Quote:Intel's CPUs are faster than AMD's, but saying Intel generally has better performance than AMD could (and should IMO) be worded more clearly.
Generally = most of the time, or on average
What's so unclear about that?
Quote:There could come a day in the future where AMD surpasses Intel in technology and makes faster CPUs, and on that day I don't want people looking back on a post here and getting confused.
But the statement is being made now. It's true now, whether it is still true in the future is irrelevant.
(10-11-2012, 03:12 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Intel's CPUs are faster than AMD's, but saying Intel generally has better performance than AMD could (and should IMO) be worded more clearly.
Generally = most of the time, or on average
What's so unclear about that?
Quote:There could come a day in the future where AMD surpasses Intel in technology and makes faster CPUs, and on that day I don't want people looking back on a post here and getting confused.
But the statement is being made now. It's true now, whether it is still true in the future is irrelevant.
On the subject of clarity:
I'm just saying that Intel doesn't have performance, it's CPUs do. It is more of a grammatical thing than an actual brand association thing.
On the subject of time frame:
I don't trust people to look at what time it was written when they search through the forums.
Quote:I'm just saying that Intel doesn't have performance, it's CPUs do. It is more of a grammatical thing than an actual brand association thing.
And I'm just saying that:
"Intel cpus are
usually faster for gaming"
is a true statement, while
"Intel cpus are faster for gaming"
is not a true statement because it is absolute. There is nothing wrong with the grammar or logic of the first statement because it is not an absolute statement.
Quote:I don't trust people to look at what time it was written when they search through the forums.
Fair enough. But that's their fault, not the poster's fault.
Quote:"Intel cpus are usually faster for gaming"
But that isn't what he said. He said "Intel generally has better performance for gaming" whe in fact Intel doesn't have performance, it's CPUs do. It's a lexical error; he referred to a struct or object instead of a data member of that struct or object.
Quote:he referred to a struct or object instead of a data member of that struct or object.
As much as I applaud the creativity employed in that statement I must point out the obvious difference here that prevents this sort of comparison. Programming languages do not follow the same rules as verbal languages.
I know I did that on an essay once and got marked down so I don't use that kind of language anymore. Tbh English is a crappy language anyway so arguing about its rules has become pointless.
I suppose the better explanation as to why I am wrong (and yes I am arguing against myself now) is that languages are very dynamic and change over time (try reading old English) so the rules are actually made by the people who speak the language. So if a lot of people speak that way it will eventually become the defacto way of saying things.
No offense, guys, but I totally forgot about this topic within a day of creating it. I was serious about not bothering if I can't squeeze a few more frames out with my current specs, because I don't really find it all that worth it to put money into my PC so I can play games for a system I actually own.
Especially with MH3U coming to the 3DS soon, I'm eventually going to get that. I appreciate the help, but I'm not going to be putting money into my PC just to run a Wii emulator.
Your pc sucks you cant run pc games properly on it either.
If you want to decently play ANY newer games,even ones meant for pc,you have to upgrade.
Just buying $100 cpu I suggested is certanly cheaper then buying 3ds which is $180 AFAIK.
3ds is $170 and 3dsxl is $200
(10-14-2012, 09:32 PM)rpglord Wrote: [ -> ]Your pc sucks you cant run pc games properly on it either.
If you want to decently play ANY newer games,even ones meant for pc,you have to upgrade.
Just buying $100 cpu I suggested is certanly cheaper then buying 3ds which is $180 AFAIK.
Sorry, but I can run Metro 2033 at highest settings with no problems, so I don't know what you're talking about. I'm not a stickler for PC graphics, and there aren't any PC games I'm really looking forward to right now, so I see no reason to upgrade right now.
Also, I already have a 3DSXL, so buying a new CPU is actually not cheaper than buying a $40-$50 3DS game.
Back on topic; I've been messing around with the settings and have MHTri running at about 22-26 fps in empty areas, but it drops down to around 20-15 fps in caves and areas with enemies. If anyone knows a way to bump up the fps just a little more, that'd be great, otherwise I'm just going to play MHTri on my Wii after we get it.