🚀 go-pugleaf

"Derek" <del.wattsnospambaby@ntlworld.com> wrote in message 
news:RsSVh.2690$mk4.1792@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
> news:q16f23hmap4rr0u31ns68fa8l10ril7gcu@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:36:42 +0200, Bruno <dont.use@this.address.ever>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> The first graph is representative of the setup for a typical UT99
>>>> gamer.... 1024 x 768 with no AA or AF.
>>>
>>>I thought a typical UT gamer would use way higher resolutions however I
>>>did dig up some data for those playing CS, Half Life and other Valve
>>>stuff and I stand corrected (providing those figures are similar for
>>>UT). It seems less than 10% is using a resolution above 1280x1024 and in
>>>fact about 44% is using 1024x768 or lower!
>>
>> Thanks for the link.   I was already familiar with those stats
>> (they're quite fascinating) since I've used them for reference before.
>> The average system is quite modest.
>>
>>>I'm very surprised of this. I know that some years ago a screen letting
>>>you go 1600x1200 cost a pretty penny, in fact the two monitors I
>>>mentioned above cost me $3000+, but it has since then become very
>>>affordable - even if you insist on using a TFT monitor it's a bargain
>>>compared to back in time. These days one can get a 2nd hand super high
>>>end monitor like my old Sony for like $100 or so, simply because so many
>>>people have abandoned CRT's despite them still being the best thing for
>>>gaming (and photo work if you like the colours to be correct).
>>
>> There's a considerable percentage of hardcore PC gamers that would run
>> their games in wire frame at 8 bit 640 x 480 if they thought they
>> could get an extra 10 fps.  :)
>>
>>>> We can see that there are 16
>>>> cards that have the same framerate (given a 3% margin of error).
>>>> Obviously we are CPU bound at that resolution, since those 16 cards
>>>> represent a varying amount of pixel pushing power yet they all yield
>>>> the same results.
>>>>
>>>Exactly.
>>>
>>>
>>>> In order to "separate the pack" for a vid card shootout, you need to
>>>> raise the visual stakes, and they do that by using artificially high
>>>> AA/AF or resolution settings.  There's certainly nothing wrong with
>>>> that, but if you do all your gaming at "normal" resolutions and AA/AF
>>>> levels, then any one of those 16 cards are just as good as the other
>>>> in UT.
>>>
>>>Now here's the thing. The AA/AF settings aren't really artificially high
>>>but more like what should be the norm, after all we deserve the games we
>>>play to look the best possible.
>>
>> Turning on decent AA/AF levels on my system makes a modest difference
>> in UT2004 ONS.  I usually keep it off though.  In a fast paced FPS,
>> looking at the scenery is not high on my list.  :-)
>>
>>>>
>>>> Now look at the results from the same article when benching Doom 3....
>>>> http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/10/04/vga_charts_iv/page9.html
>>>>
>>>> Now instead of 16 cards, we have only 3.  Now which game engine would
>>>> you call CPU limited?
>>>>
>>>No question Doom 3 is a very different beast. However just because it's
>>>much harder on the gfx card does not mean UT is not demanding once you
>>>up the resolution and gfx quality settings, the level is just different.
>>>
>>>I shall try and do some testing in the weekend. Perhaps I can make a
>>>graph showing what's the limit in my system - just for the fun of it.
>>
>> I've wasted entire weekends doing just that sort of thing.  Are we
>> geeks or what?
>
> well if you have increased the fsb frequency by 1 mhz  at a time looking 
> for the best perforamce that was still stable I'm afraid so (guilty your 
> honour)
>
> Nick-Dastardly
>
> "quit snikkering Nuttley"
>

I bet you guys look like that kid from the movie "Powder".
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/sf/films/powder.jpg

Go outside and get some sun  :P