Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance

Thanks for the info. I'm curious about your FEAR experience though. What if you dropped down to say 4xAA? Would it "feel" better then? Playing at 1024x768 is just not acceptable for a 7900gtx setup.
 
You know, there wasn't much difference in framerate or visual performance going from 8xS AA to 4X AA on either platform in FEAR, but let me tell you..... 8xS AA looks awesome in BF2142.


And how do you think I feel having to play FEAR in SLI at only 1024 x 768? For all its intense shaders and other crap, it still doesn't look nearly as good as the Source engine.
 
Thank you very much Greta, most folks here will agree with what you wrote and have seen similar results already.

Many of us don't use our PC's as ONLY an expensive X-Box. No, 1600 X 1200 isn't very realistic for everyday Gaming, even most LCDs are 1280 X 1024. I'll agree with about 85% of the reviews [H] does, disagree 10% and stuck on the other 5%. This one part of 3 was one I disagreed with. Yet, [H] is the first page I hit everyday.
 
Greta said:
You know, there wasn't much difference in framerate or visual performance going from 8xS AA to 4X AA on either platform in FEAR, but let me tell you..... 8xS AA looks awesome in BF2142.


And how do you think I feel having to play FEAR in SLI at only 1024 x 768? For all its intense shaders and other crap, it still doesn't look nearly as good as the Source engine.
Click to expand...

Greta, regarding your previous post regarding FEAR performance, that's a GPU limitation, not a CPU limitation, right?
 
harpoon said:
Greta, regarding your previous post regarding FEAR performance, that's a GPU limitation, not a CPU limitation, right?
Click to expand...

Haha....how should I know? If Core 2 and 7900 GTX in SLI can't cut it...I just don't know. But if I had to guess, I would say its a GPU limitiation. Perhaps the next gen. GPU's will have FEAR running in all its intended glory.
 
Donnie27 said:
Thank you very much Greta, most folks here will agree with what you wrote and have seen similar results already.

Many of us don't use our PC's as ONLY an expensive X-Box. No, 1600 X 1200 isn't very realistic for everyday Gaming, even most LCDs are 1280 X 1024. I'll agree with about 85% of the reviews [H] does, disagree 10% and stuck on the other 5%. This one part of 3 was one I disagreed with. Yet, [H] is the first page I hit everyday.
Click to expand...


You know, if I could get the games I wanted on Xbox 360, I wouldn't want such a pumped up PC. I seriously considered getting one, but I checked the game catalog and found NOTHING that I wanted to play on a regular basis.

As for computer and video card review sites. All of them are looking to slant or bias you in some way for whatever reason.


"Yet, [H] is the first page I hit everyday...." It's the girl you hate that you end up sleeping with. If you understand that, you''ll understand everything.
 
jebo_4jc said:
Thanks for the info. I'm curious about your FEAR experience though. What if you dropped down to say 4xAA? Would it "feel" better then? Playing at 1024x768 is just not acceptable for a 7900gtx setup.
Click to expand...

I agree

How high does your resolution go? That does not look right at all. I played F.E.A.R on 2xAA, 8xAF all other settings maxed at 1440x900 hardly going below 40FPS with the system in my sig. If thats your highest resolution, that might be the culprit right there.
 
Lazy_Moron said:
I agree

How high does your resolution go? That does not look right at all. I played F.E.A.R on 2xAA, 8xAF all other settings maxed at 1440x900 hardly going below 40FPS with the system in my sig. If thats your highest resolution, that might be the culprit right there.
Click to expand...


Yeah I go as high as 1440 x 900....but the key is 2xAA and 8xAF.

I was talking about FEAR at 1440 x 900 at 8xS AA and 16xAF. My system will run most of it very well at that setting....but when you get into particle and shadow heavy areas, it will dip to 30 FPS. That's why the built in benchmark is misleading, in my opinion. You would think an AVG FPS of 64 would guarantee you smooth sailing throughout the whole game, but it doesn't. Not to my satisfaction, anyway.
 
Greta said:
Yeah I go as high as 1440 x 900....but the key is 2xAA and 8xAF.

I was talking about FEAR at 1440 x 900 at 8xS AA and 16xAF. My system will run most of it very well at that setting....but when you get into particle and shadow heavy areas, it will dip to 30 FPS. That's why the built in benchmark is misleading, in my opinion. You would think an AVG FPS of 64 would guarantee you smooth sailing throughout the whole game, but it doesn't. Not to my satisfaction, anyway.
Click to expand...

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35523

Think it'll be Video Card limited?
 
Greta said:
Thats a monster rig. If adding an 8800 GTX in SLI increases performance like adding a second 7900 GTX in SLI, I think FEAR will be running just fine at 1440 x 900.

But I still think a single 8800 GTX would lag at that res....
Click to expand...

I'm sure a few newer games would but yes, you're probably right.
 
Arcygenical said:
holy fucking hell!

5400 pounds! That's like,10 000!!!

And wtf is Liquocool, and why does the system cost about a *thousand* dollars?
Click to expand...

In reality this system is not worth half that ammount in parts.... They didn't even OC the damn thing... WTF!!!! :rolleyes:
 
So its all about having a highend GFX card if you want to play in 1680x1050?
Doesnt matter if you have a Amd or Conroe cpu?
3000 mhz AM2 cpu, 2 gb pc8000ram and a 8800 nvidia card vs
3000 conroe cpu, 2 gb pc8000 ram and 8800 nvidia card
Almost same fps at high reso ye..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top