:)

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Maybe his dad decided he shouldn't have to put up with that crap and change things into ******* ginger-twat ? That might explain the old-school cussing ?

As for nemesis, wtf? How can 170vs250fps be a huge difference? It's completely irrelevant lol, because your monitors refresh rate prolly caps out at 100 or so, making fps above 100 'invisible' so to speak. And most games are GPU limited, so saying C2D pawn K8 plan and simple is a very weird statement, at best, I'd say more leaning towards bullshit. You're obviously a Intel fanboy. Some people can tell the difference between 60 and 70fps, but much above that there simply is no difference, not a difference the human eye can see at least.

Wasn't talking about what the human I can see. I was referring to online gameplay or lan events were FPS aren't limited. I am sure I am not only person who has seen Ghosting players that seem to be in 1 place while they are infact in another area. Some call it lag and its not just connection lag. If my PC is sending a single to the server of 250fps. and an enemy is sending 150fps in same area of map the 150 fps player is going to lag to 250fps players machine . There is more than 1 form of lagg. AMD suffers from the form of lagg I just discribed. Badly.

I'm calling total and utter bullshit. There is no information related to fps transfered between a game server and a client.

 

[rodrigu3]

Originally posted by: Greenman

I'm calling total and utter bullshit. There is no information related to fps transfered between a game server and a client.

Agreed, lag has to do with connection, fps is something totally different that has nothing to do with the position of the player. If anything, the multiplayer code may be written poorly and the prediction algorithms may be inaccurate producing the effect Nemesis 1 is talking about.

 

[MarcVenice]

Yeah, this nemesis guy is even more full of fud then the people he's talking about. Phenom/Barcelona only being 2-3% of K8, what is he thinking? The only thing I know of where CPU speed influences gameplay online is at games like Medieval: Total War or Supreme Commander. But ghosting is something thats related to the monitor you game at, it's called response time as far as I know. If you have a really fast paced game, and a slow LCD screen, you're going to experience ghosting.

The 150fps is going to lag to the 250 fps player? WoW, why would that be ? Could you even come up with a logical explanation for that? There is no relation between how many fps I'm getting, and how much FPS the other players are getting, and the packages being send back and forth between the player and the server, which include their position and what not.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Greenman

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Maybe his dad decided he shouldn't have to put up with that crap and change things into ******* ginger-twat ? That might explain the old-school cussing ?

As for nemesis, wtf? How can 170vs250fps be a huge difference? It's completely irrelevant lol, because your monitors refresh rate prolly caps out at 100 or so, making fps above 100 'invisible' so to speak. And most games are GPU limited, so saying C2D pawn K8 plan and simple is a very weird statement, at best, I'd say more leaning towards bullshit. You're obviously a Intel fanboy. Some people can tell the difference between 60 and 70fps, but much above that there simply is no difference, not a difference the human eye can see at least.

Wasn't talking about what the human I can see. I was referring to online gameplay or lan events were FPS aren't limited. I am sure I am not only person who has seen Ghosting players that seem to be in 1 place while they are infact in another area. Some call it lag and its not just connection lag. If my PC is sending a single to the server of 250fps. and an enemy is sending 150fps in same area of map the 150 fps player is going to lag to 250fps players machine . There is more than 1 form of lagg. AMD suffers from the form of lagg I just discribed. Badly.

I'm calling total and utter bullshit. There is no information related to fps transfered between a game server and a client.

Well, on games like Supreme Commander, the slowest player affects the rest of the players online. It's programmed that way on purpose. This keeps the pace of the game even for everyone. That is a different beast all together, though, and it only really applies to some RTS, not so much shooters.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: munky
If anything, the OP should be mad that he didn't splurge for a 8800gtx, because unless he wants to play at 1024x768, a dual core cpu is not what he should be worried about.

Except that my CPU was $290.

An 8800 GTX is $500

For general usage (especially if you encode AT ALL) Quad core + 8800GTS is better than Dual + 8800GTX.

If all you do is game, then youre probably better off with the 8800GTX by a small margain. Id rather have 2 more cores on the cpu over an extra 12%-20% on GPU.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Yeah, this nemesis guy is even more full of fud then the people he's talking about. Phenom/Barcelona only being 2-3% of K8, what is he thinking? The only thing I know of where CPU speed influences gameplay online is at games like Medieval: Total War or Supreme Commander. But ghosting is something thats related to the monitor you game at, it's called response time as far as I know. If you have a really fast paced game, and a slow LCD screen, you're going to experience ghosting.

The 150fps is going to lag to the 250 fps player? WoW, why would that be ? Could you even come up with a logical explanation for that? There is no relation between how many fps I'm getting, and how much FPS the other players are getting, and the packages being send back and forth between the player and the server, which include their position and what not.

Well, looking at AT's look at Barcelona (how freaking long ago was that?), comparing K8 to K10 showed 2-15% IPC improvement, which is horrible considering the C2D/C2Q performance. Now, they could improve that somewhat (we can only pray that they do, looking at the pathetic state of the video card market), but it's not looking too sunny in that direction. There were fears about K8 before it came out as well, but it was mostly about yield/ramping, not about IPC. The Athlon XP always beat the P4 on IPC, but it ran out of steam towards the end of it's run, and it was obvious that an improved core than could more easily climb towards 3ghz would steamroll the P4. But now we have documented evidence that (for Barcelona, at least), K10 is < C2D in IPC. Oh well, we'll have to wait for Phenom final numbers to be sure, but I'm guessing that a 3.4Ghz Phenom Quad would be needed to match a 3Ghz Phenom.

 

[MetaDFF]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: munky
If anything, the OP should be mad that he didn't splurge for a 8800gtx, because unless he wants to play at 1024x768, a dual core cpu is not what he should be worried about.

Except that my CPU was $290.

An 8800 GTX is $500

For general usage (especially if you encode AT ALL) Quad core + 8800GTS is better than Dual + 8800GTX.

If all you do is game, then youre probably better off with the 8800GTX by a small margain. Id rather have 2 more cores on the cpu over an extra 12%-20% on GPU.

Actually, once you move beyond 1280x1024 in DX10 games with settings turned up, the 8800 GTX performs far better than the GTS (320 MB model and 640 MB model to some extent).

The examples I'm citing for this are for Lost Planet and World in Conflict DX10 mode.
Lost Planet
World in Conflict

Of course everybody has their own budget/needs and won't want to splurge $500 on a video card

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: MetaDFF

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: munky
If anything, the OP should be mad that he didn't splurge for a 8800gtx, because unless he wants to play at 1024x768, a dual core cpu is not what he should be worried about.

Except that my CPU was $290.

An 8800 GTX is $500

For general usage (especially if you encode AT ALL) Quad core + 8800GTS is better than Dual + 8800GTX.

If all you do is game, then youre probably better off with the 8800GTX by a small margain. Id rather have 2 more cores on the cpu over an extra 12%-20% on GPU.

Actually, once you move beyond 1280x1024 in DX10 games with settings turned up, the 8800 GTX performs far better than the GTS (320 MB model and 640 MB model to some extent).

The examples I'm citing for this are for Lost Planet and World in Conflict DX10 mode.
Lost Planet
World in Conflict

Of course everybody has their own budget/needs and won't want to splurge $500 on a video card

I really dont like HOCP.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...x10-games_7.html#sect0

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...x10-games_8.html#sect0

Those results show that the performance is pretty much abysmal across the board to begin with, with the exception of the mode 2 benchmarks where it creeps up into acceptable for the 8800GTX (im comparing to the GTS640).

Couple the 15-20% difference with additional CPUs... and youll see where im coming from.

It will be slower at games, but it will be substantially faster in applications that make full use of quad core.