A Computer hardware and components forum. ComputerBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ComputerBanter.com forum » Video Cards » Nvidia Videocards
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

More brilliance from Sykbuck



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 15th 04, 05:19 PM
Augustus
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default More brilliance from Sykbuck

You know what is funny.
Some of you guys paid 600 euro's for a graphics card which is only twice

as
fast as my 76 euro's card !
Besides from that you guys now have a dust sucking, 3 slot taking,
overheating, noise making piece of **** !
I and all other proud/smart/economic owners of a fx5200 have a no dust
sucking, 1 slot taking, cool, zero noise piece of art !
I saved 524 euro's which I can spent on other things if I would like....
So the real joke is on you guys =D
How about that for a laugh ?! hahahahahahahahahahaha
Skybuck.


I'm going to Ebay my FX5950 RIGHT NOW and grab that 64bit fanless FX5200
before they're all snatched up. Gosh, since the 5950 is only TWICE as fast
I'll pick up TWO of those great fanless FX5200's and run them in SLI mode!
That way I'll get the same 5950 performance for only 148 Euro's! While I'm
at it I'll also Ebay my Barton 3200 for a PIII 450 to increase the
framerates.
Godammit man...take those 524 Euros you saved and go buy a something
resembling an education, common sense and the ability to read. Try running
3DMark03 on that screaming PIII450/FX5200 and see what you get. 500? 600?
Look up what a 5950 or 9800XT gets. 1000-1200% faster. Here's something to
look at: UT2003 timedemo 1024x768: FX5200 25fps / FX5950 121fps.....Splinter
Cell timedemo 1024x768: FX5200 6fps FX5950 47fps....Serious Sam timedemo
FX5200 40fps FX5950 221 fps.....every single real and synthetic bench shows
a 400% to 800% increase in performance. Don't just take my word for
it.....go to here and read it yourself.....oh right, I forgot. While you're
at it, notice how the benchmarking with every card across the board goes
DOWN as the display resolution goes up.
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/over2003/index.html


  #2  
Old May 15th 04, 07:37 PM
Skybuck Flying
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default More brilliance from Sykbuck


"Augustus" wrote in message
news[email protected]
You know what is funny.
Some of you guys paid 600 euro's for a graphics card which is only twice

as
fast as my 76 euro's card !
Besides from that you guys now have a dust sucking, 3 slot taking,
overheating, noise making piece of **** !
I and all other proud/smart/economic owners of a fx5200 have a no dust
sucking, 1 slot taking, cool, zero noise piece of art !
I saved 524 euro's which I can spent on other things if I would like....
So the real joke is on you guys =D
How about that for a laugh ?! hahahahahahahahahahaha
Skybuck.


I'm going to Ebay my FX5950 RIGHT NOW and grab that 64bit fanless FX5200
before they're all snatched up. Gosh, since the 5950 is only TWICE as fast
I'll pick up TWO of those great fanless FX5200's and run them in SLI mode!
That way I'll get the same 5950 performance for only 148 Euro's! While I'm
at it I'll also Ebay my Barton 3200 for a PIII 450 to increase the
framerates.
Godammit man...take those 524 Euros you saved and go buy a something
resembling an education, common sense and the ability to read. Try running
3DMark03 on that screaming PIII450/FX5200 and see what you get. 500? 600?
Look up what a 5950 or 9800XT gets. 1000-1200% faster. Here's something to
look at: UT2003 timedemo 1024x768: FX5200 25fps / FX5950

121fps.....Splinter
Cell timedemo 1024x768: FX5200 6fps FX5950 47fps....Serious Sam timedemo
FX5200 40fps FX5950 221 fps.....every single real and synthetic bench

shows
a 400% to 800% increase in performance. Don't just take my word for
it.....go to here and read it yourself.....oh right, I forgot. While

you're
at it, notice how the benchmarking with every card across the board goes
DOWN as the display resolution goes up.
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/over2003/index.html


Try running RTCW one of the best shooters of all time at 640x480 with low
textures.

Then try running RTCW with 1024x768 with high textures.

That'll shut you up ! =D

Skybuck.


  #3  
Old May 15th 04, 08:10 PM
Augustus
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default More brilliance from Sykbuck

Try running RTCW one of the best shooters of all time at 640x480 with low
textures.

Then try running RTCW with 1024x768 with high textures.

That'll shut you up ! =D

Skybuck.


Like I said in a previous post, I think you're deliberately trolling with
this bull****. I actually have RCTW installed on my Barton 3200 / 1024 Mg
Dual Channel /Radeon 8500 128Mb at 310/600. These are the actual time demo
results: RCTW 640x480: 219 fps / RCTW 1024x768 32bit max details& textures:
147fps. I don't know what kind of drugs you're on or what reality you live
in where hardware accelerated programs (or any for that matter) run faster
with high res textures and screen resolution. Most of what you post here is
complete bull****. Expect anyone to believe you have a magical GPU on that
5200 that processes 90% of it's cycles in hyperspace? Expect anyone to
believe Halo runs between 15 and 30 fps on a PIII 450 with a 64bit FX5200?
Yeah....it will like my 8500 will do around 8000 or so on 3DMark03. Download
3DMark03.....run it on your rig. Post the score. My estimate of 500-600 is
actually on the high side. For that matter, I'd like to see what that
blistering rig of yours does on 3DMark01. If it gets a score above 2500 it
would be a miracle.



  #4  
Old May 16th 04, 01:49 AM
Dark Avenger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default More brilliance from Sykbuck


Try running RTCW one of the best shooters of all time at 640x480 with low
textures.

Then try running RTCW with 1024x768 with high textures.

That'll shut you up ! =D

Skybuck.


RTCW..wasn't that based on that Old 3 years old by now Quacke III
engine?

....

Yes that was so...mmm 3 year old technology... oh yeah..that will make
a great benchmark...
  #5  
Old May 16th 04, 01:57 AM
Skybuck Flying
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default More brilliance from Sykbuck


"Augustus" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
Try running RTCW one of the best shooters of all time at 640x480 with

low
textures.

Then try running RTCW with 1024x768 with high textures.

That'll shut you up ! =D

Skybuck.


Like I said in a previous post, I think you're deliberately trolling with
this bull****. I actually have RCTW installed on my Barton 3200 / 1024 Mg
Dual Channel /Radeon 8500 128Mb at 310/600. These are the actual time demo
results: RCTW 640x480: 219 fps / RCTW 1024x768 32bit max details&

textures:
147fps. I don't know what kind of drugs you're on or what reality you live
in where hardware accelerated programs (or any for that matter) run faster
with high res textures and screen resolution. Most of what you post here

is
complete bull****. Expect anyone to believe you have a magical GPU on that
5200 that processes 90% of it's cycles in hyperspace? Expect anyone to
believe Halo runs between 15 and 30 fps on a PIII 450 with a 64bit FX5200?
Yeah....it will like my 8500 will do around 8000 or so on 3DMark03.

Download
3DMark03.....run it on your rig. Post the score. My estimate of 500-600

is
actually on the high side. For that matter, I'd like to see what that
blistering rig of yours does on 3DMark01. If it gets a score above 2500 it
would be a miracle.


I tested the frame rate while running my own server.

I tested

1. 640x480x32 bit, tri, low geometry, low textures, low character textures.
2. 640x480x32 bit, tri, low geometry, high textures, high character
textures.
3. 640x480x32 bit, tri, high geometry, low textures, low character textures.
4. 640x480x32 bit, tri, high geometry, high textures, high character
textures.
5. 1024x786x32 bit, tri, low geometry, low textures, low character textures.
6. 1024x786x32 bit, tri, low geometry, high textures, high character
textures.
7. 1024x786x32 bit, tri, high geometry, low textures, low character
textures.
8. 1024x786x32 bit, tri, high geometry, high textures, high character
textures.

All frame rates were exactly the same.

So this proves nothing.

No players present.

I can only tell you that I witness much higher frame rates while playing
with many people on high res with high tex's.
So it could be that characters make the difference.

Or maybe there are other reasons.

Still I think you spent to much time in demo/benchmark land and too little
time in actual in-game performance :P

And yes halo does run at 10 tot 30 fps during multiplayer at 640x480 etc.
Mostly 10 to 15.

And no I will not run any benchmarks since I dont want viruses... and I dont
believe in those benchmarks., they could be optimized for certain cards or
drivers could have been optimized for those benchmarks.

I rather deal with actually game performance.

Skybuck.


  #6  
Old May 16th 04, 02:25 AM
Augustus
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default More brilliance from Sykbuck

And no I will not run any benchmarks since I dont want viruses... and I
dont
believe in those benchmarks., they could be optimized for certain cards or
drivers could have been optimized for those benchmarks.


This is a completely stupid statement. You're going to get viruses by
downloading 3DMark directly from the manufacturer? Yeah right. Optimized for
certain cards? Yeah, right. You don't want to run and post them simply
because it would clearly show your performance is 8 to 12 times slower than
state of the art. You benched RTCW and got exactly the same fps in 640x480
as you did in 1024x768? Yeah right. In Halo multiplayer you're getting
15-30fps on a PIII 450 with the world's slowest DX9 card. Yeah right.


  #7  
Old May 18th 04, 03:55 AM
ec
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default More brilliance from Sykbuck


"Augustus" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
And no I will not run any benchmarks since I dont want viruses... and I

dont
believe in those benchmarks., they could be optimized for certain cards

or
drivers could have been optimized for those benchmarks.


This is a completely stupid statement. You're going to get viruses by
downloading 3DMark directly from the manufacturer? Yeah right. Optimized

for
certain cards? Yeah, right. You don't want to run and post them simply
because it would clearly show your performance is 8 to 12 times slower

than
state of the art. You benched RTCW and got exactly the same fps in 640x480
as you did in 1024x768? Yeah right. In Halo multiplayer you're getting
15-30fps on a PIII 450 with the world's slowest DX9 card. Yeah right.



He's just trying to justify his purchase of the biggest POS video card out
right. The 5200 is a joke. It isn't for gaming. I stopped gaming at 640x480
when I pulled my Voodoo1, yes Voodoo ONE, out of my system 6 years ago.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ComputerBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.