|
|
#31
10-18-2005, 11:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Pentium 4 vs. AMD 64
Mine chugged a bit on the BF2 demo which I modded to have 32 bots running around.
Definetely the "sweet spot" right now is the 6800GT 256MB version, once the price drops a tad more (I try to get my stuff on Ebay for savings of $25-$100 off retail) Buying the 6600GT right now isn't worth it, given it only has 128MB of RAM. And the difference in performance between a 6800 Ultra or 7800 card isn't all that big compared with the 6800GT. Especially when you consider the ability to toss in a 2nd 6800GT in the future if you go with an SLI board. The status quo gamer isn't going to have the top of the line stuff anyway, so most games are going to be playable on this "lesser" hardware for awhile. Got plenty of gaming out of my 9700 Pro, still does Rome Total War with graphics cranked just fine, although that game is more CPU limited for larger battles (starts to chug around 6,000+ troops on screen) 
|
|
#32
10-18-2005, 03:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pentium 4 vs. AMD 64
[ QUOTE ]
And as for Doom III (and I assume Quake 4 as it uses the same engine), it has single textures that are >512MB fully uncompressed. If you really want to find out what you can live with in terms of hardware performance for Quake 4 I suggest you read this. It should give a general idea of Quake 4's performance on various hardware. [/ QUOTE ] Or you could just get the game and try.
|
|
#33
10-18-2005, 06:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pentium 4 vs. AMD 64
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] And as for Doom III (and I assume Quake 4 as it uses the same engine), it has single textures that are >512MB fully uncompressed. If you really want to find out what you can live with in terms of hardware performance for Quake 4 I suggest you read this. It should give a general idea of Quake 4's performance on various hardware. [/ QUOTE ] Or you could just get the game and try. [/ QUOTE ]What exactly is wrong with reading a hardware guide to determine what kind of video card you want? I really don't get the "buy the game and try." So you can figure out you got too much card for the performance you desired (making the card a poor purchase), too little (making the game a poor purchase), or get lucky and happen to buy just the card you would've got had you read the article? You seem to have some sort of animosity towards my advice here. I lurked these forums for quite a while and it's helped my poker game immensely, though I'm nowhere near as good as the people giving advice so I tend to keep my mouth shut on those topics. I started posting on this specific board because I thought I could at least contribute something on a topic I was fairly knowledgeable about. If my advice is unwelcome I'll just go back to lurking.
|
|
#35
10-19-2005, 03:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pentium 4 vs. AMD 64
[ QUOTE ]
I really don't get the "buy the game and try." [/ QUOTE ] I never said that.
|
|
#36
10-19-2005, 05:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pentium 4 vs. AMD 64
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I really don't get the "buy the game and try." [/ QUOTE ] I never said that. [/ QUOTE ]Oh okay. After years of posting on gaming forums I'm used to people saying "obtain" where you meant "get." [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#37
10-19-2005, 10:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pentium 4 vs. AMD 64
UPDATE: My bro got an Emachines AMD 3700+ with the same ATI chipset. It seems to be running Battlefield 2 fine, although at higher levels of graphics it is slowing down. I suppose I can get the same computer and just wait until the prices of graphics cards go down a little to get a good one. Thank you guys for all the helpful comments, they made a big difference.
Peace.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
