Information might be the key, but understanding is the lock that reveals knowledge.
Is there anything left to discuss? I don't really see any issues or concerns at this point about how we're going to set up the listing for each game. Pretty much... 1. The listing for the game may or may not have a screenshot, depending on space and size restrictions for the group. 2. The listing for the game will provide the test machine specifications. 3. The listing for the game will provide the test machine's results such as the fps and other data pertinent to assessing the performance of a game. 4. Because the listing provides the test machine specifications, the reader will be able to use this data along side the test machine's results to help determine how well the game will run on their system. Did I sum up everything? I think I did. On Feb 4, 11:08 pm, Oscar Lundqvist <[email protected]> wrote: > Well the only thing we can do is to give the specs on the computer tested > on. Like OS, Ram and processor, like you said. Because it is a little easier > for people to get a feeling of how their system will operate. > > So lets say i tested an older game who gave me 40 fps on average. I have > Windows 7, 1.8 Ghz dual core processor and 2 GB of DDR2 RAM. > > And we have a guy that have Windows 7 also but have an 1.6Ghz dual core and > 1 GB of DDR2 RAM. Then he would know that at the best his system would meet > me, but most likely it would be around 30-35 instead. > > So i think it is a good idea, cuz if you say that Counter-Strike Source > runs at 100 fps on the x3100, people would be crazy and saying there results > don't add up to that. And later we get to know that the computer had monster > RAM and a monster CPU. So information is the key. -- INTEL 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
