Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,496
The reviews posted now have me hmming because at there settings I don't get anywhere near what they get FPS wise.
For example one says at 1600x1200 - 4xAA and 16xAF and quality then get min 100 FPS and max 130. Well for a start BF2 has a limit at 100 and when I play those settings with a X1900XT @ XT-X I get around 30/40 min and 50 average.
UNless the DDR-4 has very loose timings then the benefits should be much larger than in some reviews. I mean 100mhz on my mem at 650mhz core is about 5 fps in BF2...
IMO until we get user review without stupid bottlenecks like a AMD 3000+ at stock.
Gibbos test is a good start.
X1900XT in 2005 = 11k
X1900XT-X = 11.5k-12k
Gibbo can you do BF2/FS9/CoD2 tests matey?
For example one says at 1600x1200 - 4xAA and 16xAF and quality then get min 100 FPS and max 130. Well for a start BF2 has a limit at 100 and when I play those settings with a X1900XT @ XT-X I get around 30/40 min and 50 average.
UNless the DDR-4 has very loose timings then the benefits should be much larger than in some reviews. I mean 100mhz on my mem at 650mhz core is about 5 fps in BF2...
IMO until we get user review without stupid bottlenecks like a AMD 3000+ at stock.
Gibbos test is a good start.
X1900XT in 2005 = 11k
X1900XT-X = 11.5k-12k
Gibbo can you do BF2/FS9/CoD2 tests matey?