aussiestig

I remember having this convosation about 6 months ago before I left. Still going on hey? As much as I agree that the game would be way better if everyone used in game chat, it's completely unrealistic. I like to talk to friends a whole group of friends, some of which I'm in game with, some of which aren't. The sound quality in game is well below average, and I don't know where my friends are in game if I want to meet up.

Played for 3 hours. Got myself an M4, a .45, a 35 slot back pack, heaps of food and water, med kit, military helmet, boots and chest rig along with heaps of other stuff. Died because I got hit by a zombie and couldn't figure out how to bandage myself :(

Samsungs SSD's are known for being some of the most reliable on the market, sounds like OP just got seriously unlucky, or he was doing some stupid shit with it.

Red is the traditional gaming switch, blue is another that is good for gaming, and brown is great for typing but still good for gaming. It's worth noting that all mechanical keyboards are great for typing once you get used to it, but for some it takes a while to get a good felling for them. Everyone I know who has a mechanical keyboard would never even consider going back to traditional keyboards after using the mechanical. There's no real way of describing why they are 'better', they just feel better, are nicer to press and touch, and that makes for a better overall keyboard.

Fair point on the Pro 3, but there is no point going for a 3570k unless you want to throw more money towards a cooler to actually overclock. It's a budget build, if you want a better HDD or CPU, then go for it, but both of those suggestions are not needed at all, and it's an extra $50-$60

Intel i5 3470 GTX 660 ASRock Z77 Extreme 3 8gb Corsair Vengeance 1TB WD Green SeaSonic 520w PSU $50 case of personal preference A little over $600 there for a PC that'll run BF3 on ultra, and DayZ over 30FPS. I recommend this build to all of my friends who are making the move to PC on a tight budget

When I was first playing DayZ, back in the days when about 50% of players you ran into were friendly and looking to group up, I'd die once every few days which wasn't too bad considering I played so much. But I absolutely hated the thought of walking into a town and having some one sneak up on you and kill you. One second you've got a 3 hour old character with decent gear, and a split second later, you're dead. It didn't help that all the servers were lined up with NZ time, so whenever I got a chance to play DayZ, it was dusk or night time in game, which made everything 10x more intense for a new player If I ever died, I was scared to go into elektro or cherno, because of that feeling. At one point, I literally stopped playing for a week because I hated it that much, but I eventually got over it, and I haven't been scared while playing it in about a year. I'd trade all my knowledge about DayZ just to go back to those days where the game was fresh and scary. I've never in my life played a game even remotely close to the feeling that DayZ gave off, just writing this now I have a smile on my face remembering how immersive and exciting it was. It's so unique, it's a shame that it wears off so quickly.

At the lowest resolution and lowest graphical settings. Even then, you'd have to be looking at the sky. Stay poor.

Greatest thread of all time :lol:

Some people like to play their games on triple monitors, or a single 120hz monitor at 120fps. For both of these, you need to spend a lot of money to run the games at your desired settings. If nobody wanted these expensive parts, they wouldn't exist in the first place. If you're in the competitive FPS scene, then you are at a huge disadvantage if you don't have a 120hz monitor, running games at least 90fps.

But Arma 2 is just such a clunky game. Playing wasteland I feel the pain of only having 3 different stances. If you go into one of the big bunkers, you'll notice that if you're kneeling, you're to low to shoot over the edge, and if you're standing up, you are extremely open to being shot from every angle, there is no mid ground like there is in Arma 3. You aren't forced to use the extra movements/stances, they are there for when you need them. Trust you lot to complain when the devs give you something extra.

If you change ATOC from disable to "All Tree's and Grass", you won't lose any more than a frame or 2. I personally think they need to pick a tree and grass setting, and enforce it. The performance gain of putting it on 0 is almost non-existent, and I feel like the game would benefit 10x more from having proper tree's, rather than 1-2 extra FPS.

It sure would. It depends on how much you want to spend. The 3570k is the best i5, if you don't ever plan to overclock, then the 3570, or 3470 are cheaper.

Arma is in no way at all optimized to max a 3970x. I would honestly be surprised if the 3970x even got a single frame more than the 3770k. tl;dr: get a 3770k/3570k

I take it you're going off Jackfrags's video? He seemed to get pretty lucky with his performance. The game ran pretty damn well for the PC he bought. I'd personally stick with the GPU for the time being if you don't want to break the bank, and upgrade that CPU to an i5 3470 or 3570k if you can. I know someone running the 7770 and 3570k combo, and he gets between 40-50fps in DayZ pretty much constantly.

If you want to keep it under $300, I'd go with what the majority in this thread are saying; the 660 ti. It's a beast card, and pretty understated to be honest. It would easily play something like Battlefield 3 on ultra @60fps. Alternatively you could wait and see what how 760ti performs once it's out, but be prepared to spend a little more than $300 for one.

Why do people own cars that can do more than 100kph? Why do people own TV's that are bigger than 24"? Why do people own $1000 mobile phones that are barely any better than $50 phones? It's the world we live in my friend.

For $100? I'd personally say it's worth it, but only because the 770 has some nice new tools like GPU boost 2.0. The performance of the 770 isn't much better than the 670 right now, but expect that to rise a little when there are some better drivers out. It's basically a faster version of the 680.

What am I even reading As long as you didn't go onto a hack website and download the hacks yourself, then you have nothing to worry about.

This was captured in the same studio as Rockets video. No it is not a video of Rocket, it's a video of the guy behind the mod I assume. Dean didn't buy a mo-cap studio just to do a days worth of work, other people use it as well.

Sounds to me like you have a shit computer, because it's well known that W8 runs better than W7.

On June 26, Microsoft is releasing a version of W8 called Windows 8.1, which is supposed to bring back the things that people miss. There are already hundreds of easy to download programs out there for the lazy, but this attempts to make W8 better than W7 straight off the bat. It brings back the start button, and allows boot straight to desktop, meaning you never have to see the Metro Menu Frankly, I love Windows 8, because it looks much better, it has some nice built in extractor programs, it's much faster on boot up, and it can utilize your hardware better than W7 can, which means better performance in gaming by a few FPS. I don't shun people who didn't make the jump from W7 to W8, because in my opinion, unless you can get it cheap, there's no point upgrading unless you're building a new PC, then it's a must. I just dislike the people that spout crap without having ever used it before. Sure, the inbuilt picture and video viewer on Windows 8 is made for touch tablets, but literally everything else has the same PC functionality as W7 does. + You will never once be greeted with a "Your PC will automatically update in 15 minutes" message ever. You're never forced into updates.

I'm not sure if it'd work to be honest, but it's certainly not worth it.

I own an nvidia GTX 560 ti, my not to distant upgrade will be the GTX 780. I've never owned an AMD card, and probably never will, so no, I'm not defending AMD with my hearts content. The 670 is on average, is 200% the price of a 7850, but about 50%-100% max better in performance. Are you telling me, that for a budget build, he should be spending more money for little gain? Sounds pretty stupid to me. Performance in BF3 is about 30% faster. BF3 is a hugely nvidia biased game, and yet the 670 isn't even twice as fast as the 7850. You simply will not find a game where the 670 out does the 7850 by double, even though it costs twice as much. Then there's the link you posted where you attempt to justify paying an extra $200 for a 9fps increase in Crysis. lol. Every other game on that list, the 670 is only 10-20% faster. Again, the card costs twice as much. You aren't comparing two of the same level cards here. It's like saying "yeah man, my ferrari shits all over your prius", even though they are completely different markets. Feel free to post more links that prove that the 7850 is a better value card. It's hilarious.

Sure is nvidia marketing in here tonight. The 670 is only about 1/4 faster in most games, and in some games there is no difference at all. The 7850 is a great mid tier card. Returning it just to get an over price 670 is absolutely ludicrous. As for the rendering shit. Can you please stop. If you think the 7850 is a rendering card, then you clearly don't know what you're talking about.