This topic is locked
i have a GeForce Fx 5900 ultra 256mb i get around 400fps uncapped i usually cap at 200.. and i get it steady.. no drops at all.. i also have a gig of pc 3700 ram and an amd 2800+ so that might help also.. but everyone is such big ATI fans.. oh ATI this and ATI that... but all i hear about from ATI users is trouble.. i havent had any trouble with my GeForce i will continue to be loyal to nvidia and anyone else looking for a good vid card i suggest the same
Advertisement
What GFXcard is best?
MultiQuote
#22
rashly (old) 
- Joined: 08-February 04
- Posts: 352
- Locationlong island
Posted 12 May 2004 - 10:27 PM
playing at 200fps is stupid. cap it at 125 and increase fsaa and af until you get drops.
the 5900u is a very nice card, but the radeon 9700pro and higher rape it in ps20 tests.
company loyalty is also stupid. go with the best product for the money, not with your "loyalties".
the 5900u is a very nice card, but the radeon 9700pro and higher rape it in ps20 tests.
company loyalty is also stupid. go with the best product for the money, not with your "loyalties".
#23 Guest_BloodOmen
Posted 13 May 2004 - 12:42 AM
benchmarks are biased differently every year... i go with what works... and my 200 fps does me just fine.. alot of people say ohh lower it lower it... but i see no reason to... if i can get the frames why shouldnt i??... its the same as a fast car.. if you can drive it at 150mph why not do it??
#24
L3mMinG (old)
- Joined: 20-February 04
- Posts: 862
Posted 13 May 2004 - 03:17 PM
Quote
... and my 200 fps does me just fine.. alot of people say ohh lower it lower it... but i see no reason to... if i can get the frames why shouldnt i??...
Unless your monitor is at 200 Hz refresh you're not gonna see that many frames being drawn since your vidcard will be updating em faster then the screen can display. Thus 200 fps will just make the game look more sluggish cause of broken frames being drawn halfway through the monitor update. Even the mouse on usb updates only 125 times/second so unless you're using 200 reports on ps2 no need for 200 fps to get smoother mouse movement... (m_filter will check between 2 mouse reports anyway so no 200 anyway)
Unless you're superman with eyesight of well over 125 fps and cat-like reflexes and your screen is at 200 Hz there is no reason to keep the fps that high. (of course if you can afford a 5900u you prolly got a fat ass screen as well
)
#25 Guest_BloodOmen
Posted 13 May 2004 - 03:54 PM
yes.. i have a 19 inch flat panel lcd.. alot of people say theyre bad for gaming.. and you mentioned sluggishness... but i see neither of those... my game runs perfect at 200fps.. and no i dont see shadow effects from my lcd.. as a matter of fact its clearer than my old 17 inch crt moniter..
Advertisement
#27
L3mMinG (old)
- Joined: 20-February 04
- Posts: 862
Posted 13 May 2004 - 07:02 PM
Guys, it's all good you got 200 fps and more that with doom 3 coming etc. but the flatpanel will no way be able to show all of those so you're pushing the pc for no reason since flatpanels don't go over 100 refreshes per second anyway.
As for the thread, I wouldn't buy a new card just yet and wait for the X800 and nv6800 stuff in some form or another.
As for the thread, I wouldn't buy a new card just yet and wait for the X800 and nv6800 stuff in some form or another.
#28
rashly (old)
- Joined: 08-February 04
- Posts: 352
- Locationlong island
Posted 13 May 2004 - 07:03 PM
Quote
benchmarks are biased differently every year... i go with what works... and my 200 fps does me just fine.. alot of people say ohh lower it lower it... but i see no reason to... if i can get the frames why shouldnt i??... its the same as a fast car.. if you can drive it at 150mph why not do it??
because you would be getting much better visuals and wouldnt notice any difference in framerates. the analogy would be better off saying i can drive in an 89 accord at 200 mph, but i will NEVER go over 65 anyway. id rather drive at 65mph in a lexus.
you cant see the difference between 100 and 200 fps.
#30
ChainsawBONER (old)
- Joined: 10-February 04
- Posts: 303
- LocationNH
Posted 14 May 2004 - 04:41 PM
what the human eye can only see 80fps? safe bet is 125, but who cares about anything higher.
1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
Advertisement