Reflective Surfaces, a problem?

[Guest X-Vector]

Originally posted by hahadude

Don't put too much emphasis on processor speed, that isnt what is really important for a game to run well. I run games at high resolution with high detail and all i have is a pentium 3 700 mhz. I do have 640 mb of ram though and a geforce 3. Thats whats important.

 

That depends for a large part on the engine the game in question is using.

Even so, while Q3 graphics technology may be less CPU dependent than Unreal tech, it's still a factor to take into account.

 

As I mentioned above, a Q3 powered game such as Allied Assault can cause framerate issues on non-highend processors.

I've got an Athlon XP 1800+ system waiting on the sideline (can't get it to run stable yet) and I have to say that going from Athlon 1Ghz/384MB SDRAM/GF3 Ti500 to Athlon XP 1800+/512MB DDR/GF3 Ti500 makes a big difference (very noticable in UT, but to a lesser extent in EF as well).

 

BTW, don't buy an "MX" card unless you're really can't afford anything more decent.

[nykel007]

Well I have 128mb of Ram and can run the EF:holoM demo extremely well. Although there aren't any refelective surfaces for me to examine the drop in frame rate I have to wait for the JK2 game.

[Hoowl]

The GF 4 MX is a bit misleading but surely the price is a bit of a giveaway. If you want the best value for money, you can pick up a Geforce 3 Ti200 for a good price now. If you have money to burn and want performance I'd recommend the Geforce 3 Ti500 or the Radion 8500.

[ryudom]

alse i have i a duron 1 gig and a tnt2 m64...

 

i can run quake 3 at 1024 x 768 with about 40 FPS i think.(texture detail might only be 16 bit though other than that all freatures enabled), That looks dang smooth enough for me, i don't know why you would need 170. if i had money i'd probably buy a GF 2 or GF 3, but there's no sense in going beyond that for now, imo

[jedialphaknight]

when I say 170 I mean at the highest, getting 40 isn't really good for reasons of...well if you hit a reflective surface, it kills your fps and it goes down sooo can geforce 3 handle reflections better ...?

[Pipe Smoke]

Last night I grabbed a new video card and another dim of 256 ram

 

so I have an athlon 900 mhz

640 ram

and a geforce 4 64 meg mx

 

Now, normally I wouldn't get the mx of course... but see I have a plan to get an entirely new system when Doom 3 comes out. Next year I hope that will be. Maybe summer next year? at that time i'll get the top of the line everything, so I figured this mx would be a fairly good band-aid to slap on the computer until then to help me with Morrowind and JK2 and a few things like that.

 

I tried it out last night using elite force and RTCW as tests. I was able to run both quite nicely at 1600x1200 with all graphical settings maxed out, no compression etc...

 

I did not have a lot of time to test though I may end up with wolf for instance taking things down a notch in some areas.

 

Point is though, I feel pretty confident about JK2's performance on my machine now... which I did not feel at all a few days ago.

[StormHammer]

As this thread is more generally discussing graphics cards and system performance, I'm moving it to the Swamp.

[Bowen]

Originally posted by StormHammer

As this thread is more generally discussing graphics cards and system performance, I'm moving it to the Swamp.

 

Right StormHammer and who do you think you are? A moderator or something that move threads at will?

 

At least right now today’s video cards are a generation behind today’s games. For example a GF2 will run all games that are out today just fine. Sure a GF3 or GF4 will run them better so if anyone has a GF2 vid card (64 meg that is) and up, you should be able to run any game out there fine provided you the required system specs of course. I'm not dissuading anyone from getting the fastest vid card. On the contrary...when I upgrade I always get the fastest equipment I can afford!!