews and tests speak for themselves.
Yeah.....but the Q6600 isn't exactly an i7 or even a Yorkdale Core 2 Duo (Q9650 etc)....
I will bet you any (proverbial) money, that an E8500 would outperform a Q6600 in BF BC2!
EDIT: Haven't found the benches but have found this. The article points out just how insignificant the CPU is when compared to the GPU. Other pages in the same article state how a good dual core CPU is perfectly adequate of running the game (contrary to the advice of all you 'experts').....but I know this as I can see the evidence for myself.
A stock q6600 is clocked nearly one full Ghz slower than a stock e8500. A newer C2Q would outperform it, but not a q6600, I don't think. The game isn't so efficient to use all 4 cores or even need them.
A stock q6600 is clocked nearly one full Ghz slower than a stock e8500. A newer C2Q would outperform it, but not a q6600, I don't think. The game isn't so efficient to use all 4 cores or even need them.
Not to mention the Wolfdale Core 2 Duo's will clock waaayy higher than the hot 65nm Q6600. At the time the Q6600 was released, it was acknowledged that as far as gamers needs went, by the time games were truly utilising 4 cores the Q6600 would be obsolete as a CPU for gaming on. I done a lot of reading at the time and decided to buy the E8400 instead, despite having my heart set on the hotter, slower, more power consuming Q6600.
When EA state 'quad core' as being recommended, what they actually mean is I7. But you get all the kiddies reading this flat 2D information and coming to all kinds of conclusions and posting them as fact.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment