Unless the 950 magically has much better performance than the 965 and the modded drivers for 950 work better than Sigma 3, it's bull. I'm using 1.4, it does the display management tool thing on default on installation for far cry. Feel free to call me a noob and scrub out, though. Maybe the game's INCREDIBLY CPU HEAVY and my 1.6ghz dualcore isn't cutting it. I don't know. Why are you getting so angry about it?
I'll try bumping it up some, hoping there's some weird negative penalty for increasing settings, but Very High makes the loadtime pretty ridiculous. On Mar 24, 1:08 am, shivam <[email protected]> wrote: > noob,check this video from gmagaming, > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdFbz-uNafo > ,i hope you r not so noob to understand it,and ask mad beast about > it,he'll tell u better.... > and btw the video is there for over a year......sorry for bad langauge > but i'm angry now... > > On Mar 22, 4:04 pm, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I hope your head didn't hurt much after knocking on the night stand, > > as farcry on ultra settings over 25fps at that resolution with a GMA > > 950 is kind of a joke :)) And if the game is patched to the latest > > version, it gets SM3 support, not to mention the high res textures, so > > I think you might be still dreaming and posting here, which is a not > > so recommendable mix. > > > On 22 Mar, 16:58, shivam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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
