• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

what fps does a 8800 get at cod 4

are you looking to buy this card, there really is no piont at that res something like an 8600GTS would run it easy enough, as for your question it will easily be above 100fp/s
 
1280x1024 the GT sits at around 90FPS and at 1680x1050 i get around 60fps so i cant see there being much point running it at 800x600, if anything buy yourself a new monitor, for the price of a GT you can have a half decent 22"
 
i find that above 45fps lag becomes a bigger issue than FPS, ive seen me get problems with a ping of 65.
what card do you have at the moment and what size monitor?
im hitting 60fps with aa forced on max in the drivers and all the eye candy and crap turned up, game at a higher res and youll be surprised how much differance it makes in the clarity of long distance vision and distance shots, seriously 800x600 shouldnt be inforced on any poor bugger.
 
Well C'mon, if your already at a steady 125fps you really aren't going to notice anything higher than that. I think 90fps is the point where it is REALLY hard to tell, so 125fps is well clear. Doubling that figure won't help you, just get yourself a better mouse ;)
 
theres few reasons but take too long to explain.but if you ask any serious gamer who plays online fps games visuals come second to high fps.if you cant notice the difference then good for you but i can.i have a good razer mouse which is fine.in cod uo i used to play it with smaller res to get high fps cause you can unload guns quicker move slightly faster= more frags.ask any cs pro they do same when they could play at silly high res.so in cod 4 im hoping to get very high fps the same thats why i need to know as a gt is what i think would be a decent upgrade for the money.ideally you would hope for 333 fps but cant see that with a gt.
 
Last edited:
theres no reason why you would need 250fps on any game, i dont even think youll be able to get that much form the game, quake II used to just stop at 160fps on my 9800xt i dont think it was possible to go any faster.
In all hounesty you are partaking in a pointless exersize and going to waist a lot of money for no gain what so ever unless you start gaming at atleast a minimum of 1280x1024.... that or we are partaking in a pointless conversation!
 
no reason so if i can unload my ak47 1 second before you theres no point? i think there is.monitor nothing to do with it.can play upto 1600 if want.i think cod fps goes upto 1000 which isnt achievable yet.
 
Move faster, unload guns quicker? What relation does the screen frame rate have to in game mechanics?

Matthew
 
lol 800x600 @ 250fps is going to make no differance to 800x600 @ 125fps so no you have no chanse what so ever of that helping you unload you AK47 one second faster.
in the space of that second you eyes wont notice 30 extra frames never mind an extra 125 frames on top of the 125 you are allready getting. concidering for the average top of the board player it would take a few hundred milliseconds for there brain to acknowladge the fact someone is poped out infront of them and to fire, your second is allready to long and no 125fps is going to change that.
 
sorry but if you like your fps lower thats ok.ill play with higher fps but lower visuals.but anyone whos plays seriously goes for the highest fps over visuals.so they can jump better and allsorts.it is a lot better whether you agree or not.theres thousands of posts about 333fps and online gaming.125 is considered fine but most clan serious players go for a lot more cause of the benefits.if there wasnt no benefits they wouldnt do it.
 
haha this is a joke post right. What's is the point.
Anyway to play along, I've got a 8800GTS (512mb) and when i set the maxFPS to 0, i can achieve a pretty consistant 125fps at 1280x1024. It sometimes goes to 200+fps.

Now if your playing on a SERIOUS competitive clan server then i'd assume they would have set the server to see if anyone has changed the maxFPS to 0 and thus if changed, you'd be kicked out by punkBuster until its set back to default.
So having as high an FPS as possible is a bit pointless.

man still got to laugh though :lol:
quality thread :D
 
im pretty serious about my cod4, finish top in most every server i play be it clan or public. maybe i just know how to kick arse? or am i just really good because i can kick ass with a handicap of 60fps. sorry i dont buy it.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
sorry but if you like your fps lower thats ok.ill play with higher fps but lower visuals.but anyone whos plays seriously goes for the highest fps over visuals.so they can jump better and allsorts.it is a lot better whether you agree or not.theres thousands of posts about 333fps and online gaming.125 is considered fine but most clan serious players go for a lot more cause of the benefits.if there wasnt no benefits they wouldnt do it.
Click to expand...

yes, thats because old games with OLD engines had the physics tied to the frame rate. ie, quake 3. show me reports of cs: source being better at 300fps rather than 125.
 
it can help covering maps quicker, less recoil on weapons.better jumping.few other points.why would you leave you maxfps at 0 lol.you only set it to 0 to get your maxfps then when you got it you set it to your highest fps.
 
Last edited:
Things like anti alaising give far better object distinction over distance, makes for more accurate shots. Higher resolutions give a better field of veiw, helps you keep track of whats going on around you they also give greater detail and also aids with the first note, detail over distance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom