Ok, you're on your high horse, good for you. Go your research and learn how 3 cores are incompatible, period. Go for 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, whatever you want. But yes, GTA IV is memory hungry for unknown reasons, aside lazy porting :) And you're assuming default cars are being used, when there are custom models that look the same and are faster (and yes, most are known to be more detailed and with real brands). Again, what's low-end to you might not be for others, and if you had a 915 chipset you should know. And I wasn't talking about a big screen, I was talking about a good screen. Yes, this would be a great way to flame, so you keep your skills and I keep mine. If there is something I do is try to help everyone in any way I can, and go quote yourself.
On Jul 19, 9:50 pm, 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=relatedNow 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
