Inside the Home of Chrome

Comments 26 to 29 of 29

The_Pope 24th April 2006, 21:57 Quote
can the bit-tech crew arange a benchmark possible to test the S3 card against other cards? PLEASEE!!!!!

I'm sure that could be arranged - let me make some calls :D
yanman 26th April 2006, 07:59 Quote
while the "8x6 rule" may hold true for close-quarter fragging in game such as the Quake series, if you were to play something like Battlefield 2 with long range battles a low resolution would be very limiting. Distant targets that would be quite faint on say 1920x1200 (my BF2 res) wouldn't be visible on 1024 (e.g defending engineers on the Wake Island USMC arty island by sniping gunners on the peninsulae - their heads are only just visible at high res)

Pending a respectable review of the new Chrome I can't say how the cards compare to other budget video solutions like the Radeon x1300 or Nforce 6100 integrated graphics, but I can say that in the past S3's claims have quite exceed what the cards actually do.
slavik 2nd May 2006, 01:47 Quote
Anyone not trust ExtremeTech?,1697,1955728,00.asp

it is on slashdot :)
lepre 16th May 2006, 23:24 Quote
i always play fps @ 8x6 ultra low details/textures. it isnt' for things bigger for me. it's to have more fps (i don't want 60 please.) and to have higher refresh rate on the crt monitor. that's to feel less tired after playing.
then you can talk about graphics effects (smoke etc when you can hide)
there are also less "pixels" which can be clicked to say it all.
and the mouse moves different

well i don't want to convince nobody...there are still people who believe 24-30 fps are enough (lol)
i just do it
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.

Discuss in the forums