Rooster90

There are no words to describe how much awesome that picture contains. XD

LOL!!! Evan from PCG would get a kick out of this. 10 bucks says its on the website before the weekend is over. XD Awesome work FP, you had us all fooled for sure.

You know I'm there Frenchie! I shall follow you to the very bitter end. Saturday night, we shall dine in hell!

I think the (1000:1) means that's the lowest contrast ratio it can use. Most monitors you can flip through different ratios, but most people will just stay at the max. I'm not too worried about pushing 1900x1200 for a native 16:10 ratio. It would just put more stress on my video card(s). If I can find a decent 1680x1050 that's new I'd be just as happy.

Really? That monitor looks pretty "meh" to me, lol. I bought my current one for like, 800 about 7 years ago and it's still going strong. That one has no back-lit LED, no HDMI, 5ms response time, and terrible washing issues with the bad viewing angles on that monitor. Pretty bloated price for what you're getting. This seems to be a better deal (to me at least). Only downside is the 16:9 ratio instead of 16:10. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001414

@Donzi: Already mentioned my rez in a previous post, but it is 1680x1050. I'm debating getting a new monitor too, since I'm actually getting around DOUBLE the money I thought I was from life insurance. But that is still in the air. If I did it would be no less than 19" (current size) but no more than 24". Don't have enough desk space for a big monitor, or two for that matter. @Batwing: I've tried using Vsync before and it seems to create even more framerate problems than it fixes. At least on my current machine it does. :/ But I definitely see your point, and that is something I aim for. Like I mentioned earlier, if I can be running BF3 with all or most of the fancy bells and whistles turned on and still get around 50 fps, I'll be sitting pretty. No need for ridiculous machines that get 100+ fps, lol. No point after 60. To also correct you on your film point, I shall clarify the standards (for American TV/film at least). Film is typically shot at about 24 fps. (25 in Europe, due to different electrical/frequency standards). The only time more frames are used are for some action sequences, usually at 60 fps to 120 fps. This gives the film a more "fast-paced" feel, and is also useful for slow-mo sequences, in which that 60-120 fps is stretched to a regular 24 fps, giving a "slow-mo" effect. TV, however, is filmed and broadcasted at 30 fps.

Batwing: No, I understand where you're coming from. I ask the tough questions to others because I already have a pretty good idea of what I want already, I just want to hear others' opinions too. I try and make the most informed decision possible, especially on an investment as big as this. i know chasing after the biggest and best is futile, especially in the age of technology we live in now. But I want to make this a proud and sound investment. I too look for the same price/performance ratio. I won't spend an extra 100-200 dollars for an increase in performance that I wouldn't even notice. I'm coming from an old dual core, 32 bit OS, 4 GB of RAM (can only access 3.25 of it), a 450GB HDD, and an Nvidia GTS 250. So yeah, just about any of the suggestions made here will make a world of difference to me. My main concern is just running BF3 And ArmA 2 at higher graphics levels (preferably the highest) at the highest rez my monitor can put out at decent framerates. If that can be achieved, I'll probably be more than happy with my new computer.

Thanks Batwing, very concise answer! Now for the million dollar question: If it were you, what would you choose? If you were making a ~$2k computer, which would you think is best? I've heard good things about OC-ing Sandy Bridge CPU's, but does Intel even have plans to continue making new cards with that architecture/socket? It would feel kind of pointless to buy a mobo that can accommodate that socket type and have no option to upgrade in the future.

Well, I'm usually not multitasking on my comp. If I was using this computer for video or music editing I would take that into consideration, but I already have a different computer for that. This computer is basically for straight gaming and web browsing. When I game I pretty much shut every unnecessary process down. At the most I'd have the game, Steam, and FRAPS open (and thats only if I feel like recording what I'm playing) plus all the random Windows processes that need to be running. I have Win 7, but I never run it in Aero. Looks neat, but hogs memory. Again, I'm more worried about a motherboard setup where I'll be able to get a higher performing CPU later on down the line. I really don't know much when it comes to mobo's and what to look for. All I know is that I want a slot that will be able to accommodate the best CPU that's out now (i7 980x/990) and have plenty of room for more RAM. I was looking at probably getting about 6 GB of DDR3 to start. What are some good brands/things I should look for in RAM? And has Intel released any information about their new chipset? If it's a new slot design, I'm assuming older CPU's won't work in them. :/ That i5 2500k does look tempting at that price point. I've been hearing a lot about this new "Sandy Bridge" design and haven't a clue what it means. Is there something special I should know about it when building a PC? Are there particular components/motherboards that work better with this new design, or is it just a name that I don't really have to worry about? EDIT: I just looked at the Tom's Hardware $2k "high-end" system. I could knock 230 bucks off of that build (about $1975 is what they used) just by dropping the 2 SSD's they put in there. Idk how much that would effect the overall system, but hey, could still be worth it. I'd still need to purchase Win 7 again in 64-bit (I unfortunately own the 32-bit) but $2k is closer to my original budget than $1k.

Ok, you guys are right. I contradicted myself a bit. I tend to exaggerate sometimes, I apologize, lol. My standards for a "Dream Machine" are probably a lot lower than most of you guys. That to me just means an upper-midrange computer that is upgradeable over the next couple of years as hardware becomes more affordable. I bought my current tower for 800 dollars and has lasted me nearly 3 years. The only games that are becoming demanding on my system (30 frames or less) are Bad Company 2, Dawn of War 2: Retribution, and obviously ArmA 2. It's gotten to a point where I'd basically be rebuilding my computer to meet today's standards anyways. I figured if I dropped twice as much money on my next tower, it would be worth the investment and last me longer. I'm used to playing all games around 40 frames, it would just be nice to play some brand new games at full res with 50-60 fps. Anything above 60 frames is pointless anyway, the human eye can't really even tell after that point and my monitor refreshes at 60hz anyways. (16:10 resolution. 19" 1680x1050) SSD's are not important to me at all. They don't have enough return on investment for me to justify their horribly high prices and low memory space. Maybe in a year or two when they're more reasonably priced. Getting a 6 or 8 core processor isn't important to me either. Again, great performance, but way too pricey. However, a motherboard with the same slot as some of the i7 980/990 but a slightly lower tier CPU in it would be fine. That would give me the option to upgrade later on when the newest stuff becomes affordable. Most games barely utilize 4 cores anyways. Hopefully that clears the air a bit and gives you more of an understanding of what I'm looking for. The only reason I say within the next 3-6 months is because idk when I'll be receiving my half of my mom's life insurance money. It could be next month for all I know, but I'm not getting my hopes up until I see it in my account.

Hey guys. In the next 3-6 months I'm likely to see a large influx of money coming my way. I've been thinking about purchasing a new computer this year and want this thing to be a bit of a dream machine. My end goal is to have it by fall at the latest, ready to run BF3 at max settings with 60+ frames. I know system specs have yet to be released, and probably won't be released for some time, but it's still running on the Frostbite 2 engine so I imagine the specs will be similar to BC2 with higher CPU and GPU requirements. I'd also like to be able to run ArmA2 a lot better than it is now. I don't want to drop HUGE dollars on this, but I'm looking to spend around the area of $1500-1700 on it. I've gone to CyberPowerPC.com in the past to build my last computer, but it seems they're consistently behind the ballgame in terms of the newest, best hardware out there. That, and their customer service and delivery times were excruciating at best. I've never built a computer on my own, piece-by-piece before, but I might be willing to try it. Or if somebody could point me in the right direction to somebody who does this for a living, I'd be more than happy to pay them. I already have an idea of cpu's and gpu's and RAM that I've researched on my own, but I want to hear what you all suggest I do at that price-point. I'm sure there's some of you that know a hell of a lot more than I do about computers as a whole and where to find the best prices. I just have an OK understanding of them. Build away!

LOL. Oh, Frank. What a douche. And don't worry, I'm pretty sure that mod comes pre-installed with all noob versions of ArmA2 now. XD

Haha! That's great.

Oops, sorry Zeno. Been playing too much Dawn of War. ("DIIIIEEEE XENOS!") lol. Fatal: I'd love to play sometime! I'm not the greatest, still trying to get used to the new balance changes (melee/swarm armies are ridiculous right now) but I've been going back to my roots and playing Space Marines again. I must say they are rather fun to use once more. Used to be an Eldar player, but they've been significantly nerfed as of late. Wanted to use a new army that wasn't Nids, Orks or Chaos which seem to be the armies of choice atm. I think that's an incredibly refreshing way to run a tac/realism team, especially with the amount of professionalism shown when in game. I suppose the "leaderless" approach does live up to Spartan tradition in some ways. I come from a gaming community as well where there aren't really "leaders" per se, just founders and senior members. It was fun for a time because we were very relaxed, no drama, just wanted to have fun, etc. However the founder (who became a rather good friend) has had different interests lately and has been bringing in ringers from other teams to allow B-Team to play in more professional leagues in Black Ops (ESL, MWT, CEVO). I'm not against it but he seemed to leave a lot of our original members in the dust for more "skilled" players, myself included. That, and I'm just plain bored with Black Ops.

Hey guys, just got all set up thanks to the help of Jeff and Xeno! Had a lot of fun running around and just learning the basics. Apparently Jeff says I'm a good shot, but I'm not so sure yet, haha. I'll have to test my mettle in a more difficult scenario or a full on assault in an AO. About Me Name: Sean Age: 20 Home: Minneapolis, MN USA Occupation(s): Work part-time at a gas station, interning at a music studio in St. Paul (went to school for audio production/engineering). I'm also currently serving in the US Army National Guard as a Cavalry Scout in the 1/34th "Red Bulls" Division. I wont give specific unit info unless asked personally in a less public discussion. My unit is deploying this May to Kuwait/Iraq to serve as convoy security for the draw-down in the theater. However, I'll be sitting this one out this time. I've got a child on the way and my mother just recently passed, so there's a lot of family affairs to take care of unfortunately. Game History I found you guys through the recent articles on PCGamer.com. I've been lurking them for some time and have watched all of the GR:IT conversion vids and was really impressed by what I saw. The kicker was when I saw Evan, my favorite writer, join up with you guys and have a blast. Most tac/realism teams I've come across in almost every FPS has been full of very bossy, pushy, unfriendly people. I saw something very different here, and it finally convinced me to buy ArmA2 + OA. I come from a history of twitchy, fast-paced shooters, but have always enjoyed the tactical realism sub-groups found within those games. I've played everything from CS 1.6, to CoD:UO, BF2, BFBC2, Black Ops, and everything in-between. Technically, I'm still currently a senior member of B-Team Gaming community, but they've been rather distant lately and I probably wont play with them much until BF3 comes around. Their focus is scrimming in Black Ops and playing APB:Reloaded, neither of which appeal to me in the least anymore. I also have played a variety of RTS games, but don't get around to them as often as I used to. Lately I've been playing Dawn of War 2: Retribution. I own Starcraft 2, but I just can't keep up with the majority of players who play that game every day, lol. Other random games I play on occasion are League of Legends, Minecraft, Left 4 Dead 2, Civ 5, and BFBC:V. There's only a few games besides BF3 that show potential for me to purchase this year: Brink, Portal 2, and Red Orchestra 2. Well, I'll end this wall of text for now. I hope this to be the start of some great friendships! Hope to see you all soon on the virtual battlefield! -Rooster