20-25fps? no siree
That's nuts! My comp is twice as good as yours and I only manage 90% on medium :/. You remember that time you took your tower camping and it got struck by lightning? Yeah, I think that has something to do with it.
20-25fps? no siree
People spend hundreds of pounds becasue technologly for me is like an addiction, i need new gadgets to play around with. I justify spending that amount by not spending loads of money on clothes....etc
It's true. There's just something about freshly boxed hardware...
i didnt play crysis at very high, becasue of DX9, but at 90% high it runs fine
and yeah i guess it would be even better on new hardware, but as the young'un i am i cannot possible afford so much as a ram upgrade, so its all good!
I have only 17 background processes running, and my 7900GS was one of those pre over clocked ones - its at 600/1600 (link here), my 4000+ is at 2.7Ghz and ram at 460.
If you suggest a way i can prove it i will be happy to..
and @nymins Yeah 20-25 is more accurate for crysis, i got up to 40 on COD4 though
I don't want to bow out of PC gaming, that's the point! And i couldn't afford £150 anyway, and it would be more because i would have to replace the motherboard as well.
What I'm saying really is that in my opinion new hardware is not really necessary for a good 3 quarters of a year after its release.
Crysis has a GPU benchmark in the Bin32 folder somewhere. It will give average, min and max fps.
steve258, what kind of benchmark would you like, 3dmark?
or is there a cod4 benchamark
I still don't see why people are shelling out hundreds if not thousands of pounds for quad cores and the like. Any views?
There's just something about freshly boxed hardware...