» Login to reply to this

DanTheMathlete (235)    Sep 13, 2007 - 08:13 am | Edited on Sep 13, 2007 - 08:19 am

» Unfortunately, you are not alone Read my comment on the Bioshock part 2 review. Of course having a higher resolution for my monitor would be useless to me as I game with a Venice3000, 512x2 TwinX XL Ram and a 7800 gtx. I can game in Counter Strike Source at max resolution 1280x1024 (Stop snickering!) with 4XAA and 8XAF and still produce solid frame rates with setup. As for Shtupping, with your gigantic monitor, quad-core Processor and awesome video card ... never mind, I forgot what I was going to say and drooled all over my keyboard. » Login to reply to this  Major Shtupping (153)    Sep 13, 2007 - 02:49 pm I am a professional sys admin so some of the gear saves me time when work bleeds into my home life. The price then becomes worth it. Is my system worth buying to game, especially online? Heck no, very little of it helps (but dude, ya gotta go widescreen. It does help.) I still get net lag, and all the detail is distracting when you need to focus on situational awareness in CS. But then again, while wandering through Cyrodiil or Rapture, I certainly was enjoying the scenery. And also, MS Word runs at the same speed on both our machines. » Login to reply to this  Knuckles (1330)   Sep 13, 2007 - 10:00 am Read your comment dude. I have even more pathetic system than you. But as their are only 1-2 PC games a year that interest me these last 3 years, I don't see the reason to upgrade. » Login to reply to this

Major Shtupping (153)     Sep 12, 2007 - 09:15 pm

I am playing the demo at 1920x1200 with my 8800GTX and QX6700 which is a good match at that res. It plays nice and fluidly at all times with everything cranked to 11 and 30 online opponents. Since you want all testing to top out at 1280x1024, what would we learn by finding out that it runs at 245fps (I'm making the number up)? Or, no insult to you, are you also suggesting that we stick to the $150 part price limit you set on your monitor? So the review system would top out at a Raptor, 1GB RAM (2GB if value RAM), ATI2600 or nVidia 8600 and an AMD X2 5600 or Intel E6600. Well that review would tell me less about my system that this high end review tells you about yours. If a high end machine plays it crappy, you are fuxxored. Unless you are willing to give it that special NES simulating DX7 loving. if it plays it decently you have a chance for it to play nice on yours because there is probably some settings that will work well. Now me, on the other hand, reading a review on an average machine, well that tells me nothing about my system, because if it plays like crap, my machine could still run it very well, and if it plays well on the average system, it might still play like crap once you turn on all the graphic goodness (like just about every current DX10 game). The benchmark is easier to reproduce if they crank everything to the max and see where it breaks. If you do have a problem with this type of review, www.HardOCP.com might be more to your liking, as their reviews do it backwards, and report playable settings for decent frame rates as opposed to this method. » Login to reply to this  Knuckles (1330)   Sep 13, 2007 - 09:56 am Since you want all testing to top out at 1280x1024, what would we learn by finding out that it runs at 245fps (I'm making the number up)? I have no problem with super high resolution test, but I think 1600x is too high as the lowest one. 1280x would be fine. Also this performance test goes through many graphics cards, I would think it would be possible to test more than 1 CPU. 2 would be fine, one high end from Intel and one high end from AMD. » Login to reply to this  Major Shtupping (153)     Sep 13, 2007 - 02:50 pm If it helps you any, I just had a stick of my Dominator TWIN2X2048-9136C5D cause my machine to quit POSTing (and I don't even OC), and 1GB of RAM makes Vista very very angry. I also use the monitor to watch all my TV on, so if you consider throwing in your TV budget, the monitor upgrade is worth it. Well, I can't argue against using a high and midrange system for review because they could both be done simultaneously (until Bioshock's DRM takes over the industry) and not really cost the reviewer much more time. The problem is practicality. There almost certainly is no FS Testing labs. When an article is assigned to a writer, it is probably also decided by what hardware he has access to test it on. » Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

mr.wielder (1394)    Sep 12, 2007 - 08:58 am

I can tell you that the MP is wicked fun, not a letdown at all, but I can't say I've seen any servers over 32 players. 20v20 would be fun I guess, but the action is packed enough in ET:QW when it's 16v16. QW is designed to focus the majority of your team's efforts on the evolving battle-front, so no matter how many people are on each team, there's plenty of shooting going on. » Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

GX-Brandon (369)   Sep 12, 2007 - 07:30 am

In hindsight yeah, I should have cranked the settings all the way up. I selected the default "high" settings, and then cranked up the lighting to high and the shader level to ultra, but I should have gone further than that. I started out testing the 8800 GTS 320MB and worked my way up, next time I will probably go the other way around. » Login to reply to this  stalker_loner (257)    Sep 12, 2007 - 05:52 pm How did the 320mb run? » Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

mr.wielder (1394)    Sep 12, 2007 - 08:47 am | Edited on Sep 12, 2007 - 08:49 am

I did a quick FiringSquad search for BF2142 screenshots, and put a couple comparison shots side by side just to make sure, and judging from that, I think your BF2-class graphics comparison is off the mark. BF2142 Here: http://www.firingsquad.com/media/article_image.asp/2027/02 ET:QW Here: http://www.firingsquad.com/media/article_image.asp/2232/04 What ET:QW lacks (which BF has) is ragdoll physics on player models. » Login to reply to this  asdfqwerty (969)    Sep 13, 2007 - 05:51 am That BF screenshot must have been taken on lowest settings, check http://www.tweakguides.com/BF2_5.html for some BF2 images on high quality. At least as good if not better than your ET:QW sample. » Login to reply to this  mr.wielder (1394)    Sep 13, 2007 - 03:53 pm | Edited on Sep 13, 2007 - 03:55 pm Whoops, you're totally right. I just ASSumed FS would post highest-quality shots for a Review feature. I guess the ET:QW shot shouldn't be used as a comparison mark either if the settings weren't all on highest like Brandon says above. » Login to reply to this  dedo (1)   Sep 12, 2007 - 02:34 pm I read... "It really is hard to believe that Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is based on the same fundamental game engine as Doom 3 from three years ago. The engine clearly has come a long way in that time span. We also think Enemy Territory: Quake Wars will finally silence id’s critics who claim John Carmack and company can’t create a game engine that scales well outdoors." Can you please try a run with a three-year-ago hardware please. And compare it to FarCry in the meanwhile? » Login to reply to this  briantek (27)   Sep 12, 2007 - 05:32 pm agreed benchmark a 9800pro » Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

GX-Brandon (369)   Sep 12, 2007 - 07:28 am

I will probably do some quick CPU benches shortly. » Login to reply to this  rline (1)    Sep 12, 2007 - 08:18 am I don't know if it is worth your time, but will you being doing benchmarks on XP or Vista x64? » Login to reply to this  CodE-E (312)    Sep 12, 2007 - 11:24 am Can you do some XP / Vista / 32 bit / 64 bit tests too, please? :p » Login to reply to this  GX-Brandon (369)   Sep 12, 2007 - 08:42 am WinXP » Login to reply to this

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