View Single Post
Old 02-25-03, 09:14 PM   #18
Kruno
TypeDef's assistant
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,641
Send a message via ICQ to Kruno Send a message via AIM to Kruno
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by creedamd
it would be dumb for Hardware reviewers not to show the 3dmark2003 score, if a graphics card runs 2003 smooth, the chances are exceptional that it will run current games like butter, 2001 is less reliable, it is cpu intensive.

To not use 3dmark03 is ignorant, and nvidia biased.
That's what I have been saying. I have used 3dmark to diagnose and test 3dvideo performance. If my 3dmark03 score is great, but an old game is slow. I will know it has nothing to do with my video card. (drivers may have broken the game and iwould ask if that occurs, so I would get further without needing to do much work)

Also if capable of generating a high 3dmark score, games will run good. CPU limited games I have come across are: Commanche 4, DF:BHD and finally DF:LW.

That's it. Every other game takes a large hit with FSAA and AF enabled, even when it's disabled, games like UT03 run so much faster by nudging texture details to medium than their maximum in game options allow. Might I add, disabling sound and all other CPU tasking options don't give me much of a performance increase, if any at all. What's more is that my CPU is out of date.

If people only knew how to configure things, run games from a CLI with a high priority setting and explorer and just about everything disabled they will find that a vast majority of games are not so "cpu limited" after all.
BTW: This does not include games like Quake 1.
__________________
"Never before has any voice dared to utter the words of that tongue in Imladris, Mr. Anderson" - Elrond LOTR

Last edited by Kruno; 02-25-03 at 09:20 PM.
Kruno is offline   Reply With Quote