dont know about other games.....but far cry....lol i can play it on 1280x1024 at ultra high settings with over 25 fps all time on my gma 950......u should have better results as u have 965,ohh remember to patch the game....
On Mar 20, 8:29 am, arcane cossack <[email protected]> wrote: > Looking around the 9xx scene, including Youtube, I'm seeing one thing > that is bothering me greatly. Anything that runs is being listed as > "works". 12fps is "playable". Can we get some sort of standard for > compatibility lists and such? Some examples: > > My laptop's a 1.66ghz C2D. I'm using an Intel 965/X3100 with Alpha 2, > I believe. I have 2gb RAM and am running Windows 7 > > Dead Rising 2: Not playable. Not, in any way, playable. Will run at > 2fps on a beefy machine with an Intel 965. Don't even waste your time. > I've seen this game listed as WORKING by people and that needs to stop > (didn't actually test myself). > > Dead Space 2: Works. 8-12 FPS on my machine with 640x480, tweaking and > Alpha. > > Far Cry: Playable. Good example of a playable game: It'll run at a > nice smooth framerate at low settings, and is pushable to medium. I'm > about halfway through the game and running on 800x600 at Medium, and > it looks absolutely great. There's a room I'm in now with 20+ light > sources that I'm going to end up dropping to Low again on, though. > > Unreal Tournament 2000: Perfect. Runs at max framerate. No issues at > all. Will not stutter or lag. You should probably use the DirectX 9 > renderer you can google for, not the internal 7 or the 10/11 plugins > floating around. > > Now, there are other games that I have the feeling should.. kind of be > in a special category. > > You've seen the videos. > > GTA4 X3100 30FPS L@@K! and you click, and it looks worse than GTA3 > did. They've dialed it down to 320x240, disabled pedestrians, disabled > the sky, and tweaked it so heavily there's barely a game there. But it > is a game, and it is playable. I just wouldn't want to wish it on > anyone. -- 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
