Battlefield 2 Rant

[[Expletive Deleted]]

well then you cant argue much about what looks better if your running trash settings and im running the same fps at you on max res.

You still haven't said what your max res is. For all we know it's 800x640, like those screen shots you posted that look like a$$.
That's like me hooking up an old monitor to my 8800GTS and saying it runs Crysis at 60 FPS at max settings. My old monitor was 1280x1024. The one before that was 1024x768. Even if my computer could do that, it would be a lot different from a guy coming in here saying his comp runs it at max res for him at 1900x1200. Or another guy at 2560x2560.

[proto]

Lets throw away "FPS" for a second. Not only do the buildings in COD4 look better with my superextralow resolution and lowest graphics, they have better interior and unobstructed field of view from one side of the map, to another. I gather you didnt take a screenshot of Oman Hotel, to compare it to the Showdown building wall, for a reason. The whole argument about which game has "better" graphics is horrible.

Haha, not to mention you can transition from 'exterior' to 'interior' without stalling for a second and jumping off the ground.

[thissitesucks]

You still haven't said what your max res is. For all we know it's 800x640, like those screen shots you posted that look like a$$.
That's like me hooking up an old monitor to my 8800GTS and saying it runs Crysis at 60 FPS at max settings. My old monitor was 1280x1024. The one before that was 1024x768. Even if my computer could do that, it would be a lot different from a guy coming in here saying his comp runs it at max res for him at 1900x1200. Or another guy at 2560x2560.

1600-1050 i guess is the max the last 2 s/s i posted are my max 8600 gts fastest 8000 series :) also i hosted them on photobucket.com they shrink pic's the last 2 are tinypic.com

[proto]

I seriously don't understand why you're posting screens though. We don't need visual proof of which game engine is more strenuous on a system.

8600 GTS is not the fastest 8000 series card.

[camper.]

Apples and Oranges -- A Comparison

by Scott A. Sandford, NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, California
We have all been present at discussions (or arguments) in which one of the combatants attempts to clarify or strengthen a point by comparing the subject at hand with another item or situation more familiar to the audience or opponent. More often than not, this stratagem instantly results in the protest that "you're comparing apples and oranges!" This is generally perceived as being a telling blow to the analogy, since it is generally understood that apples and oranges cannot be compared. However, after being the recipient of just such an accusation, it occurred to me that there are several problems with dismissing analogies with the comparing apples and oranges defense. First, the statement that something is like comparing apples and oranges is a kind of analogy itself. That is, denigrating an analogy by accusing it of comparing apples and oranges is, in and of itself, comparing apples and oranges. More importantly, it is not difficult to demonstrate that apples and oranges can, in fact, be compared (see figure 1).

Figure 1. Granny Smith Apple and Sunkist Orange

Materials and Methods

Both samples were prepared by gently desiccating them in a convection oven at low temperature over the course of several days. The dried samples were then mixed with potassium bromide and ground in a small ball-bearing mill for two minutes. One hundred milligrams of each of the resulting powders were then pressed into a circular pellet having a diameter of 1 cm and a thickness of approximately 1 mm. Spectra were taken at a resolution of 1 cm-1 using a Nicolet 740 FTIR spectrometer. Figure 2 shows a comparison of the 4000-400 cm-1 (2.5-25 mm) infrared transmission spectra of a Granny Smith apple and a Sunkist Navel orange.

Figure. 2

Conclusions

Not only was this comparison easy to make, but it is apparent from the figure that apples and oranges are very similar. Thus, it would appear that the comparing apples and oranges defense should no longer be considered valid. This is a somewhat startling revelation. It can be anticipated to have a dramatic effect on the strategies used in arguments and discussions in the future.

[Chris_Redfield]

I seriously don't understand why you're posting screens though. We don't need visual proof of which game engine is more strenuous on a system.

8600 GTS is not the fastest 8000 series card.

It is now. *coughs*

Different perks for different jerks.

While an "apples and oranges" statement fits here, people are trying to prove that earth is flat. So it goes a little beyond.

[thissitesucks]

I seriously don't understand why you're posting screens though. We don't need visual proof of which game engine is more strenuous on a system.

8600 GTS is not the fastest 8000 series card.

it has the fastest stock core clock 756 mhz find me a card faster please ty.

http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3244234&CatId=2513

BFG GeForce 8800 GTX OC has core clock of 650 mhz, Memory Clock 2000 MHz

http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3433262&CatId=1560

My video card EVGA 8600 GTS has core clock of 756 mhz, Memory Clock 2140 MHz

[proto]

The fact that the apples and oranges were both mixed with potassium bromide completely solidifies that argument! I mean...why not CHANGE the natural pH levels and THEN test the two.

Potassium Bromide is a chemical used in Medical and Veterinary fields. Not fruit and vegetable testing.

It's a satirical writing. But I <3 your humor camperstrike. :P

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150267

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127314 Fastest at 730

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814143120

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814122046

They're all G92 core GPUs, all PCIE 2.0, more memory, and faster memory(I believe most of those have 1.2ns memory).

Don't even get me started on the Quadro FX 4500 FX2s. Same 8 series GPU core.

And you posted a different MHz rating. And you're talking stock.

Think of it this way...I can make DDR2-1000 memory faster than higher clocked DDR3 or DDR2 by downclocking it and setting tighter timings. There's more to just FAST than MHz ratings. Such as core architecture and latency.

[[Expletive Deleted]]

Clock speed means almost nothing. I overclocked a Radeon 9550 to 542MHz. That doesn't make it better than any other card. Yeah, I said it, it was just about the worst card ever. And my 8800GTS 640MB is better than your 8600. Just trust me on that.

[proto]

Think of it this way...I can make DDR2-1000 memory faster than higher clocked DDR3 or DDR2 by downclocking it and setting tighter timings. There's more to just FAST than MHz ratings. Such as core architecture and latency.

This....

Clock speed means almost nothing. I overclocked a Radeon 9550 to 542MHz. That doesn't make it better than any other card. Yeah, I said it, it was just about the worst card ever. And my 8800GTS 640MB is better than your 8600. Just trust me on that.

And this...

Mean you got owned.

[camper.]

Clock speed does mean something but when comparing graphics cards, it's irrelevant unless you have the number of texture/shader/other units and know how to compare them.

But hey, it's all done on www.gpureview.com, superb website. The fastest card out is still an 8800 Ultra or a heavily overclocked 8800GTX.

With CPUs, it seems the industry hit some kind of clock rate barrier, hence the jump into multi-core and "better" architecture.

[thissitesucks]

i said its the fastest in the 8000 seires stock im right so your the one whos wrong u ****ing moron.

[camper.]

i said its the fastest in the 8000 seires stock im right so your the one whos wrong u ****ing moron.

No kiddo, you're wrong. There's a reason nobody sane buys an 8600GT when they have the money for an 8800 card.

[thissitesucks]

Clock speed means almost nothing. I overclocked a Radeon 9550 to 542MHz. That doesn't make it better than any other card. Yeah, I said it, it was just about the worst card ever. And my 8800GTS 640MB is better than your 8600. Just trust me on that.

say what you want your **** at ervery gaem you play i bet wats of money in your pc. After i proved i was right it went to " core clock" doesnt mean **** when it fully is the ****ing speed of your gpu you stupid ****s. its the fastest out of the box.

No kiddo, you're wrong. There's a reason nobody sane buys an 8600GT when they have the money for an 8800 card.

does it matter? i dont give a **** how much money i have il run you in any game. im right take it is you *****. 756 core clock speed the fastest your oc 8800 had was 730 out of the box im right shut up.

[proto]

Oh wow. He's right...we're wrong.

Even though we give examples to back up our arguments.

It is not the fastest 8000 series card, maybe the fastest 8600 series card. We've already proved that to you. If you know nothing about core architecture of the GPU, what MHz actually mean, or what the **** you're even talking about. Please, save yourself.