» Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

deimos47 (434)    Jul 17, 2006 - 11:13 pm

;) » Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

deimos47 (434)    Jul 17, 2006 - 11:12 pm

I dont have x800pro. Do you use 1600x1200 in Battlefield2 too? What about Oblivion. Or when you said "2 years", did you mean that you can run 1600x1200 on 2 year old games? » Login to reply to this  Soldier36 (639)   Jul 18, 2006 - 06:06 pm what im saying is ive been playing at 1600 x 1200 for 2 years, with a x800 pro agp card, on a 20.1 inch viewsonic flat panel. This panel that i paid over $1000 for 2 years ago is now had for $500 or less, pick one or go with even better apple cinema display or dell 24 incher or sonys 23 incher at 1900 x 1200... » Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

doomtrooper (741)    Jul 17, 2006 - 01:13 pm

FS had a poll not too long ago where the reader screen resolution was asked and it was found that a large number of people use and prefer 1600x1200 as a benchmark. 1280 does not stress videocards enough to set them apart from each other. » Login to reply to this  araczynski (17)   Jul 17, 2006 - 08:10 pm if that's the case then what's the point of the 800x600? nostalgia? is it REALLY that immensely difficult to run the same benchmarks at 1280x1024? i mean its not like you guys are benchmarking a new processor/graphics card every day. » Login to reply to this  Jodiuh (38)   Aug 16, 2006 - 02:50 am | Edited on Aug 16, 2006 - 02:51 am Isolating the CPU by going with lo res's just useless imo. Who games @ 800x600 on a Core 2? An X1900XT? It's just too synthentic. If I really wanna know how well a CPU runs, I'll check encoding times. Thanks for the arty tho! I prefer [H]'s playable settings and real world benchies, but at least you guys KEPT THE FRIGGIN' PRINT ARTICLE BUTTON!!! *bastages @ [H]...bastages* » Login to reply to this  deimos47 (434)    Jul 17, 2006 - 11:11 pm What's the point of testing cars at >65mph.. ie which is the fastest, nostalgia? No. Its very simple, but perhaps you haven't learned it yet (missed the hundreds of explanations back in Quake2 days when Thresh was king :). It doesn't matter what the resolution is, the cpu has about the same amount of processing to do. CPU work includes: geometry, animation, AI, physics, OS & driver overhead. It sends batches of these jobs to GPU through driver. None of these really depend on resolution. GPU (the video card), gets the data from the CPU, and now has to render each of the pixels. Since the higher the resolution, the higher the number of pixels, it naturally means that the higher the resolution the higher the burden on the video card, and in such cases as the typical 2048x1536 4AA, we say you are "GPU-limited". THEREFORE: Look at the 1600x1200. Most of the results are nearly identical. It shows how each and every CPU is waiting around for the video card. What does it prove? Nothing. Now look at 800x600. Video card has less work to do. Its no longer the bottleneck. CPU's spend much less time waiting. We see performance differences between CPU's. Which is what we intended to test in the first place. » Login to reply to this  deimos47 (434)   Jul 17, 2006 - 08:07 pm Whatever setting up benchmarks, you choose settings to test for how results vary with some variable. For high-end video cards, 1600x1200 and 2048x1536, regardless of how many people use it, should be used to showcase the video cards where they make the biggest difference. Ofcourse its also nice to throw in one or two 1280x1024 tests as a reality check or to highlight where GPU-limiting begins. As for Conroe, the lower the resolution the better. 800x600 was a very good choice to showcase CPU differences, with 1600x1200 thrown in as a real world testcase. Heck, 640x480 with Large windows fonts and high contrast theme is even better. Afterall, I've always wondered what it takes to reach 1000 fps in Quake3, or even DoomII. With Coolaler's X6800 overclocked to 5.3Ghz on LN2, with SuperPI 1M ~9.6s, you suddenly start to believe anything is possible ;) » Login to reply to this

Formerly Anonymous (218)   Jul 17, 2006 - 12:48 pm

What does it score in DOSBench3d? » Login to reply to this

» Note: You need to be logged in to write a comment!