New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Graphics card question - Page 2

post #21 of 122
2/28/05 at 5:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikoma
You're full of shit too.

There's no way your FX5200 (comparable to a GeForce 3 Ti200) can play Doom 3 on high detail settings in 800x600. If you do, it's probably at 5-7 frames per second (not playable for those of us who actually play games). High detail settings was intended for 256MB video cards (mid to high end cards).
My FX 5200 is 256 MBs, I got it as an X-Mas present w/o a receit and I get about 33 FPS
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 122
2/28/05 at 5:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelX30
My FX 5200 is 256 MBs, I got it as an X-Mas present w/o a receit and I get about 33 FPS
Really? I was unaware they made a 5200 with 256MB

I guess that would change some things. However it wouldn't make that HUGE of an improvement, I'd also like to see something recorded in FRAPs from you if you have time/web space nVidia cards also handle the OpenGL API way better than ATi cards do.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 122
2/28/05 at 5:27pm
some people have no idea, next they'll be saying an intel extreme plays doom3 on ultra.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 122
2/28/05 at 5:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikoma
Wow you sure proved me wrong.

Download FRAPS (http://www.fraps.com/) and post a timedemo here as proof please, with a frames-per-second meter in the upper left. Until then you're a typical online bullshitter.

NOTE: I believe (and many others will agree) playable framerates are ~30fps.

At work right now, but will do tonight. I've never tested FPS on an actual game, but when I've ran 3DMark03 I had some points where it was running at 15-20FPS and my eye could not tell anything, looked smooth as can be. So I don't know if I would consider 30FPS required for a game to be playable.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 122
2/28/05 at 5:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by olli3
some people have no idea, next they'll be saying an intel extreme plays doom3 on ultra.
Look I play Doom3 on high settings. I am not lying and have no reason to. If you have something stuck up your ass because you paid alot of money for a high end graphics card you don't really need then say so.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 122
2/28/05 at 5:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanFL
Look I play Doom3 on high settings. I am not lying and have no reason to.
Yes you do. You want the satisfaction (or justification) of thinking of you got a good deal buying a crappy Gateway laptop with a quasi-decent video card.

You may get 15-20fps when you're standing in the game looking at a wall or something, but when two or three imps start lunging at you I'll bet it's a slideshow.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 122
2/28/05 at 5:35pm
my question was not put up against you, I understand you are getting 20fps on some games but to enjoy a game you need a bit more.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 122
2/28/05 at 5:40pm
Here we go:

This is on a desktop AGP version of the Radeon 9550 and it's 128MB NOT the mobility 64MB version.



See the middle mark, at 15FPS in 1024x768? Now subtract a few more because you're missing that extra 64MB that the desktop version has.

Congrats, you get around 10fps in doom 3 at high settings.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 122
2/28/05 at 5:43pm
Here's another if you need more proof.

This is of the desktop HIS Radeon 9550 128MB with VIVO, again, it has 64 more MB than yours.



Nice, 11.6fps
(second from the bottom is what we're looking at here, no AA in 1024x768)
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 122
2/28/05 at 5:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by olli3
my question was not put up against you, I understand you are getting 20fps on some games but to enjoy a game you need a bit more.
Are you serious? When running 3DMark I cannot visually tell a difference between 20fps and 30fps. Or even 15fps and 30fps for that matter.
Reply
Reply
post #31 of 122
2/28/05 at 5:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanFL
Are you serious? When running 3DMark I cannot visually tell a difference between 20fps and 30fps. Or even 15fps and 30fps for that matter.
Than you have other issues you should probably looking into.

I'd suggest seeing a doctor.
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 122
2/28/05 at 5:54pm
Tachikoma, there is hardly any gain from an additional 64MB of memory. I compared my 3DMark03 benchmark score online with others that have AMD64 3400+ and mine was equal to or better than alot of computers with the 128MB card.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 122
2/28/05 at 5:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikoma
Than you have other issues you should probably looking into.

I'd suggest seeing a doctor.
I concur. That is pretty bad.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 122
2/28/05 at 5:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikoma
Than you have other issues you should probably looking into.

I'd suggest seeing a doctor.
You guys are just number fanatics. It might be very slightly smoother at the slightly higher frame rate.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 122
2/28/05 at 6:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanFL
Tachikoma, there is hardly any gain from an additional 64MB of memory. I compared my 3DMark03 benchmark score online with others that have AMD64 3400+ and mine was equal to or better than alot of computers with the 128MB card.
If two cards are exactly the same chipset, and one has 64MB and the other has 128MB (both same speed memory), the one with 128MB will perform better. That's my point.

11.6 FPS is not how I, or anyone for that matter, should play PC games.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 122
2/28/05 at 6:10pm
We'll see what kind of FPS I get tonight, but I'm telling you it plays Doom3 smooth as can be on high graphics settings 1024x768. It plays just as smooth as any consoles I have used (PS2, XBox, and GC) and that's all that really matters.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 122
2/28/05 at 6:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanFL
We'll see what kind of FPS I get tonight, but I'm telling you it plays Doom3 smooth as can be on high graphics settings 1024x768. It plays just as smooth as any consoles I have used (PS2, XBox, and GC) and that's all that really matters.
Consoles are generally pretty bad when it comes to frames per second. I had a PS2 a while back to play Robotech: Battlecry and it would chug horribly in larger battles. Have you played Chronicles of Riddick or Doom 3 on Xbox? It's horrid
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 122
2/28/05 at 6:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikoma
Consoles are generally pretty bad when it comes to frames per second. I had a PS2 a while back to play Robotech: Battlecry and it would chug horribly in larger battles. Have you played Chronicles of Riddick or Doom 3 on Xbox? It's horrid
I realize that the graphics are better on the computer and better resolution, but I have never noticed any shakiness in the fps of console systems. Looks almost as smooth as watching TV to me.

Even if the fps of the consoles isn't that great and only comparable to my laptops graphic card, you don't consider the consoles "playable?"
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 122
2/28/05 at 6:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmshau
If you get the Dell 9300 with the 6800 Ultra Go, or the XPS2 as it's called in the US, it'll completely blow the Vaio out of the water.

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...=iXPS2S1&s=dhs

just check it out, and read the review here:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2356
Really?! I thought the Dell 9300 is a completely different system than the XPS2. Didn't know they were planning to call it XPS2
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 122
2/28/05 at 7:43pm
If you can honestly not tell the difference between 15fps and 30fps, then that's great for you.

I can, and every single other gamer I know can. No, you cannot play Doom 3 on a 5200 at 1024x768 on high quality without it lagging, as these benchmarks show. 11.6 AVERAGE frames per second. That means that during the game there would be times when it drops below that 11.6 FPS by a huge margin.

11.6 FPS - no thanks. I wouldn't settle for that in anything. Playable framerates is 30+, period. Anything less is shaky.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Notebook Forums - General