Originally posted by: toyota
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: toyota
high settings for non core2 cpu users? NO. medium settings at 1024x768 is playable until after the core level then its all low for the snow and carrier levels. with a good core2 duo you could probably put most of the settings on high at 1024x768. regardless of what people "think" Crysis is very cpu demanding below 1280x1024.Originally posted by: Piuc2020
Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: IL2SturmovikPilot
My HD 2600XT can run Crysis on Medium @ 1280x720 with 20-35FPS.... you are obviously biased against anything below your 8800/HD 3800/whatever you have in performance.Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: msi1337
I ended up getting a 8600GT 512MB Gddr3 msi card from Newegg with free Witcher game for $85 after rebate
for me 8600gt is perfectly fine. all my games aren't very demanding. Lots of the reviews at newegg say they can play Crysis with this card with 25-27fps.
Maybe they can play Crysis with it on low settings, using 800X600 resolution.
No I'm not biased, but I really don't think you are having so many frames per second with your card in Crysis. I do own a 8800 GT though, but it always struggled in Crysis on medium, high or whatever. It never played smooth so how could a 2600XT with 256 mb on 128 bits can do the trick?
Your doubts are well-founded but wrong nevertheless. A 8600GT can play Crysis fine at 1024x768 high settings or crank it up to 1280x1024 on medium settings, sure this is averaging around 20-25FPS but Crysis is completely playable at these settings.
I had a 8600gts. It's a little faster than 8600gt. Crysis medium was all that it could muster @ 1440x900. High settings was out of the question unless 800x600. 1024 if you like 15fps average and I was running a core 2 duo @ 3.05ghz.
Crysis is video card limited not CPU limited.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182806/p-6.html
IT IS CPU LIMITED AT 1280X1024 OR BELOW. your own link shows that a fast core2 cpu will nearly DOUBLE the framerate over an AMD cpu at 1024x768. below 1280 with my comp I would get a bigger increase in fps by going with a fast core2 cpu than going with a faster card and thats a fact. I used an 8800gt for two weeks and it only made 5 fps difference(from 31 to 36fps) at 1024 over my 8600gt.
it got 31fps at 1024x768 and medium settings. its a FACT that below 1280 the cpu can make a HUGE difference. if you use some common sense then you would realize that what I said was correct and your own damn link backs up exactly what I said. yes high setting would make it less cpu dependent but most people cant run the game on all high settings. you are clearly the one who cant even read what is right in front of them. if you had AMD X2 your fps at 1440x900 at medium and to a lesser extent high settings would have dropped off by several frames compared to your Core2.Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: toyota
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: toyota
high settings for non core2 cpu users? NO. medium settings at 1024x768 is playable until after the core level then its all low for the snow and carrier levels. with a good core2 duo you could probably put most of the settings on high at 1024x768. regardless of what people "think" Crysis is very cpu demanding below 1280x1024.Originally posted by: Piuc2020
Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: IL2SturmovikPilot
My HD 2600XT can run Crysis on Medium @ 1280x720 with 20-35FPS.... you are obviously biased against anything below your 8800/HD 3800/whatever you have in performance.Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: msi1337
I ended up getting a 8600GT 512MB Gddr3 msi card from Newegg with free Witcher game for $85 after rebate
for me 8600gt is perfectly fine. all my games aren't very demanding. Lots of the reviews at newegg say they can play Crysis with this card with 25-27fps.
Maybe they can play Crysis with it on low settings, using 800X600 resolution.
No I'm not biased, but I really don't think you are having so many frames per second with your card in Crysis. I do own a 8800 GT though, but it always struggled in Crysis on medium, high or whatever. It never played smooth so how could a 2600XT with 256 mb on 128 bits can do the trick?
Your doubts are well-founded but wrong nevertheless. A 8600GT can play Crysis fine at 1024x768 high settings or crank it up to 1280x1024 on medium settings, sure this is averaging around 20-25FPS but Crysis is completely playable at these settings.
I had a 8600gts. It's a little faster than 8600gt. Crysis medium was all that it could muster @ 1440x900. High settings was out of the question unless 800x600. 1024 if you like 15fps average and I was running a core 2 duo @ 3.05ghz.
Crysis is video card limited not CPU limited.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182806/p-6.html
IT IS CPU LIMITED AT 1280X1024 OR BELOW. your own link shows that a fast core2 cpu will nearly DOUBLE the framerate over an AMD cpu at 1024x768. below 1280 with my comp I would get a bigger increase in fps by going with a fast core2 cpu than going with a faster card and thats a fact. I used an 8800gt for two weeks and it only made 5 fps difference(from 31 to 36fps) at 1024 over my 8600gt.
Maybe 3 year old game like Half Life 2 or BF2 on a 8600gt.
Crysis is video card limited especially on high settings. Your 8600gt can't even get 30fps @ 1280x1024 with E8400 @ medium. Argue all you like but in the end you have no idea what you are talking about.
Originally posted by: toyota
it got 31fps at 1024x768 and medium settings. I am done with you since you only see what you want to see. its a FACT that below 1280 the cpu can make a HUGE difference. if you use some commons sense then you would realize that what I said was correct and your own fucking link back up exactly what I said. you are clearly the one who cant even read what is right in front of them. if you had AMD X2 your fps at 14400x768 and medium settings would have dropped off by several frames.Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: toyota
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: toyota
high settings for non core2 cpu users? NO. medium settings at 1024x768 is playable until after the core level then its all low for the snow and carrier levels. with a good core2 duo you could probably put most of the settings on high at 1024x768. regardless of what people "think" Crysis is very cpu demanding below 1280x1024.Originally posted by: Piuc2020
Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: IL2SturmovikPilot
My HD 2600XT can run Crysis on Medium @ 1280x720 with 20-35FPS.... you are obviously biased against anything below your 8800/HD 3800/whatever you have in performance.Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: msi1337
I ended up getting a 8600GT 512MB Gddr3 msi card from Newegg with free Witcher game for $85 after rebate
for me 8600gt is perfectly fine. all my games aren't very demanding. Lots of the reviews at newegg say they can play Crysis with this card with 25-27fps.
Maybe they can play Crysis with it on low settings, using 800X600 resolution.
No I'm not biased, but I really don't think you are having so many frames per second with your card in Crysis. I do own a 8800 GT though, but it always struggled in Crysis on medium, high or whatever. It never played smooth so how could a 2600XT with 256 mb on 128 bits can do the trick?
Your doubts are well-founded but wrong nevertheless. A 8600GT can play Crysis fine at 1024x768 high settings or crank it up to 1280x1024 on medium settings, sure this is averaging around 20-25FPS but Crysis is completely playable at these settings.
I had a 8600gts. It's a little faster than 8600gt. Crysis medium was all that it could muster @ 1440x900. High settings was out of the question unless 800x600. 1024 if you like 15fps average and I was running a core 2 duo @ 3.05ghz.
Crysis is video card limited not CPU limited.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182806/p-6.html
IT IS CPU LIMITED AT 1280X1024 OR BELOW. your own link shows that a fast core2 cpu will nearly DOUBLE the framerate over an AMD cpu at 1024x768. below 1280 with my comp I would get a bigger increase in fps by going with a fast core2 cpu than going with a faster card and thats a fact. I used an 8800gt for two weeks and it only made 5 fps difference(from 31 to 36fps) at 1024 over my 8600gt.
Maybe 3 year old game like Half Life 2 or BF2 on a 8600gt.
Crysis is video card limited especially on high settings. Your 8600gt can't even get 30fps @ 1280x1024 with E8400 @ medium. Argue all you like but in the end you have no idea what you are talking about.
wow you are even crazier than I thought. lol .I just told you my own experience with using the 8800gt in place of the 8600gt for a couple of weeks. 5fps difference is all it made because the game is cpu dependent below 1280. yes going to high setting removes a lot of the cpu dependency but even then the Core2 shows its strength. of course going above 1280 and using high settings virtually eliminates the cpu bottleneck as long as you have an X2 or Core2.Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: toyota
it got 31fps at 1024x768 and medium settings. I am done with you since you only see what you want to see. its a FACT that below 1280 the cpu can make a HUGE difference. if you use some commons sense then you would realize that what I said was correct and your own fucking link back up exactly what I said. you are clearly the one who cant even read what is right in front of them. if you had AMD X2 your fps at 14400x768 and medium settings would have dropped off by several frames.Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: toyota
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: toyota
high settings for non core2 cpu users? NO. medium settings at 1024x768 is playable until after the core level then its all low for the snow and carrier levels. with a good core2 duo you could probably put most of the settings on high at 1024x768. regardless of what people "think" Crysis is very cpu demanding below 1280x1024.Originally posted by: Piuc2020
Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: IL2SturmovikPilot
My HD 2600XT can run Crysis on Medium @ 1280x720 with 20-35FPS.... you are obviously biased against anything below your 8800/HD 3800/whatever you have in performance.Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: msi1337
I ended up getting a 8600GT 512MB Gddr3 msi card from Newegg with free Witcher game for $85 after rebate
for me 8600gt is perfectly fine. all my games aren't very demanding. Lots of the reviews at newegg say they can play Crysis with this card with 25-27fps.
Maybe they can play Crysis with it on low settings, using 800X600 resolution.
No I'm not biased, but I really don't think you are having so many frames per second with your card in Crysis. I do own a 8800 GT though, but it always struggled in Crysis on medium, high or whatever. It never played smooth so how could a 2600XT with 256 mb on 128 bits can do the trick?
Your doubts are well-founded but wrong nevertheless. A 8600GT can play Crysis fine at 1024x768 high settings or crank it up to 1280x1024 on medium settings, sure this is averaging around 20-25FPS but Crysis is completely playable at these settings.
I had a 8600gts. It's a little faster than 8600gt. Crysis medium was all that it could muster @ 1440x900. High settings was out of the question unless 800x600. 1024 if you like 15fps average and I was running a core 2 duo @ 3.05ghz.
Crysis is video card limited not CPU limited.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182806/p-6.html
IT IS CPU LIMITED AT 1280X1024 OR BELOW. your own link shows that a fast core2 cpu will nearly DOUBLE the framerate over an AMD cpu at 1024x768. below 1280 with my comp I would get a bigger increase in fps by going with a fast core2 cpu than going with a faster card and thats a fact. I used an 8800gt for two weeks and it only made 5 fps difference(from 31 to 36fps) at 1024 over my 8600gt.
Maybe 3 year old game like Half Life 2 or BF2 on a 8600gt.
Crysis is video card limited especially on high settings. Your 8600gt can't even get 30fps @ 1280x1024 with E8400 @ medium. Argue all you like but in the end you have no idea what you are talking about.
No facts. Fiction in the eyes of Toyota.
That cpu scaling was done on a 8800gtx not a 8600gt.
Your 8600gt isn't even half the performance of 8800gtx and doesn't have the fillrate or the bandwidth to scale on medium settings. It would scale on low settings though.
Originally posted by: toyota
wow you are even crazier than I thought. lol .I just told you my own experience with using the 8800gt in place of the 8600gt for a couple of weeks. 5fps difference is all it made because the game is cpu dependent below 1280.Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: toyota
it got 31fps at 1024x768 and medium settings. I am done with you since you only see what you want to see. its a FACT that below 1280 the cpu can make a HUGE difference. if you use some commons sense then you would realize that what I said was correct and your own fucking link back up exactly what I said. you are clearly the one who cant even read what is right in front of them. if you had AMD X2 your fps at 14400x768 and medium settings would have dropped off by several frames.Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: toyota
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: toyota
high settings for non core2 cpu users? NO. medium settings at 1024x768 is playable until after the core level then its all low for the snow and carrier levels. with a good core2 duo you could probably put most of the settings on high at 1024x768. regardless of what people "think" Crysis is very cpu demanding below 1280x1024.Originally posted by: Piuc2020
Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: IL2SturmovikPilot
My HD 2600XT can run Crysis on Medium @ 1280x720 with 20-35FPS.... you are obviously biased against anything below your 8800/HD 3800/whatever you have in performance.Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: msi1337
I ended up getting a 8600GT 512MB Gddr3 msi card from Newegg with free Witcher game for $85 after rebate
for me 8600gt is perfectly fine. all my games aren't very demanding. Lots of the reviews at newegg say they can play Crysis with this card with 25-27fps.
Maybe they can play Crysis with it on low settings, using 800X600 resolution.
No I'm not biased, but I really don't think you are having so many frames per second with your card in Crysis. I do own a 8800 GT though, but it always struggled in Crysis on medium, high or whatever. It never played smooth so how could a 2600XT with 256 mb on 128 bits can do the trick?
Your doubts are well-founded but wrong nevertheless. A 8600GT can play Crysis fine at 1024x768 high settings or crank it up to 1280x1024 on medium settings, sure this is averaging around 20-25FPS but Crysis is completely playable at these settings.
I had a 8600gts. It's a little faster than 8600gt. Crysis medium was all that it could muster @ 1440x900. High settings was out of the question unless 800x600. 1024 if you like 15fps average and I was running a core 2 duo @ 3.05ghz.
Crysis is video card limited not CPU limited.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182806/p-6.html
IT IS CPU LIMITED AT 1280X1024 OR BELOW. your own link shows that a fast core2 cpu will nearly DOUBLE the framerate over an AMD cpu at 1024x768. below 1280 with my comp I would get a bigger increase in fps by going with a fast core2 cpu than going with a faster card and thats a fact. I used an 8800gt for two weeks and it only made 5 fps difference(from 31 to 36fps) at 1024 over my 8600gt.
Maybe 3 year old game like Half Life 2 or BF2 on a 8600gt.
Crysis is video card limited especially on high settings. Your 8600gt can't even get 30fps @ 1280x1024 with E8400 @ medium. Argue all you like but in the end you have no idea what you are talking about.
No facts. Fiction in the eyes of Toyota.
That cpu scaling was done on a 8800gtx not a 8600gt.
Your 8600gt isn't even half the performance of 8800gtx and doesn't have the fillrate or the bandwidth to scale on medium settings. It would scale on low settings though.
are you really that stupid. if you introduce a much stronger video card and the performance doesnt really change then you know that it is the cpu bottlenecking. youre just being a fucking ass because you cant possibly be that ignorant.Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: toyota
wow you are even crazier than I thought. lol .I just told you my own experience with using the 8800gt in place of the 8600gt for a couple of weeks. 5fps difference is all it made because the game is cpu dependent below 1280.Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: toyota
it got 31fps at 1024x768 and medium settings. I am done with you since you only see what you want to see. its a FACT that below 1280 the cpu can make a HUGE difference. if you use some commons sense then you would realize that what I said was correct and your own fucking link back up exactly what I said. you are clearly the one who cant even read what is right in front of them. if you had AMD X2 your fps at 14400x768 and medium settings would have dropped off by several frames.Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: toyota
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: toyota
high settings for non core2 cpu users? NO. medium settings at 1024x768 is playable until after the core level then its all low for the snow and carrier levels. with a good core2 duo you could probably put most of the settings on high at 1024x768. regardless of what people "think" Crysis is very cpu demanding below 1280x1024.Originally posted by: Piuc2020
Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: IL2SturmovikPilot
My HD 2600XT can run Crysis on Medium @ 1280x720 with 20-35FPS.... you are obviously biased against anything below your 8800/HD 3800/whatever you have in performance.Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: msi1337
I ended up getting a 8600GT 512MB Gddr3 msi card from Newegg with free Witcher game for $85 after rebate
for me 8600gt is perfectly fine. all my games aren't very demanding. Lots of the reviews at newegg say they can play Crysis with this card with 25-27fps.
Maybe they can play Crysis with it on low settings, using 800X600 resolution.
No I'm not biased, but I really don't think you are having so many frames per second with your card in Crysis. I do own a 8800 GT though, but it always struggled in Crysis on medium, high or whatever. It never played smooth so how could a 2600XT with 256 mb on 128 bits can do the trick?
Your doubts are well-founded but wrong nevertheless. A 8600GT can play Crysis fine at 1024x768 high settings or crank it up to 1280x1024 on medium settings, sure this is averaging around 20-25FPS but Crysis is completely playable at these settings.
I had a 8600gts. It's a little faster than 8600gt. Crysis medium was all that it could muster @ 1440x900. High settings was out of the question unless 800x600. 1024 if you like 15fps average and I was running a core 2 duo @ 3.05ghz.
Crysis is video card limited not CPU limited.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182806/p-6.html
IT IS CPU LIMITED AT 1280X1024 OR BELOW. your own link shows that a fast core2 cpu will nearly DOUBLE the framerate over an AMD cpu at 1024x768. below 1280 with my comp I would get a bigger increase in fps by going with a fast core2 cpu than going with a faster card and thats a fact. I used an 8800gt for two weeks and it only made 5 fps difference(from 31 to 36fps) at 1024 over my 8600gt.
Maybe 3 year old game like Half Life 2 or BF2 on a 8600gt.
Crysis is video card limited especially on high settings. Your 8600gt can't even get 30fps @ 1280x1024 with E8400 @ medium. Argue all you like but in the end you have no idea what you are talking about.
No facts. Fiction in the eyes of Toyota.
That cpu scaling was done on a 8800gtx not a 8600gt.
Your 8600gt isn't even half the performance of 8800gtx and doesn't have the fillrate or the bandwidth to scale on medium settings. It would scale on low settings though.
Yeah that's on a 8800gt not 8600gt. :disgust:
Get a clue. 8600gt is video card limited @ medium settings. 8800gt is video card limted @ high settings and very high.
are you really that stupid. if you introduce a much stronger video card and the performance doesnt really change then you know that it is the cpu bottlenecking. youre just being a fucking ass because you cant possibly be that ignorant.
Originally posted by: Azn
are you really that stupid. if you introduce a much stronger video card and the performance doesnt really change then you know that it is the cpu bottlenecking. youre just being a fucking ass because you cant possibly be that ignorant.
Lay off the crack pipe.
1600x1200, High Quality 8800gtx
Core2 Extreme X6800 @ 2.93GHz
26
Core2 Extreme QX6700 @ 2.66GHz
26
Core2 Duo E6600 @ 2.40GHz
26
Core2 Duo E6300 @ 1.86GHz
26
Athlon 64 FX-60 @ 2.6GHz
25
Athlon 64 FX-60 @ 2.0 GHz
24
Athlon 64 4000+ @ 2.4 GHz
18
Originally posted by: toyota
Originally posted by: Azn
are you really that stupid. if you introduce a much stronger video card and the performance doesnt really change then you know that it is the cpu bottlenecking. youre just being a fucking ass because you cant possibly be that ignorant.
Lay off the crack pipe.
1600x1200, High Quality 8800gtx
Core2 Extreme X6800 @ 2.93GHz
26
Core2 Extreme QX6700 @ 2.66GHz
26
Core2 Duo E6600 @ 2.40GHz
26
Core2 Duo E6300 @ 1.86GHz
26
Athlon 64 FX-60 @ 2.6GHz
25
Athlon 64 FX-60 @ 2.0 GHz
24
Athlon 64 4000+ @ 2.4 GHz
18
and thats 1600x1200 at high settings. I just fucking said that at 1600 and high settings that there would be no performance difference with a good dual core cpu. my god you need your fucking head examined.
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: toyota
Originally posted by: Azn
are you really that stupid. if you introduce a much stronger video card and the performance doesnt really change then you know that it is the cpu bottlenecking. youre just being a fucking ass because you cant possibly be that ignorant.
Lay off the crack pipe.
1600x1200, High Quality 8800gtx
Core2 Extreme X6800 @ 2.93GHz
26
Core2 Extreme QX6700 @ 2.66GHz
26
Core2 Duo E6600 @ 2.40GHz
26
Core2 Duo E6300 @ 1.86GHz
26
Athlon 64 FX-60 @ 2.6GHz
25
Athlon 64 FX-60 @ 2.0 GHz
24
Athlon 64 4000+ @ 2.4 GHz
18
and thats 1600x1200 at high settings. I just fucking said that at 1600 and high settings that there would be no performance difference with a good dual core cpu. my god you need your fucking head examined.
You say 8600gt then you say 8800gt. You say crack I say lay off the pipe.
Why don't you go do the CPU scaling yourself. Come back here with benches of your cpu scaling with Crysis @ medium settings. Starting from 1280x1024 to 800x600.
Oh wait you are on a HP can't even overclock your CPU. :laugh:
I have ran my E6300 @ default clock to 3.5ghz with crysis on medium settings @ 1440x900 which is similar to 1280x1024 with my 8600gts. CPU doesn't do anything. I gained a whopping 1fps. :roll:
Originally posted by: toyota
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: toyota
Originally posted by: Azn
are you really that stupid. if you introduce a much stronger video card and the performance doesnt really change then you know that it is the cpu bottlenecking. youre just being a fucking ass because you cant possibly be that ignorant.
Lay off the crack pipe.
1600x1200, High Quality 8800gtx
Core2 Extreme X6800 @ 2.93GHz
26
Core2 Extreme QX6700 @ 2.66GHz
26
Core2 Duo E6600 @ 2.40GHz
26
Core2 Duo E6300 @ 1.86GHz
26
Athlon 64 FX-60 @ 2.6GHz
25
Athlon 64 FX-60 @ 2.0 GHz
24
Athlon 64 4000+ @ 2.4 GHz
18
and thats 1600x1200 at high settings. I just fucking said that at 1600 and high settings that there would be no performance difference with a good dual core cpu. my god you need your fucking head examined.
You say 8600gt then you say 8800gt. You say crack I say lay off the pipe.
Why don't you go do the CPU scaling yourself. Come back here with benches of your cpu scaling with Crysis @ medium settings. Starting from 1280x1024 to 800x600.
Oh wait you are on a HP can't even overclock your CPU. :laugh:
I have ran my E6300 @ default clock to 3.5ghz with crysis on medium settings @ 1440x900 which is similar to 1280x1024 with my 8600gts. CPU doesn't do anything. I gained a whopping 1fps. :roll:
you know you are full of crap because EVERY benchmark on the web shows a difference at 1280 and especially at 1024. even the damn link to gamespot clearly shows a HUGE cpu difference at 1024. below 1280 almost every game out there shows a big advantage with the core2 cpu. at low res even a 1.86 core2 will beat my 2.6 X2 in almost every situation.
you are clearly only trolling as you do in many threads on here. anybody with any sense or the ability to read will understand what I have said. its obvious from all the benchmarks on the web and my own experience that below 1280 the cpu is still very important in Crysis. bye.Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: toyota
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: toyota
Originally posted by: Azn
are you really that stupid. if you introduce a much stronger video card and the performance doesnt really change then you know that it is the cpu bottlenecking. youre just being a fucking ass because you cant possibly be that ignorant.
Lay off the crack pipe.
1600x1200, High Quality 8800gtx
Core2 Extreme X6800 @ 2.93GHz
26
Core2 Extreme QX6700 @ 2.66GHz
26
Core2 Duo E6600 @ 2.40GHz
26
Core2 Duo E6300 @ 1.86GHz
26
Athlon 64 FX-60 @ 2.6GHz
25
Athlon 64 FX-60 @ 2.0 GHz
24
Athlon 64 4000+ @ 2.4 GHz
18
and thats 1600x1200 at high settings. I just fucking said that at 1600 and high settings that there would be no performance difference with a good dual core cpu. my god you need your fucking head examined.
You say 8600gt then you say 8800gt. You say crack I say lay off the pipe.
Why don't you go do the CPU scaling yourself. Come back here with benches of your cpu scaling with Crysis @ medium settings. Starting from 1280x1024 to 800x600.
Oh wait you are on a HP can't even overclock your CPU. :laugh:
I have ran my E6300 @ default clock to 3.5ghz with crysis on medium settings @ 1440x900 which is similar to 1280x1024 with my 8600gts. CPU doesn't do anything. I gained a whopping 1fps. :roll:
you know you are full of crap because EVERY benchmark on the web shows a difference at 1280 and especially at 1024. even the damn link to gamespot clearly shows a HUGE cpu difference at 1024. below 1280 almost every game out there shows a big advantage with the core2 cpu. at low res even a 1.86 core2 will beat my 2.6 X2 in almost every situation.
Not with a 8600gt in medium settings. It might scale nicely @ 640x480 though. :laugh:
I think keysplyr said it best. "You should just observe when you have no idea"
I've gotta say, toyota, you are an absolute detriment to the community here. :thumbsdown:Originally posted by: toyota
youre just being a fucking ass because you cant possibly be that ignorant.
Toyota, this is your first warning.Originally posted by Toyota:
if you use some common sense then you would realize that what I said was correct and your own damn link backs up exactly what I said.
you are clearly the one who cant even read what is right in front of them.
wow you are even crazier than I thought. lol .
are you really that stupid. youre just being a fucking ass because you cant possibly be that ignorant.
you know you are full of crap
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I've gotta say, toyota, you are an absolute detriment to the community here. :thumbsdown:Originally posted by: toyota
youre just being a fucking ass because you cant possibly be that ignorant.
Because you argued so much with him that it exceeded my maximum page width in Opera. :QOriginally posted by: toyota
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I've gotta say, toyota, you are an absolute detriment to the community here. :thumbsdown:Originally posted by: toyota
youre just being a fucking ass because you cant possibly be that ignorant.
why dont you read through everything we said to each other before making that assumption.
I hope that's also the first time you've ever neffed. :lips:Originally posted by: IL2SturmovikPilot
Holy crap,i think this is the first time on any forum i was ever a member of that i started a flame war.
Nope,sorryOriginally posted by: SickBeast
I hope that's also the first time you've ever neffed. :lips:Originally posted by: IL2SturmovikPilot
Holy crap,i think this is the first time on any forum i was ever a member of that i started a flame war.
I can tell.Originally posted by: IL2SturmovikPilot
Nope,sorryOriginally posted by: SickBeast
I hope that's also the first time you've ever neffed. :lips:Originally posted by: IL2SturmovikPilot
Holy crap,i think this is the first time on any forum i was ever a member of that i started a flame war.
How? R U T3H H4XX0RZ? :QOriginally posted by: SickBeast
I can tell.Originally posted by: IL2SturmovikPilot
Nope,sorryOriginally posted by: SickBeast
I hope that's also the first time you've ever neffed. :lips:Originally posted by: IL2SturmovikPilot
Holy crap,i think this is the first time on any forum i was ever a member of that i started a flame war.
Originally posted by: toyota
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I've gotta say, toyota, you are an absolute detriment to the community here. :thumbsdown:Originally posted by: toyota
youre just being a fucking ass because you cant possibly be that ignorant.
why dont you read through everything we said to each other before making that assumption. I have been here 3 years and afaik this is the only time I have cussed at somebody like that. perhaps I should just be passive aggressive like azn. lol
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: toyota
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I've gotta say, toyota, you are an absolute detriment to the community here. :thumbsdown:Originally posted by: toyota
youre just being a fucking ass because you cant possibly be that ignorant.
why dont you read through everything we said to each other before making that assumption. I have been here 3 years and afaik this is the only time I have cussed at somebody like that. perhaps I should just be passive aggressive like azn. lol
he doesn't need to read because he knows it's video card limited.