View Full Version : Is this true?

10-28-05, 11:23 AM
"That is completely false. I have an FX-55 and a single 7800 GTX and I play all my games at 1920x1200 (over 1080p) with maxed settings and they all run perfectly . I run Half Life 2 with 8x AA and 16x AF and max settings at that resolution and I sill get smooth frame rates (8x AA in HL2 must be done through drivers).
And not only that, I also have Gamma Correct AA and Transparency AA (exclusive to 7800s) turned on which takes up a lot of power.

I have the 64 edition of Far Cry running at 1920x1200, maxed settings, 4x AA, 8 AF and it never slows down and it looks incredible.

Xbox 360 could easily play games at 1080p, they just don't support it because it's not really a resolution that a lot of people have access to on their screens right now so they figured they might as well stick with 720p and put the extra resources to other uses like more graphics detail.

EDIT: And I see you claim to have a 4000+ and a 7800GTX... either you are blatantly lying or you have no idea how to set up your computer and/or games. Stop going around spreading crap about things you know nothing about... "two 7800GTX's can even handle max settings at 1600x1200" hah... So my computer must have been lying to me when my SINGLE 7800GTX played FEAR and Battlefield 2 at max settings at 1600x1200 (these games don't support widescreen)"

Some one tell me this guy is talking out his ass please.

10-28-05, 11:41 AM
Two 7800GTX's CANNOT handle Fear with high AA/AF and softshadows.

I play at 1600x1200 2x/4x with SS off.

10-28-05, 11:46 AM
Different people have different ideas about what is acceptable (or what the definition of "runs perfectly" is). Some people are fine if the game is in the 20s/30s. Some aren't satisfied if it drops below 60. Without any results to actually compare with, it's hard to know b/c his definition of what is acceptable could be completely different than mine. Get him to list the framerates he sees at those settings.

10-28-05, 12:08 PM
I'd rather they use a progressive mode like 720p and make that run GOOD for ONCE in consoles (slowdown seems to be the rule of the game on consoles apart from some select sony computer entertainments own games or burnout) and forget about an uber mode that is neither a standard or supported (1080p) by most current hdtvs, neither by downscaling nor by native resolution.

10-28-05, 12:11 PM
What about this:

"I have the 64 edition of Far Cry running at 1920x1200, maxed settings, 4x AA, 8 AF and it never slows down and it looks incredible. (@ FX 55 and single 7800 GTX)"

Total bull crap?

10-28-05, 12:22 PM
Total bull crap?

Again, it depends. Does he mean that it "never slows down" into the single digits? Thats the only way I think that can be true. Even then its a stretch.

10-29-05, 04:26 AM
Personally I'm not happy if it drops bellow 20fps and I would preferably have it over 30fps :)

To achieve the over 20fps with my rig I have to play with 2xQ AA and 8x AF.
Ingame settings: physics on medium, max software sounds on medium, particle bouncing on medium, volumetric light density on medium, no soft shadows and texture details on medium (even if the game autodetects on maximum, there are pauses between scenes on maximum).
Everything else is on maximum.