Bargain Alerts/Adverts Discussion Thread

Brian

Tea_Bag wrote: »

aaaaaand my order went from "shipping" to canceled. **** sake. ive just spent £7 on artic 5 paste, that isnt even being delivered to me in ireland but family in the UK. more delivery charges. excellent. thanks for wasting my time and money amazon :mad::mad:

They're only providing the platform for third party retailers to serve through, I don't see how dodgy pricing by someone else is Amazon's fault.

Monotype

I wonder did any of these actually ship. How is it that three resellers made a mistake? Do they have automatic price linking?

Tea_Bag

deejer wrote: »

If it looks too good to be true and all that..............

Same thing here. Starting to think that this might not be a bad option since I am looking to upgrade. Another £40 onto what the 955's ACTUAL price is.

Same CPU as you at the moment @Tea_Bag so interested to know what you planning on doing now

Also wondering if anyone did get their order placed for the 955 yesterday the that price??

I wouldnt be investing in AM3 architecture at this point unless you get good prices on them. the Phenom 1090T isnt great for gaming (compared to a good quad core, ->yet), but seeing as Bulldozer is within a month or 2 away id hold off and wait to either upgrade the whole lot, or at least wait until prices of "old" AM3 stuff drops in price.

Baza210 wrote: »

They're only providing the platform for third party retailers to serve through, I don't see how dodgy pricing by someone else is Amazon's fault.

sorry yeah i know that. but saying ASL and extremepc'suk fecked me over was going to take too long to type. did it anyway now though...

Monotype wrote: »

I wonder did any of these actually ship. How is it that three resellers made a mistake? Do they have automatic price linking?

yea i dunno, but something dodgy is going on. I reckon they kept price matching each other until one of them caved and cancelled all their orders, thus allowing the other to return to full price.

as i said though, mine went through all the processes until "shipping" so it was probably halted at factory distribution centre level.

sneaky bastards anyway. i wonder how many people got the cancellation email and went ahead anyway ordering it at full price?

Fnz

Tea_Bag wrote: »

yea i dunno, but something dodgy is going on. I reckon they kept price matching each other until one of them caved and cancelled all their orders, thus allowing the other to return to full price.

Perhaps the opposite of this happened: Amazon algorithms price bio book at over $23m

Tea_Bag

Used Intel® Core™2 Extreme Processor QX6800

going very cheap!

GO GO GO!








:rolleyes:

Dublin_Gunner

Tea_Bag wrote: »

Used Intel® Core™2 Extreme Processor QX6800

going very cheap!

GO GO GO!
:rolleyes:

lol I saw that yesterday myself. Wouldn't pay more than about €50 for it in fairness.

cherryghost

As per bargain alerts post.

6670 is about 10% slower than a GTS450, and about 40 euro less! This little baby can handle most games at 1080p at medium/high settings. Pure bargain for people looking for a cheap fix, or have smaller resolution monitors. I replaced it with my 8600GT a few weeks ago at work, its given the PC a new lease on life!

Unregistered.

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

lol I saw that yesterday myself. Wouldn't pay more than about €50 for it in fairness.

Yeah he's going to take a huge hit with that. It would have been a good buy for anyone not wanting to pay for the x58 platform a year or two ago, but he has well and truly missed the boat.

cherryghost wrote: »

As per bargain alerts post.

6670 is about 10% slower than a GTS450, and about 40 euro less! This little baby can handle most games at 1080p at medium/high settings. Pure bargain for people looking for a cheap fix, or have smaller resolution monitors. I replaced it with my 8600GT a few weeks ago at work, its given the PC a new lease on life!

Some of manufacturers should come out with passive versions of this card as they did with the 4670/50, though I'm not sure how the TDP has gone up since then. It is in the same (relative to it's generation) performance belt as the 46** and around the same price.

Solitaire

TDP has gone down a bit compared to the HD4670 but is higher than the HD5670, real-world performance is barely half the stated figure though. The HD5670 runs at 25-30W flat out, and has a TDP of 61W. I don't know how much the HD6670 uses but I suspect its just a tad higher due to the sixth SIMD cluster, versus a ridiculous 66W TDP. In terms of performance its left the older versions behind, and comes in somewhere between the HD4830/9800GT and the HD4770/4850/5750/6750/ and 8800/9800GTX/GTS250/450 segment.

Also, the reason that's cheap is because its full-height. I suspect the half-height versions are more expensive. Nowadays you can get HD6750s for under €75 new though...

cherryghost

Cheapest 6750 I've seen is 79 euro so I still think the 6670 is great value for that price, tho the other 6670's prices are crazy money

Dublin_Gunner

ScumLord wrote: »

32gb SSD for €44.77 with dabs. Not a particularly useful size but good to see them plummet in price

Taken from BA thread.

2 of those in RAID 0, would make for a super quick 64GB OS drive for under €90.

I may purchase.

**edit just noticed that price is Ex VAT.

On dabs.ie the same drive is €54.17 - still not bad. I had posted this a week or two ago in the BA thread.

Yeah he's going to take a huge hit with that. It would have been a good buy for anyone not wanting to pay for the x58 platform a year or two ago, but he has well and truly missed the boat.

Even a year or two ago I wouldn't have paid much more. The P55 platform was/is far faster and cheaper. Even AM2+ / AM3.

Tea_Bag

Does anyone game on an IPS monitor?

Dublin_Gunner

Tea_Bag wrote: »

Does anyone game on an IPS monitor?

Nope. Traditionally the response times are a little slow, and they're out of most peoples budget for a decent sized screen.

Modern ones would be fine for gaming however, but the cost is still an issue for most I'd imagine.

And in fairness, unless you're a graphics professional, its unlikely most would even notice much of a difference apart form viewing angles.

Colour reporduction and gamut coverage are things that the average gamer / PC user doesn't need to know much about.

I bloody love my Cinema Display though (but its for work, not play)

heid

I have the u2311h and has no input lag. The viewing angle and colour accuracy is better compared to a tn.

Brian

120 Hz monitors are generally more popular for gaming than IPS monitors.

Solitaire

Its not just gamers who come here though And Hyper IPS is fast and ghost-free enough for you to both work and play

heid

It depends on your preferences. A 120hz monitor would be handy, as you could turn v-sync off and get smoother gameplay and an ips setup with eyefinity portrait mode would be great because of the viewing angles.

Dublin_Gunner

heid wrote: »

It depends on your preferences. A 120hz monitor would be handy, as you could turn v-sync off and get smoother gameplay and an ips setup with eyefinity portrait mode would be great because of the viewing angles.

I don't see how 120hz will reduce tearing. Each torn frame will just be visible for half the time of a 60hz screen.

So vsync would still be required, along with triple buffering to stop massive frame drops.

120hz is good for 1 thing - 3d. 60hz for each eye polarized.

Brian

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

120hz is good for 1 thing - 3d.

A lot of FPS players beg to differ.

Dublin_Gunner

Baza210 wrote: »

A lot of FPS players beg to differ.

Really? I'm an FPS player.


Unless you're getting around 120 FPS constant, your tearing frames. And if you're using v-sync, and your frame rate is averaging LESS than 120hz, you'll be runing at 60hz - so you may as well have a 60Hz screen.

And I dont; know a single modern FPS that you're gonna get 120fps+ constant. Unless of course you turn the details and resolutions down, in which case its a bit of a waste of a nice screen, eh?

Faster refresh rate /= better frame rate.

Tea_Bag

Just out of interest Dublin_Gunner & Baza210, have ye ever played on a 120hz monitor?

Im in the market for a new monitor, and everything ive read so far is suggesting 120hz.

never having played on them though, im not 100% sold.

Tar.Aldarion

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Really? I'm an FPS player.


Unless you're getting around 120 FPS constant, your tearing frames. And if you're using v-sync, and your frame rate is averaging LESS than 120hz, you'll be runing at 60hz - so you may as well have a 60Hz screen.

And I dont; know a single modern FPS that you're gonna get 120fps+ constant. Unless of course you turn the details and resolutions down, in which case its a bit of a waste of a nice screen, eh?

Faster refresh rate /= better frame rate.

A 120hz monitor is so much better than an alternative, clearer and smoother. Every single gamer I know that has gotten one for competitive gaming has been wowed, including myself. In fact every professional gamer I see uses one. I could not go back to 60/75hz ever. In fact my gf always goes on about how this monitor is so much smoother and clearer when I get her to play a bit of css.

Why would you use vsync? Screen tearing? You should use it if you get a lot of that but I've not noticed it. I mean I could play css with vysnc at 120fps...or I could play at 999 fps...
vysnc also seems to do something weird to my sensitivity and mouse cursor, it causes lag, it can also lower packets sent to source servers. although mostly 66->60 these days




->

Dublin_Gunner

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

A 120hz monitor is so much better than an alternative, clearer and smoother. Every single gamer I know that has gotten one for competitive gaming has been wowed, including myself. In fact every professional gamer I see uses one. I could not go back to 60/75hz ever. In fact my gf always goes on about how this monitor is so much smoother and clearer when I get her to play a bit of css.

Why would you use vsync? Screen tearing? You should use it if you get a lot of that but I've not noticed it. I mean I could play css with vysnc at 120fps...or I could play at 999 fps...
vysnc also seems to do something weird to my sensitivity and mouse cursor, it causes lag, it can also lower packets sent to source servers. although mostly 66->60 these days




->

You pretty much confirmed what I was saying Tar.

If you're getting near 120 fps, you'll be fine on one. But if you're getting less, there'll be as much tearing as any other screen. Vsync can fix the tearing, but as it will be dropping you down to 60fps most likely, there will be huge input lag.

While I don't own a 120hz screen myself, I have gamed on my mates one a few times, and TBH people 'wowing' about them are seriously blowing the difference out of the water.

What they're probably experiencing is a monitor with a better panel etc making the difference, not necessarily the 120hz factor.

CSS and older games would benefit more, as the chances are you'll be running them at or above 120 fps, but for newer shooters on a mid-range system I'd say a 120hz monitor is a waste of time if you play modern titles.

UNless you're pushing more than 120fps constant (or close enough to it without vsync) it not going to look any different.

Saying this, I'm not saying don't get one, just that people need to know what the limitations of their system are before getting a shiny new screen and wondering why BC2 seems choppy with vsync on.

Brian

To get the best out of a 120 Hz monitor you need 241 fps. Something that isn't too difficult to attain in Source games with a decent PC and high-frames cfg (which most competitive Source players use already).

Unless of course you turn the details and resolutions down, in which case its a bit of a waste of a nice screen, eh?

I don't think so. Much like I would prefer 800x480 video at 60 fps than I would 1280x720 video at 30 fps (something phone manufacturers seriously need to sort out!)

Tar.Aldarion

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

You pretty much confirmed what I was saying Tar.

If you're getting near 120 fps, you'll be fine on one. But if you're getting less, there'll be as much tearing as any other screen. Vsync can fix the tearing, but as it will be dropping you down to 60fps most likely, there will be huge input lag.

While I don't own a 120hz screen myself, I have gamed on my mates one a few times, and TBH people 'wowing' about them are seriously blowing the difference out of the water.

What they're probably experiencing is a monitor with a better panel etc making the difference, not necessarily the 120hz factor.

CSS and older games would benefit more, as the chances are you'll be running them at or above 120 fps, but for newer shooters on a mid-range system I'd say a 120hz monitor is a waste of time if you play modern titles.

UNless you're pushing more than 120fps constant (or close enough to it without vsync) it not going to look any different.

Saying this, I'm not saying don't get one, just that people need to know what the limitations of their system are before getting a shiny new screen and wondering why BC2 seems choppy with vsync on.

I know what you mean about the lag incurring when you drop below the refresh rate but in some games it happens anyway, and it's very annoying, like it is just your cursor being delayed after you move your mouse, this is why some people have to turn it off.

It is a difference all right and maybe not too much as you say, it just matters to people competitively if something is even a bit smoother/clearer. And I wouldn't say it's just a better panel, maybe sometimes, most people I have seen proclaim it as amazing have used the best technology they can for 10 years, as they are paid to play the games. I think fanbois might hype it up too much though. They see pros saying it makes a difference, they are used to **** monitors and suddenly their monitor is 10 times better just due to the quality of monitor, not necessarily the 120hz.

When you say it's a waste of a monitor to lower detail, it's aimed at a lot of people that would want stickman graphics if they could get any advantage in a competitive game at all and these configs are why people do get over 120fps constant. I mean a helluva lot of people still use crts and even more use really low 800 and below resolutions just for an advantage.

I wouldn't reall recommend it as a necessity for most people buy my 0 input lag 3d 1080p hd 120hz monitor for under 200 is great value for me! If people can't get good fps then they shouldn't have the monitor as you say, they should upgrade their system first! Well unless they just want it's other features.

Brian

I play TF2 at 768 x 480 ;D

but that's because I only have integrated graphics

Monotype

In my opinion - If your resolution is too low, it's hard to make out your friends and foes from a distance!

Brian

The only game I play is Team Fortress 2, so the team colours obviate that issue.

Tar.Aldarion

a lower quality monitor makes it hard to see too, on crts it must be very easy to see as I only ever see very small resolutions used by the more serious gamers.

Dublin_Gunner

Pix having a great sale, copy of my post from BA

Dub's super BARGAINS

MSI GTX460 768 €99.90


Sapphire Pure 1250W PSU €158


OCZ Gold DDR3-2133 €39.90


Asus GTX460 1GB €111


Sapphire HD 5870 €158


HD5450 €19.99


Seagate Barracuda 2TB 5900rpm €81