hahah... stop fuckin' with davej, rizzuh.
Thanks for the urgent bulletin here, luft.
I only get about 60 fps because I use WineX.
Thanks for the urgent bulletin here, luft.
I only get about 60 fps because I use WineX.
-
-
"Another option is the Radeon cards by ATI. I've heard a lot of good things about them, but it's probably best to just stick with what works, the GeForce line. The problem with ATI's line is that their drivers really limit the performance."
The new ATI cards are great they outperform the geforces and have better image quality, the driver thing seems to be ancient history. plus they are cheaper than gf3 ti500's .Comment
-
Edited by [user="2579"] @ [time="1012342908"]
Luftwaffle that was a well-done article! WTG. BTW I thought those specs you provided for minimum were right on-we shouldn't all think that those applied only to Half-Life. For just about any 3D game or FPS you need a computer like you described, otherwise you're up the creek w/o a peripheral.
Anyone realize that the sys requirements of games haven't caught up to what's now thought of as cheap as far as new hardware costs? I remember when you had to spend a ton of $$$ to make your games run well, and now you can buy some low-cost parts and have your games run top-notch. Thank God the tech finally got ahead of the games, things really sucked back there for awhile. It was disheartening when you saved all your $$$ to get a kick-ass computer and then saw it reach its upper limit for the software (i.e. games) within six months.Comment
-
pinchet wrote..I've currently got:
Be honest, you can actually play at 1280x960? I tried 1024x768, and it's well over my limits of vision. I play at 800x600 and get 100FPS, and I see no point in going higher, nothing improves besides seeing more typing...
-AMD Athlon XP 1800+
-512MB DDR (PC2100)
-GeForce2
-WinXP
@ 1280x960 resolution I get 100FPS.
It's nice
Comment
-
In 1999, I bought myself a Pentium III 600MHz with 128mb RAM and a Viper 770d graphics card. Even today, my computer still seems much faster than my friends' Pentium IV 1.7GHz and i still manage to get 50 fps with a few tweaks and such.
Why upgrade? I hardly ever spend money on my computer. Linux is free and so is most of the software out there.Comment
-
DocUK, to be honest, your set for about a year. Nothings wrong with your system at all, some people are just hungry to have the best. Most people have these hopped up systems like LuftWaffle I'm sure, and probobly use 30% of it, total waste of these rich kids' money.Comment
-
PJ_Hooker wrote..hahah... stop fuckin' with davej, rizzuh.
U use WineX? I've heard it's impossible to get sound working with it, is that true?
Thanks for the urgent bulletin here, luft.
I only get about 60 fps because I use WineX.Comment
-
Edited by [user="2065"] @ [time="1012345770"]
www.somethingawful.com/features/runnersup/StarkRavingMad-cs.jpgComment
-
Aibohphobia: No, that's not true. Sound works fine in Linux. I haven't got the Voice Communications to work. To be honest, I haven't pursued it much because I haven't had much of a need for it. But the game itself sounds perfectly fine.
Now, what you may be thinking of was that long ago (many months ago at least) there used to be a sound delay. This may still be true if you use WINE. I don't know. I use WineX. Anyway, if anyone out there still has this sound delay just type (in console):_snd_mixahead 0.23
You may want to play with the number a bit, but that should fix it. Once you adjust it perfectly, add it to your autoexec.cfg.
But, like I said, in WineX, sound works perfectly. Transgaming has also made improvements to the menu loading and some speed increases. However, that didn't seem to warrant a news post.
If you need help, Aibohphobia, email me.
Well, before you get too excited, you should be using a GeForce family videocard. Other videocards can be quite problematic.Comment
-
I read somewhere that the Athlon 1.4 gig was just as fast as the Intel Pentium 4 2.0 Gig, in some cases it was faster. Intel has some crappy programming in their chips.Comment
-
Edited by [user="2325"] @ [time="1012346773"]
I must say CSNation was getting boring there for a while but now after the re-design it seems perfect.Great articles.Great news.I love this site.Keeps those articles coming guys.Comment
-
McDeth wrote..I read somewhere that the Athlon 1.4 gig was just as fast as the Intel Pentium 4 2.0 Gig, in some cases it was faster. Intel has some crappy programming in their chips.
Yeah it's faster, the Palaminos at anything above 1.3 ghz do everything better and cheaper than Intel except for a few isolated games.Comment
-
and windows media player which was optimized for the p4Comment
-
Edited by [user="2905"] @ [time="1012350453"]I read somewhere that the Athlon 1.4 gig was just as fast as the Intel Pentium 4 2.0 Gig
tech-report.com/reviews/2001q3...z/index.x?pg=8
firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/p42000/page5.aspComment
-
Unfair for AMD. Clockspeed is simply too high. If someone were in the market for a value processor, it would not be an AMD 1.4ghz vs an Intel 2 Ghz.
This is a fair comparison:
firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/axp2000/page3.aspComment
Comment