If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end
I made a budget gaming computer -- AMD X2 Athlon 3600+ and 7600GT
(both overclocked). I ran Oblivion at playable framerates at almost maximum settings. My colleague says that his new computer with 8800GTS struggles to run Oblivion at maximum settings, and he wonders why I can ran it on my computer. I run Bioshock at maximum settings, and the game has no speed problems (that is, it runs at least at 20 fps). And yet the reviews show that the high-end cards (like 1950Pro and 7900GT) struggle to run the game at full settings. What is happening ? Maybe my GPU card is better what it is claimed to be (it is a grey import from China). The other consideration is that both mainboard and the GPU are from the same manufacturer, MSI, and the mainboard has an nVidia cheapset (like the videocard). Maybe the GPU and the mainboard have an improved compatibility, which results in an improved performance ? This looks less likely so, because I ran the tests Mark3D03 and Mark3D05. It came out that the unoverclocked computer had a performance at the bottom of the surveyed computer systems of the equal specifications. After overclocking, my computer performed the test very closely to the median of the similar systems they tested. That gives ? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end
In article .com,
Beladi Nasralla wrote: I made a budget gaming computer -- AMD X2 Athlon 3600+ and 7600GT (both overclocked). I ran Oblivion at playable framerates at almost maximum settings. My colleague says that his new computer with 8800GTS struggles to run Oblivion at maximum settings, and he wonders why I can ran it on my computer. I run Bioshock at maximum settings, and the game has no speed problems (that is, it runs at least at 20 fps). And yet the reviews show that the high-end cards (like 1950Pro and 7900GT) struggle to run the game at full settings. You don't mention the resolution at which you are running Bioshock vs the resolution at which your colleague is running it...? Perhaps you also have a different view of what 'no speed problems' are? While you may find Bioshock at 20fps to be acceptable, your colleague may have a different view, and may find 30fps to be totally unacceptable...? What is happening ? Maybe my GPU card is better what it is claimed to be (it is a grey import from China). The other consideration is that both mainboard and the GPU are from the same manufacturer, MSI, and the mainboard has an nVidia cheapset (like the videocard). Maybe the GPU and the mainboard have an improved compatibility, which results in an improved performance ? I don't think that changes much, if anything. This looks less likely so, because I ran the tests Mark3D03 and Mark3D05. It came out that the unoverclocked computer had a performance at the bottom of the surveyed computer systems of the equal specifications. After overclocking, my computer performed the test very closely to the median of the similar systems they tested. That gives ? I think you're comparing apples to oranges... Try to find out what resolution other people (or the benchmark results you're comparing to) run at. I also have a P4-2400 system with a 7600GT. It was quite capable of running something like Half Life 2 or Bioshock at an acceptable framerate when I was still using a CRT, and used a resolution like 800x600 or 1024x768 with quite a lot of the eye-candy enabled. However, when I switched to a TFT, with a native resolution of 1680x1050, I noticed this system had considerable problems rendering all these pixels with the same quality settings I used before. Regards, Patrick. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end
On Oct 19, 5:45 pm, Patrick Vervoorn
wrote: In article .com, Beladi Nasralla wrote: I made a budget gaming computer -- AMD X2 Athlon 3600+ and 7600GT (both overclocked). I ran Oblivion at playable framerates at almost maximum settings. My colleague says that his new computer with 8800GTS struggles to run Oblivion at maximum settings, and he wonders why I can ran it on my computer. I run Bioshock at maximum settings, and the game has no speed problems (that is, it runs at least at 20 fps). And yet the reviews show that the high-end cards (like 1950Pro and 7900GT) struggle to run the game at full settings. You don't mention the resolution at which you are running Bioshock vs the resolution at which your colleague is running it...? I run it with the resolution 1440x900. This is about 1.3 MP. This is also the amount of pixels in the 1240x1024 screen which had been de- facto for LCD screens. When I was buying my LCD, I did not pay much attention to th eresolution, and bought what I have now; I was later sorry that I did not instist when dealing with the salesperson, and did not get a 1650x1050 screen. It has 1.6 MP. But there is a positive side to it, too. With a 1650x1050 screen, my games would run 20% slower than now ith a 1440x900 screen... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end
In article .com,
Beladi Nasralla wrote: On Oct 19, 5:45 pm, Patrick Vervoorn wrote: You don't mention the resolution at which you are running Bioshock vs the resolution at which your colleague is running it...? I run it with the resolution 1440x900. This is about 1.3 MP. This is also the amount of pixels in the 1240x1024 screen which had been de- facto for LCD screens. When I was buying my LCD, I did not pay much attention to th eresolution, and bought what I have now; I was later sorry that I did not instist when dealing with the salesperson, and did not get a 1650x1050 screen. It has 1.6 MP. But there is a positive side to it, too. With a 1650x1050 screen, my games would run 20% slower than now ith a 1440x900 screen... Yes, and now find out at what resolution your colleague is running, and only then can you make a meaningful comparison between your system and his... Regards, Patrick. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end
In article .com,
Beladi Nasralla says... I made a budget gaming computer -- AMD X2 Athlon 3600+ and 7600GT (both overclocked). I ran Oblivion at playable framerates at almost maximum settings. My colleague says that his new computer with 8800GTS struggles to run Oblivion at maximum settings, and he wonders why I can ran it on my computer. I run Bioshock at maximum settings, and the game has no speed problems (that is, it runs at least at 20 fps). And yet the reviews show that the high-end cards (like 1950Pro and 7900GT) struggle to run the game at full settings. What is happening ? You're running the game using DirectX 9 and he's running the game running DirectX 10. If he forced the game to run in DirectX 9, it'd trounce yours. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end
In article , Patrick
Vervoorn says... Yes, and now find out at what resolution your colleague is running, and only then can you make a meaningful comparison between your system and his... Irrelevent. His friend is running DirectX 10. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end
On Oct 19, 11:29 pm, Patrick Vervoorn
wrote: In article .com, Beladi Nasralla wrote: On Oct 19, 5:45 pm, Patrick Vervoorn wrote: You don't mention the resolution at which you are running Bioshock vs the resolution at which your colleague is running it...? I run it with the resolution 1440x900. This is about 1.3 MP. This is also the amount of pixels in the 1240x1024 screen which had been de- facto for LCD screens. When I was buying my LCD, I did not pay much attention to th eresolution, and bought what I have now; I was later sorry that I did not instist when dealing with the salesperson, and did not get a 1650x1050 screen. It has 1.6 MP. But there is a positive side to it, too. With a 1650x1050 screen, my games would run 20% slower than now ith a 1440x900 screen... Yes, and now find out at what resolution your colleague is running, and only then can you make a meaningful comparison between your system and his... He is running 800x600 on his CRT... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end
Beladi Nasralla wrote:
That gives ? Yes, different PC configurations have different performance profiles. This confuses you? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Patrick Vervoorn
wrote: In article .com, Beladi Nasralla wrote: I made a budget gaming computer -- AMD X2 Athlon 3600+ and 7600GT (both overclocked). I ran Oblivion at playable framerates at almost maximum settings. My colleague says that his new computer with 8800GTS struggles to run Oblivion at maximum settings, and he wonders why I can ran it on my computer. I run Bioshock at maximum settings, and the game has no speed problems (that is, it runs at least at 20 fps). And yet the reviews show that the high-end cards (like 1950Pro and 7900GT) struggle to run the game at full settings. You don't mention the resolution at which you are running Bioshock vs the resolution at which your colleague is running it...? Perhaps you also have a different view of what 'no speed problems' are? While you may find Bioshock at 20fps to be acceptable, your colleague may have a different view, and may find 30fps to be totally unacceptable...? What is happening ? Maybe my GPU card is better what it is claimed to be (it is a grey import from China). The other consideration is that both mainboard and the GPU are from the same manufacturer, MSI, and the mainboard has an nVidia cheapset (like the videocard). Maybe the GPU and the mainboard have an improved compatibility, which results in an improved performance ? I don't think that changes much, if anything. This looks less likely so, because I ran the tests Mark3D03 and Mark3D05. It came out that the unoverclocked computer had a performance at the bottom of the surveyed computer systems of the equal specifications. After overclocking, my computer performed the test very closely to the median of the similar systems they tested. That gives ? I think you're comparing apples to oranges... Try to find out what resolution other people (or the benchmark results you're comparing to) run at. I also have a P4-2400 system with a 7600GT. It was quite capable of running something like Half Life 2 or Bioshock at an acceptable framerate when I was still using a CRT, and used a resolution like 800x600 or 1024x768 with quite a lot of the eye-candy enabled. However, when I switched to a TFT, with a native resolution of 1680x1050, I noticed this system had considerable problems rendering all these pixels with the same quality settings I used before. Funny: I have a similar situation to what the person you replied to has. *My* computer has an AMD 2400+ with 1-gig (2 sticks) PC3200 memory in it and an ATI 2006 "All In Wonder" card running an LCD screen (using the VGA connector) at 1680x1050 pixels. I'm running memory-speed of 200mhz, FSB of 266, and 133 bus-speed. *The kid* has a different make (and supposedly much *faster*) motherboard, with matched 500meg (again, 1 gig) memory for 128-bit access instead of 64-bit like mine (it *requires* matched sticks). That PC has an AMD 2800+ CPU, and a later (supposedly faster) video board (also from ATI) without the extra bells and whistles of the AIW card. That system has a 21" monitor, which normally is run at 1600x1200. So ... You'd *expect* that the kid's computer would walk all over mine. Only instead, while playing World of Wonder, mine *screams* along at full resolution and all settings at max; while the kid's computer has to be backed-off in resolution and/or settings to get decent playing speed. Go figure. Sometime I'm going down there, taking along a copy of CPU-Z, and see if the kid's memory settings or something is off. No way should mine walk all over the kid's ... but it does. You'd think it would be the other way around. -- _____ / ' / â„¢ ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_ (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Conor
wrote: In article .com, Beladi Nasralla says... I made a budget gaming computer -- AMD X2 Athlon 3600+ and 7600GT (both overclocked). I ran Oblivion at playable framerates at almost maximum settings. My colleague says that his new computer with 8800GTS struggles to run Oblivion at maximum settings, and he wonders why I can ran it on my computer. I run Bioshock at maximum settings, and the game has no speed problems (that is, it runs at least at 20 fps). And yet the reviews show that the high-end cards (like 1950Pro and 7900GT) struggle to run the game at full settings. What is happening ? You're running the game using DirectX 9 and he's running the game running DirectX 10. If he forced the game to run in DirectX 9, it'd trounce yours. Hmmm ... Does DirectX 10 run under Win-XP? Both of our computers are still XP. (Wouldn't HAVE Vista!) If so, that might be the difference with mine as well. The kid might have that. So ... how do you (as you say) "force the game to run under DirectX 9"? I thought once you had an "upgrade" to DirectX installed, you couldn't pull it out without completely reinstalling Windows. I also thought the whole *idea* of "upgrading" DirectX was to get *faster* performance of video stuff, not slower. -- _____ / ' / â„¢ ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_ (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Will this budget gaming system do for me??? | Amolao | Homebuilt PC's | 1 | August 14th 05 09:24 PM |
Building budget gaming system,,please need opinions | Amolao | Asus Motherboards | 6 | August 13th 05 03:21 AM |
How to build a gaming machine with a tight budget? | Ivan | Overclocking | 9 | December 22nd 04 12:07 PM |
Pending configuration for budget gaming | Zigzag | Overclocking AMD Processors | 11 | May 27th 04 08:02 AM |
Pending configuration for budget gaming | Zigzag | AMD Thunderbird Processors | 11 | May 27th 04 08:02 AM |