- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 640
you don't get physX on a ATI card do you?Better you really want that card don't you and it does beat the 6950.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/331?vs=309
you don't get physX on a ATI card do you?Better you really want that card don't you and it does beat the 6950.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/331?vs=309
you don't get physX on a ATI card do you?
I'd avoid Fermi I (GTX4XX series) at all costs, bar the GTX460.
Noisy, hot and older tech now.
No.
Or CUDA, which can use the GPU cores to speed up applications that can use it, such as some video editing progs and things.
so would it be better to use a Nvidia card ? and if nt the 480 what one?
=/ so you'd still reccomend the 6950 even without the physX or CUDA
=/ so you'd still reccomend the 6950 even without the physX or CUDA
What about the GTX580![]()
How do you copy and paste a spec?
I would like to try and get involved.
How do you copy and paste a spec?
I would like to try and get involved.
One last spanner thrown in - the CPU comparison stulid linked to does not show the 955BE overclocked, which the i3 cannot do. Not only that, but the way they're testing the CPUs are in CPU-bottlenecked situations (they're using a 6970 at 1680x1050), so the differences are exaggerated.
I wouldn't discount the 955, though more importantly, seeing as you won't be using it till next academic year presumably, wait for Bulldozer to be released rather than rushing in now.
One last spanner thrown in - the CPU comparison stulid linked to does not show the 955BE overclocked, which the i3 cannot do. Not only that, but the way they're testing the CPUs are in CPU-bottlenecked situations (they're using a 6970 at 1680x1050), so the differences are exaggerated.
I wouldn't discount the 955, though more importantly, seeing as you won't be using it till next academic year presumably, wait for Bulldozer to be released rather than rushing in now.
Highlight it, the Crtl+C?
It always copys really weird.