will this be ok

|\/|oDdiC(_)$ · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by x84D80Yx
exactly what i was saying... its not your eye interpreting the fps. its the fuggin video card. now if your video card cant go 60+ fps but goes 20fps, you well certainly notice the diffrence.

with those numbers yes, but i still dont think i can notice the diff between 100FPS and 120 lol

iceman889 · Sep 22, 2003

alright here are some specs if you need more tell me what else i should tell you. (i feel like a 3yr old here

) Pentium 4, 3.06Ghz, and 511MB of RDRAM (which is just ram right?)

|\/|oDdiC(_)$ · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by iceman889
alright here are some specs if you need more tell me what else i should tell you. (i feel like a 3yr old here ) Pentium 4, 3.06Ghz, and 511MB of RDRAM (which is just ram right?)

LMAO o..................m..........................g.......................thats a beast

jsut get a new GFX card and your all set :E

|\/|oDdiC(_)$ · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by Ender01
Well, research, or no research, I cant tell the diff from 35 to 60.

i feel the same way. :cheers:

majestic-12 · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by |\/|oDdiC(_)$
for me, anythign above 40 FPS is good, after that you cant really tell the diff cause the human eye sees only around 30 FPS. SO anything higher jsut satisfies the soul :E
that is if its 40 FPS steady and never changing.

70... u cant tell the difference from then on, its VERY easy to spott the difference between 40 and 70 fps.

|\/|oDdiC(_)$ · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by majestic-12
70... u cant tell the difference from then on, its VERY easy to spott the difference between 40 and 70 fps.

i jsut said that if its 40 SOLID, then you cant tell the difference, because you cant tell what 40 FPS is, and if there are no slowdowns, then you can tell them either!

Homer · Sep 22, 2003

you people are just trying to justify your having wasted money on $500 video cards when it wont make a real difference anyway.

iceman889 · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by |\/|oDdiC(_)$
LMAO o..................m..........................g.......................thats a beast jsut get a new GFX card and your all set :E

well thats really ****in awesome to hear! Like you have no idea how much better that makes me feel. So which card should i get now?! with a good performance/cost ratio.

|\/|oDdiC(_)$ · Sep 22, 2003

this thread reminds me of my doom 3 alpha, i get 120 FPS running in the hallways, then when i get into a huge firefight with a bunch of monsters, my FPS falls down to like 30-45

lol, but thank god its jsut an alpha, and was meant to run on a GF FX, this when D3 does come out, it will be smoother :E

x84D80Yx · Sep 22, 2003

40 solid, well i think youll notice it being a bit jumpy :\ regardless. im not talking about it going from 40 to 60 to 40 to 60. im saying ...put a q3 game on 40fps max, play for a lil bit. then put it on 60 fps. and you will definately notice the diffrence because 60fps wouldnt be so slow. put it on 20fps max and youll be recreating matrix fight scenes :\

dis · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by Ender01
Well, research, or no research, I cant tell the diff from 35 to 60.

Here's a real easy way to tell the difference, and honestly, this is the only way I notice for the most part. Play a game in an area where you get 30 fps. Know keep looking in the direction that you get 30 fps and just swing your mouse around in circles very fast. now do the same thing in an area wher you get 60 fps. In the latter, your mouse movement and the corresponding motion on the screen will be infinitely smoother and not as choppy. The easiest way to do this "test" that I can think of is play Morrowind with fps optimizer and adjust the draw distance so that you get the corresponding frame rates - it's very obvious when you do this.

Edit: Other than that though I guess I'd have to say that I don't consciously notice, but nonetheless I think it makes games at least slightly more enjoyable.

|\/|oDdiC(_)$ · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by iceman889
So which card should i get now?! with a good performance/cost ratio.

im glad you asked, the 9600 PRO made by sapphire preferably is the BEST cost to performance ratio card you can get :E gimme a sec and ill find a graph that tells you this

DigitalAssassin · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by Tork
I can see a difference from 30fps and 60fps or even 40 fps and 60fps.. big difference.

I see a difference between 20 and 60, but mostly in response time. I play Morrowind at max detail with 6x FSAA 16x Anisotropic filtering, and view distance at maximum (Oh, and 1280x960) at 15-25fps, and I don't have any real problem with that. Inside buildings I get 70fps, and there's a huge difference between being inside and outside in terms of performance. I don't know if I could tell the difference between 40 and 60 though.

Edit: Looks like "dis" got there before me. If you've got Morrowind and want to turn on the FPS counter, just type "TDT" (Toggle Debug Text).

|\/|oDdiC(_)$ · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by x84D80Yx
put it on 20fps max and youll be recreating matrix fight scenes :\

lol, well said sir :E

TheOriginalEvil · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by Apocalypse89
I don't think there's much of a problem with an MX. I have an MX and can run games such as BF1942 at max settings with no problem at all. I shouldn't have too much trouble running HL2 at above average settings. It's the RAM and CPU that matter. If I really have a problem with running HL2 I still can buy a radeon 9800.

MX doesn't even run directX 8 right, unless they have fixed it?

.5c0ut-WHoR3. · Sep 22, 2003

What detail could a gf2pro 64 meg go on?

Med graphics or like low-med

(edit fixed typo)

|\/|oDdiC(_)$ · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by iceman889
well thats really ****in awesome to hear! Like you have no idea how much better that makes me feel. So which card should i get now?! with a good performance/cost ratio.

here is the review :E

http://www.techreport.com/etc/2003q3/valve/index.x?pg=1

and here is the pic :E

|\/|oDdiC(_)$ · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by .5c0ut-WHoR3.
What detail could a gf2pro 64 meg go on?

Med graphics or like low-med

(edit fixed typo)

not really sure, try maybe either higher low, or lower med? lol this is a total shot in the dark, so dont take it seriously

:bounce:

DigitalAssassin · Sep 22, 2003

Here's a good site for choosing a video card: http://oc3dmark.octeams.com/cardguide.html

.5c0ut-WHoR3. · Sep 22, 2003

Hmm, i hope there is a system in the game when you start up for like fastest but still looks good performance. Like medium performance.

TheOriginalEvil · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by Homer
dont count on it.

(I have one to, I'm just saying)

For a fact I already know it will. =D Plus I score 14000 on 2001SE with V-sync on.

Specs*-
1.7 Ghz Athlon
512 MB pc2100
G4 ti4200 64MB Evga, Modded with a bigger fan.

dis · Sep 22, 2003

Who knows? All I know is that the MX's are a rip off and a way to prey on consumers who aren't as educated about computer parts. For what some spent on a GF4 MX, they could have gotten a GF3 (possibly even TI 500)) which runs probably twice as fast as the GF 4 MX.

dis · Sep 22, 2003

Here's some bad info for GF4 MX owners who didnt already know.

"Perhaps this disillusionment stemmed from the fact that, the GeForce 4 MX is not a DirectX 8.1 compliant part, and lacks any hardware pixel or vertex shaders."

Source:

http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/S&V/gf4_mx_roundup.shtml

|\/|oDdiC(_)$ · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by dis
Who knows? All I know is that the MX's are a rip off and a way to prey on consumers who aren't as educated about computer parts. For what some spent on a GF4 MX, they could have gotten a GF3 (possibly even TI 500)) which runs probably twice as fast as the GF 4 MX.

so very true, or even a 8500 LE which plays battlefield 1942 with good resolution and most bells and whistles on

TheOriginalEvil · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by dis
Who knows? All I know is that the MX's are a rip off and a way to prey on consumers who aren't as educated about computer parts. For what some spent on a GF4 MX, they could have gotten a GF3 (possibly even TI 500)) which runs probably twice as fast as the GF 4 MX.

The thing is... about the market scam. If you think about it Nividia or ATI don't care whether you buy a FX5900 or a G4 MX420 just as long as you buy one. In fact I think they would rather you buy the FX 5900.

0zz0 · Sep 22, 2003

well i have a gforce3 ti 200 I am just wondering how low of a framerate am i going to get and should i get a 9600 pro. If so is anyone willing to buy a used gforce3 ti 200 for say 20 bux lol. O and if i t helps i have an AMD xp 2500 + 1800 o/c to about 2035mhz or what ever its called and i have 512 mgb of DDR ram. So i really have no clue a lil help would be greatly apreciated. (Pardon my dumbass sentence structure and confusingness)

|\/|oDdiC(_)$ · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by 0zz0
well i have a gforce3 ti 200 I am just wondering how low of a framerate am i going to get and should i get a 9600 pro. If so is anyone willing to buy a used gforce3 ti 200 for say 20 bux lol. O and if i t helps i have an AMD xp 2500 + 1800 o/c to about 2035mhz or what ever its called and i have 512 mgb of DDR ram. So i really have no clue a lil help would be greatly apreciated. (Pardon my dumbass sentence structure and confusingness)

if your serious about that 20$, then PM me, i need another card for my sisters comp.

Homer · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by TheOriginalEvil
For a fact I already know it will. =D Plus I score 14000 on 2001SE with V-sync on.

Specs*-
1.7 Ghz Athlon
512 MB pc2100
G4 ti4200 64MB Evga, Modded with a bigger fan.

I have almost your exact specks, exept I have a 2000+
and I get roughly that 3dmark2001 score, but look at your 2003 score, thats what will matter.

3dmark2001 means almost nothing as far as halflife 2 performance.

|\/|oDdiC(_)$ · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by 0zz0
well i have a gforce3 ti 200 I am just wondering how low of a framerate am i going to get and should i get a 9600 pro. If so is anyone willing to buy a used gforce3 ti 200 for say 20 bux lol. O and if i t helps i have an AMD xp 2500 + 1800 o/c to about 2035mhz or what ever its called and i have 512 mgb of DDR ram. So i really have no clue a lil help would be greatly apreciated. (Pardon my dumbass sentence structure and confusingness)

also, your ok until you mention your GFX card, you might want to get a newer one, if you want DX9 and a good cheap card, go for the 9600 PRO

0zz0 · Sep 22, 2003

well first i have to get a new card and i also have a tnt2 card lying around the house somewhere ill be willing to throw in for free to just burn or something lol. But Seriously how much would i be able to sell my ti 200 for to say one of my friends, i mean whats a fair price.

TheOriginalEvil · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by Homer
I have almost your exact specks, exept I have a 2000+
and I get roughly that 3dmark2001 score, but look at your 2003 score, thats what will matter.

3dmark2001 means almost nothing as far as halflife 2 performance.

I think I scored a 2500 on 2003.

|\/|oDdiC(_)$ · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by 0zz0
well first i have to get a new card and i also have a tnt2 card lying around the house somewhere ill be willing to throw in for free to just burn or something lol. But Seriously how much would i be able to sell my ti 200 for to say one of my friends, i mean whats a fair price.

1 $ plus 20$ S/h! lol honestly, see what the cheapest price is for a brand new card like that, and cout out 60% (due to usage and stuff), and that should be fair, no matter to whom you sell it

LittleB · Sep 22, 2003

I was going to give a beautiful layman explanation on the differnce between 30 and 60 fps (and above); but I see that, as always, the topic has changed a hundred times over in one thread. Sadly, my awe-inspiring intellect will once again go unused by the poor peoples of this Earth.

|\/|oDdiC(_)$ · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by LittleB
I was going to give a beautiful layman explanation on the differnce between 30 and 60 fps (and above); but I see that, as always, the topic has changed a hundred times over in one thread. Sadly, my awe-inspiring intellect will once again go unused by the poor peoples of this Earth.

well arent we sorry for ruining your genius brain! its not like your gonna die

|\/|oDdiC(_)$ · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by 0zz0
well first i have to get a new card and i also have a tnt2 card lying around the house somewhere ill be willing to throw in for free to just burn or something lol. But Seriously how much would i be able to sell my ti 200 for to say one of my friends, i mean whats a fair price.

its 79 $ here

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduct.asp?DEPA=1&submit=Go&description=geforce,3,ti,200

so you do the math

also i dont think we should keep talking about this here, PM me what u have to say.

Homer · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by TheOriginalEvil
I think I scored a 2500 on 2003.

that seems a little(a lot) high, but still not high enough to run a game like hl2 this well will everything on. Judging from the benchmarks.

|\/|oDdiC(_)$ · Sep 22, 2003

yeah, my frind with the identical setup lik me scored close to 8000 on 3dmark 2003, so i think im all set for HL2

BloodyL · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by Homer
3dmark2001 means almost nothing as far as halflife 2 performance.

Wrong, 3dmark2k1 is a perfect indicator of performance for Gf4's.
2k1 is a dx8 benchmark, the GF4 is a dx8 card, and HL2 will run on a GF4 in dx8 mode.

To they guy who has the GF4, don't worry, your card will run HL2 just fine, the only problem is you won't be seeing the fancy graphical effects available to DX9 users such as overbrightness and the wet look.

carramrod · Sep 22, 2003

Is there any way to upgrade a laptop graphics card (I have a Dell inspirion 8200) or am i pretty much screwed until i can afford a whole new system?

Homer · Sep 22, 2003

Originally posted by BloodyL
Wrong, 3dmark2k1 is a perfect indicator of performance for Gf4's.
2k1 is a dx8 benchmark, the GF4 is a dx8 card, and HL2 will run on a GF4 in dx8 mode.

pff, who want to run hl2 in dx8 mode? nobody, thats who.

will this be ok

Newbie

iceman889

Guest

Newbie

Newbie

majestic-12

Guest

Newbie

Newbie

iceman889

Guest

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

carramrod

Guest

Newbie

Similar threads