To be honest, I couldn't care what fps I get. As long as it is smooth. I have a Radeon 7500 and I can play a recent game (NHL 2002) with max detail, 32-bit color and 4x FSAA and its plenty smooth. Maybe I should get a fps utility just to find out what my fps are
kami
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 17,627
- 5
- 81
Dude, i was talking about a friggin G400 not your R7500 which is a damn fine card in its price range.
Personally I need 50-60fps MINIMUMS...which would, in most cases, require 80-100fps averages. The human eye needs 50-60fps for fluid animation, this is a fact. That is why NTSC video is 30fps with 2 fields per frame (illusion of 60fps), and PAL video is 25fps with 2 fields per frame (effectively 50fps)...anything less and you can detect that it's not fluid motion. Of course film runs at 24fps but it achieves the illusion with motion blur...video games are NOT motion blurred.
Amish, I have no idea how you manage to play Ghost Recon at those settings with a G400. When I had my GF2 MX and I tried to play that game, it was just 'playable', not fast at all, at 800x600 with medium settigs. Even now with my GF2 Ti450 1024x768 is as high as I can go. And I have a P4 2.2 (OCed) so that's not the problem. Isn't the G400 just about the same in terms of 3D as a TNT2? Or is it worse?
Edit - Reading one of Kami's posts I see that it's worse. Ouch.
Guys, stop arguing with amish. He is obviously an extreme Matrox fanboy and/or troll. Just drop it already.
Personally I don't make my decisions based on a number. Like I said with Dungeon Siege, 11-25 fps and it plays just as smooth as my friends system with a Geforce2 GTS. I don't understand why, but it does.
With Ghost Recon it playse beautifully as well. When I played Rogue Spear I was using 1280x1024x32bit. I'm am consistenly #1 or #2 in kills when we play.
Nascar 2000 has no slow downs at all and is perfectly playable.
Apparently what's supposed to be and what is are 2 different things.
amish
"Personally I need 50-60fps MINIMUMS...which would, in most cases, require 80-100fps averages. The human eye needs 50-60fps for fluid animation, this is a fact. That is why NTSC video is 30fps with 2 fields per frame (illusion of 60fps), and PAL video is 25fps with 2 fields per frame (effectively 50fps)...anything less and you can detect that it's not fluid motion. Of course film runs at 24fps but it achieves the illusion with motion blur...video games are NOT motion blurred."
Amen, I agree 100%. I set my Ti4200 to 800x600x32 with Quincunx FSAA, this way the GPU can handle all the overdraw and T&L without a smoothness penalty. GTA3 runs like a beast now.
Think of it, real TV footage looks better at 640x480 than computer games do at 1600x1200.... it's not about resolution, but about smooth and detailed rendering.
Amen, I agree 100%. I set my Ti4200 to 800x600x32 with Quincunx FSAA, this way the GPU can handle all the overdraw and T&L without a smoothness penalty. GTA3 runs like a beast now.
Think of it, real TV footage looks better at 640x480 than computer games do at 1600x1200.... it's not about resolution, but about smooth and detailed rendering.
Originally posted by: Pheran
Well, at least Matrox is consistent. Every card they've ever put out has sucked for 3D, and the Parhelia is no exception.
What card kicked Riba TnT 2 butt in benches?..
What card kicked Voodoo3 butt in benches?..
What card was the king of the castle untill the GeForce 256?..
I think it was the g400
Now I'm glad I got my GF4 but Matrox has had very good 3D perf.
matrox:
-I'll be BACK, and noone shall stand a chance!!!
After reading the Parhelia reviews, I'm feeling really good about my laptop's 32MB Radeon Mobility.
he 8500 is STILL the best card for the money...
the parhelia would be decent, if they chopped its price IN HALF.
the parhelia would be decent, if they chopped its price IN HALF.
Electric Amish,
I realize everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but your responses are actually angering! I could barely ran the games you mention at the resolutions you described with my GeForce 2 GTS 32MB. Even now, with my GeForce 4 Ti4400, I am forced to run certain games (Jedi Knight 2 comes to mind) at 800x600, though I suspect that is due to my aging AMD Thunderbird 1.33GHz sitting on the old AMD760 platform. I rarely run even older games beyond 1024X768, as the frame rate is simply too low. While I tend to disable frame rate displays in my games (they distract me and make me worry =), I can see games running below 45 fps, which becomes annoying, and games running below 30 fps are simply aggravating. I don't believe that you can actually run those games at the mentioned resolutions on a card as archaic as the G400. How nice would life be if I could ignore unplayable frame-rates like Electric Amish! I would never upgrade my G400 and desperately hang onto its superior 2D performance. I guess, in the end, if the low frame-rates don't bother Electric Amish, why should we care - it's his damn games!
I realize everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but your responses are actually angering! I could barely ran the games you mention at the resolutions you described with my GeForce 2 GTS 32MB. Even now, with my GeForce 4 Ti4400, I am forced to run certain games (Jedi Knight 2 comes to mind) at 800x600, though I suspect that is due to my aging AMD Thunderbird 1.33GHz sitting on the old AMD760 platform. I rarely run even older games beyond 1024X768, as the frame rate is simply too low. While I tend to disable frame rate displays in my games (they distract me and make me worry =), I can see games running below 45 fps, which becomes annoying, and games running below 30 fps are simply aggravating. I don't believe that you can actually run those games at the mentioned resolutions on a card as archaic as the G400. How nice would life be if I could ignore unplayable frame-rates like Electric Amish! I would never upgrade my G400 and desperately hang onto its superior 2D performance. I guess, in the end, if the low frame-rates don't bother Electric Amish, why should we care - it's his damn games!
LOL, your memory is wrong. Go check out the 1999 benches of the G400 MAX: http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/99q2/990628/index.html
It had opengl problems but hung with the TNT2 and Voodoo3 in D3D. It did NOT kick any butt and it wasn't king of any castle.
edit:
Here's another:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/99q3/990906/3d-card-23.html
So, not only am I a Fanboi, I'm an outright liar?
Believe what you will.
I have 6 people that I play games with every weekend that can back me up.
amish
Amish's G400 is one of amazement!
Lets start an eBay bidding way on this super G400!
The perception of playable to one vs. playable to others is definitely subjective. Playing those games, at those resolutions and color depths sounds like someone is really raising a BS flag here. Amish is standing by the G400, but I still fail to see how a Geforce class card (3-4 generations of video ago) can run some of those games as listed. Cmon, Ghost Recon has to be sub 30fps in most areas in anything above 640x480 in 16bit color.
Cannot wait to hear back from Amish with the illustrious review of the Parhelia. When you get your card, I'll believe you can play those games in the resolutions, etc.
vash
Lets start an eBay bidding way on this super G400!
The perception of playable to one vs. playable to others is definitely subjective. Playing those games, at those resolutions and color depths sounds like someone is really raising a BS flag here. Amish is standing by the G400, but I still fail to see how a Geforce class card (3-4 generations of video ago) can run some of those games as listed. Cmon, Ghost Recon has to be sub 30fps in most areas in anything above 640x480 in 16bit color.
Cannot wait to hear back from Amish with the illustrious review of the Parhelia. When you get your card, I'll believe you can play those games in the resolutions, etc.
vash
Well, I don't know how to prove it to you. I don't know what you think I would gain by lying about this.
amish
Originally posted by: Electric Amish
Originally posted by: Shiva112
Ignorance is bliss
What do you mean??
amish
I mean you're happy with your card so even if every one else thinks you're stupid who cares?
"LOL, your memory is wrong. Go check out the 1999 benches of the G400 MAX: http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/99q2/990628/index.html
It had opengl problems but hung with the TNT2 and Voodoo3 in D3D. It did NOT kick any butt and it wasn't king of any castle."
What review were you reading? The Max was well known to have had serious serious OpenGL problems, but it certainly was king of the hill in DirectX at its release if you had a good CPU. Just look at the review you linked to:
"Look at the G400 MAX go. At 1600x1200 it pummels the next fastest card."
"This chart is pretty clear cut in showing the G400 MAX in the commanding lead. The G400 MAX takes advantage of the efficient 32-bit color/16bit Z-buffer mode and speeds past the TNT2 (that is held back by the 32-bit color/32-bit Z-buffer mode)."
"G400MAX is a good performer in D3D, especially in 32-bit color mode it's clearly ahead of its competition..."
It's garbage now in gaming, I don't know what Amish is talking about, but the give the card it's due, it most certainly was not some dog when it was released.
It had opengl problems but hung with the TNT2 and Voodoo3 in D3D. It did NOT kick any butt and it wasn't king of any castle."
What review were you reading? The Max was well known to have had serious serious OpenGL problems, but it certainly was king of the hill in DirectX at its release if you had a good CPU. Just look at the review you linked to:
"Look at the G400 MAX go. At 1600x1200 it pummels the next fastest card."
"This chart is pretty clear cut in showing the G400 MAX in the commanding lead. The G400 MAX takes advantage of the efficient 32-bit color/16bit Z-buffer mode and speeds past the TNT2 (that is held back by the 32-bit color/32-bit Z-buffer mode)."
"G400MAX is a good performer in D3D, especially in 32-bit color mode it's clearly ahead of its competition..."
It's garbage now in gaming, I don't know what Amish is talking about, but the give the card it's due, it most certainly was not some dog when it was released.
There's nothing wrong with Amish playing those games and those resolutions, but i really think that what he feels is smooth and playable just isnt the same level that many others think so.
Proving that those games are/aren't playable is all about perception. You can state, all day long, that your existing card can play those games, at those resolutions and be happy with the framerate, but have you checked the framerate? With all of my games, I have the framerate meter going at all times because I want to know when a computer hardware upgrade actually helped a specific scene or if it didn't. Telling me that Dungeon Siege is playable and smooth at 25fps makes me believe what you stated is true, but at 25fps, in any game, its not playable to me at all.
25fps is far from playable to any heavy competitive player. Anything less than 90fps, at the slowest point isn't what I call playable (most have their number set around 60, but 90 is even more useable in games in Quake3). We all know the G400 is generations old and we all know the limitations of the card, I just find it difficult to believe a card like that could be heavy online playable to the point where you could compete with the #1 or #2 on a DM server. The framerate you don't have will be the limiting factor, especially online against someone with 90+fps that is weilding a railgun or sniper rifle.
Also, I agree you have nothing to gain with lying to us about playable framerates in the games mentioned, but how many of the people you play with, on the LAN, can play on your system without complaining about the framerate? In my house, no one would use the G400 in their main system -- they know they'd get owned.
vash
Well, as one of the guys who plays games with Amish every weekend. I really feel I need to step in and make a comment. Amish is a big supporter of Matrox. That is evident by the fact that he has stuck with a G400 for so long even though there are better cards on the market. And, because Amish supports Matrox so much, he knows his G400 inside and outside and knows better than most how to configure it properly. And, he is NOT lying when he stated how well the games he listed run on his machine. And, in response to the above comments about the GeForce 2 GTS vs. the G400, I'm not sure what was wrong with your system. I have a 32MB GeForce 2 GTS (an original Elsa Gladiac that I bought the week it was available) currently running in my machine. My rig is an Athlon XP 1700+ running on a DDR motherboard. I run the games that Amish listed in some cases better than he does, but there are some instances where the G400 runs better than mine. It is usually the 32bit over 16bit difference. To my understanding and experience, running games in 32bit is something that Matrox does better than Nvidia and ATI. I am NOT a big Matrox supporter. If anything, I could be accused of supporting Nvidia. My next video card upgrade will probably be a Nvidia. But, Amish is not liar. I don't know how he manages to run the games so well on what is, quite honestly, an old and outdated card. Amish has a better understanding of how to configure systems than I do. That might be one reason why his system performs as well or better than mine. But, he has managed to keep his system running well on new games.
Electric Amish,
I didn't mean to offend you in my post. I was simply describing how frustrating it is to recognize sub-par performance. I'm actually frustrated with my own standards, not yours. I wish I didn't notice low frames-per-second! It is similar to the multitude of people who cannot recognize the difference in sound quality from a Sanyo to a Denon. Those people are lucky because they don't have to spend the extra money on the Denon because they wouldn't notice the difference anyway! Similarly, Electric Amish is lucky because he doesn't need a GeForce 4 to play his games! The rest of us must upgrade because we notice low frame rates. Again, I meant no offense, Electric Amish.
I didn't mean to offend you in my post. I was simply describing how frustrating it is to recognize sub-par performance. I'm actually frustrated with my own standards, not yours. I wish I didn't notice low frames-per-second! It is similar to the multitude of people who cannot recognize the difference in sound quality from a Sanyo to a Denon. Those people are lucky because they don't have to spend the extra money on the Denon because they wouldn't notice the difference anyway! Similarly, Electric Amish is lucky because he doesn't need a GeForce 4 to play his games! The rest of us must upgrade because we notice low frame rates. Again, I meant no offense, Electric Amish.
Why are they angering? Just because he has a solution that he feels is playable, that makes you angry because it differs from your solution?
I also happen to be one of the guys that Amish plays games with. I've never owned a Matrox product, dont imagine I ever will. And while I agree that Amish is a Matrox fanboy, and extremely stubbornly so, he's not a liar.
While not intimately familiary with the graphical settings for each game he/we play, I can verify his list is correct. He does in fact play those games at those resolutions. He thinks it's playable, and that's really all that matters. If you have to have 60+ FPS to call a game playable, that doesn't mean everyone else has to. If everyone in the world had the exact same opinion all the time, it'd be awful boring. So don't get angry because his opinions differ from yours, jus tbe happy that you both have a solution that makes you happy.
Ron a.k.a. Drogo
Games are completely playable on his machine. I've sat and watched him finish #1 or #2 on an internet DM server. Most, if not all of us, think he is crazy for sticking with the G400 for so long. But, his system runs smooth in the games we play. I understand the thoughts behind running games at 90fps. But, I would wonder if you would still care what the FPS were in a game if you didn't have the FPS meter running or in a game that didn't have an FPS meter. The game industry has conditioned everyone to believe that FPS is king. But, as has been stated before, above 60fps is psychological. Turn off your FPS meter and tell me when you are running at 60fps compared against 90fps.
Don't get me started on sound. You wouldn't like me stance there any better.
This stigma about FPS has really gotten out of hand, IMO. It gets beaten to death by every review "You HAVE to have 60+ FPS for anything to be playable!". It's been beaten so much that people believe it and have to check and make sure they are getting the fps that are supposedly required. I NEVER look at FPS. I setup a game and if it doesn't play well, I readjust until it does.
To be honest, I was astonished when I saw that Dungeon Siege was running at 11-25FPS. You hear that and you automatically think *slideshow*. I know even I would. I can't deny it, though. It was right there in front of my eyes. I'd been playing for hours upon hours and these settings and suddenly decided to look. I would have sworn I was getting 50+ frames. There is no jerkiness, no slowdowns. I don't understand why, but it is very playable.
When playing on the LAN with my friends I look around to see if my old card is hindering me and, to me, the action on my screen looks just like everyone elses.
amish
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter