Halo 3

okaye · Post by **okaye** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:04 am

wheres that girl strippiin in your sig? :wankah: is halo 3 coming out in november?

jacen · Post by **jacen** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:30 am

its simple... comp > xbox... yes i do own an xboxtheres so many more things you can do on a computer than you cant on the xbox 360... and if you're the type of person i am, as long as the graphics aren't shitty to the point where you can literally see pixels from where you sit, graphics arent everything. The gameplay is whats important. Seriously, without it you're just watching a movie.

Spyke · Post by **Spyke** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:38 am

halo 3 was announced to be launched on the day that the playstation 3 was to be released, but in current rumor microsoft doesnt want to rush bungie into making something halfassed(like the story in halo 2) speculation thus far

QuidBoy · Post by **QuidBoy** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:38 am

Copy paste FOR THE WIN!

Post by **Crash** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:52 am

clockspeed cannot be equated to greater performance....take the amd64 line of processors for example...these chips run anywhere from 1.8ghz to 2.8ghz but yet they always come out on top over their intel counterpart that run much faster (in gaming that is)...here's a fairly old benchmark test done at anandtech...so unless some real testing is done under lab conditions having a desktop cpu go head to head with the xbox 360's cpu, we cant really say one is better than the other...

DesuMacchi · Post by **DesuMacchi** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:21 am

clockspeed cannot be equated to greater performance....take the amd64 line of processors for example...these chips run anywhere from 1.8ghz to 2.8ghz but yet they always come out on top over their intel counterpart that run much faster (in gaming that is)...here's a fairly old benchmark test done at anandtech...so unless some real testing is done under lab conditions having a desktop cpu go head to head with the xbox 360's cpu, we cant really say one is better than the other...[size=24:ad0e1f4055]$299.99 for the WHOLE fuckin kit and kaboodle! [/size:ad0e1f4055]Just for your precious AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 [size=24:ad0e1f4055]$827[/size:ad0e1f4055]Now I still have to buy a case, motherboard, ram, video card, sound card, power supply and all the other goodies to make this top notch PC play like my 360. Someone is getting FUCKED in the ass! Glad it isn't me.So here's what we've got: an Athlon 64 4000+ that is basically a FX-53 (but still clock locked for all higher multipliers like a regular Athlon 64), and an Athlon 64 FX-55 that uses a 130nm strained silicon on insulator process to hit 2.6GHz. Pricing on the two chips is, well, pricey: $827 for the FX-55 and $729 for the FX-53 err we mean Athlon 64 4000+. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sh ... spx?i=2249

Post by **Crash** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:00 am

the screenshot was just to illustrate that more ghz != higher performanceif price is your number one concern then i agree the 360 is a great choice for gaming...but other then that i dont see how else the 360 can compete with a decked out computer...

DesuMacchi · Post by **DesuMacchi** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:51 am

the screenshot was just to illustrate that more ghz != higher performanceYou just said it right there....3 - 3.2 GhZ processors inside the 360 (9.6 GhZ) ---- more GhZ = Higher Performance.

Spyke · Post by **Spyke** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:36 pm

Copy paste FOR THE WIN!no see i mispelled something in there! I am just born to be a bungie reporter I dont know why they wont answer my emails

Post by **Crash** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:43 pm

the screenshot was just to illustrate that more ghz != higher performanceYou just said it right there....3 - 3.2 GhZ processors inside the 360 (9.6 GhZ) ---- more GhZ = Higher Performance.err the exclamation point was meant to be a cross through the equal sign....