Strider's Gaming and Technology Blog

Rage PC Mini-Review

2011-12-30T13:47:00.007-06:00

I decided to purchase Rage for a couple reasons. One is I am a big fan of both id Software and Bethesda Softworks, you have to admit, both companies have brought us some of the most popular and influential games in the industries history. Games like Wolfenstein, Doom, Quake, Hexen, Heretic, The insanely popular Elder Scrolls Series, and the Fallout series of games. All games that I loved and that set many of the standards that made the gaming industry what it is today. They are also working on Fallout 4 and Doom 4. So it's hard to call yourself a gamer and not like these compaines with a list of games and achievements like that.

The second reason is I also love "apocalyptic" or post-apolcalyptic themed games. Fallout being one of my all time favorites. Even though does not share the same exact theme, but they do "feel" like it, I also greatly enjoyed Borderlands and the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. So it would stand to reason I should enjoy Rage.

Well, let me start off by saying that I did enjoy the game a great deal. So much so that I played through it just one day. That is where my biggest fault with the game sits, and it is one of the most disappointing aspects of the game, the point that really let me down. It was simply too short and easy to complete even on it's hardest setting. I was able to play through the campaign, completing every quest, finding all the secrets, on its hardest mode, in just under 9 hours.

To me, that's just incredibly short for a game like this, the RPG FPS. Sure, 9 hours is OK for a "normal" FPS, but not a game like this, with this much build up, story, and so much room to expand. As the story developed, it sucks you in, and then all of a sudden it just starts to feel rushed, like its pushing you to complete the final mission.

I just expected a lot more game time, did not expect it to end where it did, and I excepted it to be harder than it was. Or perhaps I am just getting too good at these sort of games. Not sure where to place the blame there. Perhaps I just had too many high expectations for the game.

Even though this was a huge disappointment for me, I can honestly say that I truly enjoyed playing the game a great deal. It was a lot of fun those 9 hours. The game itself does do credit to the names on the box, save for the fact it just felt so short and in the end, rushed.

The game does have a saving grace, one that might be able to redeem it, that there might be DLC in the works. Perhaps to continue the story since it just left open at the end after such a dramatic build up. It just seems like a horrible place to end the game, you expect it to continue. The multiplayer options are also very nice as well and can easily add more game time to the clock.

The game itself ran great, the only problem I had was a common and well known driver issue that would cause the game to flicker and "artifact" on my dual 6970 powered system. However this issue was easily corrected by simply updating to the 12.1 beta drivers from AMD. Other than that, I had no problems at all with the game, no stability issues or graphic anomalies that other people reported. For being a port, it played well on my system.

So would I recommend Rage? Yes, but I would wait for it to go on sale. At the time of this article, the game was $30 at most retail stores and Steam, though I got mine on sale for $15. It really is a great deal of fun to play. If you enjoyed games like Fallout 3, New Vegas, or Borderlands, you should enjoy Rage. Just don't expect it last nearly as long as any of those titles.

Rage has lot of potential, a good storyline, and it really is a lot of fun to play. It would easily get a 9 or 10 out of 10 for me if it was not for the fact it just seemed too short and as you neared the end of the game it started to feel like you were being rushed to complete it. So I have settled on giving it a 7 out of 10 for now. We will see where that goes if and when we get some DLC to continue the story.

Rated: 7/10

BWHGaming Battlefield 3 Servers

2011-10-29T15:45:00.016-05:00

Our servers are moderated by a great team of admins to try and deliver those who play in them the a clean hack and grief free experience. These servers are community backed and we are dedicated to making them a success and providing our community, and the BF3 community at large, a long term place to enjoy this wonderful game.
To find us, just search "BWH" from the server browser.

Server #1: ` BWHGaming #1 | 24/7 Caspian Border 64 | No Assholes | NY

The current server configuration is as follows:

Server #1 is 64 players. The registered player count is scaled in real time as people join and leave the server, all the way up to 64.

As you can see from the server rankings, we are quickly moving up the scale and are occupied more often than not. Why not stop in and give us try.

Ranked
Preset: Normal
Punkbuster: Enabled and up to date
Players needed to start round: 2
HUD: On
Minimap: On
Health Regen: On
Minimap Spotting: On
3D Spotting: On
Friendly Fire: Off
Only Squad Leader Spawn: Off
Team Balance: On
Vehicles: On
Vehicle Cam: On
Kill Cam: On
Show Enemy Name Tags: On

As always, our servers are open to anyone and everyone. We do out best to provide those who play in our servers the best possible experience. We have good admins and mods to assist whenever its needed. You can also reach us, or just chat about the game, in our newly created Battlefiled 3 forum section, our TeamSpeak 3 server, or just come and check out our community in general.

BWH Battlefield 3 Forum: http://www.bwhgaming.com/forums/m/323223/viewforum/704837

BWHGaming TeamSpeak 3: 63.251.20.106

Home: http://www.bwhgaming.com/

See you on the Battlefield!

Battlefield 3 vs Modern Warfare 3 .. & More (PC)

2011-10-26T09:40:00.013-05:00

Let me start off by saying I think comparing Battlefiled and Call of Duty is like comparing apples to oranges, they have so little in common with one and other, but they will still be compared because they both represent the pinnacle of modern FPS gaming. I am doing this article, my own personal comparison, in response to some of the other comparative reviews I have seen.

I guess the big question is, who wins? Well, winning is a matter of opinion more than a matter of fact. So why don't we list a few facts before we get into my own personal points of view and take a look whats under some of these facts.

Modern Warfare 3 will sell more copies worldwide than Battlefield 3.
Battlefiled 3 is technologically superior to Modern Warfare 3 in every respect.
Battlefiled 3 has won far more industry leading awards than MW3.
Modern Warfare 3 is made for console and ported to PC.
Battlefield 3 is made for PC and ported to console.
Console players of BF3 will still be getting a technologically superior product compared to MW3.
There are more console players in the world today than PC.

Now that we got the few facts in the situation out in the open, lets talk about them a little.

MW3 will sell more copies worldwide than BF3. This is a given, and it also ties into a few of the other facts I listed. Why will they sell more copies? Is it just because MW3 is just so much better then BF3? No, what game is better is 100% personal opinion. It will sell more because of facts 3 though 5.

Modern Warfare targets the largest player base on the planet, console, and more specifically the XBox 360. Battlefield is far more of a PC game than a console game, and even though the console version of BF3 is still technologically superior to MW3, it's still quite far behind the PC version and it's target base is still more PC than console.

Its simple math. More console players amounts to more sales. Simple as that. Yet people will still be all over "MW3 is better because it sold more", and this leads me to my own personal thoughts as to why MW sells so well.

Blind "fanboy" devotion being the first. One thing I tell people all the time, if you can take a bag of dog crap, slap a Call of Duty logo on it, it will sell by the millions and fanboys of the series will defend it to the death. You're not going to compete with that type of mindset.

Age is the second factor. There are far more "younger" players of the CoD games than there are for the BF games. Battlefield often targets slightly older gamers. That age difference also comes into play because "kids" are far more likely to stick with one game, where their friends are, over switching to something new based on any rational thought process like an adult might do.

Skill and learning curve is the third factor. Yeah, I will get flamed for this one, but I did say skill. I have played every CoD game, and in every case, I really had no problem dominating or holding my own vs players that should have been a lot better than me since I do not spend that much time playing those games vs all the others I play.

MW and BF also play completely different. MW is far more of a run and gun arcade shooter and BF is far more of a tactical shooter. MW pretty much only requires a faster click of the mouse, better control of the mouse, and knowing the maps you play on better than the other players. I would say a firm understanding of gameplay mechanics, but they have not changed since CoD 4, so if you have played one, you have played them all.

Battlefield not only requires the same as MW, but much more. You actually have to play smart, use cover, think about what you want to do, and it takes battlefield and situational awareness to a level well above most other FPS games, including Modern Warfare. This is above most "younger" gamers.

Now before I get flames for saying all that, just ask any Battlefiled "veteran", it's easy as hell to pick out a CoD player in a Battlefiled game. Most don't adapt or try to learn the tactics needed to do better in Battlefield. They don't get the fact the gameplay mechanics are completely different. They try and play BF like its CoD, and then blame BF for their lack of skill or willingness to learn. Many people call this "CoD Syndrome".

Yes, there is also a "BF Syndrome", it's just getting so used to any one style of gameplay that when you step out it, you don't feel nearly as comfortable to do as well as you thought you would. Now speaking of comfort.

All of that adds up to a comfort zone. CoD players are comfortable playing CoD, moving outside of that zone makes them, well, uncomfortable. They don't do as well. Not everyone can just pick up a game and go with it. Some can obviously, this does not apply to them, but there are far more that can't than can. What game would you rather play? The one you're really good at or the one you're not so good at?

So you take all that and add it up. More console players than PC, made for console, targeting console players, target player base is younger, player comfort zone, and it equals Modern Warfare 3 selling more copies overall, worldwide, than Battlefiled 3. However none of that denotes one winning over the other, nor does it constitute one being "better" than the other. Thats all opinion.

Lets look at the games from a technological standpoint. Battlefield 3 is a game made for 2011 PC hardware, Modern Warfare 3 is a game made for 6 year old console hardware. No one can argue that Modern Warfare 3 is lightyears behind Battlefiled technologically. That it's outdated before it even comes out. You, like I said above, fewer PC gamers than console and you really need a PC to fully take advantage of Battlefield 3.

Why did Battlefield 3 win more awards than Modern Warfare 3? Probably because it deserves them. Even though no one has any delusions of what game will sell more, most people in the industry know Battlefield 3 is a superior game in it's own right.

So my opinion on what game is better? That's easy, Battlefiled 3. It's not that I don't like Call of Duty. It's that I hate the fact the series is stale. Activision is feeding their customers the same old crap over and over, in a new skin, and they still keep buying it. That's what makes me hate Call of Duty as it stands today. Not the game itself, but what they have done to it. I am a PC gamer, and I expect a much higher level of quality and advancement in my gaming. Modern Warfare 3 is not modern high-end gaming, it's six year old gaming.

This is not acceptable to me and it's also why I hate console gaming in general. You can expand that "syndrome" analogy out to include consoles. Console syndrome has done a lot of damage to the industry. Companies have no reason to advance their products, why should they? When they have millions worldwide willing to shell out $60 a pop for the same crap and over again.

This is where Call of Duty gets it's sales. It's not a superior game from any factual standpoints, only from personal player opinions. Yes, MW3 will win in sales, but where those sales come from, what they are built on means a lot to an adult gamer like me. One that expects more and understands whats going on in the industry since I have been a part of it for so long. Either as a gamer since the Atari days or a tester more recently.

So in my own personal opinion. Battlefield 3 is the clear winner overall, any game series that advances wins over Call of Duty, not just Battlefiled. I will pick any game that does not shove six year old recycled crap down my thought and expect me to pay $60 for the experience.

The day the Call of Duty series grows up and crawls out of the console pit it's buried in, will be the day I let it back into my pocketbook. Yeah, I will still probably play MW3, only because I have friends who will buy it for me and try and force me to play, just as they did on Black Ops until I was banned from three servers in six hours for being better than the so called "skilled" players, and kicked from many others. That will put a sour taste in anyone's mouth. I am far from the best gamer on the planet, I would never profess to be anything of the sort, yet apparently being better than multiple CoD veterans is a sign of cheating.

Well, there you have it, my take on the BF3 vs MW3 debate. Why I pick BF3, and most any other game, over MW3. Not a popular opinion I am sure, but there it is none the less.

Welcome Back Commodore!

2011-04-11T00:07:00.007-05:00

Welcome back Commodore! Wait...What's a Commodore? Well, if you happen to be too young to remember or if this was before your time, then let me explain.

Commodore Computers were some of the best of the "micro-computer" era of the 1980's and some of the best selling computers in history. They were light-years ahead of the competition at the time in the eyes of many users, including myself.

Sadly, Commodore International fell victim to a series of bad business decisions that doomed the company to bankruptcy in 1994, thus ending one of the best lines of computers ever made. If this unfortunate event had not happened, the modern computing world might look quite a bit different than it does today.

Well, to the amazement and joy of an entire generation of users and tech heads, Commodore has been resurrected by Barry Altman in the form of Commodore USA. The company was founded in April of 2010 with the goal of bringing back the Commodore brand and line of computers. In September 2010, the company purchased the rights to the Commodore and Amiga brands.

Not only bringing back the brands, but the fundamental "all-in-one" designs that dominated the market back in the 1980's. Making computers for everyday use that do not require a ton of desk space, power, and that just about anyone can learn to use.

As of the time I am writing this blog entry, there are currently 3 new Commodore computers available.

Commodore C64 (http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_C64.aspx)
Commodore VIC Pro (http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_VICPro.aspx)
Commodore VIC Slim (http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_VICSlim.aspx)

With many more to come, like the Amiga line of systems, as well as few other future designs that I am really looking forward to seeing. You can check them all out over at the official website!

http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_Home.aspx

I can not wait to get my hands on a new Commodore 64! The day I do, I will be flooding my blog with everything I can get it to do. It will be one of those "like a kid in a candy store" moments.

With the looks of some of the products in store for the future of Commodore USA, I will be glued to their website and forum for a long time to come. This is one Commodore fan that will do everything in his power to spread the word of the return of this iconic brand to the market.

I have to say thank you to Barry Altman and everyone who brought Commodore back and you have a supporter for life right here!

AMD Radeon 6990 vs. Nvidia GTX 590. Do We Have A Winner?

2011-03-26T09:53:00.024-05:00

In my opinion, the short answer is no. I have been reading and watching literally dozens of reviews and benchmarks on these two cards and I have come to one conclusion. When it comes down to what these cards are designed to do, and that's offer up a single card dual-GPU solution for gaming, they are both evenly matched. Period.

So here we have the two flagship cards from AMD and Nvidia for this generation, once again competing for dominance, and once again fans on both sides of the fence demanding a clear cut winner. "So what card is better?!?!?!"

Many people will not do any actual research on their own and make up their own minds. They always want to be told what to think and then follow the crowd, no matter what side of the fence you may be on. Then blindly proclaim that their card is better, as if it's some sort of pissing contest. I see countless replies and user comments like the following from several different reviews.

"do the math man, the nvidia card is around 16% faster without considering Hawx 2. if you add Hawx bench theres a 25% diference between them" - Obviously this user has no idea how to do statistical math as he is basing his numbers on a few game benchmarks from a single source.
"amd radeon graphics sucks!!!NVIDIA IS THE BEST !" - I do love this users advanced understanding of GPU technology. /sarcasm
"nvidia is a joke, everyone knows AMD is better, nvidia fanboys are just too stupid to admit it" - Seriously? Where does this logic come from?

These are just three of literally hundreds of such comments on both sides of the fence I have found while doing all my research. There are just far too many people out there that really have no clue and constantly show their inability to actually think for themselves. They look at one review, allow themselves to be tainted by one train of thought, and never stop to actually weigh all the facts about the technology they obviously have no real understanding of.

Then you have those who readily admit they don't have a real good technical understanding of the facts about current GPU's and are just trying to make a decision on what will work best for them and they are bombarded with all the aforementioned idiocy. Left to sift through it all and not really knowing what way to turn. Often getting drawn into misinformation or fanboy proclamations.

So that's why I decided to write this blog entry. I want to share the FACTS about both cards and then share my OPINIONS on both cards, and why I would choose the one I would. I wanted to compile the information I have gathered from those dozens of reviews I have read and watched all in one place so anyone who happens across my humble little blog can make up their own mind and not be bombarded by "THE HD 6990 IS BEST" or "THE GTX 590 IS KING" opinions of many of the reviewers.

These facts, information, and the approximated benchmarks included below, are compiled from dozens of different sites and reviews, here are just a few of ones I visit the most. There are several other sites I came across doing this specific research, but these are the most popular and the ones I recommend the most.

Tom's Hardware
Motherboards.org
Hardware Heaven
Linus Tech Tips
Overclock 3D
Geeks 3D
Tech PowerUp
PassMark Software
Legit Reviews
Hot Hardware
AnandTech
And many more individual reviews and benchmarks

Basically, I wrote down ALL the test results I found in ALL of my research and then averaged them out and rounded to the nearest five. Because lets be honest, does 1-4 FPS make a difference when we are talking numbers this high? No. So lets look at the facts and the numbers for both cards.

Gaming Performance

I chose to list only DX10 and DX11 capable games and no DX9 games since to be perfectly honest, DX9 is becoming outdated as are the games that use it. These cards are designed to take advantage of DX10 and DX11, pure and simple.

I listed the average overall FPS scores from over a dozen different benchmark sites, including the ones I list above. This way you can get a better overall comparative average on both of these cards and how they perform across different test benches.

I did not list any specific brands since everyone has their own personal preference, and from everything I have read, they all perform almost identical. So you are free to choose your brand. Besides, if you want to stick with a specific brand, then you are better off focusing your research to that brand.

All of the benchmarks were at stock speeds unless otherwise noted with an "OC" indicating they were overclocked.

I also tried to list the same basic graphic settings and most common resolution (1920x1080) across all the reviews to keep it all as level as possible for the best possible comparison.

Now, to the games!

Bulletstorm DX10 (Average FPS - Max Settings - 8xAA - 1920x1080)

HD 6990 OC: 105
GTX 590 OC: 105

Dragon Age 2 DX11 (Average FPS - Max Settings - 8xAA - 1920x1080)

HD 6990 OC: 70
GTX 590 OC: 45

Stalker Call of Pripyat DX11 (Average FPS - Default Settings - 1920x1200)

HD 6990: 100
GTX 590: 105

Alien vs Predator DX11 (Average FPS - Default Settings - 1920x1200)

HD 6990: 100
GTX 590: 85

Hawx 2 DX11 (Average FPS - High Settings - 8xAA - 16xAF - 1920x1200)

HD 6990: 190
GTX 590: 250

Battlefield Bad Company 2 DX11 (Average FPS - Highest Setting - 8xAA - 8x/16x MSAA/AF - - 1920x1080)

HD 6990: 130
GTX 590: 130

F1 2010 DX11 (Average FPS - Ultra Setting - 8xAA - 1920x1080)

HD 6990: 100
GTX 590: 85

Metro 2033 DX11 (Average FPS - High Settings - AAA- 4xAA - 1920x1080)

HD 6990: 55
GTX 590: 55

Lost Planet 2 DX11 (Average FPS - High Settings - 8xMSAA - 32xCSAA - AA - 1920x1080)

HD 6990: 85
GTX 590: 90

Just Cause 2 DX11 (Average FPS - Highest Settings - 8xMSAA - 16xAF - 8xAA - 1920x1080)

HD 6990: 75
GTX 590: 70

So as you can see, both of these trade punches back and froth and they both kick ass no matter how you look at it. In most cases, the differences in FPS are minimal, and in EVERY SINGLE CASE totally unnoticeable without benchmark software running in the background.

What does all that mean? Simple, there is NO clear cut winner when it comes to framerates between the HD 6990 and the GTX 590. It will boil down to the game YOU play and the your own personal preferences.

Synthetic Benchmarks

I put very little stock in these numbers since I do not play synthetic benchmarks, I play video games, but I know a lot of people do. They can be a general overall indication of how a card may perform, but they are intended as a standardized platform for scoring based on the benchmark software being used. Not as an end all of how the card will perform in individual games and on individual systems. But here are the numbers anyway. Again, averaged over multiple sites.

3DMark X11 Overall Scores

HD 6990 GPU: 9300
GTX 590 GPU: 8930

HD 6990 3D Marks: 9180
GTX 590 3D Marks: 8820

3DMark Vantage

HD 6990: 34500
GTX 590: 38000

HD 6990 GPU: 22500
GTX 590 GPU: 19400

Again, notice a trend here? The numbers are flopping back and forth between both cards and not exactly Earth shattering in their differences.

So what does it come down to now? When it comes to gaming, both the AMD HD 6990 and Nvidia GTX 590 are pretty darn evenly matched. So now it's really going to come down to the individual user. Here are some other things you can factor in.

Power Consumption and Heat

Both cards are plugged for the same wattage however the HD 6990 will draw more under load than the GTX 590.

So thus, the HD 6990 can run hotter than the GTX 590. The HD 6990 does vent more air outside of the case where as the GTX 590 vents more air into the case.

So this will come down to your power needs, case cooling, and your personal preference yet again.

Noise Level

The HD 6990 is a considerably louder card than the GTX 590 when those fans ramp up to speed under load.

So if you want quiet, then the GTX 590 is better suited for that. If you don't care or control your fan speeds manually, then the HD 6990 may fit your bill nicely. Either way, here we are sitting at personal preference again.

Features

These can be deal makers and breakers for some people, including myself, so we better talk about those.

Do you want CUDA and PhysX Engine support? Looks like you better go with the GTX 590, or any other modern Nvidia GPU.

How about multi-display support. Both the HD 6990 and GTX 590 have it. So what one is "better", well that's going to depend on a few different things.

AMD Radeon cards have had Eyefinity for 3+ display support for a long time now, they can also support over 3 displays where as the GTX 590 can not. It is limited to 3 displays. Also the extra GB of VRAM the HD 6990 has over the GTX 590 will come in handy when gaming on multiple displays, especially if you go nuts and push it to 5 displays.

So in the multi-display gaming category, the HD 6990 would be the better choice.

Want SLI and Crossfire scaling? Well, that depends on the games you play of course, but overall in this case, the GTX 590 scales better than the HD 6990. So the GTX 590 may be the way to go if you are one of those people wanting to run a quad dual-GPU card setup.

If your going to scale, and you want to use AMD, your much better off going with a 6950 or 6970, they scale much better then the 6990.

What about BIOS/OC switch? The HD 6990 has it and the GTX 590 does not. So what does that mean? Flip a switch and you instantly OC the 6990 to 880MHz and it does have a noticeable impact on performance. So do you want BIOS level overclocking? Do you want it under warranty? Then you may want to go with the HD 6990, and more specifically, the XFX HD 6990.

Not to mention, that switch, toggles between two separate BIOS on the card, a protected one and a flash-able one. The same as on the 6950 and 6970. If you ever flash the one BIOS, and it fails for some unforeseen reason, no big deal, no more worries about bricking your card. Just flip the switch back to the other protected BIOS and re-flash the failed one.

Final Thoughts

Yes I am an AMD user, but seriously, how can anyone crown one card the overall winner over the other when they are so evenly matched. Simply put, you can't. Both of these cards run neck and neck, trading punches back and forth all the way down the charts, and they BOTH are still standing at the end of it all. Both of these cards kick ass, pure and simple.

So in the end, like I have said multiple times throughout this review, it's going to come down to YOU and your own preferences. For the love of Pete, if you are on the fence, do some research. Think for yourself, make an educated decision. Once you have done all that, and you still can't decide, go with whatever your fanboy heart tells you too.

My Personal Choice?

XFX Radeon HD 6990. Here are my personal reasons.

Both cards are even when it comes to gaming. So no preference there.

I could care less about synthetic benchmarks. So no preference there.

Power consumption and heat. I have a power supply that's more than capable of powering both cards. I have a case that's more than capable of keeping them both nice and cool. So again, no preference here either.

Noise level. The HD 6990 is louder, but I am one of the few that likes that. I was raised on loud cars and even louder music. I also have a case with 7 huge case fans, not including those on the processor, PSU, and RAM. I also game with high quality headphones and manually control my fan speeds. So I have to go with the HD 6990 on this one.

CUDA and PhysX. Don't care for either. Why? AMD has DirectCompute and that works just fine for me. There are far fewer games that support PhysX than do. The simple fact of the matter is, most of the games out there and that are coming out over this next year do not use PhysX. They either use Havoc or their own physics engine. Game developers are not willing to alienate such a large portion of their customer base and use PhysX when it's proprietary and is only allowed to run on Nvidia cards, not when it comes to their money maker titles. It's far more logical to use an engine, or make one yourself, that runs on all cards, regardless of brand. So I have to go HD 6990 here too.

Multi-display support. I like Eyefinity, Nvidia is just too new to multi-display gaming. The only reason the GTX 590 can even support 3 displays is because its a dual-GPU card. Where as most all modern AMD/ATI cards have support for 3, or more, displays. So the HD 6990 would be my choice. Not to mention that extra GB of VRAM.

SLI or Crossfire. The GTX 590 scales better than the HD 6990. However, I would never run a multi-card setup with either card. There is no point. It's overkill and the only benefit from it would be bragging rights and synthetic scores. Neither mean a damn thing to me. If I am going to run a multi-card setup, I would run dual 6950's for under $500. You get great scaling, anywhere from 30 to 100% depending on the game. It's cheaper than both the 6990 and 590, and you get real performance boosts. Anything beyond that is back to bragging rights and synthetic numbers again. When we are already talking FPS numbers this high and stable with two cards in SLI or Crossfire, there is no point to go any further. The game will see no gameplay benefits. So I have no preference here.

The BIOS/OC switch. I like that feature. I never have to worry about bricking my card and I can get that instant OC. If I buy XFX, my card is still covered when running at the OC rate of 880MHz. So I have to choose AMD over Nvidia on this one.

So there is my own personal thought process and why I would buy the HD 6990 over the GTX 590. That, and for the simple fact there are just too evenly matched and I would just have to go with my "fanboy" roots.

The point of this all is. Use your own thought process, make up your own mind, because based on all the facts these cards are equal. So I have to give kudos to both Nvidia and AMD for giving us two kick ass cards to choose from and that have the power to deliver great performance across the board. When the race is this close, the real winners are the end users. We are the ones that end up benefiting from the race. Each company pushing the envelope to try and come out on top and thus giving us more and more power to play with.

In the end though, why did I do all this, do I plan on actually buying one of these dual-GPU cards? The answer is no. I am very happy with my XFX 6950 2GB card as it powers through any and all games at all maximum settings at 1920x1080 with no problems. I do plan on Crossfire, but it will be two 6950's and that will have me set for what I do, game, for a good time to come. Both of these cards are overkill for someone like me and a waste of money in my opinion when available SLI and Crossfire solutions are often less expensive and offer similar performance and enough of an overall boost to keep any gamer playing at max everything. However, these are my own personal opinions. Like I say over and over, I am not an enthusiast, I am a realist.

I did this because even though I am an admitted AMD "fanboy", I get sick of all the BS, blind proclamations, and misguided information I see when I sit down and research these sorts of things. So it was a way for me to vent a little, bring together facts and information in one location for others to compare, and to share my opinions. So if someone finds all this useful, then great, I am not looking for anyone to agree or disagree with me. Just to think for themselves and look at the entire picture.

So who is the winner?

WE ARE!

In most all game benchmarks these cards are within only a few percent of each other. In a few they are all over the place because Nvidia and AMD cards are completely different architecture. I each and every case, these cards trade blows back and forth, and they BOTH come out standing at the end. Both cards would be fantastic for anyone looking for the best dual=GPU solution out there.

With AMD and Nvidia both competing this hard for top billing and the "Fastest Video Card in the World". We will be the ones that come out on top with better and faster maturing drivers, new features and technologies, and thus better gaming performance.

Want to follow the battle anyway? http://www.legitreviews.com/news/10358/

No matter what either company says. I stand by my conclusion, these cards are equal.

Crysis 2 PC Mini-Review and Impressions

2011-03-23T22:13:00.018-05:00

Since I was one of those who had Crysis 2 on pre-order via Steam, I could not wait until 9am CST Wednesday March 22nd, the time the game became available for me to download through Steam. A day later, after completing the single player campaign on "Veteran" mode, in about 7 hours, while broadcasting a live stream of my session. I can honestly say the game was well worth the money and the wait.

Like I said, I decided to make my first play through the game a little more challenging by playing it on Veteran mode, and it took me about 7 hours from start to finish. It was challenging, but still easily doable and a lot of fun. Since I was also broadcasting my gaming session live via X-Fire and LiveStream, I was not really exploring all the paths you can take or areas of the game, so I missed a large number of the games "collectibles". That's not a problem since, in my opinion, it gives the single player campaign more replay value. I intend on playing through it another time or two to collect all the items available.

The Story

Well, I can sit here and type out a few boring paragraphs about the games story, or I can just give you a couple videos that will do the job a lot better. Not to mention be far more entertaining.

This first one is the official "Crysis 2 Story Trailer".

This next one is the games introduction sequence that I recorded and uploaded shortly after I got it downloaded and installed. So you can get an idea of how the story starts out.

I really liked the story and the direction they took it. Without giving away any spoilers, I can say that it's left open for more games in the series, something I hope to see in the coming years. Any fan of the series or Sci-fi stories will like this one.

The Gameplay

Well, it's Crysis, it's what you expect and more. Lots of weapons to pick up and modify with different attachments throughout the game. Great melee and stealth attacks, including the ability to kill with a silenced pistol and remain cloaked. New attack methods such as "Air Stomp", "Power Kick" obstacles like cars onto or into an enemy, and power sliding under barriers and pumping the enemy full of lead. You can pull off combination's of such moves for some great kills. There is also a nice cover system where you can peek over barriers and around corners to fire at your enemy.

You can also purchase enhancements for your Nanosuit with points "harvested" from enemy kills that augment your different powers and have any one of them active at any given time in each of four categories. It's a lot of fun and adds a new level to the gameplay.

The Graphics

For a game that was cross-platform developed, they look pretty damn good on the PC in high-resolution and at the "Extreme" setting. I am not a an of cross-platform development when it impacts quality on the PC for the sake of inferior console hardware. No console can dream of doing what a nice high-end gaming PC can and I like to see games that actually take advantage of modern PC gaming hardware. I am a PC gamer for a reason. I like the power and I expect my games to use it. Crysis 2 does not push my system anywhere near it's limit, but it still pumps out good looking graphics. However I had to see for myself how it compared to a console.

So I went out and rented a copy of Crysis 2 for the 360 and did a side by side comparison between the two versions. The 360 version does look very nice, on the PC, it's comparable to the games "High" settings.

However, once you set the graphic quality on the PC version to "Very High", you can notice where the console hardware falls short. Once you push the setting to "Extreme", it's very obvious the PC version looks a lot better than the console versions at high resolutions. Though the game does not use DirectX 11, supposedly there will be a patch that will add DirectX 11 features and support. However you can see DX10.1 features being used in some aspects of the graphics.

So it's nice to see that Crysis 2 is not a pure "console port". However it does suffer from cross-platform development in the fact you have no control over any specific graphic settings, such as AA, AF, texture quality, shadows, post processing effects, and all the rest. You have the ability to adjust your resolution, v-sync, and one of three quality presets (High, Very High, Extreme), that's about it. A disappointment from the perspective of a PC gamer and fan of the game series that used to be well known for its graphic power and customization. Something that should be standard on all good PC games.

Beyond that the game looks great when you run it on "Extreme" and at 1080p resolutions. It's also has 3D display capability if you have hardware to support it. Though I seriously hope that if they continue the series, they stop making concessions for inferior console hardware and give the PC gamers a version that can actually take advantage of the far superior PC hardware available.

How does it run?

On my system, the game ran great, averaging about 70-125 FPS easy and across the board, with dips down into the high 50's while broadcasting my live stream in maximum quality and running the game at all maximum settings. Those dips into the high 50's very short lived and unnoticeable save for the fact I had my FPS being displayed via X-Fire.

My system specifications are listed on my Strider's Gaming Rig Specs and Benchmarks page as well as on the right column of this page near the top.

Multiplayer

Just like the Demo, the MP on Crysis 2 is fantastic and a sheer blast to play. It takes the best elements of the single player gameplay we all have come to love about Crysis and brings them to a great multiplayer experience. I am not sure what else to say about the multiplayer aspect of the game, perhaps this calls for a few good videos again?

Closing Thoughts

This is a great game and well worth the price tag in my opinion. The single player campaign takes about 6 to 7 hours to complete, if your not rushing through it and including a couple breaks, but that's not including locating and acquiring all the collectibles in the game. So the campaign has good replay-ability and will not leave you feeling like you were sold short. There are 4 different difficulty modes, multiple path options, and a lot of different ways to achieve the objectives, I love the "Tactical" mode, and I think you will too.

The multiplayer experience is a blast and very unique. I also don't see it dying anytime soon since there is already DLC on the horizon. There are a lot of "gratifying" ways to take down your enemies in MP, a must for any online gamer looking for a good time.

If you got the extra money to drop on the game, I say go for it, it's well worth it and that's not something you can say about many games these days.

I give it an easy 8/10. Docking two points for the cross-platform development and lack of individual graphic setting customizations like I talked about earlier.

AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Performance Review

2011-03-13T05:06:00.012-05:00

Ever since the AMD Phenom II six core processors hit the market, I have been wanting to get my hands on one for my own system, I just had no real justification to buy one since my overclocked and unlocked X2 550 Black Edition was still kicking ass running at overclocks from 3.6 to 4.0GHz on all four cores. Since I am a gamer, that was more than enough power to rip apart any games out there, and it still is.

However, with recent updates to my system, I decided to go ahead and hop on the six core bandwagon to go along with my new AMD XFX Radeon HD 6950 2GB upgrade. I wanted to play around with the AMD six core and see what I could get it to do with what I had.

So anyone that knows me, or has read this blog, knows I am an AMD user. I have been for a very long time. I stopped buying into all the hype hardware manufacturers put out there, all the misinformation from armchair experts and reviewers, and started to just trust my own judgment, testing it all out for myself whenever possible. This case was no different. I knew from all I had read since the X6 hit the market, that I would love it, I have yet to own an AMD processor I did not like. However I still wanted to see what I could get one to do and how it effected my games, my software, my system. Now that I have had mine installed for a few weeks and have had time to play with it. I figured it was time I could safely share my opinions on the processor.

So I ordered the 1090T Black Edition, with a stock clock of 3.2 and a Turbo Core of 3.6, to fit in my ASUS Crosshair Formula IV motherboard, and to compliment my new XFX Radeon HD 6950 2GB video card. To start off, let me just say that this is a match made in heaven.

Gaming

First, all of these results are at stock speeds on the CPU, and let me say that if you are already running a nice fast quad core processor, don't expect a massive improvement in framerates by jumping to a six core and overclocking it to the same speeds. Yes, you will see an improvement, but it's not exactly Earth shattering.

Before installing my new XFX 6950, I left my old HIS 4870 Turbo 1GB in my system so I could better assume the performance increases I would see would be on the CPU alone, and not the superior new video card.

In the games I was playing prior to my update and after, I seen more of a performance increase in the games that were able to actually use all six cores, and no real improvement in those that could not, obviously. Bad Company 2 for example did show an overall increase and does use all six cores. Other titles that did not use all the cores saw little to no real improvement. Of course, that was a different story after I popped in the XFX 6950, but that's not what this review is about.

The Crysis 2 Multiplayer Demo hit PC after I had already installed the XFX 6950, so I have no real basis for a before and after comparison. What I can say is that the game does use all six cores, it does not max any of them out, and it runs stable at over 125FPS on a single 1920x1080 display on "Hardcore" settings. The maximum available in the demo.

Now I play a lot more games that just Bad Company 2 and Crysis 2, however those two games are representative of the main reason I upgraded from a high-end quad core to the 1090T. Future-proofing. I know that's not a realistic term when we are talking about PC's, especially for high-end gaming, so I don't like to use that term very often. In this case however, my idea of future-proofing is knowing that I will have the hardware to take advantage of next generation games that can actually benefit from having six cores. Knowing I can run them all at nice high stable framerates, on maximum settings, at 1080p, on my single display. That I will not have to sacrifice settings in order to make a game playable. At least not for a little while anyway.

As the gaming world sits at this moment, while I am doing this review, the high-end hardware that is out there on both sides of the fence, no matter if your an Intel, AMD, or Nvidia user, it's ahead of the software. The games that can actually take advantage of it are just now really hitting the market. So I wanted to take advantage of that, especially since the 1090T processors are only about $200. That's an amazing price for the performance you get!

Windows 7 Ultimate 64

Now onto Windows. Have I seen any real improvement in performance? From a pure operating system standpoint, not really. The system responds just as fast as it did with the quad core. What you would expect. The WEI on my system went up to 7.7 at stock speeds from 7.5 on the quad core. Not that anyone really puts any stock in those numbers.

However, if you are on a fast dual core, or an older and slower quad core, you will notice a much larger increase in performance, obviously.

Software & Applications

This really depends on the software, in my case, the most noticeable increase in performance came from video editing and rendering. I record most all my game footage with Fraps, then edit and render the final video using Ulead VideoStudio. I have noticed it takes less time to render a final video. Though I don't have exact numbers since I did not benchmark it prior to the upgrade. Trans-coding video to DVD is also faster, as you would expect.

Other "day-to-day" applications show no real noticeable difference.

Overclocking

Well, I like the Black Edition processors for a reason, I like to overclock. Though right now I am only running the processor at 3.6 on all six cores all the time, it's not because it's as far as I can push it. I was able to push it to 4.1GHz before I backed it down since the Arctic Freezer Pro 64 cooler I am using just can't cool the processor properly. I do not want to damage it.

However, while I was sitting at 3.8Ghz in my quest to 4+, I decided to compare Bad Company 2 and Crysis 2 from stock speeds and 3.8Ghz. You only see a small unnoticeable increase in framerates.

So that really told me that there is no need to push the processor to it's limit for gaming performance. Since the performance increase is not noticeable in six-core capable games when we are already hitting high stable framerates at stock speeds. The fewer cores a game uses, the more of a performance increase you see, for the most part. Of course, results will vary depending on the game in question as well as your other hardware and overall system configuration.

I am no enthusiast, I am a realist, I don't see the need to push my hardware to the max and shorten it's operation life for unnoticeable increases in gameplay performance you would not even know about without benchmark software running. This includes the few modern six-core capable games as well as the far more abundant 1-4 core capable games. 3.2 to 3.6Ghz is enough to run any games on the market at high stable framerates when coupled with other good hardware.

So what I will be doing is going with a "mild" overclock after I see how far the processor will go and remain stable. That being 3.6GHz and a 3.9GHz Turbo Core. More than enough to handle anything I will throw at it anytime soon. Knowing that I can push it past 4.0GHz easily when and if the time ever comes that it needs to be done.

All of this after I get my new cooler. A Noctua NH-U12P SE2 120mm SSO CPU Cooler. I was going to go with the NH-D14, however since I am not pushing the 1090T to it's limit, I decided the U12P will do just fine for the overclock the processor will be under and a lot better than the outdated Arctic Cooling Freezer Pro 64 that is on there now.

Final Thoughts

For a price tag of about $200, the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T processor is a beast of a deal. This thing is powerful enough for any and all high-end gaming at stock settings, and has a lot of room to overclock should the need arise or you feel the desire to do so. If you couple this bad boy with other good hardware, just like a new 6900 series AMD GPU, 8GB of good quality DDR3 "gaming" RAM at 1600MHz or higher, a good quality motherboard to plug it all into, and a nice strong power supply to feed it, this processor will not disappoint.

I am very glad I made the jump to six cores. Knowing I am set for all the next generation games coming out this year that I am looking forward too is a great feeling. Right now is the perfect time to upgrade.

This processor is, in my opinion, by far the best "bang for your buck" option on the market for gamers and non alike. Once again I have to take my hat off to AMD for a fantastic product at a fantastic price. For proving that you don't have to overpay for performance. This is one customer AMD has had since the mid 90's, and one that is still happy to be living on this side of the fence. Sorry Intel.

Gigabyte GM-M6980 Gaming Mouse Review

2011-03-11T23:51:00.009-06:00

Well, I finally decided it was time to replace my aging Saitek GM-3200 Laser Gaming Mouse. After about 2 years of hard use, it's finally showing signs that's its days are numbered. Loosing tracking every so often as if you have lifted the mouse off the pad. Having to move it back and forth a few times to get it to start tracking again, in rare cases, even having to unplug and plug it back in. I can't complain, the Saitek GM-3200 has stood up to a lot of use and abuse since I do a lot of FPS gaming and use my system quite heavily. It's been a great mouse, but it's been retired.

So I hit Newegg and starting looking for a replacement. Looking up the most common "gaming" mice most people buy. The Razor DeathAdder, Logitech G9X and G500, Saitek R.A.T. 5 and 7, Moniox Naos, and a few others. Trying to decide what I wanted. Reading what felt like hundreds of reviews. Spending far more time that I really wanted too looking for my next mouse. In all that searching, I kept coming across Gigabyte and their relatively new line of "gaming" mice.

So what I ended up doing is making a simple list of wants and needs for my new mouse, then went looking again.

I did not want to spend a lot of money on the mouse. Most of the very expensive $70+ mice out there may have a lot of nice bells and whistles, but they really do not offer much more gameplay advantages for my main form of gaming, FPS.
1600 DPI was what I used on my Saitek GM3200, with low in-game sensitivity. More than enough for any FPS gaming. So I knew I did not need over 1600DPI.
I wanted a mouse with a quality laser tracking engine with a good report rate.
I wanted one that was large. I have big hands so smaller mice are not a comfortable for long gaming sessions.
I wanted a quality product from a known company.
Simple thumb buttons. 2 of them.
The ability to adjust DPI and button use on the fly.

The Razor DeathAdder was ruled out because I knew it was smaller than I wanted. The Saitek R.A.T. 5 and 7 were dropped because there are just too many issues with them at the moment for the price, that and they may have looked nice, but it was mostly a bunch of unnecessary features. Moniox Naos was dumped because they were more price than performance. In other words, most of these mice, save for the DeathAdder, were more hype than anything. I did not want hype. I just wanted a mouse to fit my needs and not cost a fortune for mostly useless bells and whistles.

That left the Logitech G9X and G500 mice on the table, and the Gigabyte GM-M8000X and the GM-6980 on the table. Now it was just a matter of price and wanted features. Both the Logitech mice and the Gigabyte GM-M8000X were dropped in favor of the Gigabyte GM-M6980 for price and the fact the GM-M6980 meet all my needs perfectly, plus I still got a few bells and whistles to play with, even though they were not necessary.

It best matched what I was looking for. So I ordered it. A decision I am very happy with so far. This mouse and it's "Ghost" software is fantastic. 3 preset DPI settings that are adjustable from 100 to 2000 in 100 DPI increments. Very easy to use macro setup and use via the Ghost software and it's all stored on the on-board memory of the mouse. Here is the official feature list for the GM-6980 from Gigabyte.

So as you can see, for a price tag of $40 at the time of purchase (March 2011), this mouse was a heck of a deal if you ask me. I was a bit nervous buying a mouse from what as traditionally been a motherboard company, those feelings were unwarranted, the same high quality you get in Gigabyte motherboards is reflected in this mouse.

Once I hooked it up, I stared to mess around with the included "Ghost" software and I am pleased at the features it has available and how simple it is to use. Like I said, I wont use many macros and such, but it sure is nice to know I can load up a few and throw them on the mouse if the need should ever present itself. To give you a basic idea of the what the Ghost software looks like as well as a few of its features. I threw together a short video. Sorry if it looks a bit blurry, must be YouTube, it's quality is perfect on my machine.

Final thoughts:

The Gigabyte GM-M6980 Gaming Mouse is a fantastic mouse at a good price. I like it more than I did my Saitek GM300, and I loved that mouse. It's more comfortable, and the thumb buttons on the side are even a lot easier to use, much better placement.

It did not take long at all to get used to it. I hopped right in Bad Company 2 Vietnam, Medal of Honor 2010, Crysis 2 MP Demo, Combat Arms, Breach, and in every case, I had no problems at all. It was nice to not have to worry about the mouse loosing tracking in the middle of a firefight.

If you happen to be in the market for a new quality gaming mouse, you might want to give Gigabyte a try. Also, if your looking to not spend a fortune, defiantly look at the GM-M6980. Gigabyte has always made good motherboards, it's nice to see that quality carry over to their line of gaming mice. They have earned my praise that's for sure.

It's an easy 10 out of 10!

Review: Biostar TA790GXB3 T-Series Motherboard

2011-02-17T12:24:00.006-06:00

Along with my own upgrades, I also upgraded my wife's system, beleive it or not she was still running an old Pentium 4/AGP 4x based system. Needless to say, horrible performance by today's standards, even for simple web use. She simply never wanted to upgrade, this year, I did not give her a choice.

Basically, I was looking for an inexpensive build that would still provide her system with more power than it would ever need. My basic requirements were it had to be AM3 with 125Watt CPU support, PCIe X16, full ATX form factor, SATA II, DDR3 1600 support with 4 DIMMS, and on-board audio and video as backup in-case stand alone cards fail.

I finally ended up settling on the Biostar TA790GXB3 T-Series Motherboard. Now I have never really been a fan of Biostar, not due to any quality concerns, just the fact I never used any of their boards in my own builds. However I decided it was time to give them a shot. They are a well established company that has been around for a long time and are pretty well known for their quality "budget" boards. So far, I am very satisfied with the performance of the TA790GXB3.

Simply put, I knew that Crossfire would never be needed, and that 125 Watt CPU support would be more than enough to meet the demands it would be put to. This board came with on-board Realtek ALC662 audio as well as on-board ATI Radeon HD 3300 DX10 video in case her stand-alone cards ever failed. This way she can still use her system while a replacement it ordered.

CPU used:

It also had full support for the processor I wanted to run in the system as well as core unlocking and overclocking ability. That processor being the AMD Phenom II X2 550 "Callisto" Black Edition. A CPU I was using for well over a year, unlocked to 4 cores and overclocked to 3.8Ghz, stable the entire time. So I wanted a board I knew I could do that on. For her needs however, I did not unlock the other 2 cores, I have left it running as an X2 and simply overclocked to 3.6GHz since there is no need to go any higher, it is just nice to know I can if the need should arise.

Video card used:

The most "demanding" game that she plays is the Sims 3. So when I purchased the XFX Radeon 6950 for my much higher end gaming needs, I gave her the HIS Radeon HD 4870 IceQ4+ Turbo 1Gb 256-bit GDDR5 card I was running. Needless to say, like the processor, a massive step up from the AGP ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 128MB she was running. The 4870 was top of the line for the 4000 series of cards, and is still more than capable of playing any games on the market today at 1080p and maximum settings with stable framerates. It simply lacks DX11 support as well as next generation architecture and tessellation advancements obviously. For the Sims 3 however, it's not even a challenge. For as long as it lasts, this card will more than meet her graphics needs without even breaking a sweat.

Memory used:

I used the same RAM on this board as I do on mine. A-Data DDR3 1600G Gaming Series. She is currently running 4GB. The memory overclocks to 1600 no problem and is prefectly stable on this board.

Operating system used:

She was running XP Pro 32. With this new build however, I upgraded her to 7 Ultimate 32. This is also why she is running 4GB and not 8GB. I did not want her to have to deal with some of the compatibility issues of 64-bit that seems to be common with some of the software she runs on a regular basis. It's running wonderfully.

Other specifications:

Supported Socket AM3 processors AMD Phenom II X4 / Phenom II X3 / Phenom II X2 / Athlon II processor
AMD 125W processor support
AMD 790GX Chipset with ATI Radeon HD 3300 Graphics
Dual-Channel DDR3 -1600(OC)/1333/1066/800
ATI Hybrid Graphics Support
Integrated DVI interface with HDCP Support 1080P HD Video Experience
AMD OverDrive Utility Support
AMD OverDrive™ with ACC feature (Advanced Clock Calibration) supported

Overall impressions:

For the price, the Biostar TA790GXB3 seems to be a fantastic board. As long as you do not plan on Crossfire or running an X6 processor, it should have no problems meeting your budget build needs. It's great for low-end to moderate gaming, and even perhaps some high end gaming as well running a single GPU and a nice fast quad core with DDR3 1600. For what it is being used for here, it's an incredible value, especially since I managed to pick it up open box on Newegg. Great board from Biostar!

Biostar Link: http://www.biostar.com.tw/app/en/mb/introduction.php?S_ID=428

Newegg Link: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138163

For a quick look at the board and what I got in my "open box" package, check out this video. Again, was still fighting a nasty cold when I recorded this, so please forgive me is I sound a bit out of it.

I also meant to say "upgradable to the X4" in the video, not "X6". Like I said, nasty cold, not the best time to try and make a video. haha

Review: XFX AMD Radeon HD 6950 2GB 256-bit GDDR5

2011-02-14T00:36:00.018-06:00

I just completed quite a few upgrades to several builds in my home, including my own system, so I guess it's time to sit down and review it all now that I have had time to put all this new hardware to the test. I decided to kick it off with the new video card I purchased for my system to replace the HIS ATI Radeon HD 4870 IceQ4+ Turbo 1GB GDDR5 card I have been running for a while now.

The HIS HD 4870 was, and still is, a fantastic card. I was still able to play the latest games at 1920x1080 and at maximum game settings with no video lag what so ever. For the 4000 series generation, it was by far one of the best cards you could get. However, the card was reaching it's limits and did not support DX11, only 10.1. I wanted DX11 support as well as the ability to take advantage of the latest architectural advancements and tessellation support of the next generation cards. So it was time to upgrade.

After quite a bit of research and debate, I ended up settling on the XFX AMD Radeon HD 6950 2GB 256-bit GDDR5. I departed from HIS and went with XFX for one main reason, that 2 year warranty. Something that's very nice to have when buying such a new piece of hardware. So I have nothing against HIS at all and XFX has always been a good brand in my opinion as well.

This XFX 6950 is an amazing card for the price. About $70 cheaper than the 6970's at the time of purchase, yet can be flashed to a 6970 if you choose to do so. It handles overclocking very well, and even at stock speeds is so close to the 6970 in real gaming performance that it's not even noticeable, the actual FPS differences are minuscule. If you do overclock it, you can easily run on par with the 6970 in the frames per second category.

Even though these cards can be flashed to a 6970, I will not be doing so, I do not see the need at all. Like I said above, the card performs amazingly well vs a 6970, the only real differences show up in synthetic benchmarks, and even then at all stock clocks, the difference is incredibly small. The 6970 has a PassMark score of 3090, and the 6950 has a score of 3017, a difference of only 73.

Of course, anyone that knows me also knows that I do not put much stock in synthetic benchmarks. The only numbers I care about are stable frames per second and if the hardware is able to provide me with a smooth fantastic gaming experience, and this XFX 6950 has no problems with any of that what so ever.

Even though I failed to actually record my numbers in most of the games I have tested out on this card, I can say that the numbers in most every case went up by quite a lot, and I got all the "eye candy" benefits of Dx11 when it was applicable. I will be going back and re-running many of the games I play and benchmarking the framerates here very soon. I will update this post with those numbers, as well as my Strider's Gaming Rig Specs and Benchmarks page.

So far, I have tested out these "higher-end" and/or newer games:

ArmA II
Bad Company 2 Vietnam
Metro 2033
Dirt 2
Stalker Call of Prypiat
Just Cause 2
Darksiders
Crysis Wars
Crysis Warhead
Breach
Medal of Honor 2010
Battlefield Play4Free

In each and every case, my stable frame rates went up. I was also able to notice visual improvements in games that support DX11. So I must say that I am very impressed and pleased with this XFX AMD Radeon HD 6950 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 video card.

Now, will it compare to the top of the line Nvidia 580's? That depends. The 580's will beat it and the 6970 in benchmarks, however the 6900 series is not AMD's top of the line with this generation of cards. Also, the 580's are MUCH more expensive, at over $500. A 580 may beat a 6900 in numbers, but in real world gameplay, there will be NO noticeable difference what so ever short of PhysX effects in the few games that actually use it.

I got my buddy, an Nvidia guy, to give this 6950 a spin on my system and he could detect any differences in gameplay what so ever compared to his system running an MSI GTX 580 Fermi 1536MB 384-bit GDDR5, that he paid over $500 for. So again, I am all about real gameplay more than synthetic benchmarks or numbers.

The other factor to look at is the 6950's, at their current price point of about $280, make for a fantastic Crossfire setup. These cards scale incredibly well. At a minimum of 30%, with many games hitting 100% or darn close to it. So look at it this way. If you are more of a numbers person, 2 6950's in Crossfire will run you about $560 at the time of this review, where as a single GTX 580 will cost you about $500. So for $60 more, two 6950's will rip apart a 580 in every aspect. Right now, 6950's in Crossfire is one of the best price to performance ratios on the market.

If it's numbers you want, here is a short video from Motherboards.org that shows you how much more power you can get for only $60 over the cost of a single Nvidia GTX 580. You can also see how different games scale differently across the titles they used. Note that scaling is more about the individual game than the hardware. However even the games that showed only a 30% scale over a single card, still scored higher than the GTX 580, obviously. So you can easily see why a Crossfire 6950 setup at about $560 is a much better, in my opinion, than wasting your money on a single GTX 580 at about $500.

Now before you say "Well what about two 580's in SLI?" or something of that sort. You will still be spending about $1000, and the ONLY benefit would be synthetic numbers. When we are talking about stable framerates this high, it's only about bragging rights now, there is no longer any real benefit to the gaming. If you want to pay stupid amounts of cash to say you get 30 more FPS than me, more power to you, I on the other hand do not buy into the numbers game. If you have to spend that much money to beat a $560 6950 Crossfire setup, then in my opinion, I am the one who has the bragging rights.

So if you are looking for the best price to performance option right now, the 6950 is it, especially in Crossfire. If you want to wait though, the top of the line "enthusiast" GPU's from AMD are set to hit the market. From what I have read, the 580's days at the top in benchmarks is about to come to an abrupt end, just like it did last generation. So if you wait a short while, these new AMD cards may be just what you are looking for.

For me however, if I want to push the numbers for any reason, I will just pick up another one of these XFX AMD Radeon HD 6950's and let Crossfire do it's thing.

If you are curious what comes in the box, here is a short video clip of my card when it arrived and what it contains in the box. Sorry I sound a bit, off, I was fighting a nasty cold. The video clips are also not in HD, 480 only, I do not own an HD video camera since I do not have a real need for one as of yet.

I also neglected to mention in the video, when I say I only run a single 1080p display, that is for gaming only. I actually run a second display for Windows applications and work. This card has NO problems what so ever with that, or Eyefinity. It actually does amazing in multi-display setups, no matter if they are for gaming or not, I simply do not use mine for gaming since I only run 2 displays.

Battlefield Play4Free Impressions

2010-12-14T17:52:00.010-06:00

First off, let me start by pointing out that if your hoping for some sort of inside scoop, videos, or screenshots of the games closed beta, you won't find them here! This Closed Beta comes fully equipped with an agreement that all participants must adhere to. Something I do not plan on breaking. So no game details or information that's not already available directly from EA, sorry.

If you want in, go sign up at http://battlefield.play4free.com or follow the Community Team on Twitter as they are giving out beta keys daily this week (Dec 13th to 17th), and who knows when else!

http://twitter.com/#!/ShadeShooter_EA/community-team

http://twitter.com/#!/bfplay4free

OK, on to my "vague" first impressions, and my opinions on how I think the game will turn out.

Battlefield Play4Free is, by EA's own words, and I quote.

Set in the modern theater of war Battlefield Play4Free is a first person shooter with realistic graphics containing the best of the Battlefield series including all-out vehicular warfare, sandbox gameplay and intense 32- player battles online. Featuring the most popular maps from Battlefield 2 combined with the familiar classes and powerful weapons of Battlefield: Bad Company 2, players have access to 16 vehicles including the F35 VTOL jet fighter and the massive Russian T-90 main battle tank.

They are not just saying all that to make the game sound good, from what I have seen so far, it's a great game in the making!

The graphics for a free game are actually very nice. I was pleasantly surprised how good the game looks cranked all the way up and at high resolution. The graphics are probably some of the best I have seen in any free FPS, and I have played most all of them at least once. They did a wonderful job and I think people will love how the game looks.

The battles can truly be intense. I am not going to go into any class or vehicle details obviously, but lets just say than any Battlefield action junkie will find him, or herself, right at home in Battlefield Play4Free as well. No matter if you are more of a foot soldier like me or a vehicle gear-head, it's all here! This game truly does "feel" like Battlefield!

If you want to know more about the game, go sign up and follow them on Twitter, it's not hard! You can get in and give this, what I think is going to be a great addition to the Battlefield Series, a spin for yourself!

First impression rating: 10/10

Overall I think this game is going to be very popular. I have to take my hat off to EA on this one. I think Battlefield Play4Free will not only be a hit with fans of the Battlefield Series like myself, but with many other gamers as well. It may even be a great way for people who have never played a Battlefield game to jump in and get their feet wet. Great job on this on EA!

Medal of Honor 2010 Review

2010-11-02T08:36:00.009-05:00

Having played in both the closed and open beta for the new Medal of Honor, I really wanted to wait to do a review of the final product until after I had a chance to really play it and see if I came to any different conclusions. I also wanted to be able to really get to know the single player campaign as well. I think I am at the point now where I can give my honest opinions on Medal of Honor and that my impressions are as set as they can be. So lets get right down to it shall we?

Both of the beta's for Medal of Honor were great fun. So needless to say I, as well as many others, were really looking forward to the games retail release. So much so that many people, myself included, pre-ordered the Limited Edition.

When the game finally hit the shelves, it was met with a flood of mixed reviews, in almost complete contrast to the beta's. People came out of the woodwork to complain about how the weapons were too accurate and powerful, how the sniper class was so ungodly overpowered, how every match was nothing but a camp fest, or how spawn camping was ruining the game.

What did I think? I was wondering what in the hell was wrong with these people. I never once thought any of the things these people were bitching about on the forums. I was just in the game, playing, and having one hell of a good time. Yet they rants and complaints just kept rolling in. In time however, I started to notice a pattern in the complaints, and came to a few conclusions as to why.

Now don't get me wrong, the game has it's flaws, and there is work to be done that is for sure. However the out of control over-exaggerations of some of the games features and mechanics were just laughable to me.

1. The assault weapons recoil and spread. People were complaining that they were all too accurate and too powerful and thus they should all be "nerfed". It was far too easy to kill at range with these weapons. Never once did they stop to think that if all the weapons were this powerful, that it meant the game was balanced, and that you needed to adjust your gameplay tactics in order to compensate for this fact. No, instead, people continued to try and "run & gun" and got mowed down time and time again. They did not stop to think that Medal of Honor did not play like Modern Warfare 2, that you actually had to think outside of the box!

2. The sniper class. With a forum full of kids complaining about how they are so overpowered, that the bolt action rifles were a one hit kill, that the class was ruining the game. Again, we have players not even making an effort to try and out think their attackers, they just run around in the open and wonder why they get sniped down over and over. Not even attempting to use the environment or smoke to cover their movements. Not paying attention to what's going on in the environment. Not being observant enough to realize that if 2 of your team mates just got sniped in that one position, NOT TO GO THAT WAY. Yet it was somehow the games fault that they were dying over and over and falling prey to the fact they were not thinking outside the box yet again. Getting frustrated and making even more mistakes. Now with the new patch, the bolt action snipers have had their damage reduced, yet I still bet these Modern Warfare 2 fanboy clones will still complain.

3. Spawn points. I admit, this can be a problem if you or your team are not that good, you can be pushed back into a singular spawn on many maps and then pounded out of existence over and over. The solution, don't let yourself get pushed back into that situation, not that hard really. If you do end up there, for the love of Pete, USE SMOKE GRENADES, work as a TEAM, hit the ground running. It's not hard, stop trying to camp in your spawn and move out, sure you will die a few times in a row but who cares? It's a video game, there are no consequences, just do it and turn the tables. I can not even being to count the number of times my team and I have joined a match to find ourselves on the loosing team in this situation and have pushed out of it and tuned the game around for a win.

Now I know there are more complaints, but I am not going to get into them, they are all basically the same thing over and over again. Too many so called "gamers" who lack the ability to think outside of the CoD box they live in. Medal of Honor does not play well with CoD, so these fanboys come to the conclusion, it must be the games fault. God forbid they are asked to actually learn something new. So lets move on shall we?

Single Player Campaign

If I had to describe it one word, I would probably choose "epic", all be it short.

I greatly enjoyed the single player campaign though I do agree with most people that it was too short. I really wish it was longer and was disappointed when it came to an end. All I can say is, thank goodness for Tier 1 Mode.

I enjoyed the story, thought it was pretty well told, and it flowed well enough to keep it interesting.

The dialog was good too in my opinion. I am not sure why some reviews said it was hard to understand or make out at times, perhaps they are just on crappy sound hardware, I had no problems making out what was being said, crystal clear, at any point in the game.

The music in game was, for lack of a better word, epic as well. It really added depth to the situations you encounter and really enhanced the experience in my opinion.

The sounds were great and also made you feel like you right in the action.

The graphics are nothing ground breaking, but I think the game looked great on my system, running it all on high and in HD of course. Though I am a big fan of the Unreal Engine 3, I found myself wishing the Frostbite Engine was being used at certain times in the game, mainly for its more "realistic" physics and destruction. All in all though, the game looked great.

The gameplay itself was easy, perhaps too easy, but still enjoyable. I think the game is best enjoyed on the hard setting just because that's the only real way it's going to present a challenge to someone who is adept at FPS games. If you just want to get through it to experience the story, then easy or medium will do just fine for that.

Having played through the single player 3 times at the time of this review. I have ran into some "bugs" in the system and can break up the flow of the game, but are far from "game breaking".

At one point on my first play though, in the fight through the hanger, the AI got stuck and would not advance to the trigger point to open the door and continue on. I solved this by just shooting him once and that got him moving.

Another time on the 3rd play through, pulling up to one of the checkpoints on the ATV, Dusty is supposed to dismount after you both stop, he never got off the ATV so I was unable to continue. I just had to reload the last checkpoint, not a big deal since that was only about 60 seconds prior to that point.

There were a couple others as well, but none of them really effected how I felt about the game, they were just "Oh crap, now what do I do" moments. heh

Tire 1 Mode is simply wonderful. It gives the campaign missions some good replay value if you are feeling competitive and want to see if you can top the leaderboards on the various stats available.

So in a nut shell, I think the single player was a great, all be it short, experience. Add Tier 1 Mode to that and you have a reason to play it a few times, master it, and then see if you can move up the leaderboards.

The Multiplayer

I like the multiplayer quite a bit. Fast, fun, and not like most other games out there from a gameplay standpoint in my opinion.

Graphics and sounds are great, love the Frostbite Engine, love the environments. Running the game at all max settings, in HD, and still push out very high stable frame rates around 100-110 no matter the map, number of player, or situation.

Though when I get in a competitive mood I play at play at "competitive" settings that a buddy of mine got me to try. I am an all max all the time kinda gamer when it comes to my graphic settings. He got me to try low details with max AA and max resolution and I have to admit, I was impressed at how much easier some aspects of the game become.

This is a trick used by professional gamers from time to time. These settings will remove some environmental aspects of the game, such as grass, bushes, and tree branches, making it far easier to see targets at range. Medal of Honor is no different and the game still looks amazing at these settings, I was impressed, as you can see in the video I made below. Also, at these "competitive" settings, the game hovers between 150 and 175 frames at all times. No real noticeable difference between 100-110 and 150-175 to be honest, but still nice to have those extra frames.

The weapons are fun, though I wish there were a bit more to choose from. Then again, the game is not even a month old, so that may change at some point, who knows.

Recoil and spread, a hot topic, one that I have mixed feelings on. On one hand, I know the game have almost non existent recoil, bullet drop, and spread. On the other hand, it's that way for all the weapons in the game, so to me that qualifies as "balanced". I know this topic is being addressed by EA and changes will be getting made to the game, but I could really care less if it ever changes, and if it does, how much it changes. I think most people have issues because they lack the ability to "adapt" or learn the games quirks, a problem I do not share. So either way, I will adapt, and continue enjoying the game.

Assault and Spec Ops. My two favorite classes. In both the closed and open beta, I played the Sniper first, however I am not going to touch the Sniper class until I have the other two at level 15. Why? Well, I have to agree with most everyone else, it really is far too easy. Also, to be honest, you can snipe with just about any other class as well at the moment, so I will take the versatility of the Assault and Spec Ops over the Sniper at this point.

Snipers, what a touchy subject. EA has already said that a "nerf" is in the works for this class. Personally, they don't really bother me, sure I get sniped a lot, but I also get just as many kills on them as they get on me on most all cases. Often more. Really ticks them off when you flank and get that melee kill or snipe them back with a pistol. Most of the snipers in Medal of Honor camp quite hard and make themselves easy targets if you know what you are doing. Where as when I snipe, as will see in the video below, I am more of a "combat" sniper and even though I may stick to a section of map, I am more aggressive than most of the other snipers I run across. Either way, I think people just need to stop bitching and start learning how to play.

Spawn points is a big topic I see as well. I really don't have much of an issue on this subject. I am fine with it how it is. So I really don't care if it ever changes. Don't want to get spawn camped? Here is an idea, don't let yourself or your team get pushed back into that situation. If I get spawn camped at some point, I get out, and I return the favor in kind. So to me, this is more of a player and team skill issue than a game issue. Though I will admit, an easy fix for this would be a short spawn protection timer, I think that would make a lot of people happy I think. Though like I said, I am happy with it either way.

Latency, hit detection, lag. I am mixed on this one. There are times that it's easy to see there are some issues in this department. Such as shooting at and hitting someone, multiple times in the head, and they do not die and are sometimes able to take you out before them or at the same time. Especially when all you can see is their head, you get the hit indication over and over, yet they don't die of a headshot. Or the classic dropping dead around a corner. Or my favorite, a melee to the back of the skull, you get the blood, you get the hit, they turn and kill you, then drop dead, or worse yet, they survive. Cant help but laugh when that happens.

Leveling, scoring, and unlocks. All In all, I think they are all fine, I do wish there were more unlocks, perhaps more will be added later. Leveling is pretty easy. I do not pretend to fully understand the scoring system, but hey, all I really care about it making sure my team wins. Though I do like keeping my "skill level" above 2000, no idea why, but it's not like I try to do that. I just play and let happen what will happen. It just turns out for the better most of the time. lol

Hacks, glitches, and so on. Not an issue at all. I do know there are some spots in a few maps that I know about that you can "glitch" and are next to impossible to kill yet you are able to get kills. Thank goodness they do not seem to be very well known and the ones I seen being used I have already reported. I have not seen all that many hacks in use either. I have ran across a few, but nothing like in the open beta, they are quite rare. I have also seen PunkBuster actually doing its job, so that is also a plus. I think many of the hack accusations at the moment stem from the way the game plays and that so many people are just used to it. Or they just suck at it.

So I do really enjoy multiplayer, quite a bit actually, even though I fully understand it has issues. You know what, you report them, then you live with it until they are fixed. I don't see the need to sit here and cry over it. There are ways to adapt and alter your gameplay style to negate many of the issues people have, all you have to do is try. If you cant manage it, well, I really do not know what to say. Who knows, maybe it will get addressed at some point, and you will be able to do better.

Now to the video. This is a single match, played on one of my favorite maps, to show the sniper class to a friend of mine. You will notice I do not camp one location, and I do not ever spawn camp the enemy, or call strikes directly into their spawn. I may call in strikes around the spawn, such as into a well known camping spot near the spawn, or directly in front of it, but never in it directly. I do not find shooing fish in a barrel fun at all, its far more enjoyable if my enemy is actually a threat.

Closing

Medal of Honor. I think it is a good game with the potential to be a great game. I do not at all regret my pre-order or purchase. I for one have to give kudos to EA for a good game and I hope the franchise advances!

Our Medal of Honor 2010 Server Is Live!

2010-10-15T17:28:00.009-05:00

The BWH Community server is now alive and kicking! Why not pick up a copy of Medal Of Honor and join us in-game? This is a great game and one that I know we will be supporting for quite some time. Here is the relevant server information.

Enabled Features:

Unlocks (Allows you to use all your unlocked weapons)
Clan Teams (Keeps players with the same tags on the same team when possible)
Crosshair
Spotting
Ammo Pickups
Support Actions (Killstreak rewards)
Punkbuster Bans
Streaming PB Bans (http://www.pbbans.com/)
GGC Bans
GGC Stream (http://www.ggc-stream.com/ )

Disabled Features:

Hardcore Mode (Reduced HP, HP will not regenerate, FF is on, HUD disabled, and so on)
Realistic Health (HP does not regenerate)
Friendly Fire

We are running the features we do in order to keep the server from being labeled as "modified". These settings are the most common and provide a great balanced gaming experience.

We added a new "MoH Reporting" page to our site. This is there to help new players on our server to report hack users, glitchers, and such to us so the appropriate action can be taken. This way we can keep the server fair, balanced, and fun for everyone who wants to use it! They also support GGC bans as well as PB bans now. How sweet is that! So we are using both on our server!

http://www.bwhgaming.com/report

I will keep the beta video here until I have time to make a new one. :P

Ageia Physx Not Dead Just Yet? BFG

2010-09-04T10:56:00.073-05:00

Updated: Sept 8 2010

This article is intended for those people out there who still want to use these dedicated Ageia Physx Processing Units for whatever reason. Perhaps your an ATI user who does not have a second PCIe slot available on your motherboard to run hybrid, or perhaps you are just wanting to mess around with it for fun, like me. No matter the case, this article is intended for you.

A couple abbreviations and terms used in this article you will need to know, though I am quite sure most everyone know them already, this is for the benefit of the rare visitor that may not.

CPU (Central Processing Unit) Duh! :)
GPU (Graphics Processing Unit)
PPU (Physics Processing Unit)

Physx is not physics, Physx is a brand name for a "physics engine", just as Havok is a brand name for a physics engine. In this article, when I say Physx, I am referring to the engine specifically, when I say physics, I am referring to gaming physics in general. I do not want to give novice readers the impression that in order to enjoy physics in modern games that you must have support for the "Physx" engine. Only for the games that use it.

The BFG Tech Ageia Physx Processing Card

Remember these cards? When they first came out they were not so popular. However it was more a software issue than hardware. Ageia simply could not give the hardware the support it really needed to succeed. That's why it was purchased by Nvidia in 2008.

Everyone was predicting that dedicated physics processors would not last, the jury is still out on that one, and that the then new concept of GPU physics was also unnecessary. Thinking that since CPU's were getting so powerful there would be no need for separate GPU or PPU based physics for gaming. Well, they were half right, the Physx engine itself just does not do so well on a CPU but does wonderfully on a good GPU or PPU, however there are other engines that do indeed run very well on both the CPU and a GPU. Such as Havok for example, which I talk about a little at the end of this article, but this is all about Physx and the old Ageia based PPU cards.

The last of the dedicated Physx processor cards were rolled off the lines back in very early 2008. After Nvidia made the move to GPU Physx. However, the last revisions of these old Nvidia branded Ageia Physx Processor Cards were out and still had a lot of life left in them, that was until Nvidia killed all support for them all together as well. The popular versions of these cards were sold by BFG and ASUS. This blog entry is all about the BFG 128MB 128-bit GDDR3 PCI Ageia Physx Processor Card however. So lets get down to it.

You can still buy these cards today, new, for under $20 (As of Sept 2010) from many different retailers and other sources online. So I decided to pick one up and see what I could still get this old thing to do.

This would be an alternative for someone who wanted to play "some" games out there that use Ageia/Nvidia Physx, yet they do not have an open PCIe slot in order to run an effective ATI/Nvidia hybrid system. Short of running an Nvidia GPU that is, and to be honest, it's not worth it to switch just for Physx support. Not to me anyway. The hybrid system is far more effective, if you have an open PCIe slot that is, if not then this may be your only other option if you truly want to mess around with Physx, though be warned, it will not work with most games made in 2010 as the old SDK is no longer supported an neither is the card at any level in the modern drivers.

Even though I am discovering the cards limitations, I am also learning that it does incredibly well with many games and still has a lot of life left in it, it's more powerful than many people seem to have given it credit for, though it does not support all Physx enabled games. The list of games is does support is larger than the ones it does not. As time goes on however, that will change, you still have to remember that this card is well over 2 years old. It has no support. Its simply out-dated.

All that being said...

As you all know, if you follow my blog, I am an AMD/ATI user. So thus short of using modified drivers to run Physx on my HIS Radeon HD 4870 Turbo IceQ4+ 1GB GDDR5, I do not use Physx. I also do not run a hybrid ATI/Nvidia setup to use my ATI card for all my graphics processing and an Nvidia card as a dedicated Physx processor. Not yet anyway, though this will be changing very soon, as an ATI/Nvidia hybrid setup is quite powerful and in many ways better than a pure Nvidia build in my eyes. So I figured this was the perfect time to put this old Ageia PPU to the test.

I prefer ATI over Nvidia for gaming for a multitude of reasons, however, running an Nvidia card for pure Physx support is a very good option, and one that will give you unprecedented performance across the board when Physx is in use while gaming. Especially since Nvidia removed the block that prevented this from being done before unless you modified your drivers.

For my purposes though, I just wanted to experiment and see what these old cards could do in a modern gaming PC, so I wanted to run it with no modified drivers at all. Even though they would not work anyway since this card is not a graphics card, there is nothing to "hybrid", its a pure Physx Processor, that's it.

So lets take a look at the cards raw specs.

AGEIA PhysX processing unit (PPU)
PCI interface (32-bit PCI 2.3 [3.3v & 5v support])
128 MB GDDR3 memory
128-bit memory interface
Peak instruction bandwidth: 20 billion instructions/sec.
Sphere-Sphere collisions/sec.: 530 million max.
Convex-Convex (Complex Collisions)/sec.: 533,000 max.

For what this card does, these are actually some pretty good numbers, allowing it to outperform a modern CPU when it comes to advanced Physx processing. Many games allow Physx to be offloaded to the CPU in the absence of supporting hardware, both Cryostasis and Mirror's Edge are good examples. The thing is, you will see a significant performance loss, as demonstrated in the videos below, so GPU and PPU Physx processing is far superior to CPU.

This does not hold true for all physics engines, the Havok engine for example runs on any modern hardware very well and does much better when running on a CPU than Physx does. Havok is also not limited to a single hardware brand. It's also far more widely used than Physx yet less advertised, thus not as well known. Though this is a topic for a different discussion. If you want to know more about Havok, visit the website, I do touch on Havok a bit at the end of this article as well. However the main topic here is Physx and the Ageia PPU, so let's move on to that and see what this little thing can, and can't, do.

Setup

This is running the BFG Tech Ageia Physx 128MB GDDR3 PCI card on my current gaming rig (Link Here!). The driver versions for the card, 8.09.04 and 8.06.12, are both used as needed, nothing modified. In Windows 7 Ultimate 64.

Install was very easy. As soon as I installed the 8.09.04 drivers, Windows picked up the card, and it was fully functional. The last Physx Engine (SDK) that can be used on the card, is 2.8.1, so the game must be compatible with that engine in order to use this card.

This is the cards original listed requirements as well as my revisions as to the minimum needed for what I would personally consider "acceptable" performance:

1.4 GHz CPU or higher (2.6GHz or higher dual core)
128 MB of system memory (2.0 GB DDR 400 or better)
Microsoft Windows XP: Home, Pro, or Media Center Edition (or Vista and 7 32 & 64-bit)
CD or DVD-ROM drive
20 MB available disk space
300W or higher power supply (450W or higher)
Available PCI 2.0 slot or higher
(Mid to high-end PCIe) Graphics card with DirectX 9.0 Shader Model 2.0 support
PhysX compatible game titles or applications (SDK 2.8.1 or earlier)

Cryrostasis Test

I decided to test the card out on Cryostasis first, since that game uses hardware and advanced Physx quite heavily, if this thing was going to choke I figured Cryostasis would do it. I am quite shocked to say that I was wrong. I performed flawlessly. With such a huge difference in performance with the card enabled and disabled while running everything at max with full Physx enabled, I decided to make a short video.

So I was running the game at 1080p resolution, all maximum settings, with both Hardware and Advanced Physx enabled. V-Sync Enabled. This thing worked great.

As you can see in this video comparison, leaving full Physx enabled, the frame rates dropped to an unplayable level while the BFG Ageia card was disabled. However, with the card enabled, the frame rates ran at a steady 60 the entire time, 60 because v-sync was enabled. It did drop to 55 at one point, for half a second, while recording the video. There were also times later in the game where the frame rates dropped to about 40 in a few places. However considering this games poor optimization, stability issues, and lack of multi-core processing support, this was not all that surprising. Though the game remained smooth from start to finish.

Now of course, the game runs flawlessly without any Physx what so ever, this is to show how well this old Ageia Physx Processor performs in this game with all Physx enabled compared to no Physx processor and all Physx still enabled running a pure ATI setup. I was quite impressed by this old BFG PPU (Physics Processing Unit) cards performance.

So you do not need Physx in any way to play and enjoy Cryostasis, the game runs fine on any ATI setup that meets the specs. You simply leave Physx disabled so it's not offloaded to your CPU. This game has no multi-core support and already has problems running smooth on may players systems due to this. You don't want your one core flooded with Physx as well as trying to handle the game.

Mirror's Edge Test

Already demonstrating how well the card can work in Cryostasis, I figured Mirror's Edge was the next logical step, since this game is much more popular. Not to mention a lot better than Cryostasis in my opinion, though Cryostasis is a decent game worth a play through, it really can't hold a candle to Mirror's Edge in the opinions of many, including myself. As far as games that use Physx goes anyway.

So this video is to show how the game runs without Physx enabled, then with Physx enabled but with no hardware support, and then with Physx enabled and running on the BFG Ageia Physx card. The difference is obvious. Running Physx with no hardware support easily drops the frame rates to the single digits. However, with the card enabled, the game plays just as smooth as if Physx was disabled all together. Never dropping under 60FPS in the recorded sequence. (v-sync enabled).

Compatibility With Other Games

So this testing got me going through and looking into all the other games I own that have Physx support and wondering what ones can use this card, and what ones cant, and how it would do if they could. These are my results so far.

These are the games I have tested on the BFG Ageia Physx Processing Unit Card and have verified full functionality on driver version 8.09.04 or 8.06.12.

No driver or system modifications. Running on the old un-modified drivers and a fully updated HIS ATI Radeon HD 4870 IceQ4+ Turbo 1GB 256-bit
GDDR5 video card.

There are far more games that work with this old card on these drivers, however, I do not own them to test them personally. So thus I will not be listing them here until I can, or someone can send me proof the game works, then I will update the list.

These are the games I have verified that ARE working on this card with driver 8.09.04. (Download driver here!)

Age Of Empires III
Alliance of Valiant Arms (Free to Play Online FPS)
American McGee's Grimm
Army of Two
Bionic Commando: Rearmed
Clive Barker's Jericho
Cryostasis (Will only run on driver 8.09.04, not 8.06.12)
Dracula Origin
Gears Of War
Medal of Honor: Airborne
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas 2
Turok
Unreal Tournament 3

These are the games I have verified that ARE working on this card with driver 8.06.12 from Nvidia. (Download driver here!) (Driver 8.09.04 will give you a missing dll error with these games. This driver has those missing dll files (CUDA) that are not found in the Ageia 8.09.04 set. Thus allowing you to use the card in more games.)

Mirror's Edge
Overlord II

These games below I tested and verified, or are otherwise known, they are NOT working on the 8.09.04 or 8.06.12 driver.

In order to run these games, with Physx, you will need to run the latest Physx drivers and either run a pure Nvidia setup or a hybrid ATI/Nvidia setup. Using your ATI Radeon as your primary graphics processor and an Nvidia card with at least 32 pipelines (CUDA Cores) as your dedicated Physx Processor. If there is a way to get these games to run on these older drivers, then I am not aware of it, so if anyone has managed to do it, just leave a comment below and I will look into it. Please include specific details and sources.

Metro 2033
Mafia II
Borderlands (Steam version)

Borderlands Note: Borderlands see's no real benefit from Physx. There is very little difference with it in use or not.

Metro 2033 Note: Metro 2033 is a wonderfully beautiful and atmospheric game no matter if you use Physx or not. It does not use it so heavily that it's missed by any means.

Mafia II Note: Mafia II seems to use Physx elements quite heavily and there is a rather noticeable difference between having it enabled or disabled. This game is best enjoyed on an ATI/Nvidia hybrid setup.

You will need to use the driver listed in order for the game to run and use the Ageia Physx Card. Luckily, you can remove the installed Physx drivers quickly, easily, and repeatedly without any problems. At least that's the case in Windows 7 Ultimate 64. It takes about a total of 60 seconds to completely change my Physx driver version.

Quick Summary and Facts

This card can and will work in Vista/7 64-Bit OS perfectly. Install the card and then the 8.09.04 software package. The OS will then pick up and use the card.
This card has full support for most all games that use the Physx SDK 2.8.1 (engine) or earlier. The 2.8.3 SDK came out, for developers, in October 2009, so the card seems to work well for most all Physx enabled games made pre-2010.
Driver support was removed for this card by Nvidia all together, updating to anything beyond the 8.09.04 drivers will cause the card to stop functioning properly. Even though the drivers say they contain updates for the card, they will cause it to stop functioning, pure and simple.
If you have an available PCIe slot, not matter the speed (x4 to x16), in the end your better off running a hybrid ATI/Nvidia build. Running an ATI GPU as your primary graphics adapter and a good Nvidia GPU as a dedicated PPU, will give you support for all Physx enabled games. Even though from all the research I have done on this article, this old Ageia PPU can still perform on par and better than 9800 GTX series cards as a PPU. Perhaps even more, we will never know, since the support for it is gone.

Other Physics Engines (Havok Summary)

Now someone reading all this may think you have to have an Nvidia GPU, or one of these Ageia cards, in order to enjoy the benefits of physics in video games, this is simply not the case. This is just to use the "Physx Engine" in games that support it. Video game physics is in no way limited to one engine, the only reason you see Physx everywhere is pure advertising. In all reality, there are far more games out there, over 300 across all platforms, that use the just as powerful, "Havok Engine". Here are just a few examples of games that use Havok over Physx on the PC, and in many cases, the console versions as well.

Assassins Creed 1 & 2
BioShock 1 & 2
Battlefield 1943
Company of Heroes & Opposing Fronts
Dead Space
F.E.A.R. II
Fallout 3
Far Cry 2
Halo 2
L4D 1 & 2
Painkiller Series
Prince of Persia Series
Resident Evil 5
Spore
Splinter Cell

Battlefield Bad Company 1 & 2 both use it on the 360 and PS3.

This powerful and dynamic engine is being used more widely than Physx and in some of the most popular games in recent memory. The main difference between Havok and Physx is that Havok will run on anything, and it will run well. It's not limited to just ATI/AMD, Intel, or Nvidia.

Havok is just as powerful as Physx, both engines can do the exact same things, though Havok can actually do it better on the CPU than Physx can. That was the initial focus of Havok, where as Physx has always focused on a separate PPU, and then after Nvidia purchased it, the GPU.

The other main difference is Havok is split into different product categories, where as Physx is all under one umbrella. Havok is split into independent products, known as "middleware", as well as one full product like Physx. They are AI, Animation, Behavior, Cloth, Destruction, and Physics. So technically, the Havok engine is more versatile than the Physx engine in this respect. Though like I said above, both can pretty much do the same things.

Also, like I mention above, Havok can run on the CPU with far less performance loss than Physx can. Even though Physx can and does run on the CPU as well in some cases. You simply see more performance loss than if it was running on a GPU or PPU than you would if it was the Havok engine.

So just because you can't run the Physx engine properly without Nvidia hardware, or Ageia in the case of this article, this does not in any way mean you are missing out on physics. The Physx engine is not the end all be all Nvidia would like you to think.

However, again, this would be a different topic for a different article. If you want to know more about Havok, this is a good place to start.

http://www.havok.com/index.php?page=havok-effect

Closing Thoughts

So there you have it. This is what I have been able to achieve so far. Not bad for this old, and quite out-dated, hardware I don't think. For under $20, there is some fun to be had with them yet, especially since you are not going to be running Physx that cheap on an Nvidia card unless you buy a good one used somewhere. The lowest card I recommend for modern Physx support is a 9800 series, though I see people using lower cards with some good results as well. This is when coupled with a powerful ATI GPU, if your running pure Nvidia then I would not suggest anything under a 260, and the ATI/Nvidia hybrid runs better than a pure Nvidia setup.

So for what this thing is, even for its limitations, it's a VERY cheap alternative for playing the games it can support. However, as you can see, it's also very limited. It will be outperformed by running a more practical ATI/Nvidia hybrid system. However if you happen to be on a system, are an ATI user, and have no available PCIe slot for hybrid, this is an alternative option for you.

Like I keep saying, the ATI/Nvidia hybrid setup is quite powerful, and in many cases, even more powerful than running an all Nvidia build. The are many reasons this seems to be the case, however, that's for a different discussion, one that I am sure I will do soon. This entry is not to debate what brand is 'better". This is just my opinion based on my observations in my day to day gaming as well as online. Running a high end ATI/AMD card as your primary graphics adapter and a good Nvidia card as a dedicated Physx card, you will see incredible performance in games that support Physx.

Anyway... as I learn more, test more games, I will update this post. Until then, happy gaming!

Keeping it Cool. Your Hardware. Sharing Some Experiance.

2010-07-31T16:59:00.047-05:00

I recently upgraded much of the cooling in my system to help maintain lower operational temperatures since I run most of my hardware overclocked. So I decided to share a bit of information on what I did, why, and give a few facts I think many people are not aware of. Having been building systems since the days of the 80486, I figured, I will share some of what experience has taught me. This is all about air cooling. Liquid cooling is another post for different day.

Your CPU

Well obviously, this one is the most common component people spend money on to keep cool, especially when overclocking. However, I think a lot of inexperienced users and overclockers miss a few valuable points when it comes to CPU cooling.

The pre-applied thermal compound can be questionable in some cases. On most every cooler I have ever installed, I have removed the factory compound and applied my own Arctic Silver 5 in its place. The only exception was with my most recent upgrade, seen below, the factory applied compound got very good reviews so I decided to leave it and see how it performed. You may choose to do the same. In this case, the factory compound is performing just as good as the aftermarket AS5.

Applying the compound. The thermal compound should be applied in a VERY thin even layer over the face of the CPU die to contact the entire surface of the cooler being used. No more. No less. Many people apply too much.

So a lot depends on the cooler and CPU being used. The CPU die is the metal part, NOT THE PCB (Printed Circuit Board) the die sits on. In some cases, especially on older processors, the die takes up only a small portion of the face of the CPU. Such as seen here.

In a case like this older Athlon XP model CPU, you only need to apply an incredibly small amount of compound to the die in the center of the PCB, no matter what cooler you are using. You do not want the compound to "spill" out onto the rest of the PCB or the components on it. I have seen people apply so much that it actually ""spilled" off the side of the PCB and made it onto the socket and pins underneath. Not good.

On most modern CPU's however, there is much more die than exposed PCB, as seen here.

Again, you apply the compound in a VERY thin even layer across the entire cooler contact surface of the die. In most cases, this is pretty much the entire surface of the die. Again, you don't want the compound to "spill" off the die and contact the PCB, if it does, you have used too much.

A little known fact is that when you apply too much thermal compound it looses some of its thermal conductivity and does not do its job nearly as well as it does when applied properly. You also need to make sure the surfaces are clean. Foreign contaminants in the compound can also degrade its thermal conductivity. This includes old compound left on the die or mixing two different brands of compound.

Here are a few examples to give you an idea.

The easiest way to apply the compound is to place a small bead of it in the center of the die and spread it around using your finger tip, covered with a small portion of wax paper, plastic, or anything that's smooth and will prevent the compound from getting on your finger.

A popular method to get it as smooth as possible is to use a credit card or other similar ridged plastic item to even it out. No matter how you you do it, you want the end result to look like the "Correct" picture above.

Some people prefer to apply the compound to the cooler rather than the CPU, and that's just fine, all the same "rules" apply no matter if you apply it to the CPU or the cooler. I simply prefer to apply it to the CPU.

The proper application of thermal compound means you will get the best possible heat conductivity from your CPU to your heatsink. The very idea behind the compound is to fill the "gaps" between the two metal surfaces, since neither the CPU die or heatsink surfaces are 100% perfectly smooth, to provide low resistance uninterrupted flow of heat out and away from your hardware. Improper application will do just the opposite.

Now that you got the compound applied correctly. The next thing is to make sure you have the cooler installed properly. Some are easier to install than others, and they all come with instructions, and a lot can depend on if the cooler supports your socket natively or you have to use an adapter plate. Be sure to research the cooler you plan on purchasing and know if it requires an adapter plate or kit, and if it does if it's included in the retail package before you order it. Though most coolers tell you all the sockets they support, adapted and native, some do not include all the parts necessary to support all the sockets and you may be left having to send off for the correct kits from the manufacturer.

In any case, it's far easier to install a new CPU cooler with the motherboard outside of the case. Not only is it easier, but safer, when you have the room to work there is far less chance of you "slipping" when trying to seat the cooler in the socket and possibly causing damage to your hardware or the cooler itself.

The biggest thing to remember here is to make sure the cooler is seated properly in the socket and on the CPU die. Follow the instructions included with the cooler or contact the manufacturer if your unsure about anything.

This is the cooler I upgraded to for my hardware. "ARCTIC COOLING Freezer 64 Pro 92mm Ceramic CPU Cooler".

This cooler was designed specifically for my socket, so it's not "adapted" to fit like many others, and it was also quite inexpensive. For under $30 on Newegg I was able to get a cooler that allowed me to push my CPU to 4.0GHz on 2 cores and 3.8GHz on 4 cores. Perfectly stable. What more can you ask for?

Your RAM

This is one area of cooling that is overlooked a lot by many people I think, even myself, until recently. As RAM gets faster, it also gets hotter, and with today's performance and gaming series DDR3 hitting overclocked speeds of 1600 to 2000MHz, keeping it cool is fast becoming more important than ever.

DDR3 gaming quality RAM, at 1600MHz, can easily heat up into the 70C range. As it heats up, it slows down, you may even notice performance loss in games or memory intensive applications, perhaps even system stability issues such as crashes, reboots, or blue screens. So if your going to overclock your RAM, you may want to invest in a RAM cooler. A simple rule of thumb is that cooler hardware runs better and longer than hot hardware. Memory is no different.

Most performance RAM these days come with heat spreaders or heatsinks installed on them already. However, you should also invest in a fan to move air over the spreaders or heatsinks, doing so can lower there operational temperatures 10C or more. This is a big deal when running overclocked RAM.

I run A-DATA 1600G DDR3 Gaming Series RAM in my system, and of course, I run it overclocked at 1600MHz. With my recent upgrade to my hardware cooling, I purchased a G.Skill Memory Fan to help keep my RAM as cool as possible. This is it installed in my system.

Upon installing the fan, there was a noticeable increase in my systems performance, especially when gaming. That came in the form of more stable frame rates in the high end games I play as well as an increase in the memory benchmarks under load. You may be amazed at how much a simple little $13 fan can improve your systems performance or perhaps even solve stability issues you may be having when overclocking you RAM, if heat is to blame.

These fans all pretty much install the same way, and its very easy, they simply "clip" over your RAM slots onto the latches that hold your RAM in place. As seen in this image below.

So if your going to be overclocking your RAM, then perhaps you should look into getting one of these fans at some point, your memory will sure be thankful you did. You may even surprise yourself when you notice an increase in your systems performance under load.

Your Motherboard Chipset

Most quality motherboards these days that are designed for performance and gaming come with good chipset heatsinks pre-installed. Such as seen here the popular ASUS M4A77TD Pro motherboard or my higher end ASUS Crosshair Formula IV AM3 board below that. (When I wrote this entry, I was running the M4A77TD Pro, I have since upgraded to the Crosshair Formula IV.)

In both cases, the chipsets have heatsinks to help keep them cool, especially when overclocking. The more overclocking you intend on doing the more cooling you should have, especially if your overclocking your FSB, so you may want to invest in a motherboard with beefier cooling or use aftermarket parts. It all depends on how far your wanting to push it.

Me for example. I am not touching my FSB, I am only running my DDR3 RAM at 1600MHz, and my black edition CPU at between 3.8GHz and 4.0GHz depending on if I am on 2 or 4 cores. So the cooling on my motherboard is more than adequate to handle the heat. I do not have to adjust my voltages to hit 3.6GHz and only have to make a slight adjustment to hit 3.8GHz to 4.0GHz.

If you happen to not want to spend the $200+ on a board like the ASUS Corsair Formula IV for its chipset cooling, yet are still concerned with your boards cooling due to heavy overclocks, you can invest in aftermarket cooling. Many of these fans and heatsinks for your northbridge and such are inexpensive and available on multiple sites online, including Newegg.

Now if you don't plan on overclocking at all, then chipset cooling is not nearly as big a deal, and you can get by with minimal to no real chipset cooling. Though a little extra cooling can never hurt. It will also, in theory, extend the life of your hardware. Just something to keep in mind when buying a new motherboard and/or overclocking.

Your Video Card

Most name brand modern high-end video cards come with cooling that is more than capable of keeping it's hardware within thermal specs when gaming or under mild to moderate overclocks. That is unless you purchase a low-cost card and decide to see how far you can push it and it does not have adequate stock cooling, in that case you may want on invest in aftermarket VGA and memory cooling for the card.

The big things when it comes to most video cards is fan speed and upkeep. Many people leave their fan speeds on automatic control, and that's often fine when not overclocking the card or going into long high end gaming sessions. However, if you do high end gaming, or overclock your card. You may want to take control of the fan speeds yourself.

My video card for example, the HIS ATI Radeon HD 4870 Turbo IceQ4+ 1GB GDDR5 is factory overclocked, and I can push it even further.

It's stock cooling is great, but under auto fan control, fails to keep my hardware temps in the range I want them. Sure the card is designed to handle the heat, however, like I keep saying, cooler hardware runs better and longer than hot hardware. So I keep my fans set at 50% at all times when running at the factory overclock. This simple adjustment lowers my temps to well under the cards thermal specs and within the range I want to keep it in. As a result. This card performs wonderfully and easily out performs any 5000 series up until you get into the 5800 series.

With my fan under auto control, the temps hover in the high 60's at idle and 70's under heavy loads. That simple adjustment to 50% speed significantly lowered my temps and that that speed, the fans lifespan should not be impacted much at all. That is, as long as you keep it clean.

That moves us on to upkeep. Most high end video cards use ducted cooling. That's a fan sucking air from inside the case, blowing over the heatsink, then out the back of the case. This works very well for cooling hardware such as this that produces so much heat. It also works very well at trapping dust, lint, and anything else that may be in the air. This will restrict air flow and reduce the effectiveness of the cooler. So it's very important to blow it out on regular basis, about once a month or so is my personal preference.

Another factor that can compound the problem can be humidity in the air. Humid air can make surfaces and dust particles more "sticky" and thus adhere to the fins or ducts in your cooler easier. Either way its a very good habit to check all your coolers on a regular basis and blow them out with a can of compressed air for electronics.

One more thing on the upkeep has to do with the thermal compound on the GPU and video memory. In most cases, the GPU itself uses standard thermal compound like that used on a CPU, though there are cases when adhesive thermal pads are used. The memory on the other hand almost always uses a thermal strip. No matter the case, if you start to notice your temperatures climbing and cleaning the cooler is just not doing the trick. It may be time to pull off your cooler and replace the compound or thermal tape. Depending on what your card has. The same rules apply to the GPU when applying thermal compound as they do for the CPU.

Your Hard Drives

This is probably the least discussed part of hardware cooling. Though today more and more people are investing in cooling for their hard drives. Also, more mid to high end computer cases came equipped with a fan to move air directly over the hard drive bays as they pull air into the case.

Hard drives, like any other hardware, produce heat. They are also a bit more prone to failure than most other hardware since unlike any of the other hardware in your system, other than your optical drives of course, it's the only other thing with physical moving parts. They are quite delicate when you really think about it.

So keeping them cool is always a good idea. Now if you only have one or 2 drives in your case, and they are not staked on top of one and other, then cooling may not be that big of an issue for you. However if you are running multiple drives, especially in RAID, and/or they are very close together, then keeping them cool will become more important. Especially if you run a RAID 0 configuration since your basically doubling the chances of loosing your data when one of the drives fails. So your going to want to take steps to try and prolong the life of your hard drives.

Keeping them cool is probably the only real thing you can do in that respect. Now if you have a good case where you have cool air being sucked in and blown over the hard drive bays, then you probably wont need much more. However if you don't have that type of setup, then you may want to look into aftermarket hard drive cooling. This often comes in one of the following forms.

A fan that mounts to the drive, thus making the drive take up two bays, from within the case.
A fan that occupies a bay in the case and moves air over the drive from the top or bottom from within the case.
A 5 1/4 bay heatsink and/or fan that you mount the hard drive in to keep it cool by pulling air in from outside the case.
A 5. 1.4 bay fan that simply pulls air in from outside the case and moves it over the drive mounted behind it.

Like all other hardware, the cooler it runs, the better and longer it should last. Though not always the case, especially with hard drives, it can never hurt to take a few extra simple and inexpensive steps to try and prolong the life of the drive, and your data.

Your Case

All the cooling on all the specific hardware we discussed here will be handicapped if you cant get cool air into your case and hot air out of it in a efficient manner. The biggest factor in this is, of course, your cases design. At this point I am assuming that if you have read through all this that you either already have a decent case with adequate cooling potential, or your looking to get one.

No matter what one it may be, the most important thing to keep in mind is fans and vents. The most common and easiest way to move air though your case and keep air moving over all your parts and coolers is to draw air in from the front, bottom, and side, and blow it out the top and back.

So a case with mountable fans in all those locations is a huge benefit. Brands like Antec and Cooler Master make a lot of great cases where air flow is not a problem no matter what hardware you have in them.

Another thing, and perhaps overlooked by novice or new builders, is cable management. You want you route all the wires and cables in your system behind the motherboard mounting plate in the case and/or around all the hardware to keep the space all the hardware, and its coolers, occupies open for an uninterrupted flow of air through the case. Not to mention, cables and wires that are directly in the air flow are magnets for dust. It can easily build up on them and then break free and get sucked into a heatsink.

Here is a great example of good and bad cable management.

You can easily see the difference. In the "Good" example the user has all the cables routed behind the motherboard mounting plate and drive bays, away from the area where all the hardware is located. This leaving this space open for air flow. Where as the "Bad" example shows a rats nest if cables that will do nothing but hinder the air flow, collect dust, and trap heat in the case.

Most all aftermarket computer cases have enough room either behind the motherboard plate, drive bays, or both, to route your cables as seen in the "Good" example above. The bigger your case, the easier this task is of course. Most mid and full tower cases have no problems with cable management at all. Where as smaller cases may take more work and ingenuity. It really does pay off to take the time and get your cables routed correctly from the start.

Now to use my case as an example. My case is over 6 years old, yet, I still use it because I have yet to have a need to replace it. It has great cooling and meets my needs perfectly for the time being. However my cases limitation is that it's design and mid tower size make it impractical for running dual video cards. There is room, however the air flow in the case would not be adequate to meet my standards.

For now however, it's doing it's job very well. There are 5 80mm case fans moving air through the case. That's 3 pulling air in from the front, bottom, and side. With 2 more pulling air out the back and top. My power supply uses a 120mm fan and pulls air out of the case as well and vents it out the back. The fan on the bottom of my case is pulling air in and blowing on my video card. Where its picked up my my cards cooler and blown over the hardware and out the back of my case.

I purchased aftermarket case feet to lift my case higher up off the desk to promote the best possible air floe from the fan mounted on the bottom and the wires and cables that could not be routed behind the plate or bays, was routed flush around the inner sides and bottom of the case.

This combination works very well for maintaining my overclocked hardware temperature specifications, for now. My cases days are numbered since I do plan on running crossfire in the near future.

Closing

I never intended this entry to be a guide, but an example, of what I have learned building many computers over the years. Either on my own or from others. I wanted to just share some of that knowledge and hopefully point a person or two in the right direction if they are planning to build a new system for themselves, or upgrade their current one. Cooling is very important, and when done properly, can improve your systems performance and increase its life span. When done wrong however, can have a negative impact on its performance, operational stability, and even shorten the life of your hardware.

Medal of Honor 2010 Beta Multiplayer First Impression Mini-Review

2010-07-01T04:20:00.028-05:00

I came home to find an e-mail saying that I was accepted into the Beta of Medal of Honor. I must say, it was a pleasant surprise. So after many many hours of non-stop playing, I have come to a few conclusions, so I decided a mini "First Impression" review was in order.

Medal of Honor 2010 is made by the same people who make the incredible Battlefield Bad Company 2, DICE. So I must admit I had high expectations for this game. I am pleased to say, it really did not disappoint.

MoH is not Bad Company 2, it was not intended to be, and I am glad they did not try and make it like BC2. MoH is a lot more like Modern Warfare 2, only 100X better, especially since MW2 sucks so bad. In a nut shell, everything Modern Warfare got wrong, Medal of Honor got right. This game blows Mw2 out of the water in just about every respect.

Medal of Honor is a pretty fast paced game on maps that are the perfect size and it easily fulfills the needs of any hardcore FPS gamer. The gameplay feels very smooth and the game has a low learning curve if your already an FPS player.

How does it run?

On my system, this game runs like a dream, averaging 100+ FPS stable at all times, easy. On all high/max settings, 1600x900. 100% frame lag free from what I could tell.

Hit registration seems OK, for a beta. There are times when you get killed "around a corner", but that's a pretty common problem in many FPS games, even BC2. So I really can't hold that against it. You also have to take into account other players latency issues and such. I have dumped multiple rounds into someones face, blood flying, only to have them make it through unharmed and knife me.

The Toys!

The weapons are quite powerful and accurate once you get them mastered. You can unlock different weapons, sights, barrels, and ammunition types for your 3 classes. Assault, Spec Ops, and Sniper. In the beta you seem to be very limited on how much you can unlock.

You get kill streak bonus's you can call upon such as a Mortar Strike, UAV, or Air Strike. Similar to MW2 in availability only, they are not even close to MW2 in how they work, you can't spam the map with them and they do not wipe everyone out. It's 100X more balanced than MW2 could ever dream. Like I said, it's like they learned a lot from MW2's failures.

The one thing I have noticed in the beta is explosive weapons seem to be pretty weak. Had Grenades, the noob tube, RPG's, Rockets, all of them. I am not sure if this is how they are supposed to be or its a bug, to me, it feels like a bug. In order to score a kill with these weapons, you pretty much have to either hit your enemy directly, right at their feet, or hope they have low HP.

The Sniper Rifles in the beta are beastly. You can pretty much run and gun like as assault class as they are configured at the moment. Very easy to use for any nub with any sort of FPS experience. They feel very overpowered, but they are still quite fun, I am sure they will change by the time the game goes retail.

On the flip side of the coin, your assault rifles can easily be used to snipe as well, it almost feels like there is no bullet drop or randomization at all. Then again, most of the battles are in semi-close quarters. It makes the battle feel quite, even, no matter what weapons you use.

The shotguns are a blast as well. Devastating up close and still pretty mean at moderate range. I am able to clear out an entire building of 3 or 4 enemies with relative ease in most cases if I rush in with a shotty and they don't all see me at once. haha

How does it look?

From a graphic standpoint, the game looks great, again it's better than MW2. The environments are not as reactive like in Bad Company 2, but they are more reactive than in MW2. It's easy to see what can and cant be destroyed.

The Vehicles and mounted weapons!

There are gun emplacements in some locations as well as small Bradly style vehicles on some maps, though not many. Such as objective based maps, where you have to capture a set of bases and push the enemy team back. There are no vehicles on the team deathmatch maps.

The Maps and Modes

In the beta, there seem to be 2 maps, each with a different mode, available to play. Both seem very well designed and are quite fun. 24 players per server.

The first map is Helmand Valley and the game mode is "Combat Mission". The idea here is to either take a set of objectives or defend them, depending on what side your on. If your the attackers, you have to try and push the enemy back at take each objective, until you have driven them back to the final one and taken it. If your a defender, it's pretty simple, stop them and tick away the attackers lives to win.

The second, and my favorite so far, is Kabul City Ruins and the mode is Team Assault (aka Team Deathmatch). Pretty much the same as any other Team Deathmatch, kill more of them, score more points than they do, and win. I like the spawn setup in this mode, its not set so one team can just camp one side of the map, your spawn location changes depending on what section of the map your team is in control of at that moment in time. It does well in keeping the action flowing.

The Negative. =(

Hacks already!?!? My god these sad loosers sure don't waste any time. Sadly I ran into a two already. One player by the name of "phooka" was blatantly using a "wall hack" (sometimes known as "chams") to see where everyone was and a wonderful little no-spread hack as well. I had to go look it up to make sure these hacks even existed when I seen them the first time. You can imagine my dismay when I found a few sites looking for people to test their hacks in beta. Makes you want to smack the crap out of them idiots does it not? Oh well, haha.

You really cant hold this against the game, its only in beta, and hacks are a fact of online life. Not to mention, I have only see 2 people outright using hacks in the 15+ hours I played so far. That's not bad at all.

Player lag or server? That is the question the preoccupies my mind. Normally, I would place the blame on kids and people who play a game thinking they have a good enough internet connection or PC to play it, even though they don't. In this case, I am not so sure, it is a beta after all. It could just be that. Though expect people to tank entire clips and to drop dead out of the blue every so often. Nothing new to online FPS. Not to mention I have ran across "SA" players in the beta, playing on the North American servers. That's never a good sign and even worse for "lag". heh

Before you happen to guess what kinda of connection I am on, its 30Mbps down and 15Mbps up, with an average latency from 40-60 from New York, to Dallas, to Los Angeles. 30's to Chicago and St.Louis. So yeah, its not me. lol

Conclusions.

What I like about the game is the fact it fills a niche that MW2 was not able to do. I love my Bad Company 2 and I still prefer that style of game over that of Medal of Honor, but I have to say, MoH easily fulfills my fast paced, non-battlefield style, gaming desires I get from time to time. Enough so that I will be picking this game up that's for sure.

The beta is wonderful, and I am having a lot of fun in it. One major plus, in-game chat is disabled in beta! If only it could stay disabled. lol

Anyway, I easily rate this game a 8 out of 10. The only reason it don't get a higher score is the fact it is still in it's beta stage at the moment. A lot can change from now until the game goes retail. Also, I still like Battlefield style games better.

On a side note, I am going to brag a little. Now, I am pretty damn good at just about any FPS I play, enough to hold my own against anyone and finish on top in many cases. I have discovered my main reason for playing MoH Beta at the moment. I will drop anyone, anywhere, anytime, with the shotguns. >:)

They are all I have been using for the past 3 days, in a nut shell, I dominate. I even dominate others using the shotguns. So if you happen across my path, watch out, no matter how good you think you are...chances are...I will still dominate you. haha

OK, done bragging and having fun now. To some video! :P

Here is a small video of me running around a team deathmatch map, exploring. This was the first time I played on this map and mode. What is now my favorite. It will give you an idea of what the gameplay is like. There is nothing special about the video, its not edited in any way, just raw footage. Rendered in 720P.

This video is the same map, different class and weapons. Having fun with those shotguns. Still raw gameplay but I cut out all the running around and focused on the action more. Still all filmed in one single match. I also rendered it in 1080P this time around.

Both videos recorded with Fraps. Half Size. At 60FPS.

Battlefield Bad Company 2 Server is now Online!

2010-06-25T01:37:00.010-05:00

Server information and stats are located here: http://strider1974.blogspot.com/p/striders-bwhgamingcom-battlefield-bad.html

At long last, our Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Community Gaming Server is now Online! Expanding our community to try and include a wide variety of popular games is one of our main goals. Growing from Killing Floor to eventually include Team Fortress 2, Left 4 dead, and now Bad Company 2. We are also looking forward to the Vietnam add-on for BC2 and may even host a server for it!

The server is setup as a 32 player rush/conquest, fully PunkBuster protected, and will be well moderated by our community administrators. We only have a few simple rules.

No hacking
No glitching
Play and have fun!

We are an adult gaming community so we really don't care about profanity as long as it don't get out of hand or become an all out flaming competition. We just want everyone who joins to have fun and give them a clean moderated server to play in.

So please, come on by and check us out, we can be found at http://www.bwhgaming.com. We are always looking for mature like minded gamers who just want to have fun and do what they enjoy doing the most, GAMING!

Like the Bad Company 2 Server? We are accepting donations of any type to help keep it online!

Intel Core i5-655K & i7-875K Unlocked Processors

2010-05-31T00:57:00.013-05:00

Intel has at last caught on to a small part of why many consumers and tech heads, like myself, have shunned them in favor of AMD products for a long time now. If you read my blog, I make no secret of the fact I choose AMD over Intel every single time, and I explain exactly why I do and why I do not buy into the hype around Intel CPU's.

Well, Intel has seen a small glimmer of light from under AMD's door and decided to release two "value" CPU's that are unlocked and set to try and cover a hole in their market base. These two processors are set to try and compete with AMD's Phenom II X2 and X4 Black Edition processors that are so insanely popular.

Now I have to give kudos to Intel on the 655K and 875K, from a technology standpoint they have caught on that they had left a big gap that AMD was more than happy and able to fill with an awesome line of processors. Even if they are a extremely late and still behind AMD in that respect.

Now, the "K" pretty much means the same as the "T" and "Black Edition" from the AMD side of the street. The 655 and 875 are not new processors, they are simply unlocked 650 and 870 processors. What makes them new to the Intel line-up is the ability adjust the clock and memory frequency at will from within Windows, something you have been able to do with AMD chips for a while with the right hardware, such as on my current build.

So I have to tip my hat to Intel for finally catching up, however, that's where the ooo's and ahh's end with me. Both the 655K and 875K still cost double that of the CPU's they are trying to compete with and they still do not offer more performance vs price over the AMD line. This is one lesson Intel seems very slow to learn. The 875K is even about $50 more expensive than the AMD real 6 core 1090T processor, this qualifies as a *facepalm* moment in my book.

The AMD X2 and X4 line can still perform on par with the Intel line and overclocking is also just as easy on both sides of the road and both sides can reach the same stable speeds. So my original argument still stands, why in the hell would I pay more for the Intel chip when it does not offer enough "extra" to justify that cost? I simply wont.

I have read dozens of reviews online about these new chips, and have found a very few that actually try and compare the i7-875K to the Phenom II X6 1090T 6 core's, and I could not help but laugh. The i7-875K and it's 4 cores is still about $50 more expensive than AMD's 6 core 1090T and can not stand up to a 6 core processor, obviously. I found the very few articles out there that tried to compare the two laughable and it was obvious these people did not know much about what they were saying. Even if your a hardcore gamer, like myself, your not going to see any real performance difference between comparable 4 and 6 core processors at the moment. The only real differences will show up in the times needed to complete raw processing tasks such as HD video editing and transcoding for example.

So in a nut shell, kudos to Intel for finally filling a void in their lineup of processors for their customers that us on the AMD side have had for a while now, too bad they still can't grasp the entire lesson AMD has to teach. Price vs Performance. In this respect, AMD still wins the battle hands down. If your truly an open minded consumer or tech head, why on earth would you pay more money for a 4 core unlocked "turbo" processor when you can spend about $50 less and get a 6 core unlocked "turbo" processor? Like I have said before, unless you living in a box under a rock with the Intel logo painted on it, you wont.

So don't buy into the hype. If you have $350 to spend on a CPU, buy the AMD Phenom II 1090T X6, you will get a lot more bang for your buck, and save $50 to use elsewhere. The 1090T can reach 4.0GHz on all 6 real cores on air cooling very easily and is still way overpowered for most consumers and far more power than any of us hardcore gamers will need for quite some time to come.

Free to Play MMO Gaming

2010-05-20T12:18:00.016-05:00

In today's world of PC gaming, there are three basic categories all games fall under, "Retail", "Pay to Play", and "Free to Play".

A "Retail" game is one that you purchase at your local retailer or online via a service like Steam. For example, some of my most recent retail game purchases have been Battlefield Bad Company 2, Overlord II, and Command & Conquer 4. Most retail games are both single and multiplayer, though some may be single player only, and some offer LAN play as an option. The multiplayer option is most often through dedicated servers.

A "Pay to Play" game is often a retail game you purchase like any other, but is an MMO style game, MMO meaning "Massively Multiplayer Online", they often do not contain any single player options. The game is online multiplayer only and requires the user to pay a monthly fee, often around $15, to play the game. The perfect example of a "Pay to Play" game is World of Warcraft.

Now a "Free to Play" (F2P) is almost identical to a "Pay to Play" game, with the exception there is nothing to buy and it's 100% free to play. It's still an MMO, but requires no monthly fee to play. How most F2P games make their money to maintain the game, pay the bills, and make a profit, is by offering the players optional "Cash Items" that can be purchased or "rented" for real money and used in the game. However these items are not required to play the game. Some F2P game publishers also offer monthly subscription packages just like the Pay to Play games, however they are also not required to play, they simply offer benefits above what you would get if you did not have the subscription.

Now there are a few games that are "hybrids", such as Guild Wars, that would be a retail F2P MMO. You have to buy the game, it's a MMO, yet requires no monthly fee to play. Once you buy it, its free to play.

For me, I do a vast majority of my modern gaming in two of these three categories, Retail and F2P. I have never been a fan of the pay to play model. Once I buy a game, I have no intention of having to pay a monthly fee to be able to continue playing it.

Why choose Free to Play?

Well, it's pretty simple, it's free. Many modern F2P MMO games are quite popular, and there are just so many to choose from, so the chances of finding one you like are pretty good. Most F2P MMO games come in two flavors, First Person Shooters (FPS) and Role Playing Games (RPG). They also come in different "styles" within those flavors. True full 3D massive environments, 2D/3D side-scrollers, "Diablo" type, "Battlefield" type, "Counter-Strike" type, "Arcade" type, some are even a mix of different game types. They all offer something different, even if some of the games are similar in design or use the same engine.

Now I know some people out there argue that the quality of a F2P game is inferior to that of a Retail game. Well, that's simply not the case. Both Retail and F2P games have good and bad titles out there. So in that respect they are identical. Now a retail game may take advantage of new graphic technologies much sooner than a F2P game of the same type, but then again, it's not all about the graphics is it? There are a lot of good F2P games out there that can offer hours and hours of great gameplay just as well as any retail game can.

So I guess the best way is to give a few examples of games in a few of these types and catagories that I have actually played and give a few of my opinions on each.

MMO RPG Games

Sword of the New World: This wonderful game from K2 Networks (GamersFirst) is probably one of the most impressive true 3D games I have ever played. It ranks up there with Hero Online in the fact it has a very unique story, huge open worlds, and addictive fun gameplay. Where this game sets itself apart is in its beauty. The game is graphically beautiful and very unique in many respects. Now I am not a gamer bound by a games graphics, I am far more interested in gameplay, but I have to admit I was impressed by the look of this game. Combine that with the fact the game is also great fun to play and explore and you have an incredible game well worth the time to play.

Dungeon Fighter Online: This is a great 2D/3D RPG/Adventure type game from Nexon that reminds me of old school arcade meets modern MMO. It has an old school arcade look and feel to it yet offers many of features of a modern MMO RPG. Party's, PvP (Player vs Player combat), questing, buy and sell, and a lot more. The main difference with DFO is that the world you play in is your own. You share the towns, shops, and such with everyone else in the game, however when you enter a dungeon to fight its just you or you and your party. So no one is left competing for map space to train, level, and quest. Every dungeon also has a boss you have to beat at the end and treasures to be found. This is a very unique game and great deal of fun to play. It also have quite low system requirements so it's well suited for gamers on older PC's.

Hero Online: I played this game for quite a long time. It's a true full 3D game with huge worlds and environments to explore, monsters to kill, and quests to complete. It offers a rather unique story and gameplay that I really enjoyed. This is probably one of the better true 3D MMO RPG games that I have ever played. The game offers a lot in the way of depth. You can craft and forge, buy and sell, choose from different builds for each class, party and PvP , and even partake in huge faction wars to gain control of areas in order to get extra experience and drops while your faction is in control. Simply a great game all around.

Maplestory: Love it, hate it, this is the most popular F2P MMO RPG in the world, and one of the longest running continuously updated F2P games out there. Its a 2D side -scrolling game from Nexon based around anime style characters. The world of Maplestory is simply massive. This game is insanely popular with people from all ages and walks of life, kids to grandparents, and everything in between. It offers everything any other RPG does, and a lot more, and it it requires very little power on the part of the users PC to play, so it's a great choice for those on older systems. Believe it or not, the game can be quite addictive, and a lot of fun to play.

MMO FPS Games

Combat Arms: This "Counter-Strike" style FPS from Nexon is one of the most popular F2P FPS games of its type out there. Now even though the gameplay is most easily compared to a game like Counter Strike, it's much more modern and uses a powerful game engine, the very same engine used to power F.E.A.R. 2 Project Origin. So the game blows CS:S out of the water in that respect. Its also a great deal of fun to play if your looking for fast paced FPS gameplay. It offers many classic game modes such as team deathmatch, free for all, and capture the flag, as well a few others like search and destroy and spy hunt. It also offers coop gameplay, something that's rare in the world of F2P FPS games, in the form of players working together to complete missions vs AI opponents. It even offers up a zombie mode called "Quarantine" where your job is to either infect as many of the other players as you can, or survive as a human until the end of the round. All in all, a great good quality game that I have enjoyed since it was released.

WarRock: This very popular and wonderful game is a "Battlefield" style FPS from K2 Networks (GamersFirst) that is really in the top of its class! What sets this game apart from other F2P FPS games is two things. One, it offers up much larger maps for much larger battles than most other games do, something often only seen in retail games. Two, its a peer to peer based game so it can offer up much larger player capacity in those larger maps, up to 32 players. WarRock is most easily compared to Battlefield since it not only offers smaller close quarters combat, but medium to huge maps loaded with dozens of different types of vehicles to use and master, on air, land, and sea. The game also offers many different game modes like team deathmatch, free for all, conquest, 4v4 deathmatch, and even an objective based mode with special maps where two teams fight to complete a set of objectives while the other team does what it can to stop you, all before time runs out. I have also been playing WarRock since it's very early beta stage and still enjoy it to this day.

The Down Side

So now that I have covered many of the pro's of the Free to Play game model and shared a few of the them that I have actually played. I guess it's only fair to cover the con's as well. Like anything else, there are down sides to F2P games. Here are the most notable ones.

Hacking: The very fact that these games are 100% free to download, create accounts for, and play, make them the worlds easiest targets for those who wish to ruin the gameplay for everyone else. That being the losers coding hacks then selling or otherwise making them available for others to use.

Now these F2P games all have hack protection in the form of 3^rd party software such as Punkbuster, Hackshield, or some other anti-cheat engine, as well as recoding the game to try and block or make specific hacks useless. However this is a constant uphill battle these publishers fight every single week. Since hacks are popularity driven, the more popular the game, the higher the demand for hacks for that game, and thus the more hacks you see in the game.

Now I do not hold this against the publishers like many people do, I for one fully understand how the cycle works and how incredibly hard it is to fight these idiots when your game is out there, 100% free for anyone to download, and 100% free to just make a new account once one is banned. So in most of the real popular F2P games, you will see more hack users out in the open than you do in a retail game, since in a retail game it's harder to get back into the game once your banned than it is in a F2P game. So this is something to keep in mind.

Mixed quality: Now there are a lot of damn good F2P games out there besides the ones I mentioned here in this entry. However, there are also a lot of lesser quality ones out there as well. Ones that do not update that often or mislead you into thinking the game is something its not and you don't find that out until you have it downloaded, installed, and an account created. So you may end up going through a few installs of different games before you find one you like.

Communities: The fact the games are 100% free also opens them up for anyone, of any age or maturity level, to play. So you may run into more "immature" players than you normally would in a retail or pay to play game. Though not really a con since you can often just ignore them, but I figured it was worth mentioning since you run into more "QQ" in F2P games than normal. lol

Closing

Even with the con's, Free to Play games are a great idea and something that is becoming more and more popular as time goes on. There are some great games out there that are well worth playing and can offer up just as much fun as any Retail or Pay to Play can. So why not try the ones I mentioned or go out and find one, or more, that better suits your taste and style. Just don't discount them based on the fact they are free, many of them will surprise you. Not to mention, if you really like the game, then you can support it by buying some of those cash items or subscriptions they offer. This can take the game to a whole new level for you, but the great thing is, you don't ever have to spend a single penny if you don't want to!

I guess the moral of this story is, you don't always have to spend money to game, there are quite a few good choices out there and you may me surprised how easy it can be to find a game to fit your taste.

Note: Some people have tried to leave comments here linking to "private servers" for some of the MMO games listed in my post as well as others. All such comments are rejected and the servers linked are submitted to the game publisher. Private servers for these MMO's are illegal and subject to legal action. So please, if you intend on leaving such a comment, please don't. It will only be reported to the games publishers for whatever legal action they see fit to take. If your going to play the game, play it fair and legal, if you can't manage that then you need to go crawl back under your rock. Thanks. :D

F.E.A.R. Project Origin Mini-Review

2010-05-11T21:19:00.015-05:00

Being a huge fan of F.E.A.R. (First Encounter Assault Recon), and horror based shooters and and games in general, I was really looking forward to playing F.E.A.R. 2 Project Origin. The reality of it though was I simply never got around to it up until about 2 months ago. I just did not have the time. Playing too many different games at once. Once I did play F.E.A.R. 2 though, I was quite upset with myself for letting it fall between the cracks. Something I will not let happen to F.E.A.R. 3 once it's released.

F.E.A.R. broke a lot of new ground and was simply a beautiful game to play and to look it. It was one of the few horror games I placed on the same pedestal as Doom, my all time favorite horror FPS game series. It actually felt like you were playing a movie. All you had to do was put on your headphones, crank them up, turn off the lights, and play! I must have played through F.E.A.R. a good half a dozen times since it was released. I also had a good deal of fun in its multiplayer.

F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin is simply a wonderful sequel and one that takes its story to a whole new level. It's more immersive, has more of a scare factor, impressive visuals and graphics that take of advantage of today's more powerful computers, and the gameplay is just fantastic. Once I started playing I did not want to stop.

Now I am not going to go too much into the story of the game since I don't want to ruin it for those who may not have played it yet. What I will say is kudos to Monolith and WB Interactive for a great story that have some awesome twists and turns and an ending that, I must say, I was not expecting.

This game is best enjoyed the same way as any good horror game or movie, alone in the dark, with the volume cranked up. This game has a very immersive environment, feels like a Hollywood action horror film, and has more "scary" moments that the original. Your going to run into Alma a lot more, and she is going to get a lot closer to you. Your also going to run into more supernatural activity that will pose more of a threat to you than it did in the original, and with the games updated engine, it looks very impressive. The new engine being the Lithtech Jupiter EX with modified Havoc Physics.

This game is a must for any fan of the series or fan of horror shooters in general. Even if you never played the original F.E.A.R. you can still get the idea of the story, and if you get lost, you can always just Google it. heh

This game actually has relatively low requirements considering what it puts out. Only listing a Pentium 4 2.8GHz or equivalent CPU, 1GB of RAM, and 256MB GeForce 6800 or Radeon X700 as the minimum needed to play. To be honest though, the game is a 1000x time better when it's played on a modern dual+ core system with a HD 4000 series video card or equivalent video card, and at least 2GB of RAM. That way you can crank it all up to max and really enjoy the game as it was intended.

I actually did record some of my gameplay and threw it all together in a video. It's nothing special, just a lot of gameplay. However, there are SPOILERS in the video so considered yourself WARNED. Do not watch this video if you do not wish to see any spoilers. It does contain the ending of the game!

http://www.own3d.tv/video/25126/

The video would be embedded here in the blog entry, but at the moment, own3D seems to be having issues with their player and off-site streaming. As soon as it's corrected, I will embed the HQ video here.

Anyway, this is a fantastic game in just about every aspect, and one that will have me playing it again I am sure in anticipation of F.E.A.R. 3!

Rated: 10/10

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 PC Multiplayer Mini-Review

2010-05-08T01:22:00.033-05:00

Steam users have now had the chance to try out the multiplayer gameplay of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (MW2) on two different occasions. An attempt no doubt to boost slacking sales to try and compete with the much more popular and better Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (BC2). So I decided to share my opinions on Modern Warfare 2 with the rest of the world for anyone who is truly bored at 3AM and feels like reading it.

I make no secret of the fact I am not a fan of Modern Warfare 2. Though MW2 just feels like a horrible squeal. I am one of those gamers who hates "me too" or "clone" games. Now by that I do not mean different developers putting out similar FPS, I mean the same darn game being re-skinned, repackaged, and sold as something new.

That's where I stand on MW2. I think the last good game in the Call of Duty series was COD4, at this point, Infinity Ward and Activision are just milking a dead cow. What makes it even more sad is the fact its working. MW2 on the consoles is a very popular title, then again, it's a game well suited for consoles. However this is not about the console version, this is about the PC version.

For a PC game, this game really does suck, are far more levels than I care to talk about. I will just cover the big ones in my book. Before I get into it though, I really did try and like this game, I played it for several hours, tried out all the modes, talked with a lot of people in-game, got accused of hacking on multiple occasions. No matter how hard I tired to like it, I am afraid, it was just not meant to be. Even the fact I had no problems slicing my way though this game with ease and a 3.0+ KD average not using ANY grenade launchers, harriers, cobra's, predators, or nukes. I still just could not stand this game.

Highly limited and repetitive gameplay. It gets old very fast.

Limited player numbers. Laggy hosts. No dedicated servers. You can't tell me they forgot how to write good network code. What limitations prevent the game from having more than 12 players in a game at once? I mean come on. A good PC capable of playing this game at respectable settings has far more power to handle larger game rooms than any console. As far as the lack of dedicated servers goes that's one of the largest downfalls of this game. I mean, this is a PC, not a console. I think MW2 would have benefited a lot from dedicated servers, too bad IW did not think so. I guess they failed to notice the fact the dedicated servers is the standard for just about every good retail FPS game. Then again, this is not a good game, at least, not in its PC multiplayer aspect.

You can tell this game was not coded for the PC at all. It's network code is a joke compared to other games. I can understand coding for multiple platforms, but it sure does not look like they did that here, they just coded a console game and did a crappy job "porting" it over to the PC.

Just like CoD4:MW, MW2 has air strikes, nukes, predator missiles, and they are even more spammed and powerful than the first, what kind of crack were they smoking? You can use these puppies pretty much anywhere. In an FPS game for freaking sake, not Battlefield. It's like they tried, and failed horribly, to add Battlefield aspects to the game. The maps are far too small for such items and my god can you score easy kills over and over if you know what your doing with these things. So in this respect, it's the same as the original MW, at least in MW you can modify the server to limit or remove them. In MW2 you have no choice but to play with all the under-skilled spammers.

On the flip side, some maps are actually too big for the limited number of players you can have, yet still far too small for the aforementioned overkill strikes. On some maps you find yourself spending more time running around looking for a kill than actually getting any kills. That can get rather boring.

Probably the most unrealistic game I have ever played.

Now the game does not claim to be realistic, so that's not really a negative point in that respect. What makes it bad is the lack of realism in a game is often made up for with game balance. Not in the case of MW2. This is something I can not really describe, you pretty much have to see it first hand to know what I am talking about. This game is far from balanced and even further from realistic.

The environments are also very static. They don't really react to the gameplay at all. This is a far cry from the Bad Company 2 engine where just about everything is reactive. MW2 being a modern top-of-the-line retail game, I honestly expected much more in this respect.

Rated M for Mature?

This is a joke right? This game feels like it was designed by kids for kids. I mean, most of the people I actually talked to in this game were very far from "mature". Sure your going to run into that in many games, but in the short time I actually played the game, I actually felt my own IQ drop.

Other than the fact its a war based FPS, there is no reason the game should have an M rating, though I know it's for the violence aspect of the game. Either way, its very easy to see that the vast majority of the player base is far from rated "M".

This game really should have been rated "S" for sucks.

Insanely easy compared to most other "top rated" retail FPS games.

If your a regular or experienced competitive FPS player, your going to find this game so insanely easy it's not even funny. There is no real challenge anywhere. The games very repetitive nature, map design, and over gameplay, make it very easy to master in a very short time. Hence why I get bored with it so fast I guess.

There are a ton of "unlockables" in the game, that's a plus, but it does not go far enough to keep in fun for a gamer looking for a challenge such as myself.

I mean, I topped over a 3.0 KDR in almost every single match I played and I made level 23 in just over 4 hours easy. Playing Team Deathmatch Express for the most part.

The funny part is, I was not even trying, and I was not familiar with any of the maps. I still was able to slice through this game like a hot knife through butter. So it's not like you can come back and say "You did not like it because you sucked at it!". I think an 8 year old could master this game.

Sure, I am an "experienced" FPS player, and I have a lot of years under my belt, but come on. It should not have been that easy. Facing players level 70 (with Prestige) that should have been far better and more experienced at this games mechanics and maps than me and yet I was able to top the roster in most matches I played.

Lack of originality.

Why should I pick Modern Warfare 2 over a different game such as Bad Company 2? The simple answer, I wont. This game offers up nothing original, its a MW clone, if you have played one you have played both. Sure it has evolved and progressed since its predecessor, but not by much. The game feels stale to me. All I could think of the entire time I was playing was, "average". There is nothing spectacular about the game in the least. its just, there, and that's about it.

On the plus side of the coin.

The games graphics on the PC are actually pretty nice if you crank it all the way up. It can be somewhat fun in short bursts or if you feel like noob farming.

Its very easy. This may be a con for me, but not for everyone. This game is well suited for "younger" players or those who are somewhat new to modern FPS games. Its also well suited for players with a nice short attention span. The reason I say that, is this game requires less "thought" than any FPS game I have ever played. I can guarantee that most of the people that play this game religiously, based on the ones I have played with, think they are a lot better than they are. If they were to step out of MW2 and enter a different game, chances are, they would get their backsides handed to them. So the games mindless easiness is a dual edged blade.

The game really does not require that much power to run. It barely used 2 threads of my CPU and never once did it even peg either near 100%. My FPS averaged in the 190 range no matter the map or situation with it all maxed out at 1600x900. The lowest I seen was 138FPS and the max was about 280.

Closing:

If you in the market for a good retail FPS, then I would stay away from Modern Warfare 2 and go spend your money on Bad Company 2. BC2 has come a long way since I did my "First Impression" review. Sure the game still has its share of issues, but when you stand it up next to MW2, it blows it out of the water without even trying.

Heck, you could even check out one of the free to play MMOFPS out there before wasting money on this junk pile.

There is no way I would ever pay $50+ for this game. Even free I really can't stand having it infect my PC with its presence. Bad Company 2 is a much better choice if your looking for a good retail FPS. MW2 should be left to console players because its the poster child of fail on the PC in my opinion.

To me, MW2 left a gaping festering hole in the COD legacy for me. MW2 seems like such a cheap clone of the original that they tried to make better and failed. They either need to let the series die or completely start over and make a new game. One that actually brings some originality to the battlefield. Something that will make it stand out. Bad Company 2 has killer maps, better environments, War Tapes, and they are coming a long way on the items I complained about in my original review. Even though BC2 has fewer game modes and unlockables than MW2, they are still a lot better then MW2.

Now with Medal of Honor coming out this fall, I really think this series is going to go out with a dud, when it should have been a bang. Lets just hope I am wrong.

I really did do my best to give this game a chance to change my mind. I played and played hoping to find some saving grace. The entire time all I really did was make notes about how it fell short when I compared it to other games I have played or do play. Upon the end of Steam's free weekend deal, I instantly removed it from my system, for good.

Now I can see how some people may really like it, especially younger players or those far more used to console games. However, when you put this game in the hands of a hardcore old school gamer who has played just about every FPS released since 1993, and is looking for a game that will actually challenge him and make him want more, it does not impress at all and falls very short of the mark.

I did rate it a 4 out of 10, and not a flat zero, for 2 main reasons. The Spec Ops with Coop is actually a lot more fun than the multiplayer in my opinion. To stand Spec Ops alone, I would rate it about a 7 out of 10, if it was not for the fact the rest of game falling so short for me. The other reason is even though I really did not like this game, there were a very few times I actually had some fun while playing. The problem was these times were short lived and very limited. It simply could not keep me from getting bored out of my mind.

Rated: 4/10

The AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition 3.2GHz Six-Core AM3 CPU

2010-04-27T21:24:00.026-05:00

All I can say is, "Thank you AMD!". Now anyone who knows me, or even reads this blog, knows I am an AMD fan for many reasons. This PII X6 CPU is yet another example why I will pick AMD over Intel each and every time.

This CPU is a beast. It provides 6 real 3.2GHz cores with 6x 512KB L2 and 6MB L3 cache all for a TDP of 125 watts and about $700 less than Intel's six-core i7 980x. Why on earth would anyone pay over $1000 for a processor that will have absolutely no discernible performance benefits for most users when they can spend only around $300 and get this amazing CPU from AMD? Perhaps they buy into all the hype, or maybe they are just smoking something that shuts down the part of their brain that controls logic. Though I know there are those who honestly believe the i7 and Phenom II class of CPU are not comparable. Those are the people living in a box under a rock with a giant Intel logo painted on it.

Now most people use their PC for either gaming, media, web, or software/web development. I dare anyone to sit behind two identical PC's and tell the difference in real world performance between and AMD Phenom II and comparable i5 or i7, simply put, with the exception of sheer luck, its not going to happen. That's because the Phenom II line of CPU's performs on par with much more expensive Intel chips. This is especially true when it comes to gaming.

Sure, the i7 980x will beat out the PII X6 in time trials on raw processing applications, but not by any means a huge amount. Defiantly not $700 worth. The i7 980x will also help boost frame rates in games, but no where near anything noticeable without benchmark software when compared to the PII X6. All six core processors have the same problem at the moment. Most games will not use more than 3 cores, and when they do, they will use one core at 100% while the 2nd and 3rd cores will run at about half. This is true for most all games, even the newer ones that are "optimized" for multi-core use. Meaning a quad-core and six-core CPU will be comparable while gaming if their other specs are comparable. So we will not see the real gaming potential of six-core processors for some time yet.

Now being a hardcore gamer, there is no way anyone can sit there and tell me they could tell the difference between the same game running on an Phenom II or Intel based system of comparable specs. This new X6 is no different. Here are some of the items that stick out in my mind.

The Phenom II X6 costs $300 on Newegg while the comparable Intel chip, the i7 980X, costs over $1000.
The i7 980X does boast 12MB of L3 but only 6x 256KB L2 where as the PII X6 has 6MB of L3 and 6x 512KB L2. Will that extra 6MB of L3 really make that big of a difference in gaming or real world end user use? No, not for many years yet, but that extra L2 the PII X6 has sure will.
The PII X6 is clocked at 3.2GHz and the i7 980x at 3.33GHz, so not a big difference there, not even noticeable. The average stable overclock on the i7 980x seems to be about 4.4 to 4.5GHZ. Initial overclocking results on the PII X6 BE put it at 4.5GHz, stable, with proper cooling. So again, no difference. See below for some actual overclocking results.
The PII X6 processors boast a rather impressive thermal design. At idle, with stock cooling, idle at about 24C and never goes over 43C after hours of Prime 95. With a good heatpipe cooler you can get it idle as low as 15C. If you go liquid cooling, it will run even cooler. This CPU runs very cool, even overclocked, amazing in my book.
Side by side the PII X6 and i7 980x have NO discernible performance difference when it comes to HD media creation. Such and DVD and Blu-ray transcoding.
This thing runs very cool thanks to its impressive power management with C1E on the CPU and low TDP. This allows the CPU to throttle up or down each core very rapidly and independently.

So why by and i7 980x? Well, if you plan on rendering the next Pixar film or trying to make your own version of Star Wars and want to match ILM's level of effects, then the i7 is just what you need. However, if your like the rest of us, gamers, programmers, bloggers, web designers, the i7 is a waste of money in my humble opinion.

The i7 980x is a powerful CPU, there is no debating that, but it's power is no where near it's asking price. Its 32nm vs the PII X6's 45nm in no way makes it worth $700 more than the the PII X6.

For me, since gaming is the primary use of my main system, six-core CPU's really do not offer much over 3 or 4 cores at the moment. So its not like your going to see a huge jump in performance from a quad to a six-core CPU, either i7 or PII X6. Most games do not even take advantage of all the threads available on today's high end CPU's. Mainly because developers try and save money by designing one game for all platforms. So in essence, most newer games are "ports" from one platform to another and were not actually coded with any one platform in mind. Though recently some games, such as Bad Company, Modern Warfare 2, and a few others, are truly console ports to the PC and do not even come close to taking advantage of the power available to them on a PC over a console.

However, that being said, it's not hard to see that AMD's new line of six-core CPU's is going to give Intel a real run for their money. Those of us that have been following this separation between AMD and Intel when it comes to price vs performance, can easily see that this is a fight Intel is not going to win unless they wise up and realize that a vast majority of end users are not going to drop loads of cash for a product that offers no real world benefits over one that offers the same level of performance for a MUCH lower cost.

Closing points and thoughts:

The i7 980x will give you higher framerates in many games over the PII x6, however the number differences are quite small, and its NOT noticeable without benchmark software running! The PII X6 will still pump out very high stable framerates in any game for a very long time to come. The i7 six core CPU will only beat out the PII X6 in raw numbers that the end user, the gamer, will NOT be able to discern.
It's going to be a while before we see games and such that will actually take advantage of six core processors. So there is no real need to run out and buy one expecting this huge performance boost. Your simply not going to see that much over a comparable quad core processor with comparable specs. It's going to take time for the software to catch up to the hardware.
Across the board, there is not a single benchmark that makes the i7 980x worth $700 more than the PII X6, not to me anyway. I will go toe to toe with anyone on an i7 with my PII system in any game and still lay them to waste. Pure and simple. Then again, I am not trying to encode an HD video, compile a 4GB RAR archive, burn a Blu-Ray Disk, and run a dozen instances of my web browser all while playing my games either. While gaming I run Firefox, IRC, X-Fire, Anti-Virus, Firewall, Steam, Everest Ultimate, and my G15 software and my current CPU does not slow any game down one bit with that and about a total of 40 other processes.

On a side note, if your not into overclocking but would still like a powerful six-core CPU and save about a $100 on top of it? You buy the Phenom II X6 1055T 2.8GHz for around $200 and step into the six-core age knowing you wont have to upgrade again anytime soon. Short of a slower clock speed and a lock multiplier, the 1055T boasts the same L2 and L3 as well as many other specs as the 1090T Black Edition. Though, to be honest, even with it's lock multiplier and slower clock speed, the 1055T seems to be able to overclock to 4.0GHz pretty easy. See below!

Keep them coming AMD! You have a customer for life right here. Intel, I think you need to watch AMD and take notes. All be it an impressive CPU, your i7 980x "Extreme" is far from it. Especially when it can be matched by a CPU that costs $700 less for most users and gamers.

Newegg customer reviews on the Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition Six-Core CPU

Product Specs:

Model: HDT90ZFBGRBOX
Socket Type: AM3
Core: Thuban
Number of real cores: 6
Core Stepping: E0
Stock Operating Frequency: 3.2GHz
Voltage: 1.25v to 1.40V
Hyper Transports: Yes @ 4000MHz (bi-directional 2.0GHz 3.0)
L1 Cache: 768KB per processor (Instruction & Data) - 6x 128KB (64KB + 64KB per core)
L2 Cache: 3MB (6 x 512KB)
L3 Cache: 6MB
Manufacturing: 0.045 micron SOI
64 bit support: Yes
Virtualization Technology Support: Yes
Integrated Memory Controller: Dual Channel PC3-10667U (DDR3-1333), Dual Channel PC3-8500U (DDR3-1066), Dual Channel PC2-8500U (DDR2-1066)
Multimedia Instructions: MMX, 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Advanced Bit Manipulation, AMD64 technology, AMD-V (virtualization) technology, Enhanced Virus Protection, Dynamic Acceleration technology (Turbo Core technology), AMD CoolCore Technology.
Thermal Design Power: 125 Watts
Maximum Temperature: 62C

Internal View:

Inside the box and other video reviews:

Tested Overclocking Results on the 1090T Black Edition and 1055T:

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 "First Impression" Review

2010-03-26T07:14:00.011-05:00

Updated: 5/9/2010

Where to start. I often don't review a game until I have either completed it or have played it for a few weeks first and have time to form a well informed opinion. In this case however, I purchased Bad Company 2 for it's multiplayer aspects and after just over a week I have already came to some rather harsh conclusions about the game. So for these reasons I decided to give my first impressions on the game. So I am going to break this down into categories to try and make it more reader friendly.

Overall Gameplay

The overall gameplay in BCS is actually not that bad and can be quite fun if your lucky enough to find a good server with decent players.

The various game modes are quite fun, Rush being my favorite and the one I play the most. You basically either play on either the attacking or defending team. If your on the attacking team, your job is to take out 2 objectives and secure the area before moving on to the next location on the map and taking out 2 more objectives. You do this until you have pushed the enemy team all the way back to their main base and destroyed the final 2 objectives. If you get held up on an objective too long by the defenders, and take too many losses, you will eventually loose the round.

If your on the defending, your goal is to do just that, defend the objectives and repel the enemy attacks and inflict enough damage to to win the round. Even though the maps are pretty well balanced, the attacking team often has the upper hand. However it is quite fun to play on both sides.

Some of the cons to the gameplay are weapon balance, class balance, and lag. Even though the maps are pretty well laid out, the weapons and character classes are not. I will get into the lag in a second.

The weapons in BC2 are what you expect from a "clone" run of the mill FPS. About as far from "realistic" as you can get. Tough it's not like the game clams to try and be all that realistic. It's far from ArmA or Operation Flashpoint. The sad thing is, they did not even balance it out very well. Without going into a long winded breakdown, lets just say that if you want to really rack up the kills, just use RPG's and rockets, and your set. No need to aim or apply any skill. Heck, there are many assault weapons that can take you out at the same distance as the sniper rifles. So if your going into BC2 thinking its weapons are balanced, your in for a surprise. Then again, most players don't care to be honest, or they have no idea what game balance is. This is proven over and over again with games like Modern Warfare 2. I was just really hoping BC2 would be different, in this respect however, it's not. It's just another "me too" game that really does not require the player to challenge themselves.

As far as the character classes go I really do have to wonder what EA was thinking giving most every assault weapon the M203 grenade launcher. This makes the assault class so insanely easy to dominate it's not even funny. Literally, no skill required, having played all the classes the assault is by far the easiest and offers up no real challenge.

The Recon class is by far the hardest to play. The sniper rifles in the game are not represented very well and even the final unlockable sniper is not a one hit KO. You can easily be taken out by the assault class at just about any range if your not careful. You better get good at the headshots is the best advice I can give. However, if you like your game to be more challenging, then play Recon, it's a lot more rewarding in my opinion. I will take quality of kills over quantity any day of the week.

Anyone can tear up in this game with just about all the assault weapons and the "noob tube" M203 or any of the other explosive weapons since its very simple to get splash damage KO's. So why not challenge yourself? Play with just your M24 and a sidearm? There is no greater feeling in the game than popping the heads of hordes of assault and support players. Just watch out for all the flying grenades.

So on to the lag. A vast majority of the servers you come across will have pings over 150. You will be hard pressed to find good servers with pings under 150. I happen to live in the Upper Midwest and am on a very high-end connection. My average ping coast to coast here in the US is 30-50. Yet I have a very difficult time finding servers with nice low pings.

If your lucky enough to find a good one, bookmark it! Though you will still have to keep an eye on player pings in the server. I can not even begin to tell you how many players you will run across with average pings over 200.

Game Stability

This is a HUGE con in my book. There are literally thousands of players who are having connectivity problems, random crashes, Punkbuster problems, and even issues just getting in a server to play. The game is very "buggy".

The biggest issue at the time of this review is crashing. Many players game either freeze or crash to desktop at random times during play, or when they try and join a server. I myself have this problem and so does every single person I know who plays BC2. I can sometimes go for hours without a single crash, and other times I am lucky to make it though two matches. So the game is not very stable at all for many users.

There are also connectivity problems, some of these could be a result of the crazy high pings you see, who knows. For the most part, connectivity is not that big of a problem for me, though like I said I am on a very high end connection. That being said, I have been dropped from a few games for loosing connection to the server. Only to be able to rejoin a few seconds later with no problems.

The Punkbuster issues are pretty easy to fix for most people. It just requires a manual update. Though there still are players having problems with PB heartbeat drops or a PB service failing to communicate with the server.

So you put all that together and you have a $50 beta test rather than a retail release. I am actually quite shocked EA would release a game in this condition. I am very glad this game did not cost me a penny, if it had, I would be far more upset at it than I am. As it is I can just enjoy it as is and I don't have to feel like I was ripped off like so many other players do at the moment.

The Graphics

Bad Company 2 is a graphically beautiful game. If you crank all the settings up to max the environment is truly the best in its class. Though there are graphic anomalies and glitches you will come across, they are not that big a deal, and the rest of the immersive environment far outweigh the errors. Even at moderate settings the game looks very nice. The game has a very theatrical feel to its environment. In this respect, they did a great job, and it's one of the games saving grace's.

The environment is also very reactive. Most structures can be destroyed or picked apart with some serious firepower. Hiding behind a wooden fence will not offer a lot of protection as bullets will go through them. So this also adds to the games environment and is a big plus in my book.

The Audio

Two words, "War Tapes", enough said. This audio setting really adds a entire new level of immersion into the game environment. You combine that with the graphical detail and you get a truly great experience that makes you feel like your playing a movie. Though its hard to judge direction based on sounds with War Tapes on in some cases, the fact that it sounds so damn nice makes up for it.

The game also has a dynamic response system that will cause your player, and those around you, to react to your actions as well as others in the area, and its all automatic. For instance, the guy next to me takes a hit from a sniper, he will yell "There's a shooter out there!", and if you see the sniper and take him out, your character may respond "I think I got him!" followed by players around you saying "Nice shot!". Revenge kills are nice and can result in your character or those around you saying things like "How do you like now?", "Take that bitch!", and so on. It really does add to that theatrical feel of the game.

So the audio in this game is one of the reasons, even with all the issues the game has, that keeps me playing.

Glitches & Hacks

Unfortunately, just in the time I have been playing I have managed to find several areas in a few of the maps where you can "glitch". Areas your not supposed to be able to have access too and that give you an advantage over the other players, especially if they are not aware your there since the area is supposed to be off limits.

For the most part, you are kept in the battlefield by a minefield. If you venture too far off the map your given 10 seconds to get back or your killed and it registers as a suicide and thus taking away points. However there are spots, such as some hilltops, that can be reached by various means that I am not going to go into detail about. However, while up there, you still within the map boundaries and are able to score kills in relative safety. Its very easy to get a kill, hide, move a little, kill again and keep repeating.

Though it's very obvious these areas are supposed to be off limits and inaccessible, they can be reached and the out of bounds timer fails to get you in these areas. In many of them you can even look off map. So keep you eyes out, if your taking damage from behind and can't see your shooter, look up.

There are also spots where you can put your gun through an object and fire, though you cant see through the object, the second you scope in, you can. So your behind cover and kill and the only thing your target has the chance to see is the barrel of your gun sticking out of nowhere. Again, I won't go into details on where these are, just look for the muzzle flash.

As far as the hacks go, yeah, they are there. Just like every other game, there are hacks out there for BC2. Though you probably wont run across them that often. I have already ran into damage hacks and aimbots. Only time will tell if it will get better or worse.

Closing

I really have a hard time rating this game over a 7 out of 10. The only reason I do give it a 7 is for the fact that when it does run, it runs great. The game for all its balance problems and such, is actually fun to play. The main reason is the games environment as a whole. The graphics, audio, and reactive objects really do make for a truly immersive theatrical gaming experience. I just with EA had done a lot more testing before they released the game. It has a LOT of potential.

My recommendation is to save your money until the price drops. $50 for game in this condition is a bit steep in my opinion. If you have to have it now, consider yourself warned. Don't get your hopes up and hope to hell it works for you without a hitch. If it does, then great, it can be a really fun game to play.

Updates on my opinions of Bad Company 2 (5/9/2010)

I have to admit, that since I gave my first impressions on Bad Company 2, the game has come a long way to addressing the issues. I now hold it in a much higher regard than I did when I first got it home.

The overall game stability has improved a great deal on my end. No problems what so ever.
There are still hacks and glitches, but that's true of any game. Though some of the glitches I was referring to initially have since been patched. Some have not. But it's an overall improvement.
Game balance seems to have gotten a bit better, though, that could be from the fact I pretty much only play Hardcore mode now. heh
You still see a lot of players "lagging", but it's not so much server related anymore, as much as just players on crappy connections or computers. Who unfortunately think they are on good connections or computers. The server sided lag that was complained about for a while on forums now seems to be corrected.

Bad Company 2 has since changed my mind. In it's current condition, even though I think $50 is steep for any game, it's wroth it!

Based on these improvements to the game, and others I did not mention, I can easily bump my new rating up to an 8 or a 9 out of 10 if I was to re-review the game. I am going to leave it at a 7 though since technically this was a "first impression" review. Now that I have been playing this game much longer, changing my first impression rating does not seem right. heh

On a side note, if you stand Bad Company 2 up next to Modern Warfare 2, it's rating jumps well over 10 by default for the fact that MW2 sucks that hard. If you looking for a good, fun, challenging FPS game. Get Bad Company 2, leave Modern Warfare on the shelf to rot in peace.

Rated: 7/10

ASUS M4A77TD Pro AM3 Motherboard Mini-Review

2010-03-13T19:36:00.008-06:00

Update: This board has full 6-core CPU support for both the 1055T and 1090T Black Edition Hex-Core 45nm CPU's. BIOS version/update 2005.

I have never really been dedicated to one single motherboard brand like I am with my CPU's and video cards. I have had pretty good results from Gigabyte, MSI, ASUS, and ASRock. Though my last 3 personal builds have all been ASUS powered. So I guess ASUS has managed to sneak it's way to the top of my favorites list. My latest build is no exception.

I did quite a bit of research on what motherboard to use in my new build, I wanted one that did not cost a lot, yet had all the basic features I was looking for.

AMD Northbridge since I use ATI video cards
Successful core unlocking of AMD X2 and X3 CPU's results from other users
Good overclocking and BIOS options
DDR3 Support
AM3
140 Watt CPU support
Crossfire ready
Good on-board audio
Gigabit LAN
Future hex-core CPU support

With those basic wants in mind I did a lot of digging and ended up settling on the ASUS M4A77TD Pro motherboard. I was able to pick it up on Newegg on an "Open Box" deal for $70, saving me money I was able to use on other hardware.

This motherboard not only meet all my needs, but had a 100% success rate on core unlocks and good overall overclocking results. The AMD770 Chipset also allows me to use AMD Overdrive to its fullest potential.

Here is a list of its overclocking features:

Intelligent overclocking tools
Turbo Key
Stepless Frequency Selection
FSB tuning from 200MHz up to 550MHz at 1MHz increment
PCI Express frequency tuning from 100MHz up to 150MHz at 1MHz increment
Overclocking Protection
ASUS CPU Parameter Recall

My only concern was it was the first time I had ever ordered a product "open box". Though I did not require any of the normal hardware that comes with a new motherboard, I have more than enough on hand and drivers can all be found online, I was concerned with the board condition. In the end however, my concerns were unwarranted, it showed up in a M4A77TD box (Not the pro version), well packed, and in mint condition.

The board fit perfectly in my mid-tower case. Installation of the CPU, memory, and into my case took a total of about 15 minutes. Once I got all the other hardware installed, hooked up, and all my cables managed to promote unimpeded airflow, the board fired right up and I begin installing my OS.

Now I had read in some online reviews, such as those on Newegg, that some other users were having problems with the boards related to the memory running at a single channel. When you would try to run in dual channel, the boards would not post. I however did not have a single problem with this. The ADATA 1600G OC DDR3 I purchased worked wonderfully and is perfectly stable running overclocked at 1600.

This board, for me, does everything I ask of it and more. There is also plenty of room to upgrade if the need ever arises. Though to be honest, I don't think that need will present itself anytime soon. As it is now, with the other hardware in the build, I can play any game on the market today that I would want to and it handles my multimedia, video, and graphic editing needs.

So after over a month of hard use, gaming, and stress testing overclocks, the ASUS M47A77TD Pro is still screaming right along and working flawlessly. So I give this board a 10 out of 10 and would recommend it to anyone looking for an affordable yet powerful AMD build.

Here is a breakdown of the boards primary specifications:

ATX Formfactor
AMD Socket AM3 140W CPU 45nm Support
AMD Cool 'n' Quiet™ 2.0 Technology
AMD 770/SB710 Chipset
5200 MT/s Hyper-Transport™ 3.0 interface
4 x DIMM DDR3 1800(O.C.)/1600(O.C.)/1333/1066 (16GB Max)
2 x PCIe 2.0 x16 - 1 x PCIe x1 - 3 x PCI
Realtek 8112L PCIe Gb LAN
1 xUltraDMA 133/100 - 5 x Serial ATA 3Gb/s Support RAID 0,1,10 - 1 x eSATA 3Gb/s ports
VT1708S High Definition Audio 8 -Channels
12 USB 2.0 ports

A few other ASUS specific features:

ASUS EPU-4 Engine
ASUS Express Gate
ASUS Turbo Key
ASUS Q-Fan
ASUS CrashFree BIOS 3
ASUS EZ Flash 2
ASUS MyLogo 2
ASUS AI NET 2

Rated: 10/10

AMD Phenom II X2 550 Callisto Black Edition Review

2010-03-09T08:34:00.018-06:00

I decided to write this review for anyone out there looking for a great CPU to build a new PC around and not break the bank. I make no secret of the fact I am a hardcore AMD fan. Or the reason I don't buy Intel CPU's because their price vs performance ratio when compared to AMD is far too small to justify the inflated costs. The AMD Phenom II line of CPU's is yet another example of this and the Callisto X2 550 Black Edition (BE) dual-core alone is probably one of the best price vs performance CPU's available.

So your looking to upgrade from your old single-core or older dual-core system and you don't want to spend a lot of money doing so? Well then this is the CPU I would highly suggest you look into. The 550 BE has got overwhelmingly positive reviews from critics, users, tech-heads, and overclockers alike. This baby really packs a lot of power and potential for under $100. So lets start off with the information I think most people would be interested in, gaming, multimedia, and overclocking.

Gaming:

If your like me, a hardcore gamer, you want a system that's capable of handling whatever games you want to play. However don't be fooled into thinking you need to spend $1000 to build a PC that can handle high end gaming or buy a hugely overpriced i7. A little knowledge and experience can go a long way to saving you a lot of money.

The 550 BE is a very powerful CPU running at stock speeds. It can power it's way through any game on the market without slowing you down. The thing is, for gaming, there is more to it than just your CPU. Your choice of video card and memory can have a huge effect on how well your system performs. What's great about this CPU is the fact it's costs less than $100. So you can take that money you save and use it to invest in other hardware for your system.

In order to get the maximum performance potential out of the 550 BE, I highly recommend a good name brand motherboard, good quality DDR3 memory, and a nice mid range to high-end video card. Since this would be an AMD build, it's best to stick to ATI Radeon video cards and a motherboard with an AMD northbridge. Your memory should also be of decent quality as well. I highly recommend ADATA since it has one of the best price vs performance ratios I have seen in a while. Their gaming series of DDR3 memory is highly affordable and powerful.

So to get right down to it, this is the hardware specs on the system in question, and how it performs in the games I play.

AMD Phenom II X2 550 BE CPU
ASUS M4A77TD Pro AM3 Motherboard
ADATA G (Gaming) Series DR3 1600G (OC) at 4GB
HIS ATI Radeon HD 4870 IceQ4+ Turbo PCIe Video Card
Coolmax 600 Watt PSU

For just over $400 at the time of the build, this system performs on par with much more expensive builds, and that's at all stock speeds. I will get into the 550 BE's overclocking potential in just a bit. Here is a list of games I have played on this system and they all run flawlessly smooth, at all max settings, and nice stable high frame rates.

ArmA 2
Stalker Clear Sky
Bad Company 2
Bioshock 1 and 2
Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising
Serious Sam HD
Rainbow Six Vegas 2
Killing Floor
Left for Dead 2
Team Fortress 2
The entire Half Life 2 series
Company of Heroes
Command and Conquer 3
Red Alert 3
Stalker series

Now that's not all the games, just the ones that are the most demanding on the system, and each and every one runs at peak performance. That's far more important to me than benchmark scores, real world results, not a number telling me how it "should" perform. This build chews up any game I throw at it without a single hiccup or slowdown! So if your concerned about this CPU "only being a dual-core" when it comes to gaming, don't be, when you couple the 550 BE with other good hardware its performance will amaze you. Like I said before, the money you save on this CPU can be put into that other good hardware for a better overall gaming build.

Multimedia:

When it comes to media, this CPU has no problems with absolutely anything you throw at it. From watching DVD and Blue-Ray movies, media files, online media like Hulu or YouTube. Everything is smooth as silk at full screen and at any HD resolution. This CPU would perform outstanding in a media center.

I also do some video editing with software such as After Effects and VideoStudio as well as run Fraps to record game footage. This things performance is amazing in all respects. Editing and capture is fast and smooth and has yet to disappoint me. So as far as general media is concerned, the 550 BE will not even break a sweat.

Overclocking:

Now this is the fun part. If your into overclocking like I am then this CPU was made especially for you! Since it's a "Black Edition" that means it has an unlocked multiplier so overclocking is quite easy. However even though this CPU has been tested stable by many users at up to 3.6+ GHz, it's real potential is in its disabled cores!

The Callisto is just a Deneb with 2 cores disabled. So the 550 BE X2 is the same as X3 or X4. The same CPU with cores disabled. Well, with the right motherboard and a bit of luck, you can unlock those disabled cores and run your 550 BE as a triple or quad-core CPU!

So why would AMD put the other cores on there if they are just disabled and make them so easy to unlock? Well, simply put, a Phenom II X2 or X3 is a quad core CPU where 1 or 2 of the other cores did not pass all the required tests to be sold as an X3 or X4. Does that mean those disabled cores are bad? The simple answer is no, it just means they did not meet the internal manufacturing standards. AMD tests their CPU's at standards well above the stock operational capabilities of the CPU. If a core fails for whatever reason, it's simply disabled and the cores that pass are left enabled. Get it?

Well, a lot of users of the 550 BE X2 started to realize that with the right motherboard, you can unlock these other 2 cores. The kicker is, in many cases, they all run stable at stock speeds! So in other words, they were getting stable quad-core CPU's out of the 550 BE X2 and saving a lot of money. As this caught on, more and more people have been unlocking their 550 BE's to quad-cores with higher and higher rates of success. I read a quote somewhere saying that about 90% of people reporting their results are getting successful stable unlocks to triple and quad-cores.

Now does this mean your guaranteed to be able to unlock your 550 BE? No, not by any means, this is a gamble and there is a fair amount of luck involved. Some of the cores will truly be defective and simply will not run. Where as some will run but not stable, especially under load. So I do not suggest you buy a 550 BE with the thought your going to get a quad-core CPU for under $100. Like I said, as a dual-core, this CPU is a powerhouse as it is. If you are able to unlock extra cores and it remains stable for you, consider it a kick ass bonus!

So how do you unlock it? Well, you need a motherboard capable of doing so, and you also need to make sure you have a decent CPU cooler such as the "Zalman 9700 CPU cooler. 4 cores obviously generates more heat than 2. Also, when you unlock your extra cores, you loose your ability to monitor CPU temperatures. Most modern motherboards however have a sensor under the socket that can be used to "estimate" your CPU temperature, in Everest Ultimate Edition it shows up as "Aux". All you do is compare the actual core temperatures to the sensor under the socket, under load, before you unlock your CPU. Note the difference so when you do the unlock, you can use the motherboard sensor to get an idea as to the CPU's temperature. If you have a good cooler installed properly, then heat will really not be a concern.

Now to find a motherboard that's proven capable of doing the unlock, your best place to start would be the AMD Phenom II Core Unlocking Guide over at Overclock.net There you will find a comprehensive ever expanding list of success and failure results on different motherboards. That is where I did all my research before making my final decision. It also gives you an idea on how to go about unlocking the cores.

So here is how my unlock went. I was one of the lucky ones who ended up with a stable quad-core unlock. To test my stability, I used Prime95 for 5 hours, this will stress your CPU quite well and reveal any stability issues you may have. Using the ASUS M4A77TD Pro AM3 Motherboard, this is how simple the unlock is, and the same is true of most all motherboards capable of doing the unlock.

Set Advanced Clock Calibration (ACC) to "Auto"

That will reveal "Unleashing Mode" is disabled, Enable it:

Once you enable "Unleashing Mode", that will reveal "Active CPU Cores", set it to "4 Core Operation":

So when your all done, it should look like this:

That's it, if your lucky, you just unlocked those other 2 cores, now its time to boot into Windows and see if its stable. As soon as you apply those settings in the BIOS, your computer will power down abruptly, don't freak out, that's supposed to happen. It's simply cycling off and back on to use the new settings. On POST you should see a quad-core CPU now listed. If your PC does not post, will not boot into Windows, then one or both of the cores may truly be faulty. Simply go back into the BIOS and try to run 3 cores and see if you can unlock one or the other stable. If that also fails, then both cores may be bad and you will not be able to unlock them. However there are a few things you can try that are covered in the AMD Phenom II Core Unlocking Guide.

However if you do make it into Windows, you can download and run CPU-Z and see if your unlock is being registered in Windows. It will look like this:

Now it's time to run Prime95 and see if it's stable. If it is, congratulations! Your now running a high-end quad core for under $100. If not, then like I said above, try 3 cores, see how that holds. up. If that still fails, then either your disabled cores are not stable or there is another underlying problem.

Closing:

So I do have to say, that the AMD Phenom II X2 550 Callisto Black Edition CPU is by far one of the best I have ever used. This thing is a powerhouse at all stock settings and simply a beast if your lucky enough to unlock one or both of those other cores. So if you looking for an affordable CPU to use in your new build, this is by far the best one out there!

Rated: 10/10

Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising Mini-Review (PC)

2010-03-07T17:46:00.009-06:00

When this game went on sale on Steam, I decided to give it a try, it just seemed like a game I would like. Even though the game seems to have got rather poor reviews from other players and general favorable reviews from critics, I had a feeling I knew why other players were not liking this game, and I decided to take a look for myself. After playing it though it's campaign and taking it online for some coop fun, I can honestly say, I am quite glad I did not listen to player reviews.

The thing is, OF:DR is NOT your typical FPS game. Its not a run and gun fast paced shooter. It's also, get this, realistic! This is why I knew I would probably like it, because it's not yet another FPS game that's the same as just about every other FPS game. Now don't get me wrong, I love FPS games, but in today's market there is no shortage of them. The sad thing is, most of them do not contain anything unique, they are all the same game, from the Battlefields to Modern Warfare 2, they offer nothing more but new maps, weapons, and maybe a tweaked story. The games themselves are all the same. The same basic mechanics and gameplay in a new package.

This is why I tend to get more enjoyment out of games that are not "clones" and actually have original ideas, mechanics, and gameplay involved. Games such as Rainbow Six Vegas 1 and 2, ArmA 1 and 2, and even Battlefield Bad Company 2. Sure Bad Company 2 may be "just another Battlefield game", but it adds a level of depth to your gameplay with "War Tapes". If you don't know what that is, YouTube will point you in the right direction. That alone ranks the game above most of the competition.

Like I said before I love FPS games, I play quite a few of them and to toot my own horn a bit, I happen to be pretty damn good at just about all of them. However its so nice to be able to step out of the typical "unrealistic" FPS game with its same old strategies and mechanics, and take on a game that actually requires patience, real world strategies, and a different set of "skills" in order to play. One where your character has real world limitations, the game has real world mechanics, and actually adds a bit of realism to the combat.

This is Operation Flashpoint. This is NOT your typical FPS game, and if that's what your into, then your probably not going to like this game very much. Now if you have played, and liked, one of the ArmA games, then perhaps this game if more up your ally. Its similar to ArmA in many ways, just with a lower learning curve and it's a bit easier to master the controls and learn all the commands for a novice to combat simulation games. That's exactly what this game is, a combat sim, not an FPS!

Of all the negative reviews out there by other gamers, I can not help but think they simply had no idea what they were getting into, not realizing a game like this requires patience and the player to learn new game mechanics. You may have to travel over 2 kilometers to reach an objective, you have to compensate for realistic weapon ballistics, you have to actually think your way through your missions. If you try and play a game like this as if it was just another FPS, your going to have your ass handed to you on a silver platter. Then of course your not going to like it and give it a bad review. This is not the fault of the game, but the player.

To prove this point I let my oldest son (18) try a mission. He is like most typical teenage gamers, he has zero patience, and simply will not take the time to learn a new game, yet he likes and plays most of the typical FPS games out there. After just 10 minutes he was already getting frustrated with the game and when he was through with the mission, said he thought it was boring. Now mind you I had it set to "Normal" for him.

I then let his brother (16) take a crack at the same mission. He has much more patience and like me, does not only like games that fit into the same box as the games everyone around him likes, yet also like me he plays a lot of typical FPS and is pretty good at them all. He took the time to figure out the game does not play by the same rules, it has a level of realism to it, there are limitations you have to take into account. Within no time he made it through the mission and quite enjoyed the challenge and said he liked the game.

So I think a majority of the negative reviews are the fault of the player, not the game. Not being able to adapt to the fact the game is not what they are used to or they simply have no patience for a game like this.

I also seen a lot of people saying the game was full of bugs. I really have no idea where these people are getting this idea from. Sure it has a few minor bugs I noticed, but no more than any other game out there, and they do not take away from the game. Again I think people are using the bugs as a way to over exaggerate the fact they did not like the game for the aforementioned reasons. Or they are trying to play the game on a low end system. Rest assured, this game is NOT full of bugs!

Dragon Rising has a great 11 mission campaign to play through, as well as nice big arsenal of weapons to master, and vehicles to operate. If you take it online, you can coop the campaign with up to 3 of your friends or hop into massive 32 player battles. Though still a visually impressive game, the game does have lower requirements than ArmA 2, so if your on a slower dual-core (around 2.4GHz) system and a video card under the Radeon HD 4000 range but over the x1800 series, this game will still run well for you.

All in all I have to say that I really enjoy this game and suggest that you not put too much stock in all the reviews out there claiming how bad this game is. If you like combat sims, have the patience to learn the game and its mechanics, then try it for yourself. Heck, you don't even have to buy it, there is a demo available to download! So you really have nothing to loose at all.

Game On Codemasters!

Rated: 10/10

HIS Radeon HD 4870 IceQ 4+ Turbo 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 Review

2010-02-16T12:57:00.028-06:00

Entry Updated: 3/13/10 to include new games

I make no secret that I have been a fan of ATI products, leaving Nvidia a long time ago, and having no regrets for my decision. The main reason I always pick ATI over Nvidia? Price vs performance. It's pretty much that simple for me. This HIS HD 4870 is no exception. Your always going to get comparable and even better performance out of an ATI card for less cost over an Nvidia.

I have become a fan of HIS products and I must say that I am very impressed with what they did with this card. This puppy performs on par with "higher end" cards that cost much more. For being a single GPU card, this thing will rock your world, and the worlds of the games you decide to throw at it as well. More so if you decide to crossfire it.

So lets get down to it. Most people buy a video card for gaming, I am no different, and this card is damn impressive. It chews up any and all the games I play (listed below) with out even breaking a sweat. I have yet to see a single slowdown in any of the games I tested. It has played smooth as silk and delivered kick ass graphics.

Operational Temperatures

One thing I see in a lot of reviews for this card is it runs hot, and that it does, but it's also designed to take it. So it's not a real concern. However I, like many others I'm sure, still prefer to run their hardware as cool as they can. Thus extending the operational life of the hardware. Also gives you more room for overclocking if your into that.

Right out of the box this card was idle at about 71C, then again the fan was also only running at 15%, so that was to be expected. Now when I put it under load for a while, the temps never got over 75C at 15% fan speed, that just says the nice big heat-pipes and cooler are doing their job well. Still, I would prefer it to run cooler, yet I don't want to run the fan too fast under manual control and shorten its life all that much either.

To activate manual control of the fan speeds, just open up your Catalyst Control Center, then to ATI Overdrive and unlock it, then adjust the slider accordingly.

So after some tinkering with the fan speeds and testing various games. I found that a fan speed of 40% will idle the card at about 48C and under load push it up to about 59C max. At 50% the card will idle at about 42-44C and top out at about 56C under heavy load. So I run mine at 50%.

The screenshot shows the card at idle and while playing ArmA 2 on all max settings at 1600x900 for 30 minutes.

This is with an average room temperature of 20-22C (69-71F). The fan noise at those speeds is more than acceptable, for me anyway, I am used to the noise considering the number of fans in my case as it is. Though to be honest it's not that loud at all.

Overclocking

Now I really have not messed with the clocks on this card very much yet, mainly because its overclocked already, and I have yet to need to do so. However I have read many reviews that say this card overclocks very easily. Just open up ATI Overdrive and adjust the sliders and see how much you can get out of it. Just remember to adjust the fan speeds as well. If and when I ever feel the need to overclock it, I will update this entry, or make a new one.

Power Demands

The card requires at least a 500Watt Power Supply with 2 6-pin 75Watt PCIe power connectors. I am personally running a 600Watt PSU and it has no problems powering the card. However I would not recommend anything under a 550watt.

What counts, the gaming!

So how does it hold up when gaming? Lets just say I am very impressed how well this bad boy handles the games I want to play. From the Half Life 2 series, to ArmA 2, and everything in between, the stable framerates are quite high. I have not benchmarked all of my games like I would like to to get exact numbers off them all, but here it is in a nut shell.

These are the games I have played on this card at 1920x1080 on all max or very high settings and have not seen a single slowdown or hiccup. No frame lag at all.

Half Life 2 (Also Episodes 1 and 2)
ArmA Gold
ArmA 2
Bioshock 1 and2
Killing Floor
Left 4 Dead 2
C&C Red Alert 3
C&C 3: Tiberium Wars
Company of Heroes Collectors Edition
Resident Evil 4 & 5
Battlefield 2142
Combat Arms
WarRock
Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45
Team Fortress 2
Torchlight
Fallout 3 GOTY Edition
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl
Rainbow 6 Vegas 2
Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising
Battlefield Bad Company 2

Once I have more time I will go back and fire up Fraps and get some numbers to go along with the rest of that list. Though to be honest, the numbers wont matter too much, since in every game I listed, the gameplay and frames were perfectly smooth and fast. So no matter if its 60 or 300 FPS, the fact remains that stable framerates are whats important. Not a single time did I ever see a hint of frame lag.

The ArmA 2 Benchmark

The ArmA 2 game and demo both have a great benchmark tool you can use to see how the game will run on your system, similar to other games, and it's free since its included with the demo. I know a lot of people like to use Crysis as a benchmark, but ArmA 2 is more system intensive, and can provide a better overall test of your systems abilities. If it can handle ArmA 2 on all high or very high settings, games like Crysis will be a cake walk. This is why I choose ArmA 2 over Crysis as a test of a systems high-end gaming performance.

Running at 1600x900 on all "Very High" settings with a view distance of over 3000 meters, the frame rate averaged out at 76 FPS. During actual gameplay the frames would bounce around a little, in the low 90's at maximum and in the mid 60's in heavy combat. After making an adjustment and shutting off post processing effects, the frame rates went up on an average of 5-8 FPS across the board. I don't like post processing effects in games like this as it makes the entire world "glow", and to me, it just gets in the way of the gameplay.

The FPS fluctuations were completely unnoticeable in game. The gameplay experience is smooth and without any frame lag at all. It plays wonderfully! This is very impressive overall and really does show off this cards potential when it's paired with other good hardware.

Closing

So in a nut shell I have to say that this is one kick ass card that will run any game on the market today at respectable settings and with little to no problems at all. You hook this thing up in a crossfire setup and watch out. Though all on its own its not having a problems keeping this user happy. I would highly recommend this card to anyone looking for a high powered card to play their games on yet not wanting to spend a lot of money.

Rating: 10/10

Why AMD is better? My opinon, short and sweet.

2010-02-12T01:29:00.014-06:00

AMD or Intel? What CPU is really "better"? Is one really better than the other? There are a lot of opinions out there on this topic and many good arguments on both sides of the fence. So I decided to go ahead and put my humble opinion out there and explain why I think AMD is the better choice for gaming and general computing.

Now I am not going to get into a long technical review of AMD architecture vs Intel, a lot of techno babble, or any of that jargon. I am going to explain the real world reason why I always choose AMD over Intel each and every time I build a system.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying Intel makes "bad" processors, quite the contrary. I think Intel makes great products. I just like AMD more for the reasons I am about to cover below. So here it goes...

Price vs Quality:

One thing anyone can easily see is that if you take two comparable CPU's on a site such as Newegg, one AMD and one Intel, the AMD chips are most always much less expensive. So does this mean the AMD chips are of a lower quality than Intel? That could not be further from the truth.

I have been using AMD chips since the days of Socket 7 and not once has a single chip ever let me down, though in that same time I have had 2 Intel chips go bad, still not a bad track record considering. So from my own personal experience, both chips have about the same level of quality and longevity. So from a quality standpoint alone, does it not make more sense to buy the less expensive chip that is at the same level of quality as the more expensive one? I think so.

Price vs Performance:

This is by far one of the largest reasons I buy AMD over Intel. Often in the real world, you get what you pay for, thus items that cost less often are of a lower quality then other items of the same category. That is, of course, unless we are talking about AMD vs Intel.

So what about performance. This is where people often get defensive and fanboys on both sides will start a fact fight and defend their opinions quite aggressively. So I am going to simply put my own personal real world experiences to the test here and give you a breakdown of the results. You can take from it what you will.

Lets say you take two identical machines, one with an i7 or Core 2 Quad q9650 and an AMD Phenom II x4 965 Black Edition and set them up side by side. Where the only difference between the two is the CPU and the motherboard of course.

Now lets take any game on the market and play them side by side. I challenge anyone to be able to see any performance difference between the two games. It's simply not going to happen. Sure the i7 has more raw power than the Phenom II, but no where near enough to compensate for the fact the cheapest i7 costs almost $400 more than the Phenom II 965.

The thing is, without detailed benchmarks, the end user would not be able to see the difference in his games performance between the two processors. The game will run great on both platforms and the users "gaming experience" will be the same on both chips . So why on Earth would someone opt to pay an extra $400 when your not going to get $400 more worth of performance?

I know some people just like to be able to say they have the power even though they wont need it. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I am just not one of those people. So this is where the price vs performance ratio wins out for me.

Even in everyday computing tasks such as web surfing, business applications, flash games and animations, video editing, watching movies, DVD authoring, and so on. An AMD Phenom X2 or greater will not let you down. Now unless your going to be rendering the next Pixar film on your home computer, there is no need to drop $600-$1000 on a CPU alone.

The Black Edition:

You may have noticed I have a Phenom X2 550 Black Edition logo at the top of this entry, that would because I happen to have that CPU in use here at home, with one difference. I am running it as an X4 Quad Core at stock speeds. The AMD Phenom Black Edition CPU's are an overclocker's dream. The 550 Callisto is a powerful dual core CPU that, with a little luck, can be made into a quad core Deneb with the right motherboard and BIOS version. This is because the other two cores are there, they are just disabled.

Of course, not all can be unlocked to an X4, some can only get a 3rd core running stable making it an X3. Where as some are stuck on a dual core because both of the disabled cores are truly defective. However the success rates for getting a fully stable quad core out of this CPU are very high, up close to 90%.

My unlock was stable after 5 hours of Prime95 and tested while playing ArmA 2. It worked like a charm. There is one drawback to unlocking those extra cores though, you loose the ability to monitor your CPU temps. Most modern motherboards however have a sensor under the socket that can be used to "estimate" your CPU temperature, in Everest Ultimate Edition it shows up as "Aux". All you do is compare the actual core temperatures to the sensor under the socket, under load, before you unlock your CPU. Note the difference so when you do the unlock, you can use the motherboard sensor to get an idea as to the CPU's temperature. This is important since your CPU will run hotter since there will be an extra core or two in there producing heat. With the proper cooling this is not an issue tough.

So something better than stock cooling is highly recommended. The " Zalman 9700 CPU cooler" is my personal recommendation. If want to research how to try your own unlock, check out this AMD Phenom II Core Unlocking Guide over at Overclock.net, everything you need to know is there!

So why bring this up? Even if your not lucky enough to unlock any of the other cores, this CPU is still more than capable, with other good hardware, of running any games on the market today. If you can unlock an extra core or two, all the better. So for less than $100 you have a CPU that can perform on par with Intel chips that cost much more. Such as an i5 or E8500 or E8600. Again, side by side your not going to be able to tell the difference.

Closing:

So in a nut shell, in a price vs performance comparison, AMD will always win hands down for me. I will be more than happy to put my overclocked Phenom II 550 quad core up against an i5 or i7 any day in any game and dare anyone to be able to say it does not run on par with the more expensive Intel chip. As long as both systems have comparable hardware across the board anyone will be hard pressed to be able to tell the difference based on "real world" use alone.

Isn't that what it's all about anyway, real world use? Even for a hardcore gamer like myself, the Intel line of chips simply can not offer up performance over the AMD line that can justify the sometimes massive cost differences.

So why not save a lot of money, buy AMD, and then drop that extra money into other hardware for your system? Such as a better video card, motherboard, or RAM? I think a lot of people forget there is a lot more to a system than the CPU alone.

Strider's Retro Gaming PC Version 3.0

2010-01-20T13:35:00.042-06:00

Edited: 01/26/2010

I have been trying to build the "perfect" Windows 95 powered system for the single purpose of playing some of my all time favorite old school games in their native environment. I have actually had several builds so far, all of them worked well, but still had flaws that I found I did not want in my final build.

Just to name a few:

I was having audio "skipping" problems with DOS video playback on one system that I just could not eliminate that turned out to be an issue on the Lite-On TR100 Compaq OEM Motherboard I was using.

I was lacking working drivers for motherboard resources (IDE, PCI, AGP, USB, and such) that were not necessary to the operation of Windows 95 but still would perform "better" if I had driver support for 95.

I also ran into problems when using CPU's over 1GHz in some games. I either had to use special software to "throttle" the CPU down to play the game or in some cases it would bring out bugs that were not present before. Such as in Blade Runner, the shooting range would glitch with a CPU over 1GHz.

Due to some of the aforementioned driver problems some things were running in "emulated" or slower modes than the hardware was designed for. Such as the AGP card running in PCI Mode, the HD's not running in DMA, and the sound card using legacy drivers for DOS mode that only worked under Windows. There are some games that can only run in a pure DOS environment.

So you put all that together and it's far from a "perfect" setup. Some of it was simply my fault for trying to use hardware that was just too "new" for the OS and software. So I decided to scrap it all and start over from scratch and make damn sure every part I used had full Windows 95 support and DOS support when needed. This is what I wanted in my "perfect" retro build.

Full Windows 95 and DOS driver support for all hardware
Full AGP support
USB support
At least 8GB HD space
Nothing running in legacy or compatibility modes
Stable in both Windows and DOS modes

I am glad to report that I was able to achieve all this and more. I did a lot of research this time around instead of jumping into it head first and it paid off.

When all was said and done, this was the builds final specifications, I will go into more details below.

Windows 95c OSR 2.5 (4.00.950 C)
AOpen AK72 Motherboard (Details)
AMD Athlon Slot A K7 700MHz (AMD-K7700MTR51B C)
640MB PC133 SDRAM (2x256MB/1x128MB)
nVidia GeForce4 MX 440 64MB AGP Video
Creative Sound Blaster AWE64 Gold ISA Audio
Generic 250 Watt PSU
8GB and 20GB Western Digital HD's
Compaq OEM DVD-ROM
Full USB support

Windows 95c OSR 2.5

So why Windows 95? Every "old school" game I wanted to play was designed or capable of running on Windows 95 or DOS. Sure some of the games would run on a newer OS, but only a few, and with problems most of the time because its running "emulated". This is what I wanted to get away from. Windows 95 also still had a full DOS backbone. A huge plus when wanting play DOS games that require a "pure" environment, such as the "Crusader" games. No regret and No Remorse.

The thing is, I still wanted to push it as far as I could and I wanted, if possible, to use a flash drive to transfer data between my modern system and my retro rig easily. For all that I had to have Windows 95c OSR 2.5. In a nut shell, this version was the immediate predecessor to Windows 98 and had support for new technologies such as USB and AGP. It also was lacking all the "bloat" that came with Windows 98. You just had to know how to get it all to work.

AOpen AK72 Motherboard

Specs: http://www.motherboard.cz/mb/aopen/ak72.htm

This is just a great motherboard. For it's day it was a beast. I decided to go with board for several reasons.

It had full driver support for Windows 95
Had USB support
AGP, PCI, and ISA
AMD Athlon Slot A
3x DIMMS

Full driver support is great for obvious reasons. That lead to me being able to use USB and AGP support to its fullest. That ISA slot also allowed me to use the sound card I really wanted to use. Of course, the AGP slot allowed me to use the video card I wanted to use as well. I also liked the 3 DIMMS since I could go past 512MB, not that it's needed, just nice to have. Last but not least, the AMD Athlon Slot A (K7) CPU support. These CPU's were a favorite of mine back in the day and were very well suited for "gaming".

AMD Athlon Slot A K7 700MHz

Though not as "fast" as the Pentium 3 in my previous build (1.2GHz), this CPU is far more power than the system or any games played on it will ever need. The fact it is also under 1GHz means far less use of throttling software and no more glitching in Blade Runner.

This CPU was over $800 when it was released and features a 200MHZ Bus Speed and 512KB External L2 Cache running at 350MHz. These features were "top of the line" for the day. What this all means is I wont notice any slow downs due to the loss of speed.

640MB PC133 SDRAM

I was originally running at 512MB and that's far more than enough for the systems needs. The only reason I bumped it up to 640 was I found a 128MB stick of PC133 I was not aware I had and decided to put it to use since the motherboard supported 3 DIMMS. So as it sits this system has more memory than it will ever need.

nVidia GeForce4 MX 440 64MB AGP Video

To be perfectly honest, I am not an nVidia fan, I have been an ATI fan-boy for a very long time. I actually had an ATI Radeon 7200 64MB that I had intended to use, only to discover the card may be faulty as it will begin to display lines after being in use for a while, not surprising considering it's age. I really like this card and if I can find a working one I will swap them out. In the meantime though, the GeForce4 will work just fine.

Wanting AGP support limited my choices since I did not have many AGP cards lying around that had support for Windows 95. I had a few older ATI cards such as a Rage IIc and Rage XL, but both did not have the power I really wanted. I also have a Voodoo 3 1000 16MB card sitting here and it is a nice card, but still can not match the Radeon 7200 or GeForce4 MX440.

Creative Sound Blaster AWE64 Gold ISA Audio

The main reason I wanted to use this card was its DOS support. This card was one of the best of the best for its time and will have no problems with any of the games I will be throwing at it. I actually consider myself lucky to have found one of these cards in near mint condition.

Generic 250 Watt PSU

To be honest, with the hardware being used, the PSU is not a real concern of mine. So I just went with a generic brand 250 Watt PSU that is new and provides more than enough power for the system.

Western Digital HD's @ 28GB Total

Well, at the time of the build, this was the largest HD I had. Early versions of Windows 95 had limited support for HD's up to 8GB and 2GB partitions. However later versions, including 95c ORS 2.5 was had a 32GB limit. However most motherboard's of the time were still limited to 8GB. The AK72 motherboard BIOS has no such limitation and I just found 2 20GB Western Digital drives and will probably be putting one in the system. This way I can do "full installs" on every game I have and not have to worry about HD capacity.

Compaq OEM DVD-ROM

Right now I am using an old (1999) Compaq OEM DVD drive. I may replace the drive with a better quality one as soon as I can find on. Though it's an older drive it's still in mint operation condition and works wonderfully.

Full USB support

This was a must. In order to have the AGP support I wanted I also had to have USB support. That was only going to happen on the version of Windows 95 I decided to use. Now even though Windows 95c does have USB support, it was not really "Plug and Play" and I was not sure I would be able to use a flash drive to transfer data like I had wanted to.

After getting USB support setup and the proper drivers for the motherboard. I set out trying to find a way to use a flash drive. I was lucky to run across "Nathan's Toasty Technology Page" and his wonderful USB Flash Driver for Windows 95 OSR 2.1.

This was exactly what I was looking for. Now even though the driver was not designed for my specific flash drive it still functions perfectly! I plug in the drive, it shows up in my Device Manager and in Windows. I can transfer my files on and off, all be it slow by today's standards, its still quite fast. I can then just pull the drive and plug it in to my modern system. This has made transferring files back and forth a 100x easier since I have no intentions of adding netowrk support to the system anytime soon.

The Games

Now I guess its on to the games. Here is the list if games I am, or will be, running on the system.

Final Doom: Windows 95 Edition (Doom 95)
Resident Evil 3: Nemesis
Quake
Sonic CD
Sonic 3
Sonic R
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six
Hexen II
Heretic II
Lords of the Realm II
Command & Conquer 95
Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun & Firestorm
Command & Conquer: Red Alert
Mechwarrior 2: Titanium Edition
WarCraft: Orcs and Humans
Star Wars Dark Forces
Spear of Destiny (Wolfenstein 3D)
Half Life (The first one before Steam. Published by Sierra)
Wipeout XL
High Octane
Twisted Metal 2
Blood
Blood 2: The Chosen
System Shock
Strife
Duke Nukem 3D
Crusader: No Remorse (DOS Only)
Crusader: No Regret (DOS Only)
Blade Runner
Mortal Kombat Trilogy
Mortal Kombat 3
Mortal Kombat 4
X-Com UFO Defense
X-Com Apocalypse
Inherent Evil
Atomic Bomberman
Metal and Lace 2
Blood Omen Legacy of Kain
R-Type
Elder Scrolls
Terminator Rampage
Battle Arena Toshinden
Novastorm
Star Control 2
Full Throttle
Wing Commander III: Heart of the Tiger
Under a Killing Moon
Karnov
Rise of the Triad: Dark War
Decent
The Time Machine
Descent II
Descent Levels of the World

In closing I must say that I am finally pleased with the build and will be sticking with this one. The only changes I intend on making are tracking down an ATI Radeon 7200 and getting a much nicer case to put it in. The one it's in at the moment it quite old and does not look the way I would like it.

Beyond that I have to say that I can see I will have hours and hours of fun on this "Retro Gaming PC" playing many of the old school games I used to enjoy!

Killing Floor Mini Review

2009-12-30T03:40:00.033-06:00

Edited: 2/2/2010 To correct a few mistakes and update

Killing Floor is a great First Person Co-Op Survival Horror game from Tripwire Interactive and was released back in May of 2009. The game actually started off as a mod for Unreal Tournament 2004 back in 2005. It gained in popularity as it was featured in a few gamer magazines and around the web on various websites. In 2008 Killing Floor was noticed by Tripwire and the end result was the wonderful retail game you see today. You can see the full story a the Killing Floor Website.

When the game was released it was met with mixed reactions and opinions by many gamers. Everyone was trying to compare it to Left 4 Dead and the game had a few bugs that were soon fixed. However it did not take long for it earn a name for itself and become one of the best games of the year in this gamers opinion.

Being a big fan of horror based games it's no surprise I fell in love with this game almost instantly. From Doom, trough all the Resident Evil titles, to Silent Hill. I have been hooked on busting demon ass for a long time.

Now since everyone wants to compare it to Left 4 Dead I may as well start there. When L4D came out it was truly a great game but to be perfectly honest, I got bored with it fast, it lacked any real sustainable replay value for me. That was until they added the "Survival" mode. That in itself gave the game what it was lacking for many players. L4D ended up moving up my list of games rather fast. That was until I played Killing Floor...

Don't get me wrong, L4D is still a good game, it's just that Killing Floor is better in my opinion. Now I guess I better explain why.

L4D has one major flaw that many games have, especially in this genre of games, it's highly linear. Your quite limited in the paths you can take. Though common, it's something I have always hated about many games, even those games that top my favorites lists. The other flaw was weapon choices. You have to admit that the number of available unique weapons in the game sure felt like it left a lot of room for improvement. Though to be honest I would not have even really paid much attention to that if I had not played Killing Floor.

Killing Floor has over 14 different weapons from assault rifles, pistols (even duals), flamethrowers, rocket and grenade launchers, and a nice little selection of melee and explosive weapons. Its also non-linear. The maps are, for the most part, wide open and offer a multitude of path options to move around and try and survive. You can even seal doors to help cut off routs the zombies can take and watch as they bash themselves to death trying to get through.

The game also has a "Persistent Perks System" that lets you obtain permanent improvements to your characters skills based on your in game achievements. I really like this system a lot. As you level each perk to its max (Level 6) you earn modifiers based on the selected perk. Such as allowing you to deal out more damage based on specific weapons, take more damage and survive, and so on.

The "ZEDtime" feature is also quite fun. The game will go into slow motion when you or someone on your team gets a great kill on a zombie or group of undead nasties. It does not hinder the gameplay in any way and gives the game a Hollywood movie feel to it. You can see it in the video at the bottom of this review.

Another aspect I really liked about Killing Floor was the fact you can tell the focus was on gameplay more than anything else. I am not one who judges games based on "eye candy". Many modern games look amazing yet fall short in the gameplay department in my opinion. There are so many titles that have been run into the ground that really don't offer much more from sequel to sequel but a few weapon changes, maps, and update better looking graphics. They go stale fast. One such series is Call of Duty, yeah I said it. 1-4 were great games, after that, I mean come on, we are beating a dead horse here. To me, if this is your focus, if you cant get into a game that does not have all the most modern eye candy, then your not a real gamer.

Now don't get me wrong, Killing Floor is a great looking game, but it's not hard to see that its not as "pretty" as L4D when you got it all maxed out. It's also no ugly duckling. The game is powered by an impressively modified Unreal Engine 2.5. So it's no lightweight in the graphics department. Where as L4D is powered by the Source Engine.

Now this very fact allows Killing Floor to run much better on "older" rigs compared to L4D. Its requirements are far less. The Unreal Engine 2.5 is far less system intensive than the Source Engine and is much more customizable. It also offers up a nice high level of graphic performance with less impact on your system resources than the Source Engine. Of course if your on a more modern rig, this is not really an issue, but there are many gamers out there still on older single and dual core systems. These gamers will benefit a lot from Killing Floors lower requirements as compared to L4D. Though like I said, its not all about the eye candy, but those lower requirements translate into higher frame rates and thus more enjoyable gameplay. All that aside, no matter your hardware or the games requirements, I still rate this game over L4D.

Yet one more great point about the game is price. At $20 at the time of release, on DVD in stores, and $10 on Stream at the time of this review, your getting a very impressive and wonderful game for far less money than you would with L4D at the time. Even now this game is still cheaper than L4D. Whats more is you don't feel like your getting a $10 or $20 game. This is one time you get a LOT more than what you pay for.

In closing I can say that yes, L4D is still a great game, but I still think Killing Floor is better. Now if your more into the eye candy than you are gameplay, or are just not much into the Co-Op game scene, then perhaps L4D is a much better choice for you. However, if gameplay is your thing, blowing apart zombies with your friends, or even strangers online, with far less "restrictions", then this game is for you!

10 out of 10!!!

Video from my favorite server. The best "custom" maps available and some damn fine people to play with!

Website: http://www.bobswhorehouse.clanservers.com/index.html

Neutopia - Retro Gaming Mini Review

2009-12-29T14:04:00.016-06:00

Ahh, the TurboGrafx 16, probably one of my all time favorite consoles. There was a wealth of great gaming to be had on the system. It's just a shame it was overshadowed so much by the NES and Sega. It was truly ahead of its time and could run circles around its competition. Not only from a technology standpoint, but content as well, it simply never gained a good hold on the American marketplace. There were some of us however that were lucky enough to find one and discover how wonderful the TG-16, and it's CD add-on, were.

One such TG-16 HuCARD game that was a pure joy to play was Neutopia, from Hudson Soft. An Action-Adventure/RGP game with Zelda like qualities, so much so that some people considered it a rip off where only the names were changed. I however was not one of those people. I played and loved Zelda just as much as everyone else. Neutopia, though having a similar interface and storyline to Zelda, was far from a rip-off. It was most definitely a game all on its own and even better than Zelda in some respects.

You played the hero Jazeta who had to rescue the princess Aurora and defeat the evil demon Dirth who had stolen the 8 medallions of Neutopia. So as you can see, the story is incredibly similar to Zelda, simply with different names. The thing is, the whole "Hero saves the princess from the evil villain and must collect items along the way" story was very popular back in the day, and is even still used today. So I really take that with a grain of salt. The game interface on Neutopia is also similar in many respects to Zelda, then again, most all AA/RPG's had a similar interface then as they do today. So all in all yes, the games are similar, but each stands on it's own for it's own reasons. We often compare "similar" games to the most popular ones of the day, and Zelda was top dog at the time. So its not hard to see why fan-boys would be quick to call similar games "rip-offs".

All that being said, I was not one of those fan-boys, I was more into enjoying the game than trying to compare it to others in its category. Neutopia stood out for me mainly due to its gameplay. It was more, in depth, than Zelda and the game was longer and more vast. There was different themed lands to explore and more enemies and some unique to their own respective lands.

I also enjoyed the music and sounds in the game just as much as I did Zelda, and in some cases, even more. Even though some of the sounds can get repetitive, the background music in Neutopia is very nicely done.

The story, however much it may be similar to Zelda, is also very well written. The main plot of the story may be nearly identical to Zelda's, but the full story itself is not. You can tell the authors too the time to try and create an original story and not just clone of what was poplar in the day.

The graphics were also nice, though not too much better than the NES, even though the system itself was capable of so much more. One thing that does stand out much more is the monsters. They are more detailed, have better (and even more complex in many cases) animations, and move in more fluid patten. They are not all tied to the "grid".

The gameplay itself was top notch. It's addictive and very fun. You travel though 4 different sphere's, (worlds) that each contain 2 crypts to gather the 8 medallions. Each sphere has its own theme, monsters, and challenges. The towns people in each sphere also help you out by having you find new weapons and armor to help you on your way. I found it quite hard to put down the controller.

Over the years I have went back and replayed the game about 4 times. Number 4 being just a few weeks ago and what prompted me to start doing these "Retro Gaming Reviews". Though the game does not have a lot of immediate replay value it is quite fun to go back and play from time to time.

Neutopia easily ranks up there as one of my all time favorite console AA/RPG's. The same holds true for its squeal, Neutopia II. This game is a gem of the TurboGrafx 16 collection and a must play for any true old school gamer!

Overall Rating: 9/10

Dungeon Fighter Online Mini Review

2009-10-28T06:10:00.021-05:00

Dungeon Fighter Online (DFO) if a great new Korean MMORPG from NeoPle and published by Nexon. In the vast world of free to play MMORPG titles available to gamers these days, DFO really does not seem like anything special. It's not a graphically intense game nor does it require a powerful PC to play. It's not filled with vast open 3D worlds to explore but is more of a large 2D side-scrolling world reminiscent of many great classic arcade fighters.

The fact of the matter is however, that even though DFO may seem a bit "Simple", believe me it's no lightweight! It not only caters to the MMORPG fan but the arcade gamer in all of us as well. This game is very hard not to love! I guess that's why that it fast became such a hit on the S. Korean and Chinese MMO ranking charts. Easily surpassing many more massive 3D MMORPG titles.

Being an old school arcade gamer and MMORPG fan I took to DFO like a moth to flame. It easily combined the best of both worlds and I found myself playing it for hours on end. It really reminded me of an old arcade hit I used to love called "Dungeon Magic", a game that I dropped an unbelievable amount of quarters on back in the day. So its no wonder I enjoy playing DFO with my friends and family.

One thing that sets it apart in my mind is then unlike most other MMORPG games, your not competing for space on the battlefield, when you enter a dungeon to fight you have it all to yourself or your party. It literally becomes like a multiplayer arcade game. Once you have completed the dungeon and defeated it's boss your teleported back to town with everyone else. So that means DFO is simply great to play either alone or with friends and family.

The game itself has 5 different classes of characters to choose from, the slayer, fighter, gunner, mage, and priest, all with thier own unique skill sets and sub-classes. Also like any other good RPG, there are quests and plenty of other things to do to keep the game flowing smoothly, there are even times where your caught up on all your quests and you can do some dungeon runs just for the experience or to gather goods or supplies for repeatable quests or later use.

There is also wide variety of weapons and armors available through the shops, monster drops, gamble pots, or quests. Each class has its own set of weapons and bonuses for wearing armor that's well suited to your specific class. You can also use NX to purchase Avatar Items to customize the way your character looks and add even more buffs to your stats!

My favorite class, and what appears to be one of the least played, is the Priest. Out of the Priest's 3 sub-classes of Crusader, Monk, and Exorcist, I went with the Crusader. A sub-class that has a great deal of defensive and party oriented skill buffs that can be a great benefit to you and your party's trips though the dungeons. The Crusader may not have the strongest attacks but he is more than capable of holding his own.

In this gamers opinion DFO is by far one of the best and funnest games I have played in a long time. Now that my oldest kids and friends are playing it as well, the experience is all the better, I can see myself playing this game for a long time to come. DFO offers up the best of many different worlds and is great fun for both the casual and hardcore gamer. It's also a "family friendly" game and that to me is a great selling point. Not only that, but its not hard to learn to play, so its great for any skill level from novice to pro.

If your an MMORPG fan and like good old arcade style gameplay then you have to give DFO a try. Even if your not, this game is in a class all of its own, I bet you will still like it. It's addictive and fun yet you can easily walk away and return later. If I had to rate DFO on the classic 1 to 10 scale, it would easily be an 11!

I am working on a short video to show off some of the gameplay. As soon as I have it finished I will add it to the blog.

Official Website: http://dungeonfighter.nexon.net

The DFO Van. How sweet is that? :)

Company of Heroes "Collectors Edition"

2009-08-28T02:59:00.012-05:00

I know this review is a few years too late, that's probably the main reason I am doing it, I did not really decide to give this game a try until now. Perhaps not one of my better decisions.

I am a huge RTS (Real Time Strategy) gamer, and I got hooked on one specific series way back in the DOS days of PC gaming, and that was Command & Conquer. Since then just about every other RTS I have played outside of the C&C series just never measured up. So I pretty much gave up on trying other military style RTS games and stuck to the universe of games I enjoyed so much.

When Company of Heroes (CoH) came out, I knew quite a few people that said how great it was, and it got recommended to me several times. I simply never gave it a second thought. I was still getting my RTS fix in C&C Red Alert 2 and Generals and waiting for more news on C&C 3 Tiberium Wars. Heck I was even still playing C&C Renegade online and moderating one of the then popular servers for it. Now even though I was not a big fan of Generals as a C&C title, it was in itself, still a pretty good RTS, and finding people to play Red Alert 2 with online was also not hard to do since the game was still quite popular.

I was also not so sure I wanted to play an RTS based on World War II. Even though I was a fan of "modern" FPS set in the era, such as the original Call of Duty, Wolfenstein Enemy Territory, and Return to Castle Wolfenstein. The thought of an RTS based on the period just never really crossed my mind. When it came to my RTS gaming, I was more into modern or futuristic based weapons and units.

When C&C 3 was released, as you can imagine, I got myself a copy and tore into it. Now don't get me wrong, I do like C&C3, I was just not very pleased with changes EA made to the game and its gameplay that had been a staple of Westwood's universe for so long. Westwood being gone however, I adapted, and ended up liking the game a great deal. All this time Company of Heroes was out there and people were still telling me how good of a game it was. Then of course, Red Alert 3 came out and again CoH was pushed from my mind yet again.

Well I was out shopping with my family one day recently and my oldest son and I ran across the Collectors Edition of Company of Heroes, new and still sealed, and real cheap. So we decided to pick it up and at last give it a try.

The first word that comes to mind is "Brilliant", followed by me wondering why in the hell I did not give this game a shot a lot sooner. It has been a long time since an RTS game outside of the C&C Universe had held my undivided attention. So much so that I actually stopped playing Red Alert 3 in favor of CoH.

This game is simply a blast and a great deal of fun. The fact you can get right down on the battlefield and view the action from the units point of view is incredibly fun, there are virtually no camera angle restrictions at all. When you take your camera down to ground level the game presents itself more like an FPS or third-person shooter than an RTS.

It's also "Squad" based so your not having to control individual soldiers. This is very nice since you can take weapons and such left on the battlefield and use it. So you can easily take a squad of six soldiers, direct them to take a heavy machine gun or mortar left on the battlefield, and you now have 2 different squads at your command. One soldier, the other a HMG or Mortar squad. I can not count how many times this has worked in my favor in a battle.

The AI is also quite impressive, it's easy to see that Relic took a great deal of time to make the units behave like real soldiers would in a given situation, such as taking over on thier own when they come under fire. This cuts way down on "micro management" and lets you focus more on the entire battle. It makes for a much more impressive battle since you can actually see all of it as it happens and you not stuck making sure each and every unit is doing something and not just standing there getting killed.

The AI in Skirmish matches are no pushover either. I find myself playing the Skirmish mode a lot and really do like the fact the AI seems to play harder than you would expect.

The other plus is the graphics, when all of the setting cranked to maximum, it really does immerse you the battle. I was very impressed with the games "eye candy". The ability to view a freeze frame of the entire battlefield after the match is over is very impressive. It really does show off the games engine and graphics capabilities. Not to mention you can get some really cool screenshots that way.

The last point that really sells me on CoH is the maps although I think they would be better labeled as "Environments". Just about everything in the environment is reactive, there are very few things that are just there and do not react to whats going on around them. You can call in an artillery strike then your troops can actually take cover in the crates left behind. Buildings, non-combative vehicles, crates, fences, just about anything on the map will react accordingly if shot, damaged, or destroyed. This adds a great deal of realism to the game in my opinion and is a HUGE selling point for me.

There are just too many good points to this game to mention. What I can say is that I really do regret not trying it a lot sooner than I did. It also makes me wonder if I should have given World at War more of a chance that what I did. Who knows, perhaps I will go back and give that game a try as well.

On a side note, I was quite amused when I noticed in-game that Relic had put "EASUXS" (EA Sucks / Electronic Arts) on thier allied jeep in the form of leet (1337) speak. If you look, its printed on the jeep in 3 locations as 3A5UX5 (It's also located on the front bumper). I really got a good laugh out of that and it just looks perfect on the jeep. If you did not know what you were looking for, you would probably never see it. I often wonder if they put it there as a way to express thier dislike as to what EA did to the C&C Universe of games, mainly with Generals at the time CoH came out.

Perhaps that's why I like CoH so much, it reminds me of all the things I used to love about the old school C&C games from Westwood, just "modernized"...

All I do know for sure is if your an RTS gamer, and have not yet tried this game, you have no idea what your missing. Company of Heroes has got to be one of the best RTS games I have played in a very long time, and I don't say that lightly. Great job Relic Entertainment!

Gigabyte Radeon HD 4650 1GB AGP 8X HDCP User Review

2009-07-31T00:56:00.047-05:00

Updated: 8/14/2009

Still on an older AGP based computer and now quite ready to upgrade? Want to get the most frames per second out of your games on your old rig? Well then perhaps the people over at Gigabyte have an answer for you!

The Gigabyte GV-R465D2-1GI is an ATI Radeon 4650 HD AGP 8X video card with a full 1GB of GDDR2 texture memory and enough power to breath new life into your old system.

Having many computers in my home I also still have an AGP system up and running and used for some light online gaming by guests, so I decided to try and upgrade this system's video card and see how much of an improvement I would really get out of it. To my amazement, the improvements were quite outstanding, and has extended the useful life of this rig.

Here are the cards basic specs:

Core Clock: 600MHz
Stream Processors: 320
DirectX: 10.1
OpenGL: 2.1
Pixel Shader Model: 4.1
Ports: HDMI - DVI - D-SUB
Memory Clock: 800MHz
Memory Interface: 128-bit
Memory Type: GDDR2
Memory Transfer Rate: 22.4 GB/s
Power Needed: 400Watt or better PSU
Power Connector: 6 pin

Notes:

HDMI audio output is not supported in Windows Vista. Though I do not consider this a negative point against the card. If your buying this card then chances are your on Windows XP, and if you are on Vista then the hardware your running is most likely barely enough to support it as is. Not to mention that many tech heads like myself consider Vista an operating system on par with Windows ME and can't wait for it to be a distant bad memory.

There is a 2X 4 pin moldex to 6 pin adapter included with the card if you have a PSU that has no 6 pin connector available.

After speaking with the very friendly and helpful tech support staff over Gigabyte, I discovered this card does not support hardware monitoring. Something I have always used but can live without on this system. This card is made to Gigabyte's "Ultra Durable 2" specification. Meaning the card is manufactured using very high quality components and is designed to last. It's GPU cooler is also well designed and far more than enough to keep it running nice and cool for a long time!

The install:

After getting it all unpacked, my old drivers removed, and my system powered down. The entire installation and setup with the new drivers on the CD took about 20 minutes. I did not have any issues with the card at all. So to me this is a very big plus considering all you read about on reviews like those found on Newegg is the drivers are a nightmare on most of the PCIe cards "adapted" AGP. This is done via the "Rialto" PCIe to AGP Bridge Chip on the back of the card.

That was simply not the case with the Gigabyte Radeon HD 4650 AGP. Simply obtain all your future driver updates for the card from the Gigabyte website when they are released. As on the time of this review, the drivers included on the CD were the most up-to-date ones available.

Update: The new 8.632 with the AGP Hotfix driver set and Catalyst Control Center 9.7 work great with this card. All you have to do is download the correct archive for your operating system from the AMD website, extract the files from the archive, and update your drivers from within your Device Manager. Once done, go into the extracted archive and install Catalyst Control Center 9.7 directly from its setup.exe. They work flawlessly with this card!

Chances are, if your looking at buying this card, your probably still running a single core CPU. That is unless your someone who happens to have one of those ASRock 775Dual-VSTA Core2Duo motherboards that supports Intel Core2Duo CPU's as well as AGP. In that case, this card will work even better for you if your on this or any other rare dual core based AGP system.

For this review however, we will be using the single core rig listed below, since I really think this card will be the top of the line before bottle necking becomes a real issue.

Here is a breakdown of the rig with before and after benchmarks:

Windows XP Pro SP2
ASUS A7V880 Motherboard
AMD Athlon XP 3200+ CPU (2.4GHz OC)
4 GB DDR PC3200 RAM
ATI Radeon X850 Pro 256MB GDDR3 (flashed and overclocked to XT Platinum Edition)

The card being replaced:

An ATI Radeon X850 Pro AGP with 256MB GDDR3.

This card was one of the absolute top of the line series for AGP, it was a pure ATI AGP card and not a PCIe card adapted to AGP (Even though there is a PCIe version available). Its raw power was able to easily tackle the most advanced games of the day, such as Doom 3 for example, at nice high resolutions, ultra settings, and frame rates. It even played Oblivion on all high settings very well with lots of eye candy and real nice frame rates. It was a real beast.

I was lucky enough to own the version that could be flashed to open up the other 4 pipelines on the card to give a full 16 pixel pipelines and was able to overclock it very easily and safely to X850 XT Platinum Edition specs with the Zalman cooler I put on it. It ran fast and cool!

The basic unmodified specs on the card are:

Core Clock: 500MHz
Memory Clock: 1.08GHz
Memory: 256MB GDDR3
Memory Interface: 256-Bit
Memory Transfer Rate: 34.56 GB/s
Pixel Pipelines: 12

After modification:

Core Clock: 540MHz
Memory Clock: 1.18GHz
Pixel Pipelines: 16

Being able to bump the card up to the XT Platinum Edition ratings really improved its overall performance. Even though this card has served me very well, I thought it was time to try one of the much newer "AGP adapted" cards and see how much more I could push out of this old rig. So here we go.

To the benchmarks! ...

Notes:

* All games are running at their maximum graphic settings, a screen resolution of 1280X1024, and a full game room with its maximum number of players unless otherwise noted. FPS rating with a + indicate the FPS hovers around that number a majority of the time.

* The FPS I list below are "stable" meaning they do not fluctuate a great deal outside of the listed ranges.

* See the notes below the FPS ratings for the test maps used in the benchmark.

AGP ATI X850 Pro with 256MB GDDR3 (Overclocked):

WarRock: 70-100 FPS depending on the map and level of combat (No FX)
Combat Arms: Around 60 FPS
Parabellum Beta: 35-40 FPS
Operation 7: 55-70 FPS
Battlefield Heroes: 35-50 FPS
ArmA Gold (Online): 35-65 FPS depending on view distance and level of combat
Team Fortress 2: 45-60 FPS depending on level of combat
Half Life 2 EP2: 35-60 FPS
Hero Online: 40+ FPS
C&C 3: 30 FPS (The game is capped at 30 FPS)
Red Alert 3: 30 FPS (The game is capped at 30 FPS)
Doom 3: 80-120 FPS
Dungeon Siege 2: 50-70 (120 Hz and no FPS limit)

Gigabyte ATI Radeon 4650 HD with 1GB GDDR2:

WarRock: 100 - 140 FPS depending on the map and level of combat (No FX)
Combat Arms: 80-100 FPS
Parabellum Beta: 60+ FPS
Operation 7: 80+ FPS
Battlefield Heroes: 60-80 FPS
Half Life 2 EP2: 50-90 FPS
Hero Online: 60+ FPS
C&C 3: 30 FPS (The game is capped at 30 FPS)
Red Alert 3: 30 FPS (The game is capped at 30 FPS)
Doom 3: 120+ FPS
Dungeon Siege 2: 80+ (120 Hz and no FPS limit)

Note: Some games I have not had the the time to go back and re-benchmark yet. As I do, I will updated this blog entry, so you may want to check back from time to time.

Test Maps used for the benchmarks:

WarRock: Alberon - Nerbil - Havana - Emblem - Cloud Forest - Crater
Combat Arms: Snow Valley - Junk Flea - Rattlesnake
Parabellum Beta: Lounge
Operation 7: Hellway 3 - Shibuya - Alcatraz
Battlefield Heroes: Coastal Clash
Half Life 2: Last 3 "levels" of Episode 2
Hero Online: Venom Swamp
C&C3: First single player GDI mission
Red Alert 3: First single player Russian mission
Doom 3: Entire "Mars City" level
Dungeon Siege 2: Destroyed all the towers (Your first real quest)

So you can easily see the card has greatly improved the overall performance in each game tested.

In the Command & Conquer games I was able to push the graphic settings to max with no FPS drop where as before I ran it on mixed settings to maintain the highest frame rate possible yet still have a lot of "eye candy". Now it can run all the eye candy and it's great!

I also need to point out that the gameplay in every one of the games tested remains very smooth and not "choppy" or "laggy" at all. That 1GB of texture memory is probably the main reason for that. I was also somewhat impressed with the FPS boost in the Source and Unreal Engine based games, since both of those engines are also very CPU hungry, the bottleneck will be the Athlon XP 3200+ CPU in this rig. Even taking that into consideration, it has taken the playability of those games from good to great.

All in all I have to say that I am very happy with this card and its performance in this system. Sure I could spent more money and got a GDDR3 card with faster clock speeds, but I really did not see the point. At this stage of the game, the video card is no longer a bottleneck, its all the other hardware. This card does what it does wonderfully!

Final thoughts on the Gigabyte GV-R465D2-1GI:

Don't let the GDDR2 scare you. The 4000 series GPU and 1GB of texture memory really does make for very stable frame rates and much "smoother" gaming experience. When looking into video cards for older AGP based systems, faster does not always mean better, your CPU, AGP slot limitations, and other hardware will become a bottleneck. So getting a more expensive card will just be a waste of money. In cases like this, that 1GB of texture memory is probably one of the most important features to look for.

Don't worry about the drivers! Most reviews you see on sites like Newegg speak of driver issues and problems getting the cards to work on the newest drivers. In the case of the Gigabyte GV-R465D2-1GI, the drivers on the CD and those found on the Gigabyte website work great.

I rated this card with 5 Eggs on Newegg and I stand by that rating. It has improved the gaming experience a great deal in the games I currently have installed on that system. Sure it wont go far to help play the latest and greatest games on the market, but that's not the cards fault, but the older system specs.

This just goes to prove that AGP is not quite dead yet, there is still a lot of good game left in some of these old rigs yet. Though in all reality, it's probably time to upgrade.

Team Viewer Is Not For Gamers

2009-07-02T06:30:00.024-05:00

TeamViewer (TV) is a free remote access and remote desktop sharing tool designed for use over the internet. This handy little application has been adopted by many gamers and a means to verify if other players suspected of hacking have any evidence of it on thier computer.

How it most often works is someone accuses you of using a hack while playing an online game, most often an FPS (First Person Shooter), then someone says "If you don't hack then let me TeamView you". Then the player who was accused of "hacking", obtains and runs a stand alone executable file that does not require an installation of the TeamViewer application, and then gives access to the thier computer, by means of this stand alone executable and a randomly generated password, to the one accusing them of cheating or someone from the gaming community they belong to. This stranger, that you just gave remote access to your computer to, then searches your system for any trace of known hacks for whatever game is in question. If they find nothing, you are considered "Clean", if they do find something, your labeled a "hacker".

The Problem...

First off, let me start by saying, NEVER GIVE ANYONE, OTHER THAN A TRUSTED IT PROFESSIONAL OR OTHER 100% COMPLETELY TRUSTED PERSON, ACCESS TO YOUR COMPUTER ... EVER! I don't care how secure the software being used for this access is, any and all remote sessions can be abused by those who know how to do it, and this gives a stranger access to search the contents of your computer.

So while they look for traces of "hacks" on your system, they can also look for any personal information such as stored passwords, opening you up to exploitation. Or any other private information for that matter. So it's very easy to see how the person viewing your system can abuse it, even if the session is "read" only. You do not have to make changes to someones system to exploit them. However it should be noted that any and all sessions are exploitable for other reasons that I am not going to go into detail about. Doing so would only give those with such ideas a means to learn how to do it.

The TeamViewer software was never intended to be used in this manner, it was designed for use by those with a basic understanding of remote system management, individuals, and business persons to gain access to thier own systems or those of clients without having to actually be there, such as for use to give remote business presentations. It was NOT intended or designed for use by gamers who think they know what they are doing and can be trusted to snoop around your PC. It is in no way an anti-hacking tool or a way to confirm or deny if someone hacks.

Even though I can understand the concept behind using an application like Team Viewer for this purpose, and I am sure the original intentions are noble, they are badly flawed.

The player being "viewed" can easily store the hacks on a removable drive thus removing all traces of them is as easy as pulling a flash drive.
Most hacks do not need to be "installed" and thus traces can be removed in a matter of seconds by anyone who truly wants, and knows how to, keep thier cheating a secret. The hacks that do require "other" tools or themselves installed can be done so on removable media and registry entries easily hidden or removed instantly or even automatically.
You are relying on the word of a complete stranger to tell the truth about what they find on your system.
Files can very easily be hidden from the TeamViewer software without the person searching through your system ever knowing it.
A vast majority of gamers who live and breath by this software and take it as gospel truly have no concept of how easy it is to manipulate, or in some cases, even how to use the software correctly. Let alone the credentials to be given remote access to your computer for no good reason other than to clear you of cheating when they have no authority what so ever to make that judgment.
The aforementioned security issues.

So in a nut shell, even though the intentions are good, TeamViewer was never intended to be used for this purpose and should not be. Giving even limited controlled access to your computer to a perfect stranger is probably one of the dumbest things you can do.

There is not a single game publisher out there that uses Team Viewer as a means to verify the use of hacks by a player in their game. Nor do any of them condone its use for the obvious security risks involved that most users will deny or are completely unaware of. Most often the people who wish you to install this software and give them access to your system to "prove you don't hack" are individual gamers or privately operated online communities, such as LGC (Legit Gaming Community). They are not licensed or endorsed by the games publishers and thus you should have no fear in rejecting someones request to be Team Viewed.

Although these communities mean well and have good intentions at thier core, they have absolutely no control over your game account, nor any authority or ability what so ever to take negative action against you. They are also not IT Professionals and should never be allowed access to your computer for any reason.

So in closing, let me just say this one last time. NEVER GIVE ANYONE, OTHER THAN A TRUSTED IT PROFESSIONAL OR OTHER 100% COMPLETELY TRUSTED PERSON, ACCESS TO YOUR COMPUTER ... EVER! You are in no way obligated to use this software to play any game and if you run across a private server that wants you to use it, your better off moving on. If you know you don't hack, then you have absolutely no worries at all and should not concern yourself with the opinions of others. If you do hack, then your pretty much a pathetic idiot and a waste of human flesh. Have a wonderful day! :)

Update 9/3/2010:

I have had a couple people comment on this blog entry that I removed from public view since they specifically name people from gaming communities, such as LGC, that use this software as a means to confirm or clear users of using hacks while playing some online games. Any comments left can point to communities as a whole, but not specific members of that community without their permission. That being said ...

Some people point out that comments are made on some of the game community websites that there are IT professionals who help the other "volunteers" use TV correctly and accurately when you let them view your system looking for signs of hacks.

When I say an "IT Professional" in my blog entry, I am referring to verified real people who you are giving access to your PC for remote assistance or repair purposes from trusted and reputable companies or business for official use only! Such as your ISP, the company you purchased your computer from (Dell,HP), or perhaps a local computer business you trust that you have had real world dealings with.

Anyone can say they are an "IT Professional" online, such as myself, but how do you know that to be true? You don't. Then again I am not asking for access to your computer to see if you hack a video game. The point is, if these people were true IT Professionals then they would also be fully aware that TeamViewer was never intended to be used in this fashion, is very easily exploitable if you know what you are doing, and that anyone who actually takes the time to learn how this (and other software like it, functions), can easily hide "hack use" from the person viewing their PC.

So once again, let me say this and make it as clear as I can...

NEVER GIVE ANYONE, OTHER THAN A TRUSTED, AND VERIFIED, IT PROFESSIONAL OR OTHER 100% COMPLETELY TRUSTED PERSON, ACCESS TO YOUR COMPUTER ... EVER!

GIVING EVEN LIMITED CONTROLLED ACCESS TO YOUR COMPUTER TO A PERFECT STRANGER IS A DUMB IDEA NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT.

THERE IS NOT A SINGLE REPUTABLE GAME DEVELOPER OR PUBLISHER OUT THERE THAT USES THIS SOFTWARE, OR ANYTHING LIKE IT, TO VERIFY OR CLEAR A PLAYER OF HACK USE. YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED IN ANY WAY TO RESPOND TO A "TV REQUEST". MY ADVICE, IGNORE THEM, NOTHING CAN HAPPEN TO YOU. PERIOD.

Like I said above back when I first posted this, TV is great software, I have used it since it was released and still do use it on a regular basis. However I also know what the hell I am doing and also know how it can be exploited and how to hide anything from anyone on my system. For it's intended use I fully support this software. I do not support its use as described in this blog. So consider yourself warned.

Retro Gaming PC V2.0

2009-06-16T22:36:00.019-05:00

After a lot of messing around with the rather large collection of "old" computer parts I have sitting around, I decided on a new "Retro Gaming PC", bringing my total to three. The fist two, discussed earlier in my blog, will each have thier own use.

The other Windows 95 powered "Retro Gaming Rig", aka Build #1, that is completed will be going to my kids so they can enjoy playing some of the old school games they like. I will also be "networking" them together via a Direct Cable Connection so we can have some multiplayer fun between the two systems.

The other rig I discussed earlier, aka Build #2, that originally was going to be the other Windows 95/DOS machine, is now going to be DOS 6.11 and Windows 3.11 only. This one will be for some very old DOS games.

This new build will be my main rig. I decided to push it about as far as I can for what I want the system to do. I wanted it to be able to play any old school Windows 95 based games at thier top possible performance, as well as handle as many of my old DOS favorites as is possible that will run under Windows 95, with minimal problems. I think I have achieved that with this new system.

The Specs:

Windows 95c OSR2.5 with USB Support
TR100 Compaq OEM Motherboard (Lite-On)
1.0 Ghz Intel Pentium 3 Socket 370 CPU
512 MB PC133 SDRAM
3 x 3.2 GB Western Digital Hard Drives
1 x CD-Rom
~~1 x 3.5 Floppy Drive~~ (Removed to make room for a 3rd Hard Drive)
Creative Sound Blaster CT4750 PCI128 Sound Card
nVidia GeForce4 MX 400 64MB AGP 4x Video w/Dual VGA
Linksys EtherPCI LAN Card II Combo
Modified HP Model 511W Case
2 x Internal Cooling Fans

Windows 95c OSR2.5 was used for the same reason as on my other rig, primarily for its USB support. This comes in very handy for file transfers.

TR100 Motherboard - This was the only "older" AGP board I have laying around that I could still find drivers for that would work under Windows 95 and fit in this case. The only issue I has was the on-board sound would not emulate Sound Blaster very well and there were no real drivers for it under Win 95, so I just disabled it and went with the card mentioned in the above specs. This way I will also have sound for all my DOS games with Legacy support.

1.0 Ghz Intel Pentium Socket 370 CPU - This was the CPU I had on the motherboard already, and it provides more power than this system, or any game that will be played on it, could ever possibly need. I originally had a 1.3 Ghz Celeron in there, but removed it favor of the Pentium 3, since the P3 is actually more powerful a better suited for "gaming" than the Celeron.

512 MB PC133 SDRAM - I happened to have 2 256MB sticks and decided to use them in this build. Far more than it will ever be able to use.

3 x 3.2 GB Western Digital Hard Drives - I figured that 9+ GB of space was enough for the system and every game I wanted to install on it. I originally had 2 3.2GB drives in the system but found room getting low with the growing list of games I have installed. So I added a 3rd 3.2GB drive giving me far more than enough room to hold all my games. Although I had to remove the floppy drive to make room. No big deal since I am burning any and all games that were on floppy on CD.

Creative Sound Blaster CT4750 PCI128 Sound Card - I had a few of these cards around and decided to use one in this build. It works great and has full support for Windows 95 and DOS via Legacy. There are even working pure DOS drivers the card will recognize.

nVidia GeForce4 MX 400 64MB AGP 4x Video w/Dual VGA - How much more power do you need for these old school Windows 95 and DOS games? This card has full support for Windows 95 and it simply chews up any and all the games I want to play on it. I could not ask for any more.

Since I am running Windows 95c I am able to get 2x AGP support. Something that's only possible with Windows 95b or c (aka OSR2 and ORS2.5). This is because in order to have AGP support you must also have USB support. So once you have a version of Windows 95 installed that can support USB, you must install the drivers, then you will get your AGP support. If not, the card will run in "PCI mode" and that's much slower, even though it will still be fast enough for most games that will run on Windows 95.

Linksys EtherPCI LAN Card II Combo - I put this rig on my home network and gave it internet access for ease of use and updates as needed. This is a 10Mbit card, but that's more than enough for it's needs.

Modified HP Model 511W Case - When I say modified, I mean it, mostly internal. In order to use the case I had to pretty much gut it find new ways to mount what I wanted to put in there. I also hate "pre-fab" mass produced computer cases, they are horribly designed in my opinion, especially when it comes to cooling. I wanted to use the case for its frosted transparent front panel.

2 x Internal Cooling Fans - I wanted one fan pulling air in the front and one blowing directly on the video card. So I decided to use a UV Sunbeam fan for the front, to light up the case, and a standard non-illuminated fan to force air over the video card. I may add a 3rd fan to the rear of the case to pull air out, if I find I need it, though I doubt I will.

Here is the list of games I am running on the system:
(Updated 9-4-09)

Final Doom: Windows 95 Edition (Doom 95)
Resident Evil 3: Nemesis
Quake
Sonic CD
Sonic 3
Sonic R
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six & Eagle Watch Mission Pack
Hexen II
Heretic II
Lords of the Realm II
Command & Conquer 95
Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun & Firestorm
Command & Conquer: Red Alert
Mechwarrior 2: Titanium Edition
WarCraft: Orcs and Humans
Star Wars Dark Forces
Spear of Destiny (Wolfenstein 3D)
Half Life (The first one before Steam. Published by Sierra)
Wipeout XL
High Octane
Twisted Metal 2
Blood
Blood 2: The Chosen
System Shock
Strife
Duke Nukem 3D
Crusader: No Remorse (DOS Only)
Crusader: No Regret (DOS Only)
Blade Runner
Mortal Kombat Trilogy
Mortal Kombat 3
Mortal Kombat 4
X-Com UFO Defense
X-Com Apocalypse
Inherent Evil
Atomic Bomberman
Metal and Lace 2
Blood Omen Legacy of Kain
R-Type
Elder Scrolls
Terminator Rampage
Battle Arena Toshinden
Novastorm
Star Control 2
Full Throttle
Wing Commander III: Heart of the Tiger

Special thanks to *Viper* for donating many games from his collection to put on this and the other "Retro Gaming PC's".

This setup runs every game on that list flawlessly at resolutions up to 1024x768, whenever supported, and higher in a few special cases where the game supports it. I may even throw a few Doom source ports on there just for fun.

All in all I am very pleased with this build and have already got many hours of enjoyment out of it. I am going to work on some custom "art" to put on the case, to make it look like more than a gutted modified HP system, and more like its name. When I do, I will be sure to post it here.

There are a few games I am trying to track down for the system, the most wanted of them all being "Blade Runner", I lost my copy long ago. Perhaps I will get lucky and run across one in the near future. Until then, I think the 25 games I have on there already are more than enough to hold me over. :)

My X-Box PC Case Mod & Emulator Project

2009-05-23T10:18:00.016-05:00

Having a couple old non-working X-Box units laying around, I decided to use one as a PC case, and build a unit for running old school console emulators on. I actually got the idea from reading several articles online about people using many different console cases as PC case mods, even a few others using X-Box's.

The idea behind this build was to make a nice looking unit that could sit on my entertainment stand and not look out of place. One that I could play a host of my old school games on instead of me having to hook up several different consoles.

The Case: A gutted non-working X-Box unit modified to provide better air flow to keep the internals cool.

The Motherboard: An EPIA-800 Mini-ITX. Small enough to fit in the case, yet powerful enough to run the OS and emulators I intend to put on it. It's also pre-configured to work with your TV via Composite RCA or S-Video outputs.

CPU: VIA C3™ E-Series processor running at 800MHz.

Video: Integrated AGP4X Trident Blade 3D with 2D/3D Graphics. Integrated Macro Vision 7.01. High quality scaling and filtering. S-Video and Composite video output.

Audio: VIA VT1612A AC'97 onboard.

Memory: 512MB SDRAM PC133

Storage: 20GB Western Digital IDE

Input: Gameon USB Controller Converter for use with PS1/PS2 Controller.

Storage: 20GB

Power: 150 watt Mini AT PSU

Operating System: Windows 98SE

Emulated Systems: NES/SENS/SMS/Gens/TG-16

I just got started on the project again this past week and will work on it as time permits. I actually had the idea and started on it several months ago, however it got postponed for a while, I had some other projects and such to take care of. Once it's completed, I will post a complete breakdown of the unit with more pictures and maybe even some video. Here are a few more images of the unit as it sits right now.

Top view and Internal Cooling Fan:

Internal Views: