Overclocking is more difficult that adding a freaken airfilter or bolting on a new exhuast. Theres no sure fire system configuration out there that will always beat the rest. If you want to get super technical, my Core 2 6400 could be BETTER than your Core 2 6400. You'd think that their the same processer theyd be prity much the same. Thats not the case. Depending on what week, month, year, quality of the silicon, ect, could make my chip better or crappier than the rest.

 

I wasnt making fun of overclockers. If thats pointed at me.


Thats why I always wait awhile till I buy and make sure I get the latest version. Like my q6600. I got the older version and I shipped it back and they gave me the newer one.

 

No I was just making a general statement.

 

It is also for lazy people who don't plan on overclocking their PC. I meanseriously ... with the state of the current gaming situation for the PC versus the overall speed of the processors, memory, video cards....do you really think you are going to notice and increase of maybe 1 or 2 framerates....when you are already runningwell over 100 fps, sometimes in the 300fps range (low rezF.E.A.R.), is the extra 10 or even 20 fps that you arereally going to get, going to mean squat?I have a PC that more than meets my current and near future needs.
[/quote]

Sate of the current gaming situation? Current games are too hardcore for most computers to run at the highest settings. Why the hell would I want to run FEAR in low rez? I might as well play Nintendo 64. 10 extra fps is something to be sought after. If it means playing a game at 30 FPS instead of 20 then hell ya. 30FPS is noticeably different from 20. Hell even 30 to 40. I can even tell the difference between 60 and 100.

800FSB is standard in gaming and 1066 will soon be the new standard.

[/quote]

My rig (specs listed in this post) isn't exactly a slouch. My question, is how many framerates am I going to get by using "better" memory than I have now? How much do those framerates cost me? Am I really going to notice a difference? Is it worth the trouble for me to sit here and worry about? Back to my F.E.A.R. argument, I run the game at it's highest setting (which is not optimized for my display) and it runs smooth as silk? What are my framerates? I don't know I never tested it.

 

Sate of the current gaming situation? Current games are too hardcore for most computers to run at the highest settings. Why the hell would I want to run FEAR in low rez? I might as well play Nintendo 64. 10 extra fps is something to be sought after. If it means playing a game at 30 FPS instead of 20 then hell ya. 30FPS is noticeably different from 20. Hell even 30 to 40. I can even tell the difference between 60 and 100.

800FSB is standard in gaming and 1066 will soon be the new standard.

[/quote]

My rig (specs listed in this post) isn't exactly a slouch. My question, is how many framerates am I going to get by using "better" memory than I have now? How much do those framerates cost me? Am I really going to notice a difference? Is it worth the trouble for me to sit here and worry about? Back to my F.E.A.R. argument, I run the game at it's highest setting (which is not optimized for my display) and it runs smooth as silk? What are my framerates? I don't know I never tested it.

[/quote]


I believe system ram is just gonna make the game run smoother and load faster. The graphics card is whats gonna determine your frame rate.

 

That wasn't my arguement. I was saying that you should get PC8500 to match the CPU so you can overclock better/more. THEN, that in turn increases your FPS to whatever you were able to overclock. Upgrading from PC6400 to PC8500 won't do jack if you just stick it in and thats it.