Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Half-Life' started by Darkknighttt, Apr 28, 2004.
Jeez, come to think of it, when was the last 27 page thread posted?
The Longhorn/Pallidium thread comes to mind.. which ended up closed! lol
Yeah, but on this specific forum. I remember the HDR demo thread reaching 127 pages or so....
That's totaly right! You should put this in [ b ] [ / b ]!
I was amazed that people actually didn't mention it in the 27 pages previous! When I saw someone comment that 100FPS on CS looked so much better than 60, I just had to say it.
To satisfy flupke here, I shall but it all in bold:
Ok people. One thing I'd like to clarify. For those who say that 100FPS looks any better than 60, you are wrong. the Human eye cannot see any difference between 60 FPS and 100. After 60, the human eye is unable to tell the difference in frame rate. To lift the spirits of those who think that 30FPS is crap, almost all console games run at a steady 30FPS. The transition between 30 and 60FPS is a very, very, very slight change in the smoothness of the movements of characters and objects, etc., and it's only noticeable to the most expirienced gamer. I'd just like to point that out.
lol; That is the funniest and dumbest thing I have heard all month. That wins the "don't know crap" award, without a doubt.
I could write a 100 page essay about how wrong that statement is. The most laughable thing that I have heard in a while. I hope you arn't seriously standing behind that statement. I might have to kill myself.
I am not trying to slam on the person who actually believes this, but you are wrong. This has been debated 1 million times, and the conclusion is always the same. The "Human eye" can indeed see beyond 72+ FPS. Many top class pilots prove this, and throw this mal-informed theory right out of the window.
Meh...this gives me a serious headache. Going to sleep--will read what I hope won't be random google responses. Although, I will try to assure myself that the techies and science freaks will come out and prove I am right.
i'm sorry but that is indeed wrong. or else i have superhuman eyes. i can tell the difference between 60 and higher framerates. i can stop telling the difference around 85 or 90. but it is very noticeable between 60 and 85. are me and the above poster insane? no, and there are good lengthy discussions on the net why we can see framerates that high too.
remember, just because your eyes can't tell the difference, doesnt mean others can't. talk to any serious quake 1/2/3 player, and they will tell you there is a very noticeable difference as well.
as for some scientific reading on the subject, ill see what i can dig up if i get some time.
I didn't mean to sound blunt in my post, and I can't sleep, so I will post a bit more. I just hate it when people come out and openly state information about something, as if they know 100% without a doubt that it is the truth. I used to get it a lot at work, especially with the sloppy programmers--so it's just a pet peeve of mine. More so know it all coders =p...but eh...you get what I mean.
Didn't mean to sound insulting--if I was.
u will be able to play the game smoothly with the all i-candys turned off.Since u have got a directX 8.0 based card all the pretty effects which is to be rendered by a directX 9.0 based card will be rendered using ur system resources viz. processor,ram etc...I suggest u to up grade ur video card to a GeforceFX-5200(128 mb) which is very cheap.But u will be able to play the game smoothly , provided that all the pretty effects are turned off.
30 fps on a TV isn't too bad.
If I play Far Cry at 30 FPS on my 19" monitor the image looks very choppy (far worse than Halo, XBox, running at 30 fps), even at 45 fps it doesn't appear smooth enough for my liking (constantly reminding that i'm playing a game - and messing with the sense of immersion greatly :/).
When the frames get into the 70's + it looks real, the jerkiness isn't apparent anymore (I have to reduce the settings to achieve a stable, and high, frame rate. Still, better than great visuals in 'jerko-vision')
So, 30 fps for console games is ok, but not for pcs (unless you can put up with/don't notice the choppiness). imo of course
Amd Athlon Xp 3200+
Asus A7N8X deluxe nforce 2
1 gig Kingston pc 3200
Soundblaster Audigy 2
Ati Radeon X800 Pro
I didnt think that the x800 pro would be THAT much better than the radeon 9800 pro but man, its a world of difference. Pick one up if you can.
Even if the human eye could only detect frame rates as high as 60, advanced graphics cards allow games with increasingly complex effects to be displayed with antialiasing and anisotropic filtering and not drop below that framerate. I believe the average constant framerate is more important than the maximum framerate in most cases.
That said, the 60 fps sensory ceiling is a myth, and an oft-disproven myth at that.
That said, the 60 fps sensory ceiling is a myth, and an oft-disproven myth at that.
EDIT: Double post, my bad. Please delete.
okay then im getting an X800 Pro.
will my system limit its effects:
Athlon 64 3200+
512 MB of Kingston pc3200 DDR400 RAM
Not unless you use peanut butter for a cooling solution for you CPU.
Don't knock the peanut butter
theres 2 fans in the new motherboard im getting, one blowing air in, and the other blowing air out. also i have another fan blwing(dont know where i guess everything.) is that enough cooling.
You mean on your case? If so, the cooling should be fine.
Your rig will be very cool m8 - HL2 will fly ....... as will every pc game out already - and in the near future
That'll really depend on your case, ambient temperature(ideally around 25ºC), and obviously the path for airflow. If you have no way for air to freely flow through your system, its going to get hot. If you live in the middle of the desert with 85ºC temps all the time(you'd cook first), the processor will heat up. Generally they have a limit of up to 125ºC before there is severe damage, but anything over 70ºC is usually bad. get yourself something like Motherboard Monitor 5, that tells you the temp of the CPU. Pay attention to the temp. Arrange the cables in such a way as to allow the greatest air flow. Clean out any fans that have gotten dirty. This is something that you will likely have to experiment with.
P4 2.6 Ghz
512 MB Ram
hmm... might need to upgrade the graphics card in the near future...
anyone know about overclocking the FX5200- i.e. how much can i overclock it before it gets hot enough to fry an egg? (and the board itself)
Try googleing about overclocking a FX5200, most of the time 70*C is the worry point of anything damaging it. If you do overclock it and worried about it getting too hot and destroying itself get one of those PCI dual fan things that blow air from the bottom of the case right to the graphics card.
Ah found a link to one of em. Vantec UV LED Blue Spectrum Fan Card
Oooh! Pretty! Yeah, that seems like a good idea, and not too expensive either... I guess i just have to play around with the overclock settings until i find a point where it runs okay, with not too much overheating.
See sig. Will I be able to run tetris? I'm not sure...maybe I need to upgrade my sound card for tetris....
(this is a post to teach a lesson to the idiots posting amazing systems and asking if hl2 will run on it just to show off)
sorry but your soundcard isn't good enough for tetris, you need the triple platinum audigy ZZ with 10.1 speaker support
oh i thought so. should i also upgrade to an AMD256 Athlon 400,000ghz?
AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 Socket 939 | ASUS A8V Socket 939 Mobo | ATI Radeon X800 XT | 1GB Corsair XMS PC3200-PRO RAM | 560 WATT Thermaltake PSU | Audigy 2 ZS Platinum Sound Card
my computer is just like yours Gunny except I went with the 2 gb of RAM. and I have a 600 watt power supply.
Great way to waste electricity! Completely unneccesary overkill..
It's like headshotting an enemy with an AWP in CS when they have 1HP and no helmet
Lol good analogy.
600 Watts may seem like overkill, but if you have enough hard drives, peripherals, and certain video cards(6800 Ultra draws like crazy), and assuming it lasts long enough, who knows what the power requirements of future Mobo's will require. I remember when 250 was overkill(ok maybe I'm an old fart)
I'm not gonna buy a new graphics card for Half-life 2. My graphics card will work excellent for it. However, I am going to upgrade my other computer. My other computer is old and I'll spend about $1000 upgrading it. Here's what I want to get for it:
Intel Pentium 3.2Ghz (or faster if the price is reasonable)
200GB hard drive
At least a Gigabyte of RAM
Haven't decided on the Graphics card, but I think I'll keep my sound card. It's a sound blaster live and that good enough because I use headphones.
Any suggestions that you might think are better?
For people going on about frame rates.
2 frame rates involved when playing a game.
The game can run at one frame rate.
The monitor has its own frame rate.
It is the interation between the two that matters.
This can mean that lowering your game frame rate sometimes improves perfomance.
So far you're looking at about ~$250 for the processor, ~$180 for the HDD, ~$100 for the Mobo, ~$40-150 for a case, and about 190 for the RAM.
My recommendation is to check sites like newegg.com or pricewatch.com, and do a bit of price checking. The system I am building only went over $1000 when I added in a monitor(wife wants a flat screen).
I seriously recommend getting 2 512's instead of a single 1Gig(unless you plan on getting another exact one in the near future). You are more likely to experience a performance hit with a single Gig stick than with 2 512's. Plus its cheaper. I dig the Epox board with the 4 ATA 133's and 2 ATA 100's with 2 SATA connections. If you are interested in cases, the Aspire's are good(and well layyed out), but I like the Raidmax for cost(and some are purtiful). Can't help you much on the HDD though. I don't want a drive that big. Just make sure that its quiet, and that it has 8MB cache.
edited: for friggin codes
if you're going to spend $1000, might as well get an amd64 processor. like a 3400+, its faster for gaming and a bit cheaper than a p4 3.2 800fsb. look at some numbers:
Which would be better: a 9600xt, or a 9700 non-pro? I found a refurbished 9700 non-pro on newegg for $115. I also found a refurb 9700 pro for $135. Would one of them be worth it, being refurbished? I don't really mind but I just hope they won't break down, I don't have the money to upgrade every 6 months.
Is mummy and daddy proud of the way you spend their money?
I wouldn't know since I'm buying it with my own money douschebag.
^ there are a few numbers on the 9600xt. 9700pro is still faster, and id spend the extra money to get it if you can get it for that cheap. refurbished, though, is a gamble. good luck
600 is insanely overkill. Even 500 is overkill.
People have been able to get the 6800 Ultra to run on a 250W PSU with just one CD Drive and one HD.
The only way you would need a 600 watt PSU is if you had dual proccessors, about 10 10,000RPM HDs, 10 Dvd Drives, 10 5,000RPM Case Fans, about 40 CCFLs, and probably one of those huge ass HSFs. Then maybe you would need a 600 watt.
I have a 350Watt and I've got a CD-RW,Dvd, 2 7200RPM HDs, 5 28db Case fans, Audigy sound card, Radeon 9600XT, 2 CCFLs. Works perfectly fine no power problems.
The only situation that a 600 would be fine is in the new Alienware's dual processor and dual GPU computers.
I dunno, the 9800 non pro is selling for around that price, and it has the performance equivalent to the 9700 pro. and in many cases you can softmod them.... I'll shut up now.
where do you see that, im curious, because im only seeing these crappy 9800se's on pricewatch, where the 9800 np should be.