Orderd a new Dell XPS, wondering what my fps will be ?

[Drackard]

Hey Guys, for the past 3 years ive been playing on a bad computer which gave me an average fps of 30 on everything, so you can imagine how i felt when hl2 was released and css etc etc ...

However all that is about to change i hope, i just ordered a Dell XPS costing me £1463.

Specs :

Intel Pentium 4 with HT Technology 3.20 ghz
1024gb DDR2 Dual Channel Ram
ATI X850XT Platinum Edition PCI-E 256mb

I was just wondering what my average fps will be in games powered by the source engine roughly ??

 

[DiSTuRbEd]

Who knows what it will be....Each pc is different.

Probably over 60fps.

 

[sinkoman]

*sigh*

They got another chief.

Anyway, you'll see ok FPS. That x850 is an excellent card, but that processor is not excellent. It's good, but now awesome.

When you figure that HL2 is VERY processor dependent, you've got your bottleneck right there!

 

[OD-Black_Fire]

Highest settings, and very high resolution. I have just a SLIGHTLY faster PC and hardly ever go under 70.

 

[63]

Dell Hell.

 

[NJspeed]

You'll be able to play it maxxed out with a good frame rate... no problem. I just got a new Dell 9100 with similar specs, yours is slightly better... but I already play it maxxed out in the highest resolution.

(BTW Half Life 2 is more Graphics Card dependant than CPU, so whoever said the opposite.. your wrong)

Do what I did, shop around and find a used monitor that supports 2048x1536 so you can play Half Life 2 in it's full glory. I got a $1200 21" monitor for $105. (albeit 3-4 years old but so what - still beats most new ones)

Anyway even if you gotta spend a few hundred, get a HUGE monitor like 21-24" and you'll be happy as hell. Don't get an LCD, their colors are good... BUT.. their resolution sucks, they have ghosting, and the space between pixels is larger than on a CRT. Plus due to most peoples lack of knowledge on the subject, CRTs are pretty cheap nowadays. "OOOh thinner and newer with barely prettier colors it must be better!" NOT.

Oh and theres no reason to upgrade to 4gigz of ram.. lol.. save your money and buy that huge monitor.

 

[Link]

...BTW Half Life 2 is more Graphics Card dependant than CPU, so whoever said the opposite.. your wrong...

No one said that. What sinkoman said was that HL2 is very processor dependant, meaning that no matter how fast your GPU is, the CPU can and will hold it back if its not up to the job.

Make sure you read peoples posts properly before you troll...

 

[sinkoman]

(BTW Half Life 2 is more Graphics Card dependant than CPU, so whoever said the opposite.. your wrong)

I never said that it's more CPU dependant than GPU dependant, I just said that it's very CPU dependant and that his CPU will bottleneck the rest of his system.

Ask anybody around here, I think most will agree that he'll need a better CPU to push his video card to the limit.

And i'd really like to see you back up your "oppinion" that HL2 is more GPU dependant than CPU.

When a grenade goes off in a pile of boxes, it's not your GPU that'll be sweating, it'll be your CPU. Your GPU doesn't pump out the physics engine calculations and such.

Please, don't just go round telling people that they're "wrong" when you're not touting reasonable/any proof.

EDIT: And i'm curious where you got your info that a bigger CRT monitor is better than a bigger LCD monitor. Most 19" LCD's have a viewable equivelant to a 21" CRT, and most 17" LCD's have a 19" viewable compared to a CRT.

So, buying a 19" LCD is not just going by the logic of "OOH It's thinner and prettier, it must be better!". Buying a CRT, IMHO, is kinda like saying "OOH it's bigger, must be better".

If you're gaming on your CRT though, that's a whole 'nother story...

Also, you wont get any "ghosting" on your LCD if you've read proper reviews before going out and buying. Head on down to Tomshardware.com and check out their monitor reviews, you'll see what I mean.

And "space between pixels"? HEH?

 

[NJspeed]

Hey I'm not trying to start a flame war here, just give him some good advice.

I did mistake your post for saying it's more CPU than GPU dependant, my apologizies for that. Your right about what you said, but I still believe it's more Graphics Card than CPU because you can have a crappy CPU and a good graphics card and HL2 will look and run great. I used to run it in 1600x1200 almost maxxed out (with no AA) with merely a 2ghz PC and a Radeon 9800 Pro 128 OC. I don't think the same could be said if you had a 2.8ghz processor and a GEforce4.

Don't get me wrong, I like LCDs and have a nice one in my office. However at home for gaming, I use a 21" CRT.

As for the differences between CRTs and LCDs, I'm not the one who needs to read up on the differences. Yeah, space between pixels - its called "Aperture Grill Pitch" and on mosts CRTs its .22mm or .24mm. Thats .22 or .24 millimeters between pixels. Standard LCDs that the average person can afford have an aperture grill pitch of .28mm unless you go extremely expensive. Thats about a 20% bigger space between pixels. I was just trying to put that into laymans terms. LCDs resolution is also weaker than large CRTs, even $600 LCDs can't go over 1600x1200. Yeah 1600x1200 is fine enough for most people, and that's great. However if your an extreme gamer with an extremely fast system like he described above, the only way your going to play HL2 at or near the max resolution of 2048x1536 is with a big CRT. I didn't say they are better in every respect, but for a high end system you can get a really nice CRT for cheap. The reason you can get them cheap is that the huge demand for LCDs makes CRTs cheaper, and they ARE better - for intense graphics and gaming anyway. If you just need space, or you need colors over huge resolutions and the sharpest possible graphics, LCDs are great! On the other hand, when you have an extreme CPU and graphics card, it's the LCD that can be a bottleneck because you can never see what your PC is truly capable of. Anyway someone might just thank me for this information and go buy a large CRT today, who knows...

Anyway like I said, I wasn't in either of my posts trying to start a flame war.

 

[Drackard]

Thanks for the info guys, sounds like im going to be enjoying some good gameplay experiences now on pc, as atm i play with an fps of 30 and have never had the money to get a computer like the one im waiting to turn up now, its like a dream come true to have a decent fps for me lol ... even if that does sound sad, ah well ...

 

[Ennui]

You'll enjoy it... but AMD > Intel

 

[Drackard]

Yeah i know, i will upgrade when ive paid off the pc lol .... 1 step at a time eh

 

[Da-Muffin-Man]

You wont be able to upgrade to an AMD processor though, unless you got a whole new mobo

 

[ricera10]

You wont be able to upgrade to an AMD processor though, unless you got a whole new mobo

I don't even know if Dell has standard issue mobos...they're probably modified I think (well what I gathered when I opened up my Dell 8300)

 

[DiSTuRbEd]

Same price probably could've gotten you an Area 51 Alienware pc that has the option for FX processor

 

[Drackard]

Didn't want the Area 51, and i knew i will have to get a new mobo if i wanted an amd

 

[sinkoman]

Hey I'm not trying to start a flame war here, just give him some good advice.

I did mistake your post for saying it's more CPU than GPU dependant, my apologizies for that. Your right about what you said, but I still believe it's more Graphics Card than CPU because you can have a crappy CPU and a good graphics card and HL2 will look and run great. I used to run it in 1600x1200 almost maxxed out (with no AA) with merely a 2ghz PC and a Radeon 9800 Pro 128 OC. I don't think the same could be said if you had a 2.8ghz processor and a GEforce4.

Don't get me wrong, I like LCDs and have a nice one in my office. However at home for gaming, I use a 21" CRT.

As for the differences between CRTs and LCDs, I'm not the one who needs to read up on the differences. Yeah, space between pixels - its called "Aperture Grill Pitch" and on mosts CRTs its .22mm or .24mm. Thats .22 or .24 millimeters between pixels. Standard LCDs that the average person can afford have an aperture grill pitch of .28mm unless you go extremely expensive. Thats about a 20% bigger space between pixels. I was just trying to put that into laymans terms. LCDs resolution is also weaker than large CRTs, even $600 LCDs can't go over 1600x1200. Yeah 1600x1200 is fine enough for most people, and that's great. However if your an extreme gamer with an extremely fast system like he described above, the only way your going to play HL2 at or near the max resolution of 2048x1536 is with a big CRT. I didn't say they are better in every respect, but for a high end system you can get a really nice CRT for cheap. The reason you can get them cheap is that the huge demand for LCDs makes CRTs cheaper, and they ARE better - for intense graphics and gaming anyway. If you just need space, or you need colors over huge resolutions and the sharpest possible graphics, LCDs are great! On the other hand, when you have an extreme CPU and graphics card, it's the LCD that can be a bottleneck because you can never see what your PC is truly capable of. Anyway someone might just thank me for this information and go buy a large CRT today, who knows...

Anyway like I said, I wasn't in either of my posts trying to start a flame war.

Ok ok, ya got me on the aperature grill sizes. Had no idea about that.

And as I said, if you're going to be doing intense gaming, CRT's will always be better.

But from how he was speaking of his system, it seemed to me like he was just getting a new PC and decided to keep the bits of CSS he played on the side in mind. In that case, i'd reccomend an LCD because they are much easier on the eyes.

As for the GPU dependancies, i'll respect your oppinion, but I ask, was it a 2.0 ghz AMD processor? If so, then that'd be somewhere around a 3000+, which is about the equivelant of a 3.2 ghz P4 (i'm going by my oppinion here, but it is about there).

 

[OmegaX]

Sorry to say, but Dells suck. For the price you paid for that you coulda got a WAY better PC.

 

[sinkoman]

Sorry to say, but Dells suck. For the price you paid for that you coulda got a WAY better PC.

SHH! DON'T TELL HIM!

But yeah, i've just been trying to keep it from you, so you don't feel like you wasted your money.

My PC is, in my oppinion, much better, and I only spent around 1,200 USD.

But then again, I reused both my CD rom drive and my DVD burner, my monitor, and my speakers.

 

[Asus]

Nice system. You should be able to do well above 60FPS depending on the resolution. What was your old PC specs like?
Just a tip, make sure your new PC isn't in a warm room and keep it off the floor.

 

[Drackard]

Dell sucks iyo, everyones view is different and they are entitled to it and i respect that, as for my old pc it was :

Intel Celeron 2.5
ATI X700 256mb AGP
768mb DDR Ram
80gb Maxtor HDD

 

[PainLord]

Ok ok, ya got me on the aperature grill sizes. Had no idea about that.

And as I said, if you're going to be doing intense gaming, CRT's will always be better.

But from how he was speaking of his system, it seemed to me like he was just getting a new PC and decided to keep the bits of CSS he played on the side in mind. In that case, i'd reccomend an LCD because they are much easier on the eyes.

As for the GPU dependancies, i'll respect your oppinion, but I ask, was it a 2.0 ghz AMD processor? If so, then that'd be somewhere around a 3000+, which is about the equivelant of a 3.2 ghz P4 (i'm going by my oppinion here, but it is about there).

I wouldn't say CRT is always better. The gap is closing between TFT and CRT . TFT's have just hit the 4ms response time. There is generally no ghosting on TFT's anymore, as lnog as they are 16ms response or below. I did switch from CRT to TFT and performance wise in games, it was exactly the same. No ghosting or anything. The only real problem they still have is that if it isnt run at its native res, the image looks shit.

 

[sinkoman]

I wouldn't say CRT is always better. The gap is closing between TFT and CRT . TFT's have just hit the 4ms response time. There is generally no ghosting on TFT's anymore, as lnog as they are 16ms response or below. I did switch from CRT to TFT and performance wise in games, it was exactly the same. No ghosting or anything. The only real problem they still have is that if it isnt run at its native res, the image looks shit.

You do understand that monitor manufacturers just slap a low MS refresh rate for more sales, and that it has virtually nothing to do with the actual refresh rate of the monitor.

Check out some monitor reviews on www.tomshardware.com and you'll see what I mean.

But yes, there are some monitors out there that do live up to their low MS refresh rates (Hyundai L90).

 

[PainLord]

I do. The 4ms ones arent that great. I'm just saying that the 4ms ones that will be good are not that far away. I have a Hyundai and it is great.