Video Cards
04-23-2005, 06:16 PM
#31
500 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 746
Originally posted by dodgeram:
the 75mb radeon 7500 in my laptop still plays every game I've tried so I imagine a 128mb card will be good for a while
my laptops native resolution is 1600x1200 but I play most games at 800x600 and it looks fine to me [img]graemlins/dunno.gif[/img]
the 75mb radeon 7500 in my laptop still plays every game I've tried so I imagine a 128mb card will be good for a while
my laptops native resolution is 1600x1200 but I play most games at 800x600 and it looks fine to me [img]graemlins/dunno.gif[/img]
04-24-2005, 12:59 PM
#34
500 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 746
Originally posted by pinhead:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cereal:
so why is a lower resolution so great and higher not </font>
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cereal:
Any CS player who is pro in cal or cpl plays at 800x600 but they are all wrong also and you are right!
They all use top of the line video cards and still play at 800x600.
This isn't something I am making up. This is just the way it is with pro CS players. If you want to play at 1600x1400 then go ahead but it's a waste.
04-25-2005, 12:35 AM
#36
500 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 575
Originally posted by MegaHurtz:
if it hasn't already been siad in this thread, the GPU chipset is uber more important than the amount of memory. you would be better off going with a higher model 128mb card than a lower model 256.
if it hasn't already been siad in this thread, the GPU chipset is uber more important than the amount of memory. you would be better off going with a higher model 128mb card than a lower model 256.
Also, speed of memory is more important than the amount of memory unless you're playing a game with tons of textures at a very high resolution (1600x1200 or more) ... Most 128 MB versions have faster memory than their 256 MB counter-parts (i.e. Asus 6600 128 MB version vs. Asus 6600 256 MB version ... The 128 version is $25 cheaper and faster in pretty much every benchmark/application)
04-25-2005, 04:22 AM
#37
500 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 746
Originally posted by pinhead:
its a waste to see better graphics
so buying a big screen must be a waste
where a 7 "does the job just fine
its a waste to see better graphics
so buying a big screen must be a waste
where a 7 "does the job just fine
If you like 7" screens then get 10 of them.
04-25-2005, 05:44 AM
#38
Additionally, you do not need an LCD to have crisp graphics in gameplay. LCD's were not really favoured for games until recently when phosphor response times lowered to an amount as fast or faster than LCD refresh rates, which is good for games. Otherwise, the LCD is only able to handle as many frames as its response time, as few as 30, and ghosting becomes far more noticeable.
