if you dont mind waiting a few days newegg has the 80 for 399 free shipping and no tax. so you save a few bucks
god bless newegg… It’s guaranteed 3 day shipping too. Sometimes it comes even faster.
sure does i buy somehthing off there like once a month. the only thing that took a while was my Tv it was free shipping but wasnt 3 day took 7 
lol
Im going to…go ahead and DISAGREE 100%. The point of playing a game on the PC over a console, other than extra mods, is to be able to make it graphically more impressive! We arent trying to just barely play games with shitty fps. Higher resolution, view distance, effects, and most importantly, higher fps are the goals behind PC gaming over a console for most people.
With only a single video card (not speaking dual gpu cards) there isn’t a single card that can max out crysis. And on only medium settings, at medium resolution, it doesnt look that much better than a console shooter.
If youve got an $800 rig floatin around with a decent psu, a nicely overclocked cpu, and only 1 video card, SLI/XFire is the BEST upgrade a gamer can do, and it is not by any means overkill. Quad SLI might be due to poor optimization, but SLI is always worth the money assuming no CPU bottleneck.
Ive got 2x 285gtx cards in SLI with a 4.2ghz i7, and wish I had more video power. Reason I dont have 3 is partially because its kind of a waste. Probably only 40% gains at best as far as I know. But from 1 to 2 can be 80% or higher increase in fps making it very very worth it. 3 just isnt cost effective.
Let me rephrase that bolded statement.
Stuff like triple SLi and SLi period is not needed for any of the PC games out now and probably the next 5 years.
Meaning I can play Call of Duty and Crysis with a 6800 GT, in fact I have. There is no game that I’ve seen that requires SLI to run. I’m perfectly fine running a single card and I’m happy with my graphics. I load into games first and run them smoothly. Although loading into the games first is all HDD.
Using Crysis as a benchmark is kinda stupid. That game sucked, the single player was about as awesome as solitaire and the multiplayer was atrocious. Worst $60 I spent. The graphics were great but the game sucked. I played that game on High settings with a 6800GT with no problems. But again what good are the graphics if the game sucks. I guess I can see SLI for some games like the newer ones coming out but, Triple you gotta be kidding me.
The multi sucked, but the single player was good IMO. Much more open ended than any console fps in terms of the environment and where you can attack a mission from. And theres no way you are getting more than 20fps on high with that thing. Anything less than 60fps is highly unacceptable for a fps. No wonder you thought the game sucked. I would too if it was playing like a slide show.
The game sucked due to the game play, It was a crappy game. I was running the game fine, I’m sure I could have been running at a higher fps pending the video card, but it was fine for me. I’ve been looking into GTX 260 card and I think that’s a little much.
/threadjack
jesus. i hate these threads. they always turn into a pissing match with PC virgins versus console virgins.
i have both ps3 and xbox 360. i’m a big gamer. that being said, if i could only have one or the other, it would be my xbox 360. both are fantastic media devices, but aside from the blu ray drive in the ps3, the xbox wins no contest.
from a gaming standpoint, the xbox is better. anyone who says the ps3 has a better selection is a useless fan boy and shouldn’t be trusted. ps3 has its killer apps, but xbox has a better selection.
online gaming is clearly better on the 360. i know, the PS3 is free for online gaming, but you get what you pay for. xbox live’s interface is 1000 times better than ps3’s home network bullshit.
bottom line: for a gamer the xbox is better. if a game comes out on both systems, i buy it for 360. i only own a PS3 for PS3 exclusives and for a blu-ray player. if you’re only getting one, get a 360.
the biggest hard drive ive seen put into one was a 320GB im not sure what the largest one you can put in though.
Yup. Standard 2.5" SATA is what the PS3 user internally.
You can connect a USB externally so problems. (I backed up all my save/games,etc. to my 500GB external before swapping hard drives)
Dunno. I’ll try a 500GB sometime and see what the outcome is.
The 60GB model is the most backwards compatible as it is the only one with the PS2 HARDWARE chipset in it for backwards compatibility. The other models (like the 80GB and the 120GB) have SOFTWARE backwards compatiblity. It works, but not as well as the 60GB that had the hardware. Some PS2 games that worked on the 60GB model now won’t work on the 80GB and 120GB models. I have a 60GB model at home and I would never give it up. Love it.
<3 my 80GB PS3
no one mentioned gt5 on ps3
im going to have to remember that…
Duke Nukem Forever is likely to be out before this.
Really? I though only the 20GB and the 80GB were backwards compatible and they stopped making them because they didn’t work with those. I have the 60GB and I am pretty sure it isn’t backwards compatible. I’ll have to check
No one mentioned it because the earliest I’ve seen for the release is January 2010.
I sold my ps3 and my logitech g25 6 moths ago. But I will definitely reinvest into that setup when I see firm evidence of this game being a month away. The prologue just wasnt cutting it for me anymore. The logitech g25 doesnt work for the 360 either as far as I know. Theres a plus for the ps3
The 20GB model (and subsequent 40GB model) didn’t have any backwards compatibility at all. That was one of the reasons they had lower prices. The 60GB model definitely has it. I play PS2 games on it all the time.
well son of a bitch I’m gonna have to try it.