Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

Tomb Raider


  • Please log in to reply

#16
mozzer11

mozzer11

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 423 posts

It was okay...I don't like how there is a reticle when you lock on...it used to be she would just look at the enemy right?

I think that huge red circle dumbs it down.


I agree. The camera leaves a bit to be desired too.
  • 0

Advertisements


#17
BlackPandemic

BlackPandemic

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 678 posts
*busts out old copy of Tomb Raider 2* Now that's what I'm talkin' bout...I never get tired of this game....except the new one...just...jumping...and pushing...and lame shooting...blech
  • 0

#18
Casheti

Casheti

    Banned

  • Topic Starter
  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 169 posts
Look out ppl. In a few days, (I think wednesday) i will have anew compy, and then i will whoop you all processor wise, WHOOP YOU ALL. (BTW I MEAN 2.8GHz Dual Core) lol
  • 0

#19
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
What your getting a pre overclocked FX 60 wow thats expensive, if youre talking the intel unless youve wangled one of the new conroe cores the 2.8 pentium Ds are pretty much one of the slowest chips on the market , at least intel arent biased to dual or single core apps with the cheap dual core pentiums they suck equally at both.
  • 0

#20
BlackPandemic

BlackPandemic

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 678 posts
Burned.

That is all...and why did you say that Cash...this topic is definantly Tomb Raider.
  • 0

#21
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Tomb raider i havent played in ages the first couple were good, hot chick with deagles who can complain but they just have never progressed to anything.
  • 0

#22
Casheti

Casheti

    Banned

  • Topic Starter
  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 169 posts
ARE YOU SAYING THAT FOR OVER £1000 MY NEW COMPUTER IS [bleep]?

Edited by Casheti, 25 April 2006 - 05:37 AM.

  • 0

#23
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
If it has a 2.8Ghz pentium D then yeah pretty much its a bad chip you should have read the reviews on the components before ordering or just asked us if it was a good deal. I certainly would never pay £1000 for a system with that cpu in it, its seriously slow.
  • 0

#24
Casheti

Casheti

    Banned

  • Topic Starter
  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 169 posts
Faster than yours though right?

Tel me evrything thats bad please, ok?

http://www.pcworld.c...ined&tabIndex=1

Edited by Casheti, 25 April 2006 - 09:09 AM.

  • 0

#25
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Not really no it got whupped in single core performance, the only thing it can do reasonably well is multithreaded encoding it was really terrible at games and single thread apps. It was seriously slow it couldnt even keep up with its 2.8Ghz single core counterpart on that front.

Also you can only have one of your user bars they are 16K a piece thats your limit.
  • 0

Advertisements


#26
Casheti

Casheti

    Banned

  • Topic Starter
  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 169 posts
Erm, excuse me, my entire userbar thing is one BIG WHOLE image. And so what, as long as i can play games them im cool with the processor, i just think intel shouldn't be allowed to trick people like that. :whistling:

BTW Ill just overclock if it gets too slow. Not enough to ACTUALLY push the processor. Just a small amount. Up it to 3.4GHz maybe. Do you think that that is possible?

Did you look at the link i gave for the computer. im also planning to put in an old Creative Sounblaster 128 PCI. Im told Soundcards that aren't integrated can improve gaming performance by up to 15%.

On further examination, the soundblaster 128 PCI has been known to slow down modern PC's, and it uses old AC'97 technology. I think the Intel High Definition does, but it is a more advanced use of it. I hope to buy a Creative X-Fi someday. SOMEDAY!!

Edited by Casheti, 25 April 2006 - 09:56 AM.

  • 0

#27
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Thats fine then, that CPU wont overclock to 3.4 easily youll be lucky to get even a 100Mhz it has an enourmous heat output and doesnt overlclock well none of the intel dual cores tolerate overclocking well. Also to 3.4 wouldnt be small it would be huge small is 50Mhz.

Its not a good gaming CPU if i were you i wouldnt get it if i could i would switch it to something more gaming compatible, it also depends on the pc as a whole, if you had asked us we could have told you wether it was a good buy, unless its got a hugely expensive gfx card and some top notch ram then it wont be worth £1000 no system with that cpu is worth it for gaming. It did bench very low in gaming lower than any current CPU in the athlon or pentium range. They dont trick people they have never marketed that chip as a gaming cpu they know where there business is corporate and big builders that chip was designed as a cheap dual core option as a selling feature for low end systems. Its however is selling you the system that tricked you if they told you it was a gaming pc.
  • 0

#28
Casheti

Casheti

    Banned

  • Topic Starter
  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 169 posts
They did not market it as a gaming PC, but it came with an OK graphics card, so I would assume it was OK for games. If it performs just as wellas a pentium 4 2.8GHz single core, then im happy, because i already have one and it is pretty fast i must say.
  • 0

#29
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
It performs worse than the single core 2.8 like i said it doesnt do either single or dual core very well in order to get the second core they compromised the single core performance and the intel dual core was never very good as they need alot of cache and it halves the effective cache because it has to share it.
  • 0

#30
Casheti

Casheti

    Banned

  • Topic Starter
  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 169 posts
If it REALLY IS as bad as you say it is I will take it back, and make up that there is a problem with it, so I get the money back, and then i will buy an AMD 64 dual. Is that a good dual core?

Actaully, it has now arrived, and to my impression, is very good and very fast. Faster than my Single Core 2.8GHz. I LOVE my new computer.

Edited by Casheti, 27 April 2006 - 12:40 PM.

  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP