Sheikah

The 3570K is still a better processor, I did a fair bit of research myself before purchasing. At only £15 or so more expensive you may as well get the Ivy, as it's an improvement on the previous model. Although the 2500K can get to a higher clock speed with the same cooling setup, the 3570K doesn't need to clock as high for the same result. The Ivy only runs hotter, it actually produces less heat than a Sandy (think of a lit match vs an air heater). That's a great thing in terms of reducing the heat in your caase. The Ivy can actually work at higher operating temperatures (up to 105C), and as a plus uses less power than the Sandy. The built in graphics of the processor is very useful if you are using VirtuMVP (built in utility that combines your onboard and discrete graphics card to improve your performance).

I've just built one for the first time and I might be able to help. Best places to buy are ebuyer like Moogle said but also Amazon, who are often cheaper and tend to have cheaper delivery options (although expensive stuff on ebuyer is usually free delivery). Also great sites for parts are Novatech (got my graphics card there), dabs.com (big range), scan.co.uk and aria.co.uk. Intel are far more popular at the moment for processors with their i3/i5/i7 range. I wholly recommend an i5 processor (either the older 2500K or the newer 3570K), which are priced great and all you need for gaming (i7 isn't really worth it for gaming). The K denotes that you can easily overclock it (which, while sounding scary, is incredibly easy to do and provides a massive boost). Take note that any given processor will have a socket type. For instance, an i5 processor is socket 1155. This means you need a motherboard that has a 1155 socket (e.g. Asrock Z77 Extreme4, the one I have). Second, the motherboard supports only one type of RAM, as in either DDR, DDR2 or DDR3. Luckily all new motherboards support DDR3, pretty much. But it's always wise to check that your RAM is supported by a certain motherboard. You can build a really cheap PC. But you can also spend a bit more, and have a PC that would be pretty damn good and last you comfortably for quite a while. I opted for the latter, so I bought a graphics card for under £200 that you can overclock to make it outpower those that cost £350+ (MSI Radeon HD 7850 Twin Frozr @ Novatech). In general, these are the parts you'll need to put together a PC. Here's a link to a post I made a few weeks ago showing what I bought so you could always use that for ideas (and them's be good parts): PC Case - I recommend something spacious with good ventilation to get good air circulation. Also nice but not essential for it to have USB 3.0 ports on the front. Motherboard - Decent brands are ASRock, ASUS, Gigabyte. Z68 or even better Z77 chipset for definite. Make sure it has the matching socket to your processor. RAM - DDR3, Check compatibility with mobo and reviews (Corsair and G.Skill are pretty good). Processor - i5, for sure. Processor Cooler - important, the one that comes with the processor isn't very good. Stops your processor going into meltdown. A pretty decent one is the hyper 212 evo. Make sure whatever you get is compatible with your socket too. Hard Drive - I definitely recommend an SSD (solid state drive) since they reduce loading times of your OS/programs/games massively. Power Supply - very important you don't skimp on this one. What wattage you get is dependent on your parts - if they're power intensive, you need something higher. 600W can be sufficient for many builds but having 700W-750W lets you have room for upgrades. This calculator will give you an idea of how much power your build will need (usually get something at least 100W higher than what that says you need). 'Modular' power supplies are good too since you only use the wires you need (non-modular PSUs have a bunch of wires attached and you only use some of them, the rest just take up space in your case). Some case fans... And of course the graphics card. Already said which I got which is pretty sweet. A slightly more affordable one is the nVidia Geforce GTX 560 Ti which is still fairly decent.

Whatever the Ratchet and Clank was that they gave away after the downtime was an abomination. Put me off the rest of the series to be honest.

Oh yeah. Great series, read all the books. I guess you're watching the TV series too? This is pretty cool, liking it a lot.

I bought 2 x Antec Tricool 120mm fans to go with the 2 fans already installed in my Antec three hundred two case (already comes with a 1x 120mm and a 1x 140mm Antec TwoCool exhaust fan). The fans I bought seemed pretty well reviewed and could also be switched between 3 intensities, which is a plus. I think the case also makes a difference, since I've basically got a mesh grid at the front where I put my two purchased Tricool fans as inward fans to take in air. And I have sort of meshed square openings where fans can be positioned inside the case (see image below) and also positioned where the two pre-installed case fans are. I picked up my case for about £50 and it has a pretty airy design, might help if your case isn't great for air circulation.

I have no idea that any of the stuff you just mentioned exists, but that sounds awesome. Monsters off though, oh...

Hey Emasher since you seem to be up for hosting mind telling us all your server details and adding me to your whitelist? Could be some good Friday fun. Been a while since I've been on Minecraft, I'd be up for it. My username is Sheikah.

Yeah I should note my case has 4 fans in it on top of the PSU cooler.

You have my full support. Catch those ignorant bastards and turn their arses in. So ridiculous that people think GM is any worse for people than regular crops. The risk of human gene transfer is no greater than regular crops (extremely low anyway given food has to go through your stomach and gut first). It's ironic that the same morons that are ignorant about science with regards to GM wouldn't think twice about accepting the output of other scientific discoveries like antibiotics (because that obviously just comes from trees). Even more ridiculous when you consider we have been artificially rounding up the genes we want through selective breeding for centuries.

It might be worth trying torture tests in Prime95 if it's less stressful than the Intel test, yet will still probably be higher than anything games will throw at you. At 4.2GHz my Ivy i5 3570K was getting to the mid 70s which I think is probably ok, so long as it stabilises. Some motherboards have a Dr Debug or similar, basically an LED with 2 digits that can tell you what is wrong with your system. If you have that (newer mobos often do) it'd be worth checking it when it starts looping.

Hmm that fan should be sufficient, I have the CoolerMaster Hyper 212 Evo which is fairly similar in performance to yours. Your temperatures shouldn't really be that high for a 4.5GHz clock on a 2500K, although 81C is still passable. The Noctua NH-D14 is supposed to be a big step up in terms of fan cooling but it is a huge beast, probably best to check dimensions of it with your case before purchasing. Check you haven't upped voltage too much when overclocking your processor, that can cause serious overheating. Also you can change LLC from 1 to 5, so perhaps you're on the best setting.

Hey, I recently got a pretty similar setup about a week ago (i5 ivy, 7850 twin frozr) and overclocked it so might be able to help. Did you try update your BIOS? Sometimes updated versions may be better at handling overclocking. You could also try search your exact motherboard model plus the term overclocking and see what settings people tend to use, that's what I did for my Asrock Z77 Extreme4. Important thing to check would be PSU cooler - if it's possible to boot after doing a milder overclock, run Prime95 and see whether your processor is pushing 85C+. Maybe also check nothing came loose in your case (or cables). Seems to be the most common cause for things, I scratched my head for a while after setting my PC up before realising my GPU wasn't slotted all the way down. Power supply leads like to slip out now and again if I move my PC about too vigorously because I made my wires pretty taut to avoid clutter. One thing that tends to happen while not running anything intensive is that the clock speed reverts to something low to lower power consumption. Prime95 would show you that anyhow by pushing your PC so you'll see your actual current clock rate. I should imagine a 700W PSU should be fine (same as me), but yeah I have never heard of that brand. Although surely an overclock does not consume too much more power? If it works with a base clock processor then that's odd.

I was on Windows 7 32 bit at the time, since upgraded to a new PC with 64 bit but not tested yet. Sure it will work though.

I got a cheap Tesco own brand for a few pounds, worked decently. Didn't cut out or anything so I assume the technology is fairly consistent across brands. Maybe just better range with the more expensive models?

Of course not, he's him. I don't see any reason to cheer on a company when it breaks into the casual market, a market I do not belong to, and at the same time focusing less on making games I like. In fact, I wouldn't say any of us here are part of the casual market, yet we should be impressed with Nintendo? Ok... I like a company when it gives me games like, but if that changed I wouldn't stick with them like some deranged fanboy. What's the sense in backing a company because they were really great back in 1998? Maybe I'm being harsh, I dunno. Just seems really silly to me. You guys posting that you are bored; seriously? You are both regulars on the Wii forums, surely you have a much higher boredom threshold than this? (ooh, burn).

Read it again, it's exactly what you said. Not to get sidelined with little projects. You forget though. Unlike with new games, HD remakes do not use up the original development team. Therefore they can be made in coexistence with new game development, whereas a new game may well stop another being made simultaneously (except huge developers). That's the massive flaw in your argument. This is a stupid response and doesn't really add any information to prove your point. It would be like me telling you that because I am doing a PhD I am instantly smarter than you and therefore you are automatically wrong. Stick to the facts. Because you complained about poor sales potential. I list 1 million sales, then you find fault with it. Not my issue if Nintendo don't wish to port out their games to other consoles to increase sales potential. Plus, third parties that commission HD remakes may opt to put it on Wii and other consoles. So it's perfectly relevant to list the MGS HD collection. Then focus on sales. 1 million sales is good, better than some new games. Also focus on the fact that the game content remains static, that they need to redo textures and whatnot but not really much else. Sure, we have no other figures. But you're using the fact we have no profit figures to your advantage, even though you know if you used half your brain you could see it's going to made decent profit. You're a smart chap, you can see that a game that makes more sales than a new title, and requires far less production work and no use of the in-house devs, is going to make a decent profit in comparison. Again, blame Nintendo if they won't release titles multiformat. Or rely on third parties who will release on other consoles too. Which is why I find it odd you list CoD as your example lower down for profit margins. :p Sure, no other game series is going to make profit like it, making it a rather ridiculous example in my opinion. Extrapolate sales. If MGS HD collection has better sales than some games, it has done better. Because we categorically know it will have had lower costs because of the lower development cost of a game where you're simply visually improving. Very sad, in my opinion. They are a business, they care about your money. To have allegiance with them over their business strategy is kinda strange. Should have been in originally. Devs should not have to make another engine to run Wii games. Wii should have made it easy for them. Again, I would consider CoD and some other select titles a massive exception. Their games sell like probably nothing else. If we're talking standard fare, I think HD collections do pretty well in comparison.

Bollocks! Look at what you said last time: "Will focus its efforts on the big prize and not sideline projects" That is clearly getting across that you think they shouldn't bother with smaller profit projects, and instead focus on bigger titles. Don't bother arguing with this one, no matter what you actually meant that is certainly what came across in your wording. Come on. You really think this is so costly? Especially given these can have a limited print run and just pawn the rest off through digital downloads. If it dug so much into the profits, again, they wouldn't be comissioned. And do you really think there is one marketing team who can only focus on releasing one game at a time? Again, naive misconceptions. Uh oh, backtracking time! Here come your excuses. :p You've been bleating on about how these 'in your opinion' have little profit potential and are therefore not worth it, and complaining about my lack of proof. I give you proof, and you've now got other problems. Have you forgotten that Nintendo were outselling PS3/360 by a long shot around when it was released? By that standard, you might expect the fact they only sell on their own console to be trivial given that they have great sales potential anyway. Either way, this is concrete proof of the old saying 'money for old rope'. You'd be mad to carry on arguing the potential for money to be made from these. Bwahaha. Sorry, do continue. Ok, that's it. You are flagrantly either trolling or being stupid here, I am not sure which. To comment that a re-release that potentially has £30 million turnover might equate to a flop or mild success at best is...ridiculous. These are not big budget titles, they are low cost, high return outsourced projects (usually). They are turned around rapidly. From a business standpoint, they can be quite lucrative. Yes, I state turnover. This is because like with any game, we'll never know the profit they make because they aren't likely to tell us the costs. But you can easily work out that a game with £30 million turnover is going to make some serious profit, unless you hired the Queen herself to hand package the discs in 24 carat gold boxes for you. Of course, because we can't know how much profit they made unless they disclosed their costs. Is this a slow day for you? Again, no sense being made. Why state a comment about the Vita having a poor launch and follow up with 'just a joke, really'. You either mean it or you don't. Do you retract it or stand by it? *reads on* Ah, ok, stands by it. 3DS was one of the worst launches I can actually remember. It gathered dust for a crazy amount of time before I really played anything that decent. And even now, it is severely lacking in titles. Sure, Vita may go down a dark path, and it wouldn't surprise me that it is losing money given its specification. The PS3 lost money for a while, but that is an excellent console technically speaking in contrast to the profit cash cow, the Wii. Long story short, the profit margins of a console mean fuck all to me as a consumer, I'm much more interested in the technology and future games potential. Both of which I feel the Vita has over the 3DS. I don't understand why you keep stressing this when it is usually impossible to know the profit of game sales without companies releasing costs (like they would). At best, we have sales, and 1 million sales for old games is brilliant. Yes, we know turnover (roughly), but you can extrapolate this somewhat, factoring in that profit would obviously be lower than this but obviously not massively less. Especially when these tend to have lower than normal print runs. Can I ask why? This just seems like strange fanboy pride. I'm not interested in the achievements of a company, especially when the result of them tends to be a far lesser focus on the kinds of games that interest me. It'd be like me pretending I was happy that Microsoft have done well with Kinect, fianancially speaking, even though I hate Kinect. We're not financially invested in the company so this seems pretty bizarre. Look at the most popular games lots of people play. Call of Duty, GTA, Street Fighter, Final Fantasy, Mass Effect. Either they didn't come to the Wii or if they did, were heavily gimped. If they could have done because the Wii was on a level field, then theoretically there's no reason why third parties wouldn't have released on the Wii as well as every other console / PC that was up to running it. Equally, people may have then bought the games for the Wii. It's a two-way street. You can't blame third parties for not publishing the games people want on the Wii, when the Wii couldn't even handle them at a similar level to the other consoles. I had a problem instantly as I already had a HDTV hooked up to a games console via HDMI. Different people, different observations. Either way, whether you were satisfied or not at launch is somewhat irrelevant, because the choice they went with meant no HD for the life of the console. Again, when companies can't port over games that they're already releasing on PS3, 360 and PC then the fault is clearly with Nintendo and their console. Why on Earth are you blaming publishers for not going heavily out of their way to adapt their games for Wii? Had Nintendo made a better console, there's every chance they would have seen a lot of decent titles we enjoy on the HD consoles. A lot of the titles are on the VC already. In order for there to be a big enough difference from the VC versions, I'd say a HD remake is required. Really, there wouldn't be much improvement I'll bet using emulation as you're really not doing anything about crappy non-HD textures. People may buy emulated versions but I'd wager there'd be a lot more appeal in properly remade titles. Actually, these people with disposable income will likely buy both. Like you say, they have disposable income. If people really want certain games, they will probably buy them at some point. If they weren't reasonably profitable they wouldn't keep be being made. Must have said that about 20 times now, but it still rings true. You don't know how much big titles cost to develop either relative to the profit they make. So how can you argue one type of game has poor profit margins relative to another while knowing nothing? 1 million sales. But ok. Show me the time, costs of development and profit generated for big titles.

How do you think a 'vast company' makes money? Putting all their eggs in one basket - ie. with a Zelda title that is released, what, every 4-5 years? Of course not. They have already demonstrated this with the virtual console that they aren't just about one hit wonders. It's such a silly thing to say that Nintendo will or should focus only on 'big projects'. For a start, they wouldn't really be focusing on HD remakes as another company would be. Secondly, they can do both. They can make their games, and have others make games for them. Whatever way you spin it, my proposed outcome means more money in the bank for them, more happy shareholders, more happy customers. Nintendo are a big company, correct. Which is why it would be foolish to limit themselves to long turn around, high budget games. These sorts of games are cheaply made, don't eat into their resources, and definitely return profit. And because you're being belligerent about proof, here's some evidence that the metal gear solid HD collection sold over 1 million units (although this article is outdated): http://www.msxbox-world.com/news/article/18371/metal-gears-strong-sales-make-a-good-case-for-hd-collection-remakes.html Over 1 million units, let's say at £30 each (factoring in regions). £30 million. Now let's bear in mind that they have to publish the game and get someone to develop it, but really, all the content is the same and they simply need to give it a HD makeover. Not bad for £30 million turnover eh? And mark my words, they pump these games out like there's no tomorrow; they obviously don't take that long to put together. End of discussion regarding this as far as I'm concerned. Just listen to what you're saying. It's ridiculous. It's absurd that you're even trying to value the impact of a 'few million' here or there, it's not a tangible amount of money that you are likely to ever appreciate and certainly you wouldn't know whether it is of value to them or not. Don't try to act like you know what you're talking about with sales, neither you nor I have the faintest clue. All we know is these games turn profit (at least in the case of MGS, good profit). Why say that if not to be taken seriously? Ok, let's take it semi-seriously as no doubt you wouldn't have said it otherwise. Vita's launch absolutely shattered the lacklustre 3DS launch. Without doubt. I actually enjoyed the games that came with the Vita, they were pretty good. Some awesome. As for what you think about the launch, it doesn't change the fact that they hire people that actually know marketing and sales, unlike you who is basically, without anything other than hunch, judging the games as 'not so great 'sales-wise'. It's evidence in itself. Tell me, why would they continue to release games at a loss? After the first 1, maybe 2, they would realise that they are not making money, or at least not enough to be worth the trouble. Your evasion of this point is laughable, if not bizarre, as it really is so smack-in-your-face common sense that it's frankly shocking that I keep having to spell this one out to you. No. See above example. I'm sure they make a good profit just fine. Why do you keep forcing strange choices? There is no choice. Nintendo wouldn't even handle the HD remakes, so you'd have both games to play. Your argument is to have a mainstream title, my argument is to have both mainstream titles and HD remakes. Oh, and mainstream can go fuck itself. A lot of mainstream games are pants. My unit is one of them. Except it's not sighing in disagreement, it's sighing because it hasn't been used in ages. Ask yourself, would casual gamers have been put off if the console were it graphically comparable, and perhaps initially cost £50+ more? Absolutely not, as proven when it was released by people clamouring to get hold of it and paying over-the-top prices on Amazon and eBay. They undersold themselves by excluding certain features and losing a certain audience. Yes, it's a very successful console in that it broke into a new market. But in many respects, it lost a large number of previously Nintendo-dedicated followers (if not in console sales, as we all initially rushed out to buy the console, at least in long-term game sales) which in my eyes is part failure. The Wii has for the past few years dried up in terms of decent games, with the odd exception such as Xenoblade here and there. As I wouldn't consider myself a casual gamer, as should no one else on this forum realistically, its success with the casual market is neither here nor there. Lack of HD textures would look bad, they really should remake the games. It wouldn't look very good for a lot of games - if you're not going to bother to do it properly, you may as well not bother at all. And you know Nintendo, they like to trickle feed content to you, so the time spent remaking games in HD wouldn't really be an issue. They can turn typical few pound sales into tens of pound sales with a decent job, and generally much greater appeal to gamers. You missed the part where I asked why you thought third parties would be peeved with HD remakes when you have called the remakes niche and not producing decent sales. Just interested, y'know.

Sorry I think it's prepurchase only to play online in the beta now. But you may as well buy it, not much for an MMORPG to be honest.

The beta events take place when they announce and for one weekend per event. To get on you pretty much need to prepurchase. They've had one beta weekend so far which was 3 weeks ago, and an intelligent guess is that another will be next weekend (because last time they did a beta weekend 2 weeks after a stress test, and they just did a stress test a week ago). I'd imagine it'll be released after one more beta weekend. Can't wait.

Just nerf the settings to minimum, you'll be fine. C'mon, let's roll.

I would hardly call them very different kinds, most HD remakes fall in a level middle by including HD textures, some additional features like widescreen and perhaps some control changes and bonus content. Which to be honest, is all you need if the original game was very good.

For shame, how could you forget Banko Kazooie and Tooie? :p Metal gear solid HD collection ICO and SotC Sly Trilogy God of War Collection 1 God of War Collection 2 Prince of Persia trilogy Final Fantasy X I believe is being remade Certainly more, can't think of them off the top of my head.

Still doesn't make sense! Profit = better than no profit. HD remake = profit HD remake = done by another company, therefore not using up house resources. Why are you still not getting this? And you have absolutely no evidence, just opinion that these are 'not worth the effort'. Obviously Sony, who comission these, know a shedload more about business than you do or likely ever will. No, just you are. Obviously the titles make profit else they wouldn't keep making them. No...this stops now. Seriously. There have been enough HD remakes comissioned, which is all the evidence needed to state that these are profitable else why would they be continue to be made? Blah, it's like arguing with a brick wall here. Counter common sense. Really...so you now admit they're profitable, yet continue to push home the point about them being a bad idea? Perplexing... And yet, bemusingly, you continue to argue the flawed point that HD remakes would have little market/interest. I think that's another naive opinion. The choice they made back then was to stay with the console for the rest of its life, one that has undeniably made the console appear aged before its time. A huge lack of foresight on Nintendo's behalf, in my opinion. I'm sorry, but once you are used to HD it looks turd. There's no 'it's not so bad' to it, it's simply not the same standard and no amount of smoothing or gloss can raise it close to the level that the average PC, 360, or PS3 gamer is accustomed to. As I don't believe they will have a decent, structured online system and amazing third party support. ie., I don't believe Nintendo will do a lot of things they should. But hey, that leaves a lot of room to be surprised. It's weird, you argued something at the beginning of this paragraph then completely destroyed said argument for me at the end, so I don't have to say anything. :p Thanks Trust me, they make profit. They wouldn't continue to be comissioned otherwise (about the 7th time I have said this?) Rubbish, Nintendo are not spending above their means so they will always have cash to spend on something that will return profit. Plus they don't have to make the games themselves! Win win... Wait...you mean third parties will have to make great games to make us buy them instead of HD remakes? And hang on! You just said you weren't convinced of sales of HD remakes! How would games with little interest / sales potential annoy third party sellers or make them think their sales are being stolen? I think your argument has crumbled. ;-) More money to be made releasing each game and charging £20 I'd say... As long as they continue to make their own games, I don't see a problem. It doesn't make sense, really, why shareholders would not like profit on something that the company are not making themselves. It's commission work, it brings in more money than is spent.

In all honesty, the picture of her that you've painted is that she's horrid. She sounds like she cares more about material possessions than she does about you, and seems to be lacking half a brain when it comes to managing finances and being considerate. I honestly couldn't imagine being with someone so utterly selfish (oh wait, actually I've been there!) If that's truly how she is behaving, I'd say getting a divorce might be the answer. Especially because the problems seem so deep rooted in her beliefs and personality, rather than anything she could commit to change.