Screenshots?
Printable View
Screenshots?
Oh just incase you want to use it as an excuse!!!!
EMAIL: [email protected]
There!
Oh, I'll take your word for it Tbird... now send those screens to Colossus before I beat some sense into you!!!:cool:
Not quite the power of a 9800 Pro?:confused: And when you say max details, do you mean the drivers are set to Optimal Quality and the all the game settings are set to max? And what do you mean by low details? Both in the drivers and the game settings?Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
ok did, getting 60fps in 1600x1200 with low details, 15fps with max details. in 1024x768 max details I get 40fps. Not too bad, my cpus only 2.09GHz at 220fsb now, thats cutting me a few fps short. 340/700 ti4200 clocks. with an a64 at 2.4GHz id gain 50% more fps than what I am at now. I dont quite have the power of a 9800 pro, but its very, very playable in 1600x1200. Im gonna now try high details. Ive been taking screenshots too, but its much sharper in actual game though. used 95% quality jpg. bmps are way too large, several megs each!
Screenshots don't look "much sharper" in a game, BTW....
He's referring to the fact that jpeg's don't look as good as the in-game stuff, which is true. Blue/Red colors lose their saturation when converted to jpeg, and most textures aren't quite as sharp as they are in-game.Quote:
Originally posted by speedstream5621
Screenshots don't look "much sharper" in a game, BTW....
Hey Colossus, what's your 9800 pro getting in 1600x1200 max details (no AA/AF)? what about 4xAA/4xAF?
That's true to an extent and he did say that he was using 95% of the quality, BUT...we'll be able to tell enough from that to reasonably determine the quality of gameplay and IQ....;)Quote:
Originally posted by JustWhitman
He's referring to the fact that jpeg's don't look as good as the in-game stuff, which is true. Blue/Red colors lose their saturation when converted to jpeg, and most textures aren't quite as sharp as they are in-game.
I dunno.. I'll try far cry now...Quote:
Originally posted by talldude
Hey Colossus, what's your 9800 pro getting in 1600x1200 max details (no AA/AF)? what about 4xAA/4xAF?
But I am trying to game at 1280x1028@ full details/highest settings 8x/16x in UT2004 Demo... Average is around 50fps.. With a stock 9800Pro and a stock 3.2c
Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
Oh just incase you want to use it as an excuse!!!!
EMAIL: [email protected]
There!
If this email address is valad, you will see 11 screenshots totaling 3.5 megs! many of them in 1024x768x32 all details to max cause I have chosen to run games that mode. 1280x960 drops my fps to about 25. 15fps for 1600x1200. Id rather run 1024x768 with all eye candy. This means NO lodbias tweaking either. full blown maximum eyecandy except for aa/af. not bad, game looks fantanstic and runs that way too.
Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
I dunno.. I'll try far cry now...
But I am trying to game at 1280x1028@ full details/highest settings 8x/16x in UT2004 Demo... Average is around 50fps.. With a stock 9800Pro and a stock 3.2c
ill give that demo a try soon. keep in mind my cpu is clocked at only 2.09GHz at 220fsb so I may get a few fps lower than you at that resolution. no aa/af either(makes no difference to me anyway)
I just got them... The graphics look like crap.. Are you sure they are maxed out without AA/AF? :)Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
If this email address is valad, you will see 11 screenshots totaling 3.5 megs! many of them in 1024x768x32 all details to max cause I have chosen to run games that mode. 1280x960 drops my fps to about 25. 15fps for 1600x1200. Id rather run 1024x768 with all eye candy. This means NO lodbias tweaking either. full blown maximum eyecandy except for aa/af. not bad, game looks fantanstic and runs that way too.
They are about 300KB each I am going to upload now and link them..
I tried Farcry at 1600x1200 8xAA/16xAF and setting in the game AA/AF to max...
I hovered around ~30-35fps...
This is with a stock 3.2Ghz too :) and stock video card...
nice, what do you get without aa/af and at 1024x768?
Here are TB's pics.. I didnt even look at them all.. Just one or two..
http://sharky.nuclearfallout.net/TB1Ghz/
Why would I run it at such a low resolution that I never game at?Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
nice, what do you get without aa/af and at 1024x768?
EDIT:
I ran it to see what it could do with 1024x768 at max details with ZERO AA/AF I am scoring between 70-80FPS...
thanks very much for hosting those images. if you have 30 seconds just to see what fps you get at 1024x768, itll be nice to know. you may be getting 30fps in 1600x1200 where I get 15, but what would 1024 get you? 45fps when im getting 40? high res is more of a GPU limitation while medium and low res is a cpu limitation. You have twice the gpu that I do and a faster cpu, hence your getting double the fps I am in 1600x1200. still a ti4200 isnt bad for $60 compared to $220 for a 9800p :) I can live with 40fps at 1024x768 max details, honestly looks great and those looking at my screenies will agree. dont mind the two 1600x1200 shots, those suck cause I used low details. the 1024x768 ones were max details