You seem to have a stuck caps-lock key! Also, how do you figure running 1280x on a 15" monitor?
What is it with all this new hardware hype!?
- Thread starter jessola
- Start date
You seem to have a stuck caps-lock key! Also, how do you figure running 1280x on a 15" monitor?
ok, so if my rig which im using 169.09 beta drivers, on xp pro 32bit, all settings max with 4xaa @ 1600x1200 can do this. then its worth it tbh 
ags
p.s. the first run on the gpu was slightly slower because of load up, hense why i let 2 runs go by, also, my cpu is now at 3.4ghz/1.375v and i only got 2 gig of XMS2 6400C4
ags
p.s. the first run on the gpu was slightly slower because of load up, hense why i let 2 runs go by, also, my cpu is now at 3.4ghz/1.375v and i only got 2 gig of XMS2 6400C4
Well, if you do want to play games in such low resolutions I guess poor gear will work for you
some of us don't have monitors capable of higher res' D:
My xmas list consists of a 8800GT and i have some money spare for a 20" widescreen LCD and i'm rather excited.
New hardware is awesome because it makes me feel like i did when i was a kid when i got a new toy. If i had enough money i would upgrade all the time just for the glee i feel when the package arrives.
That is all.
you realise that gt will rip up those res's
your xmas is going to be filled with lots of "OMG, LOLZZZ!!!!!!!! LOOK AT MY FPEEEEEEEE ESSSSSSSSSSS"...... git 
lolags
you realise that gt will rip up those res's
ags
Yus, this is the advantage about not being fussed about a huge monitor, i can be a cheap git and still get mega performance TO THE MAX!!!1111`1. I shall be humping CoD4 in 2008.
Try bf2 at 1600x1200 with everything maxed, the 1gb ram you have will make it grind to a halt on big maps.
2gb also makes windows a lot smoother makes games shutdown faster too.
Try supcom on that single core cpu (on any gfx settings) and you'll know why people buy quad cores for gaming
.Try crysis where the ice starts and you'll see your gpu can't handle it.
Try AA+ HDR, on any modern ga.......oh wait, you can't, even if you could fps would've dropped to below 10 in most games ( tdu, oblivion, etc...).
It's just a hobby and at the same time an addiction, but people want to play with the gfx maxed out.
There's a dutch saying: Het oog wil ook w at ( ignore the space, somehow ''wa t'' is starred out
).Wich means, the eye also wants something: people like eye candy, hence they upgrade their pc.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 23,880
- Location
- South East
25fps for the lose.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,152
- Location
- Surrey
I lolled quite hard. I average 30 fps at that res in crysis with my specs in sig, no way are you getting what you say you are.
Just a thread to try and stir up trouble
Actually i think this is a real issue and pretty much false advertising or at least a questionable practice, the honest way it should work is that the lowest new gen is always faster than the fastest previous gen, also i bet theres not a lot of difference in the cost to make the low end vs high end chips, which must mean they artificially limit the performance to sell the low end cards.
hm expecting new gen to be all faster than previous gen is ridiculous, they often offer other improvements too.
You will never see a companys new gen be a less viable option than an old gen of similar specification(as far as gen goes)
Dont forget new gen offer newer technologys and more efficient performance/power/heat etc!
If there wasnt much difference in cost between top end & low end then you would most likely see the high end chips being sold for cheaper in greater numbers, as low end is way more profitable than high end, so why not just encourage low end to spend that tiny bit more cash and get something high end?
Realistically the naming convention with the number is ok, aslong as you do research. Maybe it would be better calling them x-xxx so its more obvious to the uneducated that first number is generation and 2nd number will suggest performance, and 3rd if its a more efficient(energy/heat) model(refreshes)
You will never see a companys new gen be a less viable option than an old gen of similar specification(as far as gen goes)
Dont forget new gen offer newer technologys and more efficient performance/power/heat etc!
If there wasnt much difference in cost between top end & low end then you would most likely see the high end chips being sold for cheaper in greater numbers, as low end is way more profitable than high end, so why not just encourage low end to spend that tiny bit more cash and get something high end?
Realistically the naming convention with the number is ok, aslong as you do research. Maybe it would be better calling them x-xxx so its more obvious to the uneducated that first number is generation and 2nd number will suggest performance, and 3rd if its a more efficient(energy/heat) model(refreshes)
Bit offtopic: But does anyone know which one of the overclockers pre-built systems on the main page would play crysis on high/very high settings smoothly? i am not upto date with current pcs so any help would be good.
Also my current pc suffers a lot on crysis, using an athlon 3500, 6800gt, 1gb crucial ddr ram i only just manage to play it on medium with 1024x768 and yet then it still slows down.
Also my current pc suffers a lot on crysis, using an athlon 3500, 6800gt, 1gb crucial ddr ram i only just manage to play it on medium with 1024x768 and yet then it still slows down.
I don't think any system in the world can run crysis on very high in what i would call a smooth manner. The hardware just doesn't exist yet.
I have a opteron 175 running @ 2.8ghz, a 7800GTX and 2 gigs of ram yet i can't run the game all on medium so i don't think you have much of a chance.
NO IT'S NOT
you should always compare the last 3 digits of of the model numbers for indication of performance, the first digit 7*** or 8*** only indicates the generation. It's the way it has always worked so it would be even more confusing if a 8400GS is more powerful than a 7950GX2!!
Besides as said every new generation introduce new techs, features and improved image quality so that the whole product line has to be updated not just the high end ones so the current naming scheme makes perfect sense.
Its not ridiculous and don't shout, it is a questionable practice, just because this is the way they've done it for so many years doesn't make it right or good does it?
There's little benefit to getting a new gen other than performance increases, what use in gaming does a low end current gen have if its only a bit better then the highest of around 2 or so generations ago?
Isn't that the point, improved performance?
More affordable performance, and supporting new technologies. A current low gen costs a LOT less than last gen high-end and provides comparable performance while supporting the latest API's. That's the benefit.
Isn't that the point, improved performance?
Yeah that's what i was getting at...
More affordable performance, and supporting new technologies. A current low gen costs a LOT less than last gen high-end and provides comparable performance while supporting the latest API's. That's the benefit.
It could support dx10 with super low heat output and energy usage for all i care, if it can't play dx9 games well let alone dx10 its of little good to plenty of games released that year.
radiation you seem to be somewhat incredibly naive.
if u want all lowest new gen to be fastest than high end old gen they could satisfy you by ... stopping releasing high end cards, since low end are where the money is at.
Dont be stupid tbh, theres a lot of bennefit ie. lower power consumption, less heat radiated, single slot designs etc.
So when the 6800U was out and was dual slot people like me couldnt get it as it didnt fit inside my SFF. By your reconing then all the 7 series released should have been more powerful, which means only 7600GT+ .. so you basically want everyone to get cards that are surplus to requirements?? Thats not really too clever is it.
This is the way the market is, its not questionable practice, it gives us lots of choice of what we want to buy. you buy what matches your requirements. Its hardly questionable practice having those naming conventions.
Thats like moaning at a car company that make 2 cars, and B has a bigger engine than A, but is slower since it B weights more than car A.
Or Even better, Car A has a new improved engine, smaller but with more BHP than engine B. Actually thats nail on the head. nuff said
if u want all lowest new gen to be fastest than high end old gen they could satisfy you by ... stopping releasing high end cards, since low end are where the money is at.
Dont be stupid tbh, theres a lot of bennefit ie. lower power consumption, less heat radiated, single slot designs etc.
So when the 6800U was out and was dual slot people like me couldnt get it as it didnt fit inside my SFF. By your reconing then all the 7 series released should have been more powerful, which means only 7600GT+ .. so you basically want everyone to get cards that are surplus to requirements?? Thats not really too clever is it.
This is the way the market is, its not questionable practice, it gives us lots of choice of what we want to buy. you buy what matches your requirements. Its hardly questionable practice having those naming conventions.
Thats like moaning at a car company that make 2 cars, and B has a bigger engine than A, but is slower since it B weights more than car A.
Or Even better, Car A has a new improved engine, smaller but with more BHP than engine B. Actually thats nail on the head. nuff said
The wav NV labels there products is fine, just now with the GT - GTS its not since the GT is the faster card.
It makes sense to name it so like 8400 Vs 7900 its obvious the 7900 will perform better, just the 8400 has newer tech and is DX10, each new gen brings along newer tech.
It makes sense to name it so like 8400 Vs 7900 its obvious the 7900 will perform better, just the 8400 has newer tech and is DX10, each new gen brings along newer tech.
peetee please stop throwing around insults just because you have a difference of opinion, you've simply been conditioned to believe what companies do like this is ok, your missing the point, companies do this to sell items with a new name that offer little real improvement over the previous model, it keeps the money flowing without any real innovation, basically a few MHz here and there every so often with the odd change in architecture to improve performance is deemed acceptable, its what I call artificial limitation, i can nearly bet it costs not a lot different to have one or two cards at a reduced cost overall but with the mid to maximum performance that year, that way everyone would benefit but at the cost of an overly greedy nvidia.