IG-64 Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by TiE 23 *puts fingers at temples* "WWWWOOOOUOOOHHHHHOOOOOOO!" I predict, (at high settings, 1024x748 rez, no AA or AF) about a 30-35 fps TiE How about 1280x1024 res? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mex Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 What do you predict what fps I'll get with 800x600 resolution (low settings no AA no AF) with these specs : Geforce 5900 128mb 2200+ (1.8ghz)AMD processor 512 MB Ram (Yeah, my comp sucks. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treacherous Mercenary Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Pal™ 2200+ (1.8ghz)AMD processor 512 MB Ram All I need to do is replace my card and I'm set to play 1024x768, but mine sounds like it's similiar to yours. I have an Athlon 2100+ 512MB ram and the card isn't worthy of mention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mex Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 We both need to replace our cards then. If I have enough money I'll be buying a Geforce 6800. But the sad thing is if I buy that card it'll be bottlenecked by the RAM and the Processor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obi_Kwiet Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by TiE 23 Yah? Whats the rest of your computer like? I probably have one of the highest comps here, but with a bad V-card TiE Specs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treacherous Mercenary Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Pal™ We both need to replace our cards then. If I have enough money I'll be buying a Geforce 6800. But the sad thing is if I buy that card it'll be bottlenecked by the RAM and the Processor. I'll problably get a 9600XT as a temporary fix, that should allow me to play half life 2 at 1024 res. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet Specs? 3.2 Pentium 4 1024 mb of Ram 120gb Hard Drive (x2) DVD-CD Reader / CD Burner Combo Drive 480 Watt Power Supply Cool Case TiE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Finally, let's get this hype machine out of the way so we can make room for the REAL Game King... DUKE NUKEM FOREVER Hail to the King Baby.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Kurgan Finally, let's get this hype machine out of the way so we can make room for the REAL Game King... DUKE NUKEM FOREVER Hail to the King Baby.... Pfffffffffft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Kurgan Finally, let's get this hype machine out of the way so we can make room for the REAL Game King... DUKE NUKEM FOREVER Hail to the King Baby.... one word: VAPOR-WARE EDIT: Look at the graphics Click Looks like a down-graded Quake 3 game TiE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acrylic Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by TiE 23 What? I don't get it. EDIT: okay, do you have UT2003? We can compare benchmarks (C:\UT2003\System\Benchmark.exe) Im not going to laugh at you, I think you already feel greatly humiliated. TiE Why does it matter? I bragged like, last year, cuz I had the best computer out there, when the 9700 pro was tops, and the 3.06 ghz P4's came out. No one gave a **** about what I said, and I don't think they'll give a **** about what you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 I give a ****. Tie made me cry. j/k Still won't be getting halflife 2 though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Fisher Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Still won't be getting halflife 2 though Why's that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupes. Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Originally posted by Mike Windu 600 mgz Pentium 3. 127 Ram(I'm serious, it's one short, I get a stupid popup everytime I try to run JA "Are you sure you want to run this program, you are short of memory") 32 GB HD(dunno what this has to do with anything but it's pitiful) 6 year old default Intel Graphics Card. I get like 20 fps in JA with lowest settings. I don't think I can play this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Originally posted by CapNColostomy I guess that's good news for just about everyone here but me. ... ...Same with Halo. I just don't get these games, or peoples obsessions with them. But ah well, I'm sure it'll be fun for those that are into it. Im with you CapN when I saw *IT* I thought this was a thread about the crazy clown in that Steven King book/movie damn ! i wanted clownage, not crapola HL2 ! mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crow_Nest Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 IG, you should be able to get at least 20 - 40 FPS on that video card. The 5600 defaults to DX8 so performance will be better, anything higher than that is just poor performance. Btw IG, i thought you said you hated HL2 cause its graphics sucks and outdated so you're not getting it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Originally posted by |GG|Crow_Nest IG, you should be able to get at least 20 - 40 FPS on that video card. The 5600 defaults to DX8 so performance will be better, anything higher than that is just poor performance. Btw IG, i thought you said you hated HL2 cause its graphics sucks and outdated so you're not getting it? I didn;t say the graphics suck, I just said they're probably outdated already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crow_Nest Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Originally posted by IG-64 I didn;t say the graphics suck, I just said they're probably outdated already. The old screenshots had outdated graphics, but the ones released this year was updated with better textures and stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Originally posted by |GG|Crow_Nest The old screenshots had outdated graphics, but the ones released this year was updated with better textures and stuff. Ah, thats probably it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crow_Nest Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Originally posted by IG-64 How about 1280x1024 res? 1280x1024 res? Ha! I bet the framerate wont even hit 30! The max res you can go is probably 1024x768, but i would run it at 800x600 if i were you. Unless you upgrade to something like a 9600 Pro or 5700 Ultra. My dad has a 5700 Ultra on his PC, plays CS:S in DX8.1 and its smoooooooooooth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crow_Nest Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Originally posted by IG-64 Well then upgrade to at least a 9600 Pro, their cheap these days. You can just play the game in Medium detail, i play CS:S with it and graphics still looks like as if it was at high detail. There are also alot of console command tweaks that increases FPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Originally posted by |GG|Crow_Nest Well then upgrade to at least a 9600 Pro, their cheap these days. You can just play the game in Medium detail, i play CS:S with it and graphics still looks like as if it was at high detail. There are also alot of console command tweaks that increases FPS. Arent those the $700 ones? >.> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treacherous Mercenary Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Originally posted by IG-64 Arent those the $700 ones? >.> The 9600 Pro should come around $100, but you can also get a 9600 XT for around $50 more. Depending on the amount you might want to spend, I suggest Sapphire 9600 XT for around $130. If you want a good bundle, Gigabyte Radeon 9600 XT for $150, and if you want an HL2 coupon, ATi Radeon 9600 XT for $189, but they seemed to have jacked up the price of the ATi card. ATi Radeon Gigabyte 9600 XT Sapphire 9600 XT Sapphire 9600 Pro You may be thinking about the Radeon X800 XT which should run about $500, but due to the rarity of it, may cost higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_One Posted October 21, 2004 Author Share Posted October 21, 2004 I find it amusing people have decided to judge/rate/review a game they haven't even played yet. Ok, you can knock a few percent off the reviews for the sake of hype - but that still gives it a bloody high score. And, for all we know, it could be easily worth 95% or higher. If you're honest, and have watched the HL2 trailers, preview movies and whatnot, it looks a hell of a lot better than most of the crap the gaming industry churns out by the bucketload month by month. Bring it on, I say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.