Go Back   nV News Forums > Graphics Card Forums > Other Desktop Graphics Cards

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-04-02, 03:33 PM   #181
DaveW
Its me! Hurray!
 
DaveW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Brit in USA
Posts: 1,203
Default

Quote:
I have a GF4 Ti4400 and I'm jonesing for this card, big-time. I would agree with your statement if you qualified it by saying that if you don't use AA and/or AF you don't need to upgrade. I don't know about you, but on my P4 2.4B rig, AA and AF bring my GF4 to its knees.
In my experience, enabling Quincunx AA with AF pretty much cuts my system performance in half. But once you get used to playing games with those features enabled you can't go back. The GF4 Ti is just too slow!!! Even with AA and AF off it still can't keep up with my CPU.
__________________

Core2 Q9400 @ 3.0, eVGA GTX 260, 4G DDR 800, Vista64
DaveW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-02, 03:44 PM   #182
SnakeEyes
Registered User
 
SnakeEyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lake Zurich, IL
Posts: 502
Send a message via ICQ to SnakeEyes
Question

What sort of dope are you smokin DaveW? Without AA or aniso, I haven't seen a software title in which my GF4Ti is the bottleneck (even UT2003, which right now seems to be the most stressful of all titles I've seen in a while on the hardware).

I'd agree with you that with AA and aniso there are many situations and games in which the GF4 is the bottleneck, but without those turned on, the card screams, and even with them on in many games, it still runs very fast.
__________________
Snake-Eyes
SnakeEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-02, 04:16 PM   #183
travbrad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 30
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Matthyahuw
oooooooo, look at that wonder product!
I can take advantage of ALL it's features with what game now???
HAHAHA

Seriously, it's gonna be the same when the NV30 comes out, ZERO games will take advantage of EITHER card until the EARLIEST Christmas season 2003 (and don't say Doom3 plz, Carmack said GF1 can play it well).

I'm not buying either card for a LONG time...
Carmack is lying. He wants all the AOLers with emachines from Best Buy to buy his game
__________________
Current System
--------------------
-Athlon XP 1900+ @ 2100+ speed
-512MB DDR2100
-ASUS A7V266-E VIA KT266A chipset
-Radeon 9700 PRO at default speeds
-19" Aquaview 9LS and a 17" Samsung Syncmaster 763MB
-WD 80GB 7200RPM 8MB cache
-Windows XP Corporate
travbrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-02, 08:20 AM   #184
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
What sort of dope are you smokin DaveW? Without AA or aniso, I haven't seen a software title in which my GF4Ti is the bottleneck (even UT2003, which right now seems to be the most stressful of all titles I've seen in a while on the hardware).

I'd agree with you that with AA and aniso there are many situations and games in which the GF4 is the bottleneck, but without those turned on, the card screams, and even with them on in many games, it still runs very fast.

Try SS:SE using the Extreme Quality add-on script and say hello to sub 50 fps on a GF4 Ti4600 at 16x12
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-02, 11:10 AM   #185
SnakeEyes
Registered User
 
SnakeEyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lake Zurich, IL
Posts: 502
Send a message via ICQ to SnakeEyes
Lightbulb

As soon as I get my 24" monitor, I'll do that jbirney.

Seriously, 1280x resolution is probably a good maximum for most people right now. Being able to run at insane framerates at 1600 or higher is nice, since it just say that lower resolutions such as what most of us use for our games will be fast too, but otherwise mostly impractical for our monitors at home. At the resolutions we typically game at, the 4600 is fast without AA or aniso in all games that aren't CPU limited, and very fast in some.
__________________
Snake-Eyes
SnakeEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-02, 02:19 PM   #186
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

not to mention that a lot of people use lower resolutions to help their aim, as i am discovering.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-02, 09:00 PM   #187
Bigus Dickus
GF7 FX Ti 12800 SE Ultra
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 651
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by StealthHawk
not to mention that a lot of people use lower resolutions to help their aim, as i am discovering.
You're probably referring to making characters appear bigger, correct?

Just for your information (as I'm sure you're dying to know this ) if that's what you're talking about, I can attest to the fact that it makes no difference in Unreal Tournament at least. Both myself and a friend of mine both swore for two years or so playing UT that increasing the resolution "made the players too damn small to hit!" We were convinced of that, and felt no need to test it, because it simply looked that way... and eyes never lie, right?

After laying awake one night thinking about it recently, I realized that it shouldn't make any difference because the geometry rendered by the card is identical, just the rasterization process is different.

To test this, I took a screenshot at 1600x1200 and 1024x768 at the exact same location (with bots in the same location), and then used an image utility to reduce the 1600x1200 screenshot to 1024x768. Side by side comparisons revealed that the characters are in fact identical in size... one was just more blocky (pixelated) than the other.

I attribute the sensation that charcters shrink as resolution is increased to some sort of illusion caused by the reduced crosshair, HUD, and text size seen on screen. These visual clues might trick the eye into "seeing" smaller characters. Indeed, the less pixelated nature of the screen might have an influence as well.

Translating this to other games, I can't imagine why it would be any different. As stated earlier, with a certain frame of view (FOV) the vertices for polygons on the screen (including characters) are set, and treated the same in hardware until the point where the scene is rasterized into pixels.

Now, won't you sleep better tonight?


OTOH, if you are talking about reducing resolution to increase framerates and thus improve aim, then ignore all the stuff above.
__________________
IMO, Mr. Derek Smart is a hypocrite: Only someone who is either (a) lying (b) ashamed of their products (c) just plain ashamed, would hestitate to give out some simple and straight forward information. - Derek Smart, Ph.D.
Bigus Dickus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-02, 09:04 PM   #188
thcdru2k
Registered User
 
thcdru2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Milpitas, CA
Posts: 1,142
Send a message via ICQ to thcdru2k Send a message via AIM to thcdru2k
Default

i'm not sure what you mean by your post, but aiming is improved at lower resolutions, because the ratio of mouse movement to screen movement is less. essentially you don't have to move the mouse as much to get your cursor over the person.
__________________
Athlon XP 1.58GHz | MSI KT3 Ultra2 | 256MB DDR PC-3000 | GeForce 4 ti4200 64mb @ 310/533 | IBM 120GXP 40.0GB | Det. 41.09 | DX 9 RC2 | Win XP SP1

11118 3DMarks
thcdru2k is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 10-11-02, 09:10 PM   #189
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by thcdru2k
i'm not sure what you mean by your post, but aiming is improved at lower resolutions, because the ratio of mouse movement to screen movement is less. essentially you don't have to move the mouse as much to get your cursor over the person.
???

Anybody hear of mouse sensitivity controls?

I would tend to believe that it's only easier to aim at lower resolutions because the framerate is higher, and thus input/output delay is lower.
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-02, 09:53 PM   #190
thcdru2k
Registered User
 
thcdru2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Milpitas, CA
Posts: 1,142
Send a message via ICQ to thcdru2k Send a message via AIM to thcdru2k
Default

i don't know..i've been playing for ut for 3 years now. the fps i get at max quality at 1280x1024 and 1024x768 is the exact same. 100+fps constantly. it is easier to aim at 1024x768. yes you probably could change mouse sensitivity, but if you do that at higher resolution the accuracy would be less, because a higher mouse sensitivity would mean it would move faster, but, it would be harder for pinpoint aim. you could lower the sensitivity, but than it would be too slow. 1024x768 is a sweet spot for online gaming. im' sure if you spent the time changing your mouse sensitivity at 1280x1024 it could be the same.
__________________
Athlon XP 1.58GHz | MSI KT3 Ultra2 | 256MB DDR PC-3000 | GeForce 4 ti4200 64mb @ 310/533 | IBM 120GXP 40.0GB | Det. 41.09 | DX 9 RC2 | Win XP SP1

11118 3DMarks
thcdru2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-02, 09:56 PM   #191
The Baron
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
im' sure if you spent the time changing your mouse sensitivity at 1280x1024 it could be the same.
So you're one of the few people who openly admit to being lazy. I'm proud of ya
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-02, 10:15 PM   #192
Bigus Dickus
GF7 FX Ti 12800 SE Ultra
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 651
Default

um... that's the wonderful thing about a high precision mouse. Increased precision means the sensitivity can be ramped up for higher resolutions (if that even changes things?) and still keep single pixel accuracy (or close) on screen.
__________________
IMO, Mr. Derek Smart is a hypocrite: Only someone who is either (a) lying (b) ashamed of their products (c) just plain ashamed, would hestitate to give out some simple and straight forward information. - Derek Smart, Ph.D.
Bigus Dickus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

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

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
R9700 Oficially Announced druga runda Other Desktop Graphics Cards 20 04-25-08 10:28 PM
Get a Radeon 9700 now or wait for the NV30? sancheuz Other Desktop Graphics Cards 88 02-19-03 04:40 PM
FalconNW and Voodoo under ATI 9700 spell!!! mizzer Other Desktop Graphics Cards 12 09-20-02 07:53 PM
Radeon 9700 pics -=DVS=- Other Desktop Graphics Cards 12 08-01-02 09:35 AM
Are there any comparisons of the GeForce4 Ti 4600 to the Radeon 9700 yet? john19055 NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series 8 07-28-02 02:07 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2014, nV News.