dude my cpu is p4 dual core @ 3.00ghz overclocked at 3.66ghz and btw i told u noob coz i dont like when someone says me wrong when i am not......pardon my english On Mar 24, 5:05 pm, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm sorry, did you just call me noob? I'll assume you just bit your > tongue and are on excruciating pain. Otherwise you better hold your > tongue. > > I'll say it again, playing at 1280x1024 at ultra settings would easily > melt your chipset, depending on the cpu. With a low clocked core 2 duo > or a high clocked core duo, it might be playable with 20-30fps, on > high settings at most, and certainly not at that resolution. > > On 24 Mar, 05:08, 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
