Tbird... based on your last couple of posts, does that mean that if I play far cry demo when my CPU is at 2.5ghz I'll run just a tad bit slower than Colossus' rig at the same settings?
I don't think so.
Printable View
Tbird... based on your last couple of posts, does that mean that if I play far cry demo when my CPU is at 2.5ghz I'll run just a tad bit slower than Colossus' rig at the same settings?
I don't think so.
ok I didnt think he had more images than in the first post. they look exactly like mine, both screenshot and in game except his jaggies are blurred and his are 1600x1200 while mines 1024x768. If you can honestly see any differences over his screenshots to mine, please crop out an area and draw an arrow pointing to the difference(besides aa) cause I cant tell!
edit: farcry may be very optimized for Intel cpus so thats why colossus fps are so high. as for yours, your using only 200fsb while im using 220 so you wont get much difference over me, id recon wed both have the same performance despite my 340/700 cause of your cpu advantage, even at lower fsb. ok I admit I was wrong, 1600x1200 at max details is somewhat blocky at 15fps, can we move on now? I am not complaining, the ti4200 still runs it fine, it just needs a better cpu to really shine, not that my cpu is bad either. my IQ is just as good as anyones(minus aa)
Thank you very much for posting that...Quote:
Originally posted by Johnmcl7
No, no and no! You were the one boasting about being able to do max details at 1600x1200, which you cannot do! You cannot play the game 'fine' at 1600x1200 you have to lower details to do so, there's a big difference there which I'm sure you're aware of but won't admit.
15fps is playable in some situations. Most of the time its not playable because the mouse lags with it, but in some other games like... LineageII (damn I swear I'm obssessed with that game), the mouse pointer is programmed so that the mouse pointer always run smooth even if the frame rate is 1fps :eek: Plus you can zoom in and zoom out of your character and IMO it doesn't feel as laggy (graphics wise) when its zoomed out.
Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
edit: farcry may be very optimized for Intel cpus so thats why colossus fps are so high. as for yours, your using only 200fsb while im using 220 so you wont get much difference over me, id recon wed both have the same performance despite my 340/700 cause of your cpu advantage, even at lower fsb. ok I admit I was wrong, 1600x1200 at max details is somewhat blocky at 15fps, can we move on now? I am not complaining, the ti4200 still runs it fine, it just needs a better cpu to really shine, not that my cpu is bad either. my IQ is just as good as anyones(minus aa)
FSB is not everything! I can be at 180Mhz FSB and still be faster then yours at 220 FSB :)
You would need to push that CPU around 2.55Ghz to compete against my 3.2c :) Atleast!
Then we have the video card factor... My card is 50 - 150% faster then a GF4 4200 (depends on game)... So with all that in mind.. You are still going to say your rig == my rig performance?
Please tell me I am reading the above post wrong... I dont want to die laughing tonight...
I know, I'd say around 2.58GHz... Last time I checked 2.55 is Right between a 3.0C and 3.2C :)Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
You would need to push that CPU around 2.55Ghz to compete against my 3.2c :) Atleast!
btw: that's with HT enabled... I destroyed all stock P4Cs in sandra scores when they are not enabled ;)
So you score over 10,000 in sandra around 2.55????Quote:
Originally posted by icecube_of_death
I know, I'd say around 2.58GHz... Last time I checked 2.55 is Right between a 3.0C and 3.2C :)
btw: that's with HT enabled... I destroyed all stock P4Cs in sandra scores when they are not enabled ;)
But that is just Sandra.. what about a real benchmark like games? :)
seems like Intel cpus benefit less from higher fsb. a 2.4b to a 2.4c is less of a difference than running an amd xp cpu at 2.4GHz at 133fsb than upping to 200. maybe in that game id need 2.55GHz to match your cpu, but for 3dmark and other games its different. I wont match your 3.2 now that im only at 2.09GHz, heck I wont even match a stock xp3200(I would if I could do 220x10 which my nf7-s wont) a stock xp3200 barton is about as good as a 3.0c so id say mine would match a stock 2.8c. what benchmarks exactly compares an xp3200 barton to a 3.2c? I thought the barton was not far behind a 3.2c
edit: fsb matters much more, there may be some truth in needing 2.55Ghz to match a 3.2c if you use low fsb and crap ram on the amd platform! amd cpus dont scale well past 2GHz either so even if a 2.55 matched a 3.2c, a 2.09 would be only a few % behind :)
Wrong again dude...Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
seems like Intel cpus benefit less from higher fsb. a 2.4b to a 2.4c is less of a difference than running an amd xp cpu at 2.4GHz at 133fsb than upping to 200. maybe in that game id need 2.55GHz to match your cpu, but for 3dmark and other games its different. I wont match your 3.2 now that im only at 2.09GHz, heck I wont even match a stock xp3200(I would if I could do 220x10 which my nf7-s wont) a stock xp3200 barton is about as good as a 3.0c so id say mine would match a stock 2.8c. what benchmarks exactly compares an xp3200 barton to a 3.2c? I thought the barton was not far behind a 3.2c
You would need a lot more the 2.09 and how many freaking times do we need to tell you that 3DMarks is for kids? It has no relivance to gaming performance!!!!!!
Your CPU has to be around 2.6Ghz before it can even standup to a STOCK INTEL 3.2C Pound for Pound!!!! In games! NOT JUST THIS ONE!
a STOCK XP 3200 DOES NOT COMPETE with a 3.2c.. Sorry bro... Try again.
Maybe a 3.2Ghz (with 133FSB, but they never went that high, only to 3.06Ghz)...
At 2.09Ghz that you are at now.. You would match a 2.6c or so...
T-bird - I cannot believe you're still pimping your 4200 in the face of this game. You cannot compete with high end NVIDIA or ATI DX9 cards on Far Cry, or any other DX9 type game coming out soon. Open your eyes!
And since when is 15 fps playable? That's just stubborn. And whatever happened to "1024x768 is so 2000's"? I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers that quote - it's in someone's sig.
You know what... I am going to be like TB...
*looks for his Viper 770 Ultra card*
Look I can pimp Far Cry at 1600x1200 @ 10 fpm
Woohoo!
I can play this game!!!!
.
.
.
.
.
Notice I said FPM, not FPS :D
I mean come on anything below 40 requires IQ adjustment.. I would say 30fps, but that can dip quite often.. I rather give a little more slack to allow for dipping...
Also anyone remember TB with Splinter Cell.... cough cough...
Hahahahaha, this quote shows Tbirds true gaming passion!! 3DMARK! He can even run it with AA/AF at 1600*1200.Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
3dmark and other games its different.
Just accept it Tbird... ebay that card like you always do and buy a R9800. I have a Ti4200 and I can say that it is old. Running at stock even BF seems laggy at some instances! As for BigC kicking your ***, that is just too easy, and no your screens don't look perdy they look like crap!
i like p!ssed in my pants laughing so hard when reading the last couple of pages.
i seem to remember Tbird stating he could run 1600x1200 or even 2048 by whatever at max details, just like the newer cards. run???? not!!! skip and jiggle maybe, yes.
tbird, you could upgrade your cpu to the moon, but the newer cards rely so much more on the vid cards GPU to run smooth. yes, there will be somewhat of an improvement, but upgrading the vid card would make a major improvement.
maybe i am missing something here.
and i see nothing in your shots that prove your card renders details the same as a 9800pro.
face it, you are a Nividia fanboy through and through, admit it.
did ya get yer new card yet????
baldy
T-Bird, you've just been serioursly owned. 1024x768 looks as good as 1600x1200? You contradict yourself so many times its not funny. That's interesting IQ too...nowhere near Opstar's screenshot.
Anyway, have fun playing in that "so 2000s" resolution.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone looking for a new video card...you've seen the screenshots from T-Bird's system...you decide if you want a far inferior card to the 9800 Pro.
So what your saying is that you wouldn;t use AA and AF even if you could???Quote:
my IQ is just as good as anyones(minus aa)
Even if I could be bothered to crop as you suggest you still wouldn't accept it so what is the point.
In general weapons look worse in your shots as does the foliage. Water is also less realistic.
Look I'm not saying that your card is useless, and if you are happy playing with jaggies then cool. I'm just saying don't try to make out that the 4200 is an equivalent card to the 9800 at any res. AA and AF make such tremendous differences to image quality, and are basically accepted by most to be run as standard now a day. To say your card runs games at high IQ fine....except AA is a contradication in terms.
LOL!:D I can't believe this thread's grown to 14 pages with >200 posts!:eek: One thing about T'birdy's thread, it's seldom short or boring...:D Fire away guys, LOL!:D