Published on 22nd November 2004 by
Originally Posted by alexwilks88Well I've got the excuse, so if you've got the money I'm sure we could put our heads together and come up with something ;)
Originally Posted by N4N01Dwhat size of memory was in that card 128mb or 256mb?
Originally Posted by DinhThe heatsink/fam combo doenst look at efficient at cooling. lol Imagine playing HL 2 on that for hours
Originally Posted by InTheReviewhttp://www.bit-tech.net/images/review/371/doom3.png
Originally Posted by ch424Well thanks for choosing such different colours... it makes the review so easy to read for all us colour blind folk.
Originally Posted by AlmightyrastusWhat sort of pricing could we expect on this or was a reading too fast and missed it again?
I was looking at the 9800 pro but this might sway me a little when my next student loan comes through hehe
Originally Posted by bigz
or just something a little more contrasting? :?
Originally Posted by HammeredCanIn your review you used the NFSU2 demo and glossed over the fact NSFU2 is not only playable at 12fps you don't even realize it's that low. I have a GeForce FX 5900XT, which is a joke compared to the current midrange cards but I was playing NFSU2 with 8xS AA and 8 AF over riding the app control becuase it was still jaggy using the slider in the game, but I remeber 12fps being a slideshow not smooth and crisp. For perspective my still images are crisper than either of the two videocards screenies... One difference is I do have the retail game and have been playing since the 8th and never realizes the fps per sec were that low, but considering that it was built with the xbox and lesser consoles in mind the fps might be aimed at older hardware.
The only reason I felt I need to post this is you claim to use real games for testing did you even play the game? I find it hard to see how you could have missed the fact the frame rate seems to have no impact on what you see? Maybe I'm missing something but then again I can't see how you got rid of the jaggies under 4x AA even with a rotaed grid they were really bad on my machine at 2x.
Originally Posted by bigzThe image quality that you are seeing in the review are my implementation of the "best-playable" settings - these are subjective, but the frame rates aren't. You could have other opinions about what looks better - some prefer high AF and no AA, while some prefer lots of AA and a little AF - I've struck a balance between the two in this title, while keeping the frame rates at 100% playable levels. The minimum frame rate never drops below 30 frames per second, that is the most important frame rate, as it will determine how much "lag" you see - anything that goes below 25 fps can come across as noticeable lag.
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.
20th August 2014
19th August 2014
18th August 2014
© Copyright bit-tech