Re: What have you been playing... IN MARCH 2009?
- From: Spalls Hurgenson <yoinks@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:15:53 GMT
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:50:58 -0700, JLC <jlc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:17:35 -0700, JLC <jlc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For a game reputed to be a major resource hog, I think my
no-longer-top-end-machine is handling it pretty well. I benchmarker
about 40fps with the following settings:
Resolution: 1280x720 @ 100Hz
Well we have almost the same rig's except I have a 1GB 4870, 4GB of DDR2
(your MB supports DDR3?) Same CPU same speed, XP pro SP3.
Maybe it's because I'm running at 1680x1050 that I'm only getting around
33-34 fps. I can't understand how you can have your settings set so high
and only use 482MB of your 512. I wrote down my settings:
This is what the game set everything at when I hit auto configure,
except the refections which I turned down, and it set my water quality
to Very High, and I turned that down to high.
If I turned up the setting like you have them I'd go way over my 880MB+
memory limit. Strange.
Its almost certainly the difference in resolution. But honestly, I
don't see all that much difference between the two unless I'm
specifically looking for it. If I try, sure I can always spot the
jaggies (unless I'm at some ridiculously high resolution like
5120x3052) so "small" jumps like that between 1280 and 1680 aren't
worth the resource hit. But most of the time I'm more focused on
playing the game than spotting graphical anomalies.
I'm more interested anyway in having detail levels and a smooth (which
does not necessarily imply HIGH) framerate. I reguarly sacrifice
resolution for detail levels in most games; its one of the reasons I
stick with CRTs rather than switching over to a flat-screen; I'm not
interested in being "forced" into a native resolution that would cut
back on the detail levels.
Incidentally, my motherboard not only supports DDR3, it *only*
supports DDR3; a rather nasty surprise when I was configuring the
machine and realized I'd have to spend a premium for the RAM despite
the fact I knew it wouldn't bring much of a performance gain. Ah well,
even a .1 FPS advantage helps ;-)
.
- References:
- What have you been playing... IN MARCH 2009?
- From: Spalls Hurgenson
- Re: What have you been playing... IN MARCH 2009?
- From: JLC
- Re: What have you been playing... IN MARCH 2009?
- From: Spalls Hurgenson
- Re: What have you been playing... IN MARCH 2009?
- From: JLC
- What have you been playing... IN MARCH 2009?
- Prev by Date: Re: What have you been playing... IN MARCH 2009?
- Next by Date: Re: What have you been playing... IN MARCH 2009?
- Previous by thread: Re: What have you been playing... IN MARCH 2009?
- Next by thread: Re: Best action-game for the PC?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
