Posts by William Gray90

What’s the quietest 6850 out there? Is it even possible for a standard Sapphire card to hit idle numbers like this: http://ht4u.net/reviews/2010/amd_rad...st/index17.php

What cable are you even using for the monitor? Your viewing angle is absolute garbage because of that TN panel—just set the resolution to native and then crank up the font scaling in your OS settings.

Bryan Evans77 said:back when this thing launched, Full HD wasn't even a thing..
it didn't really hit until around 2006..

😲CRT monitors were pushing way higher resolutions than "Full HD" long before 2006. 😉If the card has a DVI port, it should be able to handle its native resolution without an issue.

Nathan Reyes59 said:hd5770 1 gb
GeForce GTX 460

$333 A used 5770 with decent cooling—like Vapor-X or MSI Hawk—is worth something, and the GTX 460 goes for a bit more (though Best Buy has a Gainward one right now for $443), so their used prices are gonna tank.

I’m running the exact same CPU as you, plus an MSI 5770 Hawk, and everything works fine.

The 4890 is stronger—just think about it. Both are solid choices.

I wouldn't drop over $1300 on a GPU right now, so Nvidia is out. It's either the 4890 or the 5770. Looking at the benchmarks, the 4890 seems way more powerful—but obviously, it pulls more power, so it's hotter and louder. My main thing is having a card that stays quiet when idling, and the 4890 with the stock cooler doesn't look like it does that. Anyone know of any good aftermarket coolers for this card that would actually be worth installing later?

What GPU should I grab for $333? My trusty old x1950pro is finally hitting retirement age—and man, so much has changed since I last looked at this stuff. I honestly can't be bothered to slog through a mountain of reviews. Running an E6750 at 1280x1024 right now, but I'll be moving up to 1920x1200 soon, so I need something that can actually handle that without choking. Should I hunt down a used 4890 for $333 or look elsewhere? Maybe go with Nvidia?

brisksailor3 said:Dropping 23 goals in the Premier League is no small feat, especially when everyone keeps harping on about how much time players need just to adjust to the pace of the game.
He's clearly got what it takes to play for the elite clubs...

It’s definitely impressive, except Eric Freeman actually scored 12, not 23.😕

I’m much more into Safari—it just works for me. I never really clicked with Chrome, so I honestly don't get why everyone obsesses over it... whatever.

I don't get people complaining about Safari being "ugly" either. 😕 If you want a browser you can actually customize to look however you want, Safari is the way to go.

I’m all for having "official" club threads. They don't hurt anyone—in fact, they make this forum way easier to navigate. What was even the point of getting rid of them? I’m trying to find one single logical reason for it, but honestly, I'm coming up empty.

Not gonna happen. I was pretty sure the ball crossed the line before—but after seeing that, maybe it actually didn't 🤔

Who exactly decided—and based on what—that wasn't a goal? Don't tell me it was some computer simulation again. The only way I'm buying that it wasn't a goal is if there's some new camera angle that actually shows something.

nimblemarlin17 said:It’s not killing the magic of the game—it’s just too damn expensive. If they have the cash, fine, let them do it, but not every club can afford those kinds of balls and goal tech.

How much can it actually cost to put sensors in the goals? I mean, at the very least, they should do it for the World Cup—though honestly, I doubt even the big clubs in the top European leagues couldn't swing it. But look, it's just not realistic to expect refs to make the right call when we’re still arguing over whether it was a goal or not even after watching the replay.

Wait, what kind of computer tech is supposed to decide if it was a goal when you can't even see it on any of the replays? Honestly, it looked like a goal to me from the jump—and that last shot just proves it. Since William Gallas and the rest of the guys didn't even protest, I don't think there should be any massive controversy here. Though, anyone who wants to build a device that actually signals whether the ball crossed the line without making mistakes would just be told they're "killing the beautiful game."

Bob Fett said:J4. COMFORT - we're just used to Internet Explorer, it feels most natural—plus, the best part is it installs right along with Winows!

I used to think the exact same way. Seriously—try using Opera 2 for a few days and you'll realize what actual comfort feels like. Everything is right where you need it, and there are way more options than in Internet Explorer. Honestly, whenever I'm forced to use Internet Explorer, I feel totally crippled. No tabs? It's pure frustration trying to open multiple pages at once. I can get why someone might use an IE shell like Crazy browser, but raw Internet Explorer is a disaster. It’s easily the biggest piece of junk in software history—and that's coming from someone who usually thinks Microsoft's products are top-tier.

Sean Nguyen4 said:Look, I actually liked those bigger, traditional fonts back in the old Championship Manager days! Plus, the player transfer options were solid, training was fine, and you could actually track player attributes without relying on those stupid little green and red arrows. Now they’re adding player photos to the new Madden NFL—totally pointless. Not to mention you could run the old CM on basically any ancient potato computer. By the way, does anyone know the minimum specs for Madden NFL? I can't find them anywhere.

I'm with you on the classic font style—bigger is better—but the catch is you can barely fit anything on the screen. You end up scrolling through tables forever just to see one thing. As for the specs, no clue, but even this beta version runs smoother than CM4—maybe match processing takes a beat longer, but at least we have background processing now.

Roger Allen3 said:Ugh, I guess I’ll have to go grab Championship Manager 3 then—everyone keeps hyping it up so much.

Look, Championship Manager 3 is hands down the best manager game ever made—at least when it comes to pure gameplay. But if you're coming from CM4, you're gonna feel the gap. You lose the 2D match view—it's just text commentary in CM3—and the resolution sucks. It runs at 800x600 and looks pretty pathetic compared to CM4 because the fonts are massive and you can barely see anything on the screen.

If it was included in the previous versions—meaning CM 03/04—then it’s definitely showing up here too. They might just add more leagues this time around, but there's no way they're giving us fewer.

Like copperpuma96 already pointed out—Madden NFL 2005 is the actual successor to the "real" Championship Manager we've been playing all this time. Championship Manager 5 is just some totally different game riding the coattails of a famous name.

So, if you're a true CM fan, Madden NFL 2005 is the one you're actually waiting for. The CM 5 devs are promising the world, and if they actually pull it off—which I highly doubt—it might be decent and give Madden NFL some competition. Sadly, most people are clueless about this whole mess between Electronic Arts and SI, so they'll probably just grab CM 5 thinking it's the sequel to CM4.

I'm downloading the demo right now (which, by the way, is crawling 🙂 ). For anyone else planning to grab it, keep in mind this is just a BETA demo made a month ago. By the time the full game drops, they’ll have fixed most of the bugs and added plenty of stuff back in.

dustywalker25 said:Edward Richardson36 and I are clearly not on the same page—I've got Acrobat Reader 6, but how the hell am I supposed to convert anything into a Microsoft Word doc with just that?
I need to take a catalog template from a PDF and turn it into a Microsoft Word file so I can actually work with it—you know, swap out logos, tweak the text, and make my own changes.🙂

He was talking about Adobe Acrobat, not the free Adobe Acrobat Reader...