Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Tim Sweeny interview, mostly about tech-specs

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

  • replied
    Originally posted by OblivionLord View Post
    Everybody reviews at max ingame settings without exception! And do you want proof that often they don't have a clue? They bench w/o AF, when AF is almost free these days. But they use shadows to max, when it is known that sometimes they can make a game 5 times slower. Shadows increase complexity with more characters ingame, you will have lowest fps exactly when they are needed. How retarded is this?

    If you feel content to play a today game at lowest grafic settings then why are you playing on the PC? I can understand medium at the least but, how exactly can you consider yourself a pc gamer when you are playing today games at lowest settings at low res? Its ok if you aren interested in just 1 or 2 games like I am who doesnt want to upgrade that is playing at lowest grafic settings since its not worth to upgrade because I myself do other things with my pc besides game. However if you are a true PC gamer.. I have yet met 1 person that plays hardcore at lowest grafic settings. Even occasional gamers I've yet to see play at lowest settings. Any wonder why there aren't many benchmarks found on the web benching at lowest graffic settings unless they are testing the CPU.
    I wrote about just 1 setting: using shadows to absolute max. Why did you give such an elaborate reply about LOWEST settings? I'm not a PC gamer if I don't play with shadows at max? Is this some sort of elaborated joke?

    Hey, I'm not defending the cards. The GTS price-performance is a joke, the GT is only decent for gaming with a lot of OC and for medium settings. Who is going to upgrade and wants to spend 200 or 250€ really should wait for something like a 8900gs or equivalent from ATI. But that means high settings. Who is going to upgrade to a card like this expect to play at high settings. The others play with lower. Is there something wrong with that?

    I was commenting on your comment about the expencive price of the x1950xtx and 7950gx2 vs what is out now.
    Ok, point taken

    Bragging rights??? Is this what gaming is all about? Is it so hard to just STFU and play? Or let other people play with what they got? Pretty please?
    Must poor people that can't afford this insanity, or simply just had enough, need to feel uncomfortable because they can't now brag about their rig?


    Yes it most deffinently is bragging rights to say that you have SLI when using 2 OLD cards when 1 card of today can equal its performance or exceed it. Its utterly foolish to buy another of the same old card when a single card can exceed the performance. Expecially when you can save money in the long run in power.
    Where do I seem to brag or defend bragging? Or buying a 6800ultra to put on SLI? Where did I say that I have SLI or even a 6800Ultra? Did you read my posts? And did you notice that I have a fetish about question marks?

    But you can find equivalent performance cards for 120 to 150€. It's old but has the same performance of today's cards. I fail to see your point really.

    No 1900xt or 7900gts is going to run for 120 here in uSA If this is what you are refering about "equivalent" performance. Only cards here in USa at that price are anything from 7600 on down. Unless you go ebay.
    Something is unclear here. What cards are you talking about and what prices do you have there? I'm talking about 7600gt and X1650XT for 120 to 150€. The absolute lowest price I can get in Portugal for a 7600gt is 110€, the 8600gt is 115, the X1650XT is 135, the 7900gs 147€, a x1950pro is 162€, etc... I dunno if you thought that I was talking about the XTX or whatever. But nvm

    What do you mean so demanding? It's very easy to make a game unplayable on a 8800.

    Demanding in the term of developing a game for the future while it boggs on highend hardware of today. Supreme Commander still has a patch comming out that will help the performance however we all wont know till that happens.
    I dunno about SC and I really don't care, maybe it's poor programming. But going back to what I was trying to discuss: it is easy to make a game unplayable with very elaborated details.
    It seems that what you defend are games that don't scale well: no effort to run on lower specs to make the game sell as much as possible, but the dev should limit himself to the existing high end that in practice sells decent quantities, and not be able to promote the game on trade shows or HD videos, even if max settings need 2x8800Ultra, compared to the others that really show massive quality settings. What business sense does it make?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    jup..

    But Im handy to have around

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    game is crazy

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Everybody reviews at max ingame settings without exception! And do you want proof that often they don't have a clue? They bench w/o AF, when AF is almost free these days. But they use shadows to max, when it is known that sometimes they can make a game 5 times slower. Shadows increase complexity with more characters ingame, you will have lowest fps exactly when they are needed. How retarded is this?

    If you feel content to play a today game at lowest grafic settings then why are you playing on the PC? I can understand medium at the least but, how exactly can you consider yourself a pc gamer when you are playing today games at lowest settings at low res? Its ok if you aren interested in just 1 or 2 games like I am who doesnt want to upgrade that is playing at lowest grafic settings since its not worth to upgrade because I myself do other things with my pc besides game. However if you are a true PC gamer.. I have yet met 1 person that plays hardcore at lowest grafic settings. Even occasional gamers I've yet to see play at lowest settings. Any wonder why there aren't many benchmarks found on the web benching at lowest graffic settings unless they are testing the CPU.

    Hey, I'm not defending the cards. The GTS price-performance is a joke, the GT is only decent for gaming with a lot of OC and for medium settings. Who is going to upgrade and wants to spend 200 or 250€ really should wait for something like a 8900gs or equivalent from ATI. But that means high settings. Who is going to upgrade to a card like this expect to play at high settings. The others play with lower. Is there something wrong with that?

    I was commenting on your comment about the expencive price of the x1950xtx and 7950gx2 vs what is out now.

    Bragging rights??? Is this what gaming is all about? Is it so hard to just STFU and play? Or let other people play with what they got? Pretty please?
    Must poor people that can't afford this insanity, or simply just had enough, need to feel uncomfortable because they can't now brag about their rig?


    Yes it most deffinently is bragging rights to say that you have SLI when using 2 OLD cards when 1 card of today can equal its performance or exceed it. Its utterly foolish to buy another of the same old card when a single card can exceed the performance. Expecially when you can save money in the long run in power.

    But you can find equivalent performance cards for 120 to 150€. It's old but has the same performance of today's cards. I fail to see your point really.

    No 1900xt or 7900gts is going to run for 120 here in uSA If this is what you are refering about "equivalent" performance. Only cards here in USa at that price are anything from 7600 on down. Unless you go ebay.

    What do you mean so demanding? It's very easy to make a game unplayable on a 8800.

    Demanding in the term of developing a game for the future while it boggs on highend hardware of today. Supreme Commander still has a patch comming out that will help the performance however we all wont know till that happens.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Doc Shock View Post
    - 300 - 1.000 visible objects per scene
    - huge scenes typically consist of 500.000 to 1.500.000 triangles
    Can someone tell me whats the difference between polygons and triangles please. Secondly what did he exactly mean by 300 to 1000 visible object per scene. Does that mean move able objects or just statues (which seem to actually be part of the map).

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Hey guys..
    All I wanted to know is if the game would run on a 6800, which is a midrange card made before 2006. It seems that it shouldnt have a problem with lower details according to the expanded version of this interview.

    It seems that Epic is doing the smart thing and looking for ways to allow the game to run on slower systems.

    Thats even better for all of you guys anyway, cuz I know you are going to turn everything down and take advantage of it, lol.

    But as long as it was mentioned..
    In regards to that survey I posted. Yes it is only one deveoper, and you are mostly looking at just a few games. but by far, those two or three games have the largest population. The amount of players just for CS dwarfs any other game population and has for 7years. No matter what your opinion of it or what it looks like on variuos systems, that is the sign of a well made game.

    As far as WoW goes, sure its a few years old, but you have the same results. what I posted on that was the recommended requirements. Another well made game going strong.

    Just with these two examples you have the majority of the online gaming population. The point is that they are older games that are highly compatible with lower-midrange to high end systems, so you dont need to have hardware made after 2004 to play them.

    As far as hardware/OS envey goes. Thats just stupid, and a typical elitist bragging attitude. When a game comes out I cant run well, even after hacking apart the code, I get ****** at the devs. Because if I cant run it, the majority of other gamers cant run it either.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by DX-GAME View Post
    Vegas is a terrible port. You only have to play it to see. I enjoy the game, but I can put up with alot of ****, lol. CTDs, sound repeat bugs, consol type options. Unoptimized for PC play - AND- if you take a look at the file structure, its got like three of the exact same code in it. Its funny.
    Hehe, I see

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Vegas is a terrible port. You only have to play it to see. I enjoy the game, but I can put up with alot of ****, lol. CTDs, sound repeat bugs, consol type options. Unoptimized for PC play - AND- if you take a look at the file structure, its got like three of the exact same code in it. Its funny.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by OblivionLord View Post
    "The 6800Ultra has similar speed as the 7600GT, X1650XT, and sometimes even a 8600GT because this card is wierd. These cards are for sale TODAY and can cost up to 150€ or more. And some guys have 6800Ultra SLI."

    1024x768 = 40-45fps AVG on the 8600gt and GTS in COH. Screw that.
    1024x768 = 35-40fps AVG in Supreme Commander. Come On
    http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=5
    http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=2
    Everybody reviews at max ingame settings without exception! And do you want proof that often they don't have a clue? They bench w/o AF, when AF is almost free these days. But they use shadows to max, when it is known that sometimes they can make a game 5 times slower. Shadows increase complexity with more characters ingame, you will have lowest fps exactly when they are needed. How retarded is this?

    Obviously its been proven that the 8600GT and GTS aren't really designed for gamers when they are really directed towards HTPC owners. They have higher clock speeds then the 8800 series mainly to decode formats.
    You Honestly think that these cards will last in UT3 or Crysis?
    Hey, I'm not defending the cards. The GTS price-performance is a joke, the GT is only decent for gaming with a lot of OC and for medium settings. Who is going to upgrade and wants to spend 200 or 250€ really should wait for something like a 8900gs or equivalent from ATI. But that means high settings. Who is going to upgrade to a card like this expect to play at high settings. The others play with lower. Is there something wrong with that?


    "Bull. Go on, disable shadows and AA. Point me to a downloadable game demo that is not playable at 1024x768, good texture quality and HDR."

    Forget demos... here is a full game...
    Farcry with HDR.. cheap example here but, usable on the 6800Ultra
    http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/..._1.3/page6.asp
    http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2004/...patch13_eval/5
    http://www.elitebastards.com/page.ph...d=1&comments=1
    http://www.techreport.com/reviews/20.../index.x?pg=10

    Lets look at a game with HDR "Patch" and the 6800. 2 sites here with the GT and 3 i see with the Ultra. These are AVG frame rates and deffently are **** playability at 1024x768 noAA with HDR. Some are at the min FPS still ****.

    30FPS max is utter ****. If anyone is satisfied with that then thats their preference and obviously they arent a serious gamer.
    Lmao, a review is done with a P4B 2.4GHz. Another shows you 57fps. Other one talks about the 6600gt, look at the 6800gt. Only one shows bad results for the 6800.


    [quote]"WTF? What code change??? They developed the engine using exactly 6800Ultras in SLI."

    Again 6800's in Ultra is what? Bragging rights when it really doesn't do squat compared to a modern single video card thats a year old.
    Bragging rights??? Is this what gaming is all about? Is it so hard to just STFU and play? Or let other people play with what they got? Pretty please?
    Must poor people that can't afford this insanity, or simply just had enough, need to feel uncomfortable because they can't now brag about their rig?
    Same code but obviously as with the benches I posted... the performance sucks unless you alter the code just like with consoles to allow such old hardware to play at higher FPS on a Progressive monitor. When I say alter the code I mean take out this and that just inorder for it to play fast. Doom3 on Xbox is a prime example.
    Often devs don't have to change anything. The card owner has. Or they do and do what's reasonable, make the game run on mainstream PCs. Look, even Tim just said on the interview that I just read that 80% of the PCs are sold with single-core and lower spec cards. He is not talking about the *existing*, but *sold today*

    "Hmm... even if you had vsync on, there is no need to create a frame for each monitor cycle. It could be 42.5 for 85Hz CRT, 1 frame per each 2 cycles. Why this isn't done, I dunno."

    To me 60fps is adaquate. To you 42fps is decent. I can tell a diffrence at 60fps on 85hz to 42fps 85hz
    I agree, and I start to tell the difference a bit below, near 50 but that's not the point. If you play DM or TAM you really need a bit more than ONS, but look, each to it's own. You were the one that said that 30fps would be okay for interlaced IIRC. I can't really understand how 30fps is ok, but 42.5 is much worse. I would swear it has to do with higher light retention of the TV screens instead. And it seems that with motion blur it's a bit more comfortable to play at slightly lower fps. And it also depends on how fast you can turn around, etc...

    "There is no need to continuosly upgrade. Can you play anything with a recent x1950XT or 7950gt with similar eyecandy to a console? Yes you can. But guess what, they are outdated already."

    The x1950Xt and 7950gt may play anything of today but they are but 1 year old. Hardly considered outdated compared to something thats 3 years old like the 6800Ultra. Besides that.. both of these cards on Newegg cost $200-250 outside of rebates. That also proves still how modern they are compared to the price performance of 6800Ultra which Ebay is about the only place youll find it on if any.
    But you can find equivalent performance cards for 120 to 150€. It's old but has the same performance of today's cards. I fail to see your point really.

    "RAM is inexpensive and it has fantastic value. You are talking about quantity and not speed of the device here. That means 110€ to 150€ for 2GB. Affordable."

    Yes quantity which obviously HL2 doesnt require nor CS-S or CS. This game obviously can run efficently on 1 gb ram. BF2 shows a hugee performance with 2gb. On that survey.. the majority are using 1gb. Of course if the same type of survey for BF2 was done then im positive to say that the majority would not be using 1gb but instead 2gb mainly because it is as you said afforadble. So being that ddr or ddr2 at stock speed at the least is very inexpencive.. why are the people on Steam mainly using 1gb? To answer that question.. obviously they have no need to upgrade to a more demanding requirement for a more modern game since they are happy with what they are currently playing. Whole reason why I myself haven't upgraded till something I really want to play comes out.

    "What? Would any of them exchange for instance an A64 SC for a lame P4 DC 1 year ago?"

    A dual core today at the least can go for $80 bucks new retail. However you have to upgrade everything else to go along with it which makes it more expensive considering that these people aren't willing to do it in the first place. To answer your question.. Im sure if it was given to them free them yes since these people are running high end single core cpu's to begin with since even as the survey shows.. the majority of A64 users aren't in the 3.0ghz area which is obviously overclocking therefore proving they aren't spending money to cool the cpu or case or anything beyond air cooling since a stock single core a64 3000 is adaquate for CS-S. The hell if any of those people "NEED" a San Diego at 2.6 or 2.8ghz to play CS-Source. What a joke.
    I'm really not interested on discussing much more about other games or communities on Epic's forum. Sorry for not replying here


    "It's not budget savvy, just a matter of choice. If I can't play at max settings, I'll try to have fun at 90%. It's seems hard for some gamers today.
    And the problem is not upgrading. It's doing it constantly. Ask 7950GX2 or X1950XTX owners what they think about Vista.
    The point: you can't upgrade just in time for a single game. Some people use their PCs for something else and had upgrade cycles recently."


    It is called budget savy.. its called only being able to deal with what you got. obviously the people who went out and paid top dollar for a x1950xtx and 7950gx2 either have the money to spend or didnt do their investigation to know that DX10 is just around the corner to settle with something less for now and then upgrade. The 7950gx2 is of all sences a crazy card to own. When it came out it was about the price of 2 7900gtx. It also had issues. The x1900xtx is just as efficent as the 1950xtx, not really a price diffrence. Still foolish to only look at that. Any person on a budget wouldnt have even spent high dollor for these cards last year since they wernt in the $200 range of course. Obviously today someone who is able to buy either of those cards would be foolish since the price ratio of the 8800GTS 320mb easilyyyyy tops the performance of both those cards and its even DX10 compatable. How much price diffrence? Well you can get a 8800GTS 320mb for $250 that includes rebates. Thats mearly $50 more than what the price of a x1900/1950 xtx are today.
    Well, on a first read this looked even more OT that the previous point. But you are really agreeing with me even though you didn't notice. That's exactly it: " its called only being able to deal with what you got".
    Even more budget savy is keeping the hardware one has that still performs well even though it's 3 years old, see how it performs and make up their mind if an upgrade is required. Not entering the upgrade bandwagon that you seem to defend when assuming that most people's hardware is ****. 80% to 90% of the gamers have hardware like this or below.


    "The problem is actually the P4. It is slower than an AthlonXP @ 2.2GHz. But unfortunately you can't scale down CPU settings that much, or at least like gfx cards"

    Please tell me your not refering to a Barton AthlonXP 2.2ghz because a P4 3.0ghz is just on par with that. An A64 2.2ghz Ill agree with.
    Not by much honestly. I was talking about UT2004 only that it's the only game I play. I have both on i865 and NF2 and tested myself. It has to do with x87 FPU. On other games I dunno, but yes it makes sense that the P4 win comfortably.

    "Default settings. A tech demo. Unoptimized engine. With shadow high and shadow map 1024x1024. Whatever, I give up"

    Come on.. I said that it was not the all end result. Plus Rainbow 6 Vegas is just the same even though its a terrible Console Port.
    Why do you say that it is a "terrible" port?

    Also if you want to get technical then Supreme Commander, being that it is optimized, shows 40fps performance even on the 8800 series since its soo demanding CPU and GPU wise. The newer "big" patch is said to really change this however we wont really know till its out but I greatly doubt it.
    What do you mean so demanding? It's very easy to make a game unplayable on a 8800.
    THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE POINT:
    - People play with max settings whatever they are, max shadows max this max that and then complain that a game is so demanding.
    - Create FUD about a lot of games, giving the impression that you must upgrade like hell.
    - I don't care about how well or badly Supreme Commander is optimized. But if UT3 would come like this, if one can't really afford, there is no way but playing another game. This means much more trouble for developers than for the gamers.
    - If it would be like this, than it's a PITA that it had to happen exactly with the game I expect to be the best game ever

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by durtytarget View Post
    btw is can some1 tell me as to whether ATI 1950 is a high end graphic card or is it mid range?
    x1950 is kinda midrange I suppose, an excellent card nonthenless and with a nice processor to back it up I personally think it'll do just fine on UT3.
    This card is pretty equivlant to the card in the xbox360.

    Originally posted by roadrash View Post
    If that's the case buy the console version.
    Graphical level is lower on consoles and will always be lower.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Can some1 tell me whats the difference between polygons and triangles please. I know i sound stupid but i am a boy willing to learn. I am asking this cause I saw the number of triangles in a complex seen and wanted to compare. btw is can some1 tell me as to whether ATI 1950 is a high end graphic card or is it mid range?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Good.
    Down at the bottom of the interview, it looks like they have done low and midrange optimizations.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    - Some gamers aren't capable of having fun without setting everything to highest, independently of how crappy the details are, ruining gameplay even
    If that's the case buy the console version.

    If they don't or can't afford it, there is no particular reason why they shouldn't play at lower settings with a 6800, 7600, x1650,etc... I believed they would, until I saw that the existing UE3 engine game runs at 640x480 30fps low on a 7600gt.
    You mean rainbow six vegas runs like ***, that doesn't mean the U3 engine runs like ****. If you're going to judge if you can't/can't run UT3 based off R6 then i have some news for you, we're all screwed and Epic is a pack of liars. SLI doesn't work well with it (in some cases I think it doesn't work at all) and even on an OC'd core2 rig with g80's it still runs like pants.

    Let's see if that happens about the only game that will matter for me in the future.
    Hot titles sell hardware. Besides the prior UT's both scalled back pretty well with hardware.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    "The 6800Ultra has similar speed as the 7600GT, X1650XT, and sometimes even a 8600GT because this card is wierd. These cards are for sale TODAY and can cost up to 150€ or more. And some guys have 6800Ultra SLI."

    1024x768 = 40-45fps AVG on the 8600gt and GTS in COH. Screw that.
    1024x768 = 35-40fps AVG in Supreme Commander. Come On
    http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=5
    http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=2

    Obviously its been proven that the 8600GT and GTS aren't really designed for gamers when they are really directed towards HTPC owners. They have higher clock speeds then the 8800 series mainly to decode formats. You Honestly think that these cards will last in UT3 or Crysis?


    "Bull. Go on, disable shadows and AA. Point me to a downloadable game demo that is not playable at 1024x768, good texture quality and HDR."

    Forget demos... here is a full game...
    Farcry with HDR.. cheap example here but, usable on the 6800Ultra
    http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/..._1.3/page6.asp
    http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2004/...patch13_eval/5
    http://www.elitebastards.com/page.ph...d=1&comments=1
    http://www.techreport.com/reviews/20.../index.x?pg=10

    Lets look at a game with HDR "Patch" and the 6800. 2 sites here with the GT and 3 i see with the Ultra. These are AVG frame rates and deffently are **** playability at 1024x768 noAA with HDR. Some are at the min FPS still ****.

    30FPS max is utter ****. If anyone is satisfied with that then thats their preference and obviously they arent a serious gamer.


    "WTF? What code change??? They developed the engine using exactly 6800Ultras in SLI."

    Again 6800's in Ultra is what? Bragging rights when it really doesn't do squat compared to a modern single video card thats a year old.

    Same code but obviously as with the benches I posted... the performance sucks unless you alter the code just like with consoles to allow such old hardware to play at higher FPS on a Progressive monitor. When I say alter the code I mean take out this and that just inorder for it to play fast. Doom3 on Xbox is a prime example.

    "Hmm... even if you had vsync on, there is no need to create a frame for each monitor cycle. It could be 42.5 for 85Hz CRT, 1 frame per each 2 cycles. Why this isn't done, I dunno."

    To me 60fps is adaquate. To you 42fps is decent. I can tell a diffrence at 60fps on 85hz to 42fps 85hz

    "There is no need to continuosly upgrade. Can you play anything with a recent x1950XT or 7950gt with similar eyecandy to a console? Yes you can. But guess what, they are outdated already."

    The x1950Xt and 7950gt may play anything of today but they are but 1 year old. Hardly considered outdated compared to something thats 3 years old like the 6800Ultra. Besides that.. both of these cards on Newegg cost $200-250 outside of rebates. That also proves still how modern they are compared to the price performance of 6800Ultra which Ebay is about the only place youll find it on if any.

    "RAM is inexpensive and it has fantastic value. You are talking about quantity and not speed of the device here. That means 110€ to 150€ for 2GB. Affordable."

    Yes quantity which obviously HL2 doesnt require nor CS-S or CS. This game obviously can run efficently on 1 gb ram. BF2 shows a hugee performance with 2gb. On that survey.. the majority are using 1gb. Of course if the same type of survey for BF2 was done then im positive to say that the majority would not be using 1gb but instead 2gb mainly because it is as you said afforadble. So being that ddr or ddr2 at stock speed at the least is very inexpencive.. why are the people on Steam mainly using 1gb? To answer that question.. obviously they have no need to upgrade to a more demanding requirement for a more modern game since they are happy with what they are currently playing. Whole reason why I myself haven't upgraded till something I really want to play comes out.

    "What? Would any of them exchange for instance an A64 SC for a lame P4 DC 1 year ago?"

    A dual core today at the least can go for $80 bucks new retail. However you have to upgrade everything else to go along with it which makes it more expensive considering that these people aren't willing to do it in the first place. To answer your question.. Im sure if it was given to them free them yes since these people are running high end single core cpu's to begin with since even as the survey shows.. the majority of A64 users aren't in the 3.0ghz area which is obviously overclocking therefore proving they aren't spending money to cool the cpu or case or anything beyond air cooling since a stock single core a64 3000 is adaquate for CS-S. The hell if any of those people "NEED" a San Diego at 2.6 or 2.8ghz to play CS-Source. What a joke.


    "It's not budget savvy, just a matter of choice. If I can't play at max settings, I'll try to have fun at 90%. It's seems hard for some gamers today.
    And the problem is not upgrading. It's doing it constantly. Ask 7950GX2 or X1950XTX owners what they think about Vista.
    The point: you can't upgrade just in time for a single game. Some people use their PCs for something else and had upgrade cycles recently."


    It is called budget savy.. its called only being able to deal with what you got. obviously the people who went out and paid top dollar for a x1950xtx and 7950gx2 either have the money to spend or didnt do their investigation to know that DX10 is just around the corner to settle with something less for now and then upgrade. The 7950gx2 is of all sences a crazy card to own. When it came out it was about the price of 2 7900gtx. It also had issues. The x1900xtx is just as efficent as the 1950xtx, not really a price diffrence. Still foolish to only look at that. Any person on a budget wouldnt have even spent high dollor for these cards last year since they wernt in the $200 range of course. Obviously today someone who is able to buy either of those cards would be foolish since the price ratio of the 8800GTS 320mb easilyyyyy tops the performance of both those cards and its even DX10 compatable. How much price diffrence? Well you can get a 8800GTS 320mb for $250 that includes rebates. Thats mearly $50 more than what the price of a x1900/1950 xtx are today.
    For me, it's 40-45 min.

    "The problem is actually the P4. It is slower than an AthlonXP @ 2.2GHz. But unfortunately you can't scale down CPU settings that much, or at least like gfx cards"

    Please tell me your not refering to a Barton AthlonXP 2.2ghz because a P4 3.0ghz is just on par with that. An A64 2.2ghz Ill agree with.

    "Default settings. A tech demo. Unoptimized engine. With shadow high and shadow map 1024x1024. Whatever, I give up"

    Come on.. I said that it was not the all end result. Plus Rainbow 6 Vegas is just the same even though its a terrible Console Port. Also if you want to get technical then Supreme Commander, being that it is optimized, shows 40fps performance even on the 8800 series since its soo demanding CPU and GPU wise. The newer "big" patch is said to really change this however we wont really know till its out but I greatly doubt it.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Can some1 tell me whats the difference between polygons and triangles please. I know i sound stupid but i am a boy willing to learn. I am asking this cause I saw the number of triangles in a complex seen and wanted to compare. btw is can some1 tell me as to whether ATI 1950 is a high end graphic card or is it mid range?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X