Hehe, just purchased HL2, and on max settings, 1024x768 resolution, reflect all, and 8x anti aliasing, it runs on average at 70-80fps.
w00t =D
Re: Buying a graphics card...
Posted by Toast King on Wed Apr 19th at 8:14pm 2006
Posted by Toast King on Wed Apr 19th at 8:14pm 2006
Hahaha! Im using the INTERNET!
Re: Buying a graphics card...
Posted by Dark_Kilauea on Wed Apr 19th at 9:11pm 2006
Dark_Kilauea
member
629 posts
93 snarkmarks
Registered: Apr 15th 2005
Location: USA
Occupation: Fast Food
Posted by Dark_Kilauea on Wed Apr 19th at 9:11pm 2006
I run 1248x1024 with max settings, with about 100+ fps in most places 
Dark_Kilauea
member
629 posts
93 snarkmarks
Registered: Apr 15th 2005
Location: USA
Occupation: Fast Food
Re: Buying a graphics card...
Posted by Toast King on Wed Apr 19th at 9:32pm 2006
Posted by Toast King on Wed Apr 19th at 9:32pm 2006
Oh shut up! ![<img src=]()
" SRC="images/smiles/icon_smile.gif">
Ye' spoilt northern basterds!
Ye' spoilt northern basterds!
Hahaha! Im using the INTERNET!
Re: Buying a graphics card...
Posted by reaper47 on Wed Apr 19th at 11:05pm 2006
First I'm happy it works so well, Toast King. Have fun with your new card (I remember when I upgraded to a 9800 pro, good feeling).
But a little more off-topic: Why is everybody running on 1280x1024... Isn't that a distorted resolution like 640x400? Every resolution is 4:3 normally. 1024x768, 800x600, 640x480... The correct resolution for 1280 (never heared of 1248) should be 1280x960 (and not 1280x1024). In theory it must run slightly slower and gives a distorted picture...
This is the kind of little detail that always bothers me but never enough to actually post a question about it ^
Posted by reaper47 on Wed Apr 19th at 11:05pm 2006
? quote:
I run 1248x1024 with max settings, with about 100+ fps in most places
First I'm happy it works so well, Toast King. Have fun with your new card (I remember when I upgraded to a 9800 pro, good feeling).
But a little more off-topic: Why is everybody running on 1280x1024... Isn't that a distorted resolution like 640x400? Every resolution is 4:3 normally. 1024x768, 800x600, 640x480... The correct resolution for 1280 (never heared of 1248) should be 1280x960 (and not 1280x1024). In theory it must run slightly slower and gives a distorted picture...
This is the kind of little detail that always bothers me but never enough to actually post a question about it ^
Re: Buying a graphics card...
Posted by wil5on on Wed Apr 19th at 11:34pm 2006
wil5on
member
1733 posts
323 snarkmarks
Registered: Dec 12th 2003
Location: Adelaide
Occupation: Mapper
Posted by wil5on on Wed Apr 19th at 11:34pm 2006
Most LCD screens have 5:4 ratio rather than the 4:3 ratio CRT monitors have.
wil5on
member
1733 posts
323 snarkmarks
Registered: Dec 12th 2003
Location: Adelaide
Occupation: Mapper
"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"
- My yr11 Economics teacher
- My yr11 Economics teacher
Re: Buying a graphics card...
Posted by Toast King on Thu Apr 20th at 3:25pm 2006
Posted by Toast King on Thu Apr 20th at 3:25pm 2006
I never run anything higher than 1024x768, because otherwise it gives it a pretty large performance drop. I love the sinc every frame thingy, makes it look smooth - pity BF2 doesnt have that feature =[
Hahaha! Im using the INTERNET!
Re: Buying a graphics card...
Posted by rs6 on Thu Apr 20th at 11:38pm 2006
rs6
member
640 posts
94 snarkmarks
Registered: Dec 31st 2004
Location: New Jersey, USA
Occupation: koledge
Posted by rs6 on Thu Apr 20th at 11:38pm 2006
Actually I find playing at a high resolution give less "jaggies", so less AA is need to make it look good. For example, BF2: 1024x768 with 2x AA looks the same as 1280x1024 with no AA. And I get more FPS with the 1280 config.
rs6
member
640 posts
94 snarkmarks
Registered: Dec 31st 2004
Location: New Jersey, USA
Occupation: koledge
Re: Buying a graphics card...
Posted by Orpheus on Fri Apr 21st at 11:00am 2006
Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
The best things in life, aren't things.
Posted by Orpheus on Fri Apr 21st at 11:00am 2006
Whats getting me worried is the "Out of the loop" feeling I am experiencing recently.
I just looked in on pricewatch and noticed a whole s**tload of cards I never heard of. From the ATI X1900 to the GeForce 7900xts.
I favor ati cards but never heard of the new line. I noticed a moderately priced X1600 AGP with 512 DDR3 ram... Is that a name brand number of an offbeat refurbish of the older 9800 series?
I plan on upgrading my 9800 this year, but am so mixed up now with this new line of cards.
I might just wait till next year and build a whole new machine with a PCI slot.
Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
The best things in life, aren't things.
Re: Buying a graphics card...
Posted by Toast King on Fri Apr 21st at 5:00pm 2006
Posted by Toast King on Fri Apr 21st at 5:00pm 2006
Hmm, I dont trust ATI's very much, becuase my brother has had 2 (New ones) and they ALL gave trouble - overheating, poor compatibilty, bugs, shader glitches, etc.
Hahaha! Im using the INTERNET!
Re: Buying a graphics card...
Posted by reaper47 on Fri Apr 21st at 5:24pm 2006
Usually I wait every generation of cards for one to "crystallize" as the mainstream standard. Usually it happens in a few months time span around a new, popular engine (Unreal 3). I don't care about the brand. One card of a brand can be excellent. The follow up can be crap or overly expensive. I had a 3DFX Voodoo 2 (I think 3DFX was the Voodoo company name), a Nvidia GeForce 2 MX and an ATI Radeon 9800 pro. All three bought for mainstream stability and acceptable prices. All three different brands. I never regretted.
Posted by reaper47 on Fri Apr 21st at 5:24pm 2006
? quote:
Hmm, I dont trust ATI's very much, becuase my brother has had 2 (New ones) and they ALL gave trouble - overheating, poor compatibilty, bugs, shader glitches, etc.
Usually I wait every generation of cards for one to "crystallize" as the mainstream standard. Usually it happens in a few months time span around a new, popular engine (Unreal 3). I don't care about the brand. One card of a brand can be excellent. The follow up can be crap or overly expensive. I had a 3DFX Voodoo 2 (I think 3DFX was the Voodoo company name), a Nvidia GeForce 2 MX and an ATI Radeon 9800 pro. All three bought for mainstream stability and acceptable prices. All three different brands. I never regretted.
Re: Buying a graphics card...
Posted by Belgarion on Fri Apr 21st at 7:12pm 2006
Belgarion
member
108 posts
41 snarkmarks
Registered: Jun 27th 2005
Location: USA
Occupation: unoccupied
Posted by Belgarion on Fri Apr 21st at 7:12pm 2006
I never had any problems with my ATi cards (except the one i bought refurbished... never again). I had a TNT-2, then a Radeon 64meg VIVO, an 8500LE, a 9800Pro, and now an XFX6800. Overall I've had ATi more, and I think they're really great cards. It really comes down to pricing and personal preference in my mind.
Belgarion
member
108 posts
41 snarkmarks
Registered: Jun 27th 2005
Location: USA
Occupation: unoccupied
Re: Buying a graphics card...
Posted by Orpheus on Fri Apr 21st at 11:18pm 2006
Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
The best things in life, aren't things.
Posted by Orpheus on Fri Apr 21st at 11:18pm 2006
ATI got a deserved bad reputation a few years back. Their compatibility was horrible.
Since then, they have more than lived up to my expectations of a quality card builder.
They have made great strides since those long ago days.
In fact, I have had better service from ATI than GeForce in the past few years. I was a dedicated GeForce fan for ages.
My last little card that was not either was my VooDoo Banshee. It was a fantastic card for its day.
VooDoo was God once.
Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
The best things in life, aren't things.
Re: Buying a graphics card...
Posted by Toast King on Sun Apr 23rd at 11:41am 2006
Posted by Toast King on Sun Apr 23rd at 11:41am 2006
After I had the Geforce 2, I liked Nvidia alot. Gefore 2 was a very good and cheap card.
Hahaha! Im using the INTERNET!
Re: Buying a graphics card...
Posted by reaper47 on Sun Apr 23rd at 2:31pm 2006
Posted by reaper47 on Sun Apr 23rd at 2:31pm 2006
Speaking of cheap... anyone noticed that while every part of the computer is getting cheaper 3D graphics cards are getting more and more expensive every year? The 3 cards I ever bought were always priced much higher than the previous while being equally powerful for it's time. The first one was 80 ? or so, than 150, the next 230. Today paying 300 bucks for a state of the art graphics card isn't all that unusual and 6 months later a game comes out that barely runs on it.
Re: Buying a graphics card...
Posted by Crono on Sun Apr 23rd at 11:18pm 2006
Posted by Crono on Sun Apr 23rd at 11:18pm 2006
It's a different situation now.
Look at what they're doing in games.
In the day's of Banshee and GeForce 2 (~1997-2001ish) There really were no advancements. Things needed to run faster, so you could increase the polycount. Now, there's other things in play. Shaders play a very large part, and they way they're implemented is what makes them such a pain in the ass. (There's physical hardware shader registers in the GPU outside the ALU)
Another thing is, we demand more speed, so cards can no longer keep textures in system memory, they have to be kept on the card. So, that requires more card memory.
All of these things determine what you're talking about. BUT, also, the stuff coming out is still relatively new. It hasn't been out for over a year, for example. So, considering it's only $100 (USD) more than the previous generation at the END of its life, that's pretty good. Also, it will continue to go down. The problem is, games will demand more.
This is a transitional period. So, hardware isn't going to last as long as it used to. And, honestly, that's the consumer's fault in a lot of respects, since they demand much more then is currently applicable. How do you expect to get incredibly beautiful environments if you're unwilling to upgrade the hardware.
Also, just to note, games are FAR more scalable now than they were. Every game on the market right now (except BF2) runs on older cards ... like GF4 era stuff. Well, I might add. (Even GF3, I have a friend who runs CoD2, FEAR, everything just fine. It just doesn't look spectacular!)
Come to think of it, when the GF3 series was building up steam, those bastards cost like $400 USD ... that was in 2001/2002.
It depends on whom you buy the card from anyway.
Look at what they're doing in games.
In the day's of Banshee and GeForce 2 (~1997-2001ish) There really were no advancements. Things needed to run faster, so you could increase the polycount. Now, there's other things in play. Shaders play a very large part, and they way they're implemented is what makes them such a pain in the ass. (There's physical hardware shader registers in the GPU outside the ALU)
Another thing is, we demand more speed, so cards can no longer keep textures in system memory, they have to be kept on the card. So, that requires more card memory.
All of these things determine what you're talking about. BUT, also, the stuff coming out is still relatively new. It hasn't been out for over a year, for example. So, considering it's only $100 (USD) more than the previous generation at the END of its life, that's pretty good. Also, it will continue to go down. The problem is, games will demand more.
This is a transitional period. So, hardware isn't going to last as long as it used to. And, honestly, that's the consumer's fault in a lot of respects, since they demand much more then is currently applicable. How do you expect to get incredibly beautiful environments if you're unwilling to upgrade the hardware.
Also, just to note, games are FAR more scalable now than they were. Every game on the market right now (except BF2) runs on older cards ... like GF4 era stuff. Well, I might add. (Even GF3, I have a friend who runs CoD2, FEAR, everything just fine. It just doesn't look spectacular!)
Come to think of it, when the GF3 series was building up steam, those bastards cost like $400 USD ... that was in 2001/2002.
It depends on whom you buy the card from anyway.
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: Buying a graphics card...
Posted by Orpheus on Sun Apr 23rd at 11:41pm 2006
Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
The best things in life, aren't things.
Posted by Orpheus on Sun Apr 23rd at 11:41pm 2006
IMO, as far as hardware upgrades go, you get the biggest bang for your buck if you upgrade the video anyway. Assuming 2 things:
1) you already have enough of the other hardware that upgrading it won't improve much of anything. (Most people already have 1 gig or more ram and a respectable processor)
2) your motherboard can handle the new card. (some people think any new card will run on any old board)
Anyway, If I have to plunk 400 bucks on something, it will definitely be a video card. If my machine needs 400 dollars worth of some other part, I will just build a new machine from scratch.
Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
The best things in life, aren't things.
© Snarkpit.net 2001 - 2023, about us, donate, contact
Snarkpit v6.1.0 created this page in 0.0137 seconds.
Snarkpit v6.1.0 created this page in 0.0137 seconds.