Price reviewed: £16
After reviewing the Anker 8000DPI Gaming mouse - I was intrigued how the 2000DPI one compared.
Here is my review for the 8K DPI one:...
£10, 2000 DPI, excellent design, elegant and a tiny USB for connectivity. What else could you ask for?
This mouse is brilliant in all aspects! Really love using it as a on-the-go mouse! The USB...
This is my "quick review", I'll go more in-depth soon...
Been running this kit for some time, having originally purchased it in late March/early April of 2012.
When I bought it, I expected a kit...
This is a very nice and fast CPU... I see various reports on temperature, but mine runs cool at 4.5 GHz and rock solid doing BOINC tasks 24/7. Nothing but good things to say about this processor. I...
Story : You play as the legendary beast hunter Van Helsing trying to hunt monsters, help the innocent civilians and hunt down the menace upon Borgovia.
Graphics : As a game similar...
Xbox fanboys will still say Xbox has better graphics, which I do not agree on at all. I think PC has the best graphics. That HDMI on the Xbox is one of the other excuses they use to say that Xbox is the best.
You say that as if it were subjective. A PC with an 8800 GT or better will look better than an Xbox. There is no debating that.
Also, HDMI is not a reason why the Xbox would look better. HDMI is a digital signal, so it will have identical quality to DVI or display port.
Basically an Xbox is a PC, but on low settings, no anti aliasing whatsoever, and displays at 1280x720.
Here's a real world comparison:
Quote:
Fanboys always say stuff like that, but in the case of PC vs XBOX they have absolutely no data to back them up (in my opinion at least) now I'm wondering: at what point do the graphics and effects like AA just become unnoticeable? like, yeah you can push as many pixels with as much fancy math at it as you want, but there has to be a point at which you can no longer tell the difference, either because your monitor just isn't high res enough or because you just aren't looking close enough, right? I remember reading a thread that said that unless you were planning on sitting less than a foot from your monitor you wouldn't see a difference between 2560x1600 and the 1200 resolution. That just makes me wonder: is a card like a gtx 670 or a 7970 GHZ edition really worth it? Don't get me wrong: I like graphics. I want things to look as much like real life as possible, but I've been playing xbox all my life and i thought that was good, will I see a difference between medium graphics with high settings like AA, high graphics with some high settings, or even completely maxed out graphics? It's kinda like the whole FPS thing: does running a game at 120 fps really make much difference over 60 or even 30 Hz?
AA is very noticeable up to 4x at 1080p; at lower resolutions, it probably needs it more.
Anisotropic filtering is quite noticeable when you are looking at distant textures.
Post processing and lighting effects are very noticable.
You will notice the difference between 1920x1080 and 2560x1600 if both are on 30" screens.
30FPS is barely playable; it will not be fluid at all. 60 FPS is the point where it doesn't make a significant difference; yes, 120 FPS is more fluid, but I don't see much of an impact.
Good graphics cards are worth it. Xbox graphics are terrible.
Follow up question for you guys: I've noticed some cards come with a higher core clock than others, assuming everything else is the same, will a higher core clock allow for a higher overclock? Or is the higher clock just a slight manufacturer over clock?thanks!!!!
It's just a factory OC. Generally these cards are best for people who want nothing to do with overclocking, but in some cases they OC better than others due to the better coolers they often come with.
Personally I look for the best cooler and read reviews to see what kind of OC people people are getting when deciding what card to buy(and price).
