Ummm dude, we aren't trying to condone that all high end pc owners are rich folk that do nothing but brag, I have a high end gaming rig which I researched and built to my exact wants but I don't brag about it around here, now you may or may not have meant it but that post about how 60FPS is the only way to play did sound demeaning and imposing over people here who may be either less fortunate financially or simply do not have the time to aquire these high powered PC's. Now 9xxssf is open to everyone and we welcome every new member like a brother but when people come into the group and more or less just put it out there how good their systems are and how much everyone else's system pales in comparison then even you can see how this could piss people o...@everyone Now let's just put this behind us and move on, the last thing we need is a flame war in this community.
THEfog On 20/07/2010 6:50 AM, "Cef" <[email protected]> wrote: @tribaljet Sure I come here to brag only, I've been bragging and ranting in this community for about 2 years, I bragged like hell about how my 915g onboard graphics could run F.E.A.R. in mid settings. Heck, I even made a bragging compatibility list of the games my 915g could run back in the day. Come on, seriously, 30 FPS solid, no variation in a buggy game, using the minimum recommended specs in old drivers and no updates? If the maximum FPS you get is 30 you'd most likely fall into 15 FPS whenever more than two cars are being rendered, then it's not choppy it's slide show. Also you don't need a monster screen to see the difference between crappy PS3 blurry textures, which is what GTA IV looks in mid- low, and decent looking PC graphics, just check some screenshots and compare. Let's skip the phallic talk, I don't say size matters in all games, but GTA IV sucks VRAM like a damn leech, so the less VRAM you have the less performance range you have to prevent FPS loss and the narrower your margin is to rise the settings beyond low. Speaking of forums you'd probably like to google GTA IV low FPS, and see hundreds of posts on how the game is slow and choppy on mid-high end machines, so all of those folks, like me, like to brag recklessly about their machines or are just proof that this particular game needs more hardware to run properly than the so-called megapixel 2010 games you say low end rigs are supposed to play spectacularly nice? What about youtube also? Rigs like the one you mention or even better barely reach 25 fps on GTA IV, there's this video: http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=c2_1uFIHk6A&feature=related Now that's smooth and good looking! Shadows won't kill games, F.E.A.R. 2 takes advantage of shadowing and even Ambient Occlusion with no loss of performance whatsoever. And yeah it's awful to see how three year old laptop owners actually brag about improbable stuff and their incredible PC tuning skills, mocking an honest opinion, and claiming that "rich folks" don't know how to keep a PC running, that really makes me boo hoo. In the end we'll keep on arguing about mine's best and yours suck, so let's get things straight, old PCs have potential, I know it because I have a couple of them and I've seen how a Pentium D @2.8, 2GB DDR RAM and a 8400 GS can lift DMC IV to 30 fps on mid-settings, but saying that they can run new games better than newer and more powerful PCs it's ridiculous. If you can juice your PC and get the most of performance then it's great, that's what this group is about, but just don't exaggerate and use your "experience" to try to mock and demean others. .C. -- 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS -- 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
