Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
Can you try 1600x1200 4x/8x?
Originally posted by: gururu
how are the graphics?
Originally posted by: FluxCap
1280x960
4AA+8AF
All details High
79.66fps avg
Doesn't look like I needed an ATI card for HL2.![]()
Hmm. On the edge of playable. Are you overclocked? If you are that's a pretty steep drop from the CSS benches on vr-zoneDoing it now.
Update:
52.79 avg fps at 1600x1200
Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
Hmm. On the edge of playable. Are you overclocked? If you are that's a pretty steep drop from the CSS benches on vr-zoneDoing it now.
Update:
52.79 avg fps at 1600x1200
Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
Hmm. On the edge of playable. Are you overclocked? If you are that's a pretty steep drop from the CSS benches on vr-zoneDoing it now.
Update:
52.79 avg fps at 1600x1200
Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
Hmm. On the edge of playable. Are you overclocked? If you are that's a pretty steep drop from the CSS benches on vr-zoneDoing it now.
Update:
52.79 avg fps at 1600x1200
Originally posted by: Rage187
Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
Hmm. On the edge of playable. Are you overclocked? If you are that's a pretty steep drop from the CSS benches on vr-zoneDoing it now.
Update:
52.79 avg fps at 1600x1200
lol how the fvck is 52.79fps "almost" playable???
30fps is "almost" playable.
Hmm. On the edge of playable. Are you overclocked? If you are that's a pretty steep drop from the CSS benches on vr-zone
I don't understand exactly what you mean by this. Can you explain the difference between what you are doing and what is being tested at vr-zone?That is the average so very playable. This is the first HL2 benchmark with all the HL2 effects, not a CSS benchmark. That explains the difference.
Depends. I consider anything below 40 fps choppy for a relatively fast paced shooter, and 52 fps means the minimum could easily be in the 30s with multiple enemies and such on screen.That is the average so very playable. This is the first HL2 benchmark with all the HL2 effects, not a CSS benchmark. That explains the difference
No, but they are unplayable at the same settings that Nvidia cards are. Other people might have different standards than I do about what they consider acceptable.I guess Doom 3, Neverwinter Nights, and most other Open GL games are unplayable on any ATI card by those standards?
Originally posted by: nitromullet
I don't understand exactly what you mean by this. Can you explain the difference between what you are doing and what is being tested at vr-zone?That is the average so very playable. This is the first HL2 benchmark with all the HL2 effects, not a CSS benchmark. That explains the difference.
Depends. I consider anything below 40 fps choppy for a relatively fast paced shooter, and 52 fps means the minimum could easily be in the 30s with multiple enemies and such on screen.
Originally posted by: jimithing2077
Originally posted by: Rage187
Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
Hmm. On the edge of playable. Are you overclocked? If you are that's a pretty steep drop from the CSS benches on vr-zoneDoing it now.
Update:
52.79 avg fps at 1600x1200
lol how the fvck is 52.79fps "almost" playable???
30fps is "almost" playable.
lol..i consider my 9600 pro gettin 20fps playable!
Originally posted by: Tobyus
Hmm. On the edge of playable. Are you overclocked? If you are that's a pretty steep drop from the CSS benches on vr-zone
Well, I would think that 5 frame per second difference between a Pentium 4 3.0C and an Athlon 64 3800+ is an acceptable drop in frame rates. Certainly not as steep of a drop as I would expect or you seem to think it is. And about it being on the edge of playable, I guess Doom 3, Neverwinter Nights, and most other Open GL games are unplayable on any ATI card by those standards?