Updated my PC

[DacoTaco]

(08-04-2009, 03:49 AM)tufask Wrote:

(08-04-2009, 03:31 AM)Daco Wrote: 1) on my old GF2 MX it didn't run fine at all at highest settings. on the contrary.
2) wrong about vista<-> win7. Win7 needs less ram/cpu but ALOT more gpu then vista. and "just any DX9 card" isn't right. go use GF2 MX then if you will.
3) 30fps sure isn't fluid. im talking 60 fps here
4) who said im still using a GF5? GF6 & GF8 here
5) crap compared to what? a GF9? >_>

1) well, i could run it at medium settings with a playable framerate. With an old GF4 TI 4200 it ran at max. settings.

2) GF2 MX is a DX7-card, not DX9^^

3) Oh, you're a human wonder which can tell the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps... interesting... Well, in my opinion 30 fps IS fluid! In Crysis i get around 30 fps with high settings, any other game above 60 of course

4) Well, the way you hyped the FX 5200 gave me the thought you're still using it lol.

5) Crap compared to any other card from the same year the FX 5200 got released

1) GF4 > GF2 lol.
2) its DX9 compatible (note, compatible; not made for it aka supports). IF it can do DX9 games it'll be mighty slow lol. i ran Guild wars on a GF2 so lol (with a 800Mhz AMD athlon )
3)i know not much ppl can but i can >_> specially in fast paced games like UT (which brings me to the point that im sure some Xbox games CANT do 60 perfectly . GTA4 included. saw it once and that sure was skipping frames once in a while)
4) not using it but sure have one in my old system hell it can do dual monitors in dualview (not horizontal span. know the difference) fine (note that nvidia/microsoft hasn't worked on dual view in ages and therefor its a bit slow at certain things)
5) obviously, the 5200 was the low end card of the GF5 series. just like the GF8400 is (unless there is a 8200...) for the GF8 series.