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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Dudes you're ****ing crazy.
I played the exact same game on an AMD 2600+ and RADEON 9000. When I play the game on PIII 450 mhz and Geforce FX5200 I can hardly tell the difference. Most of the time... it's the exact same experience. Only rarely does it slow down... I just played a bit and the only times it's a bit slow is after loading the level and when shell shock happens for the first time. After that it plays really well... I constantly look at the frame rate and most of the time it's between 15 and 24 frames per second. I'll bet you 10 bucks you can't tell the difference between 24 FPS and 60 FPS :P =D |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Skybuck Flying" wrote in message
... Dudes you're ****ing crazy. I played the exact same game on an AMD 2600+ and RADEON 9000. When I play the game on PIII 450 mhz and Geforce FX5200 I can hardly tell the difference. Most of the time... it's the exact same experience. Only rarely does it slow down... I just played a bit and the only times it's a bit slow is after loading the level and when shell shock happens for the first time. After that it plays really well... I constantly look at the frame rate and most of the time it's between 15 and 24 frames per second. I'll bet you 10 bucks you can't tell the difference between 24 FPS and 60 FPS :P =D I can when 24FPS looks like a smear and 60FPS is clear as crystal running FSAA and Aniso. It's a feeling too - low FPS tends to feel like it's dragging, and response feels slow. I spent ages messing with Far Cry because at 25FPS it felt wrong, there was a perceptible "lag" to the action. When I tweaked the settings to run at around 45FPS with still very good visual quality it felt quick and responsive. BTW, your comparison is badly flawed. The Radeon 9000 isn't much better than an FX5200. If you want to see the difference when playing these games you really need to see them on a card that actually show you the difference. Dan |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, please tell
"ec" wrote in message news:X8M3d.331474$sh.68086@fed1read06... "John" wrote in message ... Ok its not top of the line stuff but I think hes just trying to tell people with older coumputers that it will run at an acceptable frame rate in low detail. No need to bite the guys head off! You don't know his history. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"robin.gordon1" wrote in message ... where the hell did you get it. all my local shops etc.. tell me it hasn't been released yet and wont be until the end of October. HHmmmm Lol, what an unholy question man ! wise up Robin |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Spack" wrote in message . .. "Skybuck Flying" wrote in message ... Dudes you're ****ing crazy. I played the exact same game on an AMD 2600+ and RADEON 9000. When I play the game on PIII 450 mhz and Geforce FX5200 I can hardly tell the difference. Most of the time... it's the exact same experience. Only rarely does it slow down... I just played a bit and the only times it's a bit slow is after loading the level and when shell shock happens for the first time. After that it plays really well... I constantly look at the frame rate and most of the time it's between 15 and 24 frames per second. I'll bet you 10 bucks you can't tell the difference between 24 FPS and 60 FPS :P =D I can when 24FPS looks like a smear and 60FPS is clear as crystal running FSAA and Aniso. Duh... good point... both computers will have same visual settings ! It's a feeling too - low FPS tends to feel like it's dragging, and response feels slow. I spent ages messing with Far Cry because at 25FPS it felt wrong, there was a perceptible "lag" to the action. When I tweaked the settings to run at around 45FPS with still very good visual quality it felt quick and responsive. BTW, your comparison is badly flawed. The Radeon 9000 isn't much better than an FX5200. If you want to see the difference when playing these games you Exactly... that's the whole point of the comparision... to show that a slow CPU is good enough to play this game The graphic cards are nearly the same performance wise really need to see them on a card that actually show you the difference. Dan |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Oh yeah one more thing to report for historical reasons =D
I defragged my harddrive =D The loading still goes pretty... it does go a bit faster... but still much slower than on AMD 2600+ So my second guess is that decompressing the zip files (pk3's) requires lot's of CPU Bye, Skybuck. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"ec" wrote in message news:%It3d.318429$sh.42122@fed1read06... No one gives a ****. 15fps in a first person shooter btw is NOT acceptable. Your systems is crap and can't play any modern games with a damn. Eh... one more thing in case you haven't noticed I don't give a ****... that you don't give a **** =D |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Skybuck Flying" wrote in message
... BTW, your comparison is badly flawed. The Radeon 9000 isn't much better than an FX5200. If you want to see the difference when playing these games you Exactly... that's the whole point of the comparision... to show that a slow CPU is good enough to play this game The graphic cards are nearly the same performance wise No, your comparison merely shows that a slow card will hold back a fast processor. Dan |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Spack" wrote in message . .. "Skybuck Flying" wrote in message ... BTW, your comparison is badly flawed. The Radeon 9000 isn't much better than an FX5200. If you want to see the difference when playing these games you Exactly... that's the whole point of the comparision... to show that a slow CPU is good enough to play this game The graphic cards are nearly the same performance wise No, your comparison merely shows that a slow card will hold back a fast processor. Haha, too funny, the AMD 2600+ CPU is way too fast anyway for any game out there =D Skybuck. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Skybuck Flying" wrote in message ... "Spack" wrote in message . .. "Skybuck Flying" wrote in message ... BTW, your comparison is badly flawed. The Radeon 9000 isn't much better than an FX5200. If you want to see the difference when playing these games you Exactly... that's the whole point of the comparision... to show that a slow CPU is good enough to play this game The graphic cards are nearly the same performance wise No, your comparison merely shows that a slow card will hold back a fast processor. Haha, too funny, the AMD 2600+ CPU is way too fast anyway for any game out there =D I never said it wasn't. Do you even bother reading anything anyone writes in your distorted little world? Dan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Call of Duty Part 2 | Skybuck Flying | Nvidia Videocards | 0 | May 13th 04 11:45 AM |
Call of Duty ok. | Skybuck Flying | Nvidia Videocards | 0 | May 13th 04 11:01 AM |
The Constitution of the United States | SST | Overclocking AMD Processors | 66 | August 7th 03 05:05 PM |
The Constitution of the United States | SST | Ati Videocards | 64 | August 7th 03 05:05 PM |
The Constitution of the United States | SST | Nvidia Videocards | 65 | August 7th 03 05:05 PM |