🚀 go-pugleaf

yeeyoh wrote:
> Hey, is anyone using a MX440 64meg (PCI would be nice) with Unreal2
> the awakening?
>    If so how's it working for you?
>      I might be buying this card in less than a week but I'd like to
> know if it will help play this game and UT2003 first though......


Look, let me be straight with you:
DON'T BUY THIS CARD!!!
Is that simple enough? Spend the few extra dollars and get a 4200. I bought
a MX440 to be able to play UT2003, installed it, and the next day I took it
back to the comp store and swapped it for a 4200ti. The 440 does not have
enough power to do you any good. Trust me. TBH, I don't know if it would
even run Unreal 2 at all, as the game stressed my 4200 pretty good.

   Sorry my tower is only 250watts.  As far as I know a 4200ti or anything
better is going to need a 350watt tower.  If you know different let me
know....


"goPostal" <agutgo...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JtAIa.6311$dE5.1601184@news.alltel.net...
> yeeyoh wrote:
> > Hey, is anyone using a MX440 64meg (PCI would be nice) with Unreal2
> > the awakening?
> >    If so how's it working for you?
> >      I might be buying this card in less than a week but I'd like to
> > know if it will help play this game and UT2003 first though......
>
>
> Look, let me be straight with you:
> DON'T BUY THIS CARD!!!
> Is that simple enough? Spend the few extra dollars and get a 4200. I
bought
> a MX440 to be able to play UT2003, installed it, and the next day I took
it
> back to the comp store and swapped it for a 4200ti. The 440 does not have
> enough power to do you any good. Trust me. TBH, I don't know if it would
> even run Unreal 2 at all, as the game stressed my 4200 pretty good.
>
>

I currently own a MX440 ( not the se just the 440... there is a very slight
difference check the nvidia website)

but it runs both tournament 2003 and unreal II beautifully... I have loved
this card since day one!

dilusion

GeForce4 MX 440      Fill Rate: 1.1 Billion Texels/Sec.
                                       Triangles per Second: 34 Million
                                       Memory Bandwidth:6.4GB/Sec.
                                       Maximum Memory:64MB


GeForce4 MX              Fill Rate:1 Billion Texels/Sec.
440-SE                          Triangles per Second:31 Million
                                       Memory Bandwidth:5.3GB/Sec.
                                       Maximum Memory: 128MB







"goPostal" <agutgo...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JtAIa.6311$dE5.1601184@news.alltel.net...
> yeeyoh wrote:
> > Hey, is anyone using a MX440 64meg (PCI would be nice) with Unreal2
> > the awakening?
> >    If so how's it working for you?
> >      I might be buying this card in less than a week but I'd like to
> > know if it will help play this game and UT2003 first though......
>
>
> Look, let me be straight with you:
> DON'T BUY THIS CARD!!!
> Is that simple enough? Spend the few extra dollars and get a 4200. I
bought
> a MX440 to be able to play UT2003, installed it, and the next day I took
it
> back to the comp store and swapped it for a 4200ti. The 440 does not have
> enough power to do you any good. Trust me. TBH, I don't know if it would
> even run Unreal 2 at all, as the game stressed my 4200 pretty good.
>
>

  Thanks... Tick, Tick, Tick, I can't wait till thursday......!!


"Dilusion" <Dilusi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e_JIa.326$BC3.77125@news20.bellglobal.com...
> I currently own a MX440 ( not the se just the 440... there is a very
slight
> difference check the nvidia website)
>
> but it runs both tournament 2003 and unreal II beautifully... I have loved
> this card since day one!
>
> dilusion
>
> GeForce4 MX 440      Fill Rate: 1.1 Billion Texels/Sec.
>                                        Triangles per Second: 34 Million
>                                        Memory Bandwidth:6.4GB/Sec.
>                                        Maximum Memory:64MB
>
>
> GeForce4 MX              Fill Rate:1 Billion Texels/Sec.
> 440-SE                          Triangles per Second:31 Million
>                                        Memory Bandwidth:5.3GB/Sec.
>                                        Maximum Memory: 128MB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "goPostal" <agutgo...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:JtAIa.6311$dE5.1601184@news.alltel.net...
> > yeeyoh wrote:
> > > Hey, is anyone using a MX440 64meg (PCI would be nice) with Unreal2
> > > the awakening?
> > >    If so how's it working for you?
> > >      I might be buying this card in less than a week but I'd like to
> > > know if it will help play this game and UT2003 first though......
> >
> >
> > Look, let me be straight with you:
> > DON'T BUY THIS CARD!!!
> > Is that simple enough? Spend the few extra dollars and get a 4200. I
> bought
> > a MX440 to be able to play UT2003, installed it, and the next day I took
> it
> > back to the comp store and swapped it for a 4200ti. The 440 does not
have
> > enough power to do you any good. Trust me. TBH, I don't know if it would
> > even run Unreal 2 at all, as the game stressed my 4200 pretty good.
> >
> >
>
>

>      I might be buying this card in less than a week but I'd like to know
if
> it will help play this game and UT2003 first though......
>
I am currently using a 64mb mx 440 with ddr men and if you run ut2k3 on
default settings it will play well up to 800x 600 res but you need a
processor at least 2000ghz

I had a duron 950 b4 and it was totally unplayable (11-15fps) and just
upgraded to 2000+ and it has bought new life and speed to my gfmx 440 and
the game is smoother (about 40-50 frames) which makes me think that ut2k3
still more cpu reliant.

note don't have more than 8 bots in a match though

Thach Nguyen

an amd xp 2000+ chip does not run at 2000ghz....

fyi

it runs at 1.67 ghz.


ciao
dilusion




"Thach Nguyen" <thachng@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ef66617@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> >      I might be buying this card in less than a week but I'd like to
know
> if
> > it will help play this game and UT2003 first though......
> >
> I am currently using a 64mb mx 440 with ddr men and if you run ut2k3 on
> default settings it will play well up to 800x 600 res but you need a
> processor at least 2000ghz
>
> I had a duron 950 b4 and it was totally unplayable (11-15fps) and just
> upgraded to 2000+ and it has bought new life and speed to my gfmx 440 and
> the game is smoother (about 40-50 frames) which makes me think that ut2k3
> still more cpu reliant.
>
> note don't have more than 8 bots in a match though
>
> Thach Nguyen
>
>

"Dilusion" <Dilusionnews@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i0vJa.1033$iM4.144689@news20.bellglobal.com...
> an amd xp 2000+ chip does not run at 2000ghz....
>
> fyi
>
> it runs at 1.67 ghz.
>
>
> ciao
> dilusion
>
I know that thats why I put a + at the end but what I should mean is at
comparable speed to 2ghz :)

I don't think unreal t 2003 is too cpu reliant.  I run the game in 1600x1200
and that is on a pentium 4 1.3ghz and a geforce 3 ti 200.

I think the fact the the mx range are still very slow compared to the full
blown geforce cards might have something to do with it.

"Thach Nguyen" <tha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ef68963@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> "Dilusion" <Dilusi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i0vJa.1033$iM4.144689@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > an amd xp 2000+ chip does not run at 2000ghz....
> >
> > fyi
> >
> > it runs at 1.67 ghz.
> >
> >
> > ciao
> > dilusion
> >
> I know that thats why I put a + at the end but what I should mean is at
> comparable speed to 2ghz :)
>
>

yeeyoh wrote:
>    Sorry my tower is only 250watts.  As far as I know a 4200ti or
> anything better is going to need a 350watt tower.  If you know
> different let me know....

Then you ain't going to be playing Unreal 2 playably. I forget which, but
GF4MXes are either tarted-up GF2s or cut-down GF3s. Either way, they simply
can't cut it for anything semi-recent. (I'd be surprised if they managed
Soldier of Fortune 2, that one stresses my GF4 Ti4400 quite a bit)

Your choices are to upgrade your power supply (easy enough to do, buy new
PSU, remove old one, install new one. You'll need a power screwdriver to get
the screws out probably but who doesn't have access to one of those in this
day and age?) or not play Unreal 2 acceptably. (I've got a 500W PSU,
AthlonXP 2000+, 512MB DDR RAM and a 128MB GF4 Ti4400 and Unreal 2 runs like
crap most of the time)

--
DW's PSO Ep1&2 characters (GC only)
Sasami (L129 REDRIA FOnewearl)
Sakura (L118 PINKAL RAmarl)
Chibi Moon (L64 VIRIDIA HUnewearl)
Minako (L23 ORAN FOnewearl)

Da Wrecka wrote:
> yeeyoh wrote:
>>    Sorry my tower is only 250watts.  As far as I know a 4200ti or
>> anything better is going to need a 350watt tower.  If you know
>> different let me know....
>
> Then you ain't going to be playing Unreal 2 playably. I forget which,
> but GF4MXes are either tarted-up GF2s or cut-down GF3s. Either way,
> they simply can't cut it for anything semi-recent. (I'd be surprised
> if they managed Soldier of Fortune 2, that one stresses my GF4 Ti4400
> quite a bit)
I don't know about all that, I have a 128Mb G4MX440 that runs UT2K3 on HOLY
SH*T (everything all the way up) with no problem.

Dark Wraith wrote:
> I don't know about all that, I have a 128Mb G4MX440 that runs UT2K3
> on HOLY SH*T (everything all the way up) with no problem.

UT2K3 is not Unreal 2 however. My box runs UT2K3 no bother with everything
maxed too, but Unreal 2 chokes it. There are many, many sections where my
framerate dips down to single figures, in virtually every level. (Atlantis
interludes excepted) And I think you'll agree a GF4 Ti is a lot more capable
than an MX.

--
DW's PSO Ep1&2 characters (GC only)
Sasami (L133 REDRIA FOnewearl)
Sakura (L118 PINKAL RAmarl)
Chibi Moon (L64 VIRIDIA HUnewearl)
Minako (L23 ORAN FOnewearl)

   I just got the card, and it rocks.   I'm F*E*A*K*I*N*G.   It rocks UT2003
is a whole new game.   I'm way more impressed with the whole new Unreal
thing now.  F*R*E*A*K*I*N*G !!!!!!.  Did I mention freaking.
    Ureal2 still isn't quite as smooth as I'd like but I think it's just a
matter of looking over the .ini file, plus I definately could use more RAM.
       There stuff in the back ground my old card wasn't even showing and
that fuzzy stuff I'm running by all the time...  That was metal !?

       Thanks for all the comments and help.

     P.S.  Now if I can just find a server were people play worst than me..
if that's possible.


        .
"michael allen" <mic...@allen1998.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bd7641$ska$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I don't think unreal t 2003 is too cpu reliant.  I run the game in
1600x1200
> and that is on a pentium 4 1.3ghz and a geforce 3 ti 200.
>
> I think the fact the the mx range are still very slow compared to the full
> blown geforce cards might have something to do with it.
>
> "Thach Nguyen" <tha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3ef68963@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> >
> > "Dilusion" <Dilusi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:i0vJa.1033$iM4.144689@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > an amd xp 2000+ chip does not run at 2000ghz....
> > >
> > > fyi
> > >
> > > it runs at 1.67 ghz.
> > >
> > >
> > > ciao
> > > dilusion
> > >
> > I know that thats why I put a + at the end but what I should mean is at
> > comparable speed to 2ghz :)
> >
> >
>
>

To the guy trying to get soldier of fortune 2 to run properly.  Make sure
you are youing the compressed texture for the geforce.  I noticed that when
it was installed.  It picked s3 textures and makes it sluggish but, once you
set the geforce textures up.  It's smooth as a whistle.

I think they'ree dx3 or something like that.

"Da Wrecka" <daSPAMwreckaB@GONEblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lLfKa.5773$4q3.40703065@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Dark Wraith wrote:
> > I don't know about all that, I have a 128Mb G4MX440 that runs UT2K3
> > on HOLY SH*T (everything all the way up) with no problem.
>
> UT2K3 is not Unreal 2 however. My box runs UT2K3 no bother with everything
> maxed too, but Unreal 2 chokes it. There are many, many sections where my
> framerate dips down to single figures, in virtually every level. (Atlantis
> interludes excepted) And I think you'll agree a GF4 Ti is a lot more
capable
> than an MX.
>
> --
> DW's PSO Ep1&2 characters (GC only)
> Sasami (L133 REDRIA FOnewearl)
> Sakura (L118 PINKAL RAmarl)
> Chibi Moon (L64 VIRIDIA HUnewearl)
> Minako (L23 ORAN FOnewearl)
>
>

I am using an MX440 original version and unreal II waors good at 
1024x768x32.

yeeyoh wrote:

> Hey, is anyone using a MX440 64meg (PCI would be nice) with Unreal2 the
> awakening?
>    If so how's it working for you?
>      I might be buying this card in less than a week but I'd like to know if
> it will help play this game and UT2003 first though......
> 
> 

Medieval Phreak wrote:
> I am using an MX440 original version and unreal II waors good at
> 1024x768x32.
>

There is no way that U2 runs that well at that res on that card. Even a
premium system and that card would limp along in the teens on framerate.

> > I am using an MX440 original version and unreal II waors good at
> > 1024x768x32.
> >
>
> There is no way that U2 runs that well at that res on that card. Even a
> premium system and that card would limp along in the teens on framerate.
>
>

disagree
I'm runing U2 on this card few weeks, and with 800x600x32 i havin no
problems, fps never being lowet than 50 frames. Average is 65fps. On
1024x768x32 it is worse... but even then it never falls below 35fps. IMO
35fps it's enough good, to say "it works good".
BTW, I noticed that if I change resolution several times, game cache is
**MUCH** faster than at the begining! I don't understand this, but it is
true... maybe this is becouse 800x600 is the best resolution for this card
(it is) and U2 do not caching it properly first time. Who knows...

Micro wrote:
>>> I am using an MX440 original version and unreal II waors good at
>>> 1024x768x32.
>>>
>>
>> There is no way that U2 runs that well at that res on that card.
>> Even a premium system and that card would limp along in the teens on
>> framerate.
>>
>>
>
> disagree
> I'm runing U2 on this card few weeks, and with 800x600x32 i havin no
> problems, fps never being lowet than 50 frames. Average is 65fps. On
> 1024x768x32 it is worse... but even then it never falls below 35fps.
> IMO 35fps it's enough good, to say "it works good".
> BTW, I noticed that if I change resolution several times, game cache
> is **MUCH** faster than at the begining! I don't understand this, but
> it is true... maybe this is becouse 800x600 is the best resolution
> for this card (it is) and U2 do not caching it properly first time.
> Who knows...

It's just not physically possible for this card to run U2 like you say
unless you have everything set to lowest (and even then......) I had this
card for a bit and it just doesn't have the gumption to do that. Even my
system was set up for gaming (stripped out XP, gig of RAM, background crap
removed) and it wouldn't run UT2003 without smearing and tearing on medium
settings, let alone even try to run U2 as unoptimized as it is.

I ran unreal tournament 2003 on a kyro 2 at 1600 x 1200 with every thing
maxed out and I was running it on an athlon 1.333ghz and unreal 2 ran quite
happily on 800 x 600.  it is possible. err, I don't know how as the mx range
in 150% slower. Then again.  I don't know how I got it running on mine.

"goPostal" <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:smvQa.18978$J%2.1688988@news.alltel.net...
> Micro wrote:
> >>> I am using an MX440 original version and unreal II waors good at
> >>> 1024x768x32.
> >>>
> >>
> >> There is no way that U2 runs that well at that res on that card.
> >> Even a premium system and that card would limp along in the teens on
> >> framerate.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > disagree
> > I'm runing U2 on this card few weeks, and with 800x600x32 i havin no
> > problems, fps never being lowet than 50 frames. Average is 65fps. On
> > 1024x768x32 it is worse... but even then it never falls below 35fps.
> > IMO 35fps it's enough good, to say "it works good".
> > BTW, I noticed that if I change resolution several times, game cache
> > is **MUCH** faster than at the begining! I don't understand this, but
> > it is true... maybe this is becouse 800x600 is the best resolution
> > for this card (it is) and U2 do not caching it properly first time.
> > Who knows...
>
> It's just not physically possible for this card to run U2 like you say
> unless you have everything set to lowest (and even then......) I had this
> card for a bit and it just doesn't have the gumption to do that. Even my
> system was set up for gaming (stripped out XP, gig of RAM, background crap
> removed) and it wouldn't run UT2003 without smearing and tearing on medium
> settings, let alone even try to run U2 as unoptimized as it is.
>
>

but a Kyro2...
doesn't even do...

Hardware T&L...

:-O

SeanR

"michael allen" <michael@allen1998.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bev9ac$l6v$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I ran unreal tournament 2003 on a kyro 2 at 1600 x 1200 with every thing
> maxed out and I was running it on an athlon 1.333ghz and unreal 2 ran
quite
> happily on 800 x 600.  it is possible. err, I don't know how as the mx
range
> in 150% slower. Then again.  I don't know how I got it running on mine.
>
> "goPostal" <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:smvQa.18978$J%2.1688988@news.alltel.net...
> > Micro wrote:
> > >>> I am using an MX440 original version and unreal II waors good at
> > >>> 1024x768x32.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> There is no way that U2 runs that well at that res on that card.
> > >> Even a premium system and that card would limp along in the teens on
> > >> framerate.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > disagree
> > > I'm runing U2 on this card few weeks, and with 800x600x32 i havin no
> > > problems, fps never being lowet than 50 frames. Average is 65fps. On
> > > 1024x768x32 it is worse... but even then it never falls below 35fps.
> > > IMO 35fps it's enough good, to say "it works good".
> > > BTW, I noticed that if I change resolution several times, game cache
> > > is **MUCH** faster than at the begining! I don't understand this, but
> > > it is true... maybe this is becouse 800x600 is the best resolution
> > > for this card (it is) and U2 do not caching it properly first time.
> > > Who knows...
> >
> > It's just not physically possible for this card to run U2 like you say
> > unless you have everything set to lowest (and even then......) I had
this
> > card for a bit and it just doesn't have the gumption to do that. Even my
> > system was set up for gaming (stripped out XP, gig of RAM, background
crap
> > removed) and it wouldn't run UT2003 without smearing and tearing on
medium
> > settings, let alone even try to run U2 as unoptimized as it is.
> >
> >
>
>

"SeanR" <me@seanr.net> wrote in message news:<1058226942.99358.0@iris.uk.clara.net>...
> but a Kyro2...
> doesn't even do...
> 
> Hardware T&L...
> 
> :-O
> 
> SeanR

With a fast CPU, DX7 level T&L can usually be handled quite easily by
the main processor.

Simon



> 
> "michael allen" <michael@allen1998.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bev9ac$l6v$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > I ran unreal tournament 2003 on a kyro 2 at 1600 x 1200 with every thing
> > maxed out and I was running it on an athlon 1.333ghz and unreal 2 ran
>  quite
> > happily on 800 x 600.  it is possible. err, I don't know how as the mx
>  range
> > in 150% slower. Then again.  I don't know how I got it running on mine.
> >
> > "goPostal" <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:smvQa.18978$J%2.1688988@news.alltel.net...
> > > Micro wrote:
> > > >>> I am using an MX440 original version and unreal II waors good at
> > > >>> 1024x768x32.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> There is no way that U2 runs that well at that res on that card.
> > > >> Even a premium system and that card would limp along in the teens on
> > > >> framerate.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > disagree
> > > > I'm runing U2 on this card few weeks, and with 800x600x32 i havin no
> > > > problems, fps never being lowet than 50 frames. Average is 65fps. On
> > > > 1024x768x32 it is worse... but even then it never falls below 35fps.
> > > > IMO 35fps it's enough good, to say "it works good".
> > > > BTW, I noticed that if I change resolution several times, game cache
> > > > is **MUCH** faster than at the begining! I don't understand this, but
> > > > it is true... maybe this is becouse 800x600 is the best resolution
> > > > for this card (it is) and U2 do not caching it properly first time.
> > > > Who knows...
> > >
> > > It's just not physically possible for this card to run U2 like you say
> > > unless you have everything set to lowest (and even then......) I had
>  this
> > > card for a bit and it just doesn't have the gumption to do that. Even my
> > > system was set up for gaming (stripped out XP, gig of RAM, background
>  crap
> > > removed) and it wouldn't run UT2003 without smearing and tearing on
>  medium
> > > settings, let alone even try to run U2 as unoptimized as it is.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

I never had a problem with mine. Its a g4 mx 440 64 meg.
It plays all unreals and just finished unreal 2 for the third time.
All of em run smooth. Especially ut 2003.

agreed same here


"COBRA(snake) AKA_BuBBleS" <du...@dude.net> wrote in message
news:vhf56jjtngd85a@corp.supernews.com...
> I never had a problem with mine. Its a g4 mx 440 64 meg.
> It plays all unreals and just finished unreal 2 for the third time.
> All of em run smooth. Especially ut 2003.
>
>

I have a 420 and it's fine with ut2k3 and unreal 2 though unreal 2 is a bit
slower in the frame rate dept.   my card's 64 meg as well.

-ben

"COBRA(snake) AKA_BuBBleS" <dude@dude.net> wrote in message
news:vhf56jjtngd85a@corp.supernews.com...
> I never had a problem with mine. Its a g4 mx 440 64 meg.
> It plays all unreals and just finished unreal 2 for the third time.
> All of em run smooth. Especially ut 2003.
>
>

"goPostal" <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:U1nQa.18560$J%2.1644447@news.alltel.net...
> Medieval Phreak wrote:
> > I am using an MX440 original version and unreal II waors good at
> > 1024x768x32.
> >
>
> There is no way that U2 runs that well at that res on that card. Even a
> premium system and that card would limp along in the teens on framerate.

Then you have no knowlegde at all....Got the same and it rocks.

F
>
>

Fred Raket wrote:
> "goPostal" <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> schreef in bericht
> news:U1nQa.18560$J%2.1644447@news.alltel.net...
>> Medieval Phreak wrote:
>>> I am using an MX440 original version and unreal II waors good at
>>> 1024x768x32.
>>>
>>
>> There is no way that U2 runs that well at that res on that card.
>> Even a premium system and that card would limp along in the teens on
>> framerate.
>
> Then you have no knowlegde at all....Got the same and it rocks.
>
> F

I gess I are'd an idjut then.

Should I post a couple of links concerning performance tests? The only way
that lower-rack of a card will run U2 at that res would be standing in front
of a blank wall with all the eye candy minimized.

"goPostal" <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:zZzWa.1692$GN6.1400@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
> Fred Raket wrote:
> > "goPostal" <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> schreef in bericht
> > news:U1nQa.18560$J%2.1644447@news.alltel.net...
> >> Medieval Phreak wrote:
> >>> I am using an MX440 original version and unreal II waors good at
> >>> 1024x768x32.
> >>>
> >>
> >> There is no way that U2 runs that well at that res on that card.
> >> Even a premium system and that card would limp along in the teens on
> >> framerate.
> >
> > Then you have no knowlegde at all....Got the same and it rocks.
> >
> > F
>
> I gess I are'd an idjut then.
>
> Should I post a couple of links concerning performance tests? The only way
> that lower-rack of a card will run U2 at that res would be standing in
front
> of a blank wall with all the eye candy minimized.

Get lost, 32 bit.......no problem at all!!!!!!!!!!!! Did no finetuning even.

f
>
>
>

"goPostal" <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:zZzWa.1692$GN6.1400@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
> Fred Raket wrote:
> > "goPostal" <agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> schreef in bericht
> > news:U1nQa.18560$J%2.1644447@news.alltel.net...
> >> Medieval Phreak wrote:
> >>> I am using an MX440 original version and unreal II waors good at
> >>> 1024x768x32.
> >>>
> >>
> >> There is no way that U2 runs that well at that res on that card.
> >> Even a premium system and that card would limp along in the teens on
> >> framerate.
> >
> > Then you have no knowlegde at all....Got the same and it rocks.
> >
> > F
>
> I gess I are'd an idjut then.
>
> Should I post a couple of links concerning performance tests? The only way
> that lower-rack of a card will run U2 at that res would be standing in
front
> of a blank wall with all the eye candy minimized.

I guess you"re just mot good enough setting up your system! Plenty off guys
here proved youre wrong. Maybe my six years old kid sister can help you out!

Fred
>
>
>

Fred Raket wrote:
> "goPostal" <agutgo...@REMOVEhotmail.com> schreef in bericht
> news:zZzWa.1692$GN6.1400@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
>> Fred Raket wrote:
>>> "goPostal" <agutgo...@REMOVEhotmail.com> schreef in bericht
>>> news:U1nQa.18560$J%2.1644447@news.alltel.net...
>>>> Medieval Phreak wrote:
>>>>> I am using an MX440 original version and unreal II waors good at
>>>>> 1024x768x32.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no way that U2 runs that well at that res on that card.
>>>> Even a premium system and that card would limp along in the teens
>>>> on framerate.
>>>
>>> Then you have no knowlegde at all....Got the same and it rocks.
>>>
>>> F
>>
>> I gess I are'd an idjut then.
>>
>> Should I post a couple of links concerning performance tests? The
>> only way that lower-rack of a card will run U2 at that res would be
>> standing in front of a blank wall with all the eye candy minimized.
>
> I guess you"re just mot good enough setting up your system! Plenty
> off guys here proved youre wrong. Maybe my six years old kid sister
> can help you out!
>
> Fred

No need to. Your mom did well enough.