Published on 31st March 2006 by
Originally Posted by FirehedI'm going to give it a spin set to 1680 with my 6800gt just to see how it scales and what framerates are looking like. The 24" 1920 has 30% more pixels to draw, but the display handles non-native resolutions pretty well, and I definately want something widescreen.
I don't know whether thats because 2GB of ram, an high-end storage array, more tolerance for loading screens or a combination of the 3
Originally Posted by The_PopeI don't know, personally, though it's a fair question. Ask yourself what you would do with either a super-fast PC or an Xbox 360 *after* you've finished playing ES4... Also, keyboard & mouse + desk vs wireless controller + sofa?
Originally Posted by automagsrockSo when I play this my character moves at a snails pace compared to everything else. WTF??
Originally Posted by EK-MDiIf you're able to play the game at high resolutions, 1280x1024 and above, you don't really need Anti-Aliasing so much. So deciding between either AA or HDR, is an easy choice. You can just choose HDR, which will have the most useful benefits.
Originally Posted by specofdustYou can't really say that for all cases. I mean, with a 21" monitor if I run anything in 1024x768 it looks horrifically jaggy, and I have to remind myself I've not gone back to 1997 and 640x480. For those with big monitors, this game is going to hurt.
Originally Posted by Kaze22You're joking right? Even on my ATI X1800 I could barely play at 1680 res, and you wanna do it on a 6800.
Honestly I have yet to see a rig do bareable framerates at 1680 and you're talking about 1980 res. :(
Well if you don't mind playing the a game as a slide show LOL
I dunno. These scores don't sound quite right to me. I have an AMD 3200 OC'd to 2.7, from 2.0 stock, 1 gig of slightly OC'd, lowered latency ram, and only *ONE* 7900 GT (overclocked and volt modded to past GTX speeds, 730 mghz core, 1800 memory) and mine runs this BEAUTIFULLY~! I have it maxed settings, 16 X 12 and the framerate NEVER drops below 60 FPS (with the exception of the occasional hiccup from my slow HDD caching).......so maybe the testers aren't testing well? I dunno, but bring this system to it's knees? please! If anything, this system brings the game to it's knees. I'd game even higher res, but my screen only supports 16 X 12 max anyway.
Originally Posted by Kaze22MastershakeJB how long have you played the game?
Originally Posted by dehxAlot of people don't realize this, but the X1900XTX is the same exact GPU that runs inside the X360, in fact, the X360 has a X1900XT, not the overclocked XTX.
I have a Athlon 64 3500+ running at 2.5 Ghz, mem at 454 Mhz DDR, and an X1900XTX.
I can run the game with every single setting cranked to maximum @ 1280x1024. The only place I notice < 20 fps is when I piss off 20 guards and when I jump off the mountains and the terrian loading before I reach my stony grave below. haha. Oh, and Imperial city runs around 25 fps at these settings.
I tried running it at 1280x720 with all these settings maxed and got about a 10 fps boost everywhere, but I personally like 1280x1024 because at that resultion, the game has very low alaising, which rids the need for Anti Aliasing. And @ 1280x1024 is really does look better than 720 rendering the extra 389,000 Pixels per frame makes a difference.
And the reviewer is right. If you love this game and can't run HDR. Its well worth the money to buy a PS 3.0 ATI X1800 or X1900 or NVidia 7900 to see it.
BTW, I would like to see you X360 guys complete an oblivion gate mission in 57 seconds like I did. haha. PC owns and you n00bs can't admit it. lol.
Mouse + KB = skill
Wireless Controller + Couch + Potato Chips = no reflex, tired fat, go to sleep.
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.
4th February 2016
3rd February 2016
2nd February 2016
© Copyright bit-tech