Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A fps question .

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by slime73
    Considering I play with a steady 12 FPS, and usually score in the top 3 in DM, you have been rendered OBSOLETE!



    EDIT: Oh yeah, and I have NO mouse lag (with reduce mouse lag turned OFF).

    considering that you're playing on some ****ty demo servers or catalyst, i think that maybe you should keep your mouth shut about stuff you don't really know anything about. sorry to ruin your dreams kid, you're not good and you're not knowledgeable about UT2k4.


    about the sempron system, you can build a **** fine rig for $600-$800 (monitor and OS excluded) that would never drop below 85fps with every setting at medium to high. so really, it's a lot easier to build according to a budget rather than to achieve a certain setting. but i wouldn't purchase a sempron processor. very limited upgrading options. and you can get a real athlon64 for just a few bucks more and a large performance gain.

    Comment


      #32
      Basically the way I've understood it is that the human eye can only see so much on average anyway. But you do FEEL a difference while playing just in the speed, and flow of the controls. *shrugs* at least I do. A TV show runs at approx. 30fps which is fine seeing how it's TV. Games at an eye level would look fine at 30 fps, but then all of a sudden, 15 things happen in the game that your hardware has a little trouble handling, so it dips to 15 fps. It starts to get really choppy. Then something explodes, and it falls to 5 fps where it all becomes an unplayable slideshow. For this reason you would find 60 fps better because if the same scenario happened you would still be above 30 fps when a boatload of stuff is going on. Ideally however, you would want 90 fps so that not only would it always look smooth even when something dipped, but it would still feel smooth.
      After that it starts becoming more about bragging rights really.

      Gamer A: "Well I ran UT2k4 at an average of 125 fps with all of the eye candy on on my 1 year old comp"
      Gamer B: "So what? My 3 month old comp gets 250 fps!!!!"

      In either case it gets to a point where the difference to all but the most die hard PC modder, is barely noticeable, if noticeable at all.

      But it is nice to be able to brag like that, of course the truth is that most of us never have the kind of money it takes to do that all of the time.

      Comment


        #33
        I have been quite disappointed performance-wise when I upgraded my machine a couple of months ago.

        I have upgraded to an AMD XP-M(atm running@2.35GHz), GF 6800 and 1 Gig of highspeed ram and I am not able to play UT2004 @1024*768 @default details without the occasion unplayable framedrops. I my mind that is not right, especially when you have studied numerous gamebenchmarks and see how lower spec machines score 150+ fps in UT2K4. I was hoping to be able to play at at least 1280*960@default details. Bummer.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by WosP
          Eh with those settings I get 40 fps with a celeron tualatin ,ge force 2 mx , 128 ram , I would be suprised If I wouldnt get the average fps 80 with sempron 2800 + radeon 9600 , ram 512 ...
          I think that's cuz the game auto adjusts visual setttings if u have a slow machine to keep the framerate up, or I read that somewhere here. Don't get a sempron cpu for gaming... Price diff from that to an athlon64 isnt too much, bout $60, and would make the most difference in this game which is reallly cpu intensive.

          Comment


            #35
            I get about 30-40 FPS in most of maps with my 3-years-old GeForce4MX. 20FPS is enough for me...

            Comment

            Working...
            X