Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, morphine, SecretSquirrel
Chrispy_ wrote:4650 still plays AAA titles at modest detail levels.
XTF wrote:Chrispy_ wrote:4650 still plays AAA titles at modest detail levels.
At 640 x 480 or at 320 x 200?
CampinCarl wrote:Heh, I just realized the point of this thread was actually to post benchmarks, not discussion. Whoops.I think this is a great idea. I'll try and make some time to benchmark both my current main machine (sig) and my old machine (E8400, 4GB DDR2800 RAM, 4870 1GB, WD Caviar 640GB) on some of the same games and post the resulting data.
DPete27 wrote:Assuming that your monitor is a 60hz display, then it caps at 60fps. Given that your monitor can't display more than 60 frames per second (since it only updates 60 times per second), and given that most games' input routines are no longer tied to the renderer framerate (meaning higher framerates don't equal smoother or faster input), is there any real point in disabling Vsync? Shouldn't "reaching Vsync" be the goal, in the end?Also, keep V-Sync off, this setting caps framerates at 60fps.
auxy wrote:Shouldn't "reaching Vsync" be the goal, in the end
auxy wrote:Heh, I just realized the point of this thread was actually to post benchmarks, not discussion. Whoops.
DPete27 wrote:The irony is that I play with vsync off most of the time (except in Skyrim, where it breaks *everything*) for superior mouse responsiveness.(a bunch of stuff about vsync)
DPete27 wrote:Fair enough. I'll post up some hard numbers in this thread when I get home tonight.It can be both, but I'd prefer hard numbers so others can use this thread as a supplemental reference to TR and other site's GPU review benchmarks.
swaaye wrote:I think people can get by pretty well with a 4850 still. The main problem there is the typical 512MB RAM being inadequate so you need to reduce texture-related settings or you get a lot of stuttering from PCIe texture transfers.
jihadjoe wrote:My system is sort of the reverse of this thread, and is more along the lines of "My underpowered CPU works just fine, thanks."
Ancient B3 stepping Q6600 @ 3.0GHz with a reference GTX670 here.
Odd combination, i know. But I plan on finally upgrading the CPU this year with either Haswell or IVB-E.
FWIW, I think my Fire Strike scores aren't too bad at all.
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/99079
axeman wrote:Rocking a 6770 on an i3 system. Max resolution for my monitor is 1680x1050, and if it can't do medium type detail at that res, I drop to whatever other 16:10 option there is, like 1440x900 or 1280x800. I'm a pretty casual gamer now, and giant, hot, noisy, power sucking GPUs are not for me. I'm not interested in anything that requires my desktop to have > 350w PSU nowadays.
MadManOriginal wrote:axeman wrote:Rocking a 6770 on an i3 system. Max resolution for my monitor is 1680x1050, and if it can't do medium type detail at that res, I drop to whatever other 16:10 option there is, like 1440x900 or 1280x800. I'm a pretty casual gamer now, and giant, hot, noisy, power sucking GPUs are not for me. I'm not interested in anything that requires my desktop to have > 350w PSU nowadays.
You could build an i5 3570k and fast mid-range GPU like a GTX 660 system that wouldn't draw more than 250W (not overclocked) max...I'm talking unrealistic loads like Prime95+Furmark. In gaming such a system would probably pull 150W-200W.
Game_boy wrote:My 7900GS in my PS3 works just fine as well.
Anything beyond that is just making the graphics look better, not increasing what can be done with the game. Since photorealism is out of reach, hardware enthusiasts have trained themselves to 'like' increasing levels of AF or resolution or framerate.
Game_boy wrote:Obvious troll. Get out.My 7900GS in my PS3 works just fine as well.
Anything beyond that is just making the graphics look better, not increasing what can be done with the game. Since photorealism is out of reach, hardware enthusiasts have trained themselves to 'like' increasing levels of AF or resolution or framerate.