IGP my a**

Yeah, Im not saying the x1300 is better or worse, just saying the 7200 can hold it's own against some cards, and everyone gives it a bad rep. It's actually a pretty good card.

 

1) the x1300 is better in real life gaming then the 7200. synthetic benchmarks only give a rough idea of how good a card is. i oc my card to get from 1955 3d05 to 2339, a almost 20% boast in terms of points increase but only 1-4 fps increase in real life game when i already have 40-50 fps.

2) applx is out of his mind. "sum lay jot yong" is a chinese idiom where it means that your mind is creating the effect you feel as in what you feel is just a physcological effect. as previous posters pointed out, lcd can only display at 60hz, most crt monitors max out at 90hz, i seriously doubt that the many pro CS players/leagues all have to use gaming moniters at 100+ hz.

you need skills to be good at cs, not insane fps rate.

also, for the needs of the majority many cannot tell the difference between 40 and 60 fps, let alone 60 fps and 100.

i doubt a gaming moniter would cause your kd ratio to increase.

also, how the hell does one aim at 640x480 in CS? thats impossible, the crossair are HUGE! the detail is crappy, EXTREMELY hard to shoot long distances as heads appear as one gigantic pixel. sorry, i believe that most PRO would rather choose 40fps and 1024x1280 at med detail level then 100 fps at low detail and 640x480.

 

pwned....and this is too short???how

 

i dont know im not one to go out and buy the latest games all the time i need to spend my money else where but the games i do have play really well on the go 7200

 

I'm just gonna go ahead and say it. applx, you need a hobby besides gaming. If you need to sit here on a message board and talk about how much more 1337 you are because you know that there is a difference 120fps and 60fps, then I feel sorry for you. And about the link you gave, in the post it plotted ideal curves, and while the ideal curve was at 120fps, the writers also went on to say that due to the code of the game and the way it calculates, other ideal fps would be 92, 85, ~60, and 29. So you don't have to have 120fps to be at ideal.

Secondly, if you have to put the game on 640x480 and low detail to get 80fps in CS:S, then your computer sucks and is not worthy of being referred to as a "gaming" computer. Source is one of the most efficient engines around and people can get 40-60fps+ at high res and high settings on an x1600. And if you're running at 640x480, I would imagine you get pwnd a lot, because as hmmm said, it is so hard to see anything at that low of a resolution and settings that you couldn't possibly have any sense of accuracy.

So, to sum it up, if you need 200 fps, get a decent computer. In the meantime, quit being a prick and trying to act like you know everything there is to know about gaming. Or better yet, quit acting like you know how everyone's eyes work. And you should probably think about trying to find something better to do with your time than lord your h@x0r knowledge over everyone that comes to this forum to have intelligent and meaningful conversations with other people. A lot of guys spend a lot time and money to get their computers that you may find modest, so grow up and quit trying to make them feel bad about it.

 

well said



though this thread is so off topic, supposed to be about igp, turns into low end dedicated card talks then into getting 100 fps and monitors

lol

 

I dont believe anything more needs to be said. These two posts have just pwned this whole thread

 

I can get HL2 to run at about 30fps on my ATI Xpress 200m, and that is at 1280x800 native resolution. I am going to get F.E.A.R tomorrow and I shall tell how well it runs, but the 200m has worked for me, but I also have the 128mb dedicated version, not the 128mb shared. I have one thing to add about HL2, I had it all on medium settings, I will start a post on what to set it at when I get around to it to tell everyone what I run it at.

 

Hole in one! I've been trying to explain to him that some people can play perfectly fine with only 30fps. He can't, oh well, but I, and quite a number of friends, can.

And the point about only being able to afford a "modest" system, I am so in that boat. I had to sell my old laptop and my gaming desktop to my parents just to afford this. But, I'm lucky in that it plays every game I need it to, at an acceptable level. I would have loved a 7600 in this, but couldn't afford it.

Now, where's that rep button...

 

notebook done pimp slapped him lol

 

I suggest you try the demo first, fear is not near as hardware forgiving as hl2, I highly doubt you will find it an enjoyable experience at any setting with your system

 

My guess would be 800x600 low settings, that's going off what I get and what a mate gets from his 9000IGP.

 

ha. applx - pwned.

Anyway. The x200 can run FEAR at low settings so I hear.

Of Course, you could probably actually get a really high fps if you force DX8 shaders and use pixel doubling as well as having everything else on low.

Beware though - while this will probably give you a great framerate for an x200, the game on the lowest settings with these options enabled looks absolutely horrific....

 

A quick question. That link about how quake 3 implements jumping, is that problem really an issue in other first person shooters?

 

How am i pwned? i was at college all day and couldnt reply.
Pro gamers play CS1.6 at 640x480 and 800x600@100hz on CRT and yet they dont play source at 1280 with 30fps. Oh yea LCD can hold 75hz and ofcourse ive been playing cs since beta on 640x480 and had no problems killing ppl (maybe you got bad eye sight and you cant spot things?). Maybe you should go read more forums? www.schroet.com and find out for yourself. Oh almost forgot i do have a life and i dont play games 24/7 (max 5hours a day). I find it very amusing playing mp games at such resolution@20-40fps yet you tellin me to get a better pc.

 

I wasn't gonna say anything at first, but I just have to...

Playing CS1.6 at 800x600 low settings is ridiculous. I played it a 1024x768 at low settings on my old 32MB integrated MR7500 and got consistently above 20-30fps. That's a five year old card that won't even install half the games out there right now, so I don't see how any "pro" could be playing CS1.6 at 640x480 low settings on any kind of a "pro" system. Though I've never tried CS:S on my laptop, this guy on another forum has a similar setup with 2 gigs of RAM and gets 156fps on CS:S stress test. My laptop is good.

http://www.notebookforums.com/post2233094.html#post2233094

Yes, desktop LCDs get up to 75Hz and good CRTs get up to 100 or more. That's already been established (maybe you should read a little more). But that still does not add up to showing you 120fps in either case. Lastly, I'm glad you're in school, good for you. I am too. But maybe you should study instead of getting on here and trying to flame everyone. Especially look at that Biology... the part where your eyes can see 120fps. Let me know what you find out.

 

Wow, that's having a life? Sheet man, that's a pretty big chunk of the day.

Although I am sad reading this, I sure wish I were a pro gamer. Do you go on the injured reserve if you get carpal tunnel? Man that'd suck

 

Yes i do have a life! I get up at 5:30 every morning and go to college also work 3 days a week have time to go out with friends and so on. 5 hours max! thats not alot. some ppl are sittin there for 12 hours a day!

 

Here is about FPS: http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_5.html
as you are about find out that FPS and Hz is 2 different things and i can tell the difference between 60hz and 100 as i get headache on anything lower than 70.
Here is article about human eye and refresh rate: http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

Ok. Progamers do play at 640 and 800 res if you dont trust me than find out for yourself: www.team3d.net, www.schroet.com, www.q4euro.com. Some use it because they got used to it and thats perfect to play on. They dont care how good the graphics are and if you look at specs of the machines they are playing on 0_0 youll be amazed and thats CS 1.6!!!
Oh btw 156Fps in stress test is nothing compared to ingame action.

 

F.E.A.R Does run very well on the x200M at the following settings.

800x600.
Everything at minimum except the following...

Lighting: medium or high (makes no major diff)
Effects: medium
Physics: medium
Shaders: medium
Decals: ON
Shell casings: ON
Trilinear
Text Res: Medium (although this can bring the Fps below 25 on some occasions so i left in on low to keep things perfect!
World Detail: Medium
Partical Bouncing: Medium
Corpse Detail: Medium

Now by smooth i mean that the FPS stayed between 25-45fps.. Mostly around 30fps..
Now them settings arent bad at all you would all have to agree for a i think very underrated X200!..

You see a game like FEAR only really starts to strangle the GPU when things are turned up to high and other eye candy such as "Volumetric lighting, AA/AF, High Texture filtering, Shadows, Reflections/Displays and Water Res..

When you have a REAL graphics card such as the X1300/7200 upwards you can "start" to turn these high detail options on!..

And just to say to that person who is thinking of trying to play FEAR on his X200..it will work fine, but make sure you dont force DX8 because it CRIPPLES gameplay!!

Heres my X200 playing FEAR at the above settings (low textures). Please note that FRAPS impacted smoothness and lowered Fps average by about 5-8. But as you can see it still looks smooth!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_m4-_fy8Ss

 

Surely applx is a troll. No-one could be that frighteningly deluded...could they?

Oh yeah and recently my FPS in BF2 went from 35fps to 100fps, and I'm not performing any better at all. I also tried running CS:S at ultra low so I got 120fps and it was so shoddy looking I ended up doing worse.

Teech me the leet plz.

 

Okay, here goes nothing:

There you go. 60fps. Even 30 in some cases.

And here we go again.

Sense a theme here? Personal preference. But then the discussion turned into this:

Kinda makes me glad I'm not a "Pro" Gamer.

 

pwnage - volume 2.

 

I would take time out to read those other, I'm sure equally as interesting, articles and sites link by applx, but I have to play CoH at 35fps before I go see my girlfriend.

 

You havent read the whole thing man! FPS = 1/2 of Refrsh rate.

"FPS and Refresh Rate are two separate and independent things. It is possible to have 20FPS showing on a screen with an 85Hz refresh rate, or (nominally) have 100 FPS showing on a 60Hz screen refresh rate." thats one of the things that i was trying to point out but no, you had to make things complicated and pasted authors personal opinion.

Dont bother looking at team3d forums as half of the posts are made by 11 year old americans. Look at their profiles.

To HavoK: You wont become any better if you were crap in the first place.

 

Please keep personal insults out of this. I can't see you becoming any better when noone wants to play with you and you have to resort to bots because everyone has read your last few posts.

I got your argument about refresh rate and frames per second differences the first time, I never argued that. I just said (three or four times) that I can play acceptably at 30fps. You can't. I can. That's all I said. Then you came along and said I was wrong and crap because of what MY EYES SEE! They're MINE! Not yours. Wow, you can tell the difference, WHO CARES!?! We've already established the fact that an acceptable frame rate and refresh rate are PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

And if half of the people on TEAM3D are 11 year old americans, why did you link to them?

FYI: I play CS:S on occasion (very odd occasion) on gamearena servers, which from what I've come to understand can become very competitive. I get about a 1:1.5 K/D ratio, so I'm on the bottom half. "I" know for a fact that "I" don't play any better with higher frame rates. However, get me in a game of OFP and I can wipe the board at 35fps.

I really do feel sorry for you. You have to play @ 640x480, at which point CS:S looks worse than 1.6. My eyes find it acceptable to play at a level where the game actually looks decent.

 

Well CoH is RTS where Fps doesnt matter as much as in shooters -__-.

"Oh yeah and recently my FPS in BF2 went from 35fps to 100fps, and I'm not performing any better at all. I also tried running CS:S at ultra low so I got 120fps and it was so shoddy looking I ended up doing worse."

There are number of reasons to that.
1. You have to get used to those changes.
2. Change sensitivity to suit you res.
3. You might of been bad at game anyway so fps wont matter to you.
4. If you were camper all your life than fps wont change a thing either.

Example: When i 1st played CS (in 2000) i had crap pc which gave me 20 fps on lowest res with one BOT and ive been playing like that for a year or so. in 2001 i got new pc that could play cs at 1024+ 16 BOTS and ive noticed that i became much better than on my old pc. why? have a guess. Ofcourse ive tried all resolutions and decided to play on 640 as ive used to it and it was fine by me. My current pc can play source at 1024+highest detail@100FPS but i play it on 800low settings.
Id write alot more but im off to sleep.

 

Why doesn't it? You have to dodge that grenade all the same. Or your whole squad it cactus.

Camping is a legitimate strategy. I do it all the time, and get most of my kills that way.

So the whole basis of your argument is: "It works best for me, so therefore it must do for everyone else too, and if they have a different opinion, they are just plain wrong."

 

Sylvain im not arguing with you NO but it seems that you are trying to prove me wrong all the time.
My original thread started as: IGP is crap basically. I was trying to say that x200, GMA and so on wont play games as good as ppl say they do. I never intended to go so far. Whenever i hear ppl say things like - Oh my geforce 5200 play this or that at 60 fps blablabla but i doesnt as geforce 5700 gets only 45 and its logical to think that those ppl talk crap.
I gave you the team3d link so you could look at profiles not forums. There is nothing wrong with playing at 640x480 as gameplay matters - not graphics!

Oh and i wasnt trying to insul Havok its just he acts like a child with things like applx got pwned and stuff

 

why doesnt it? well because most RTS games are locked at around 30-40fps and it doesnt feel lagy at those rates.

what im saying is that when you camp its usualy well covered area where fps is preaty good if not high and gives you advantage over open areas where fps is low and drops down while you shoot.

It does works for me yea sure but i know alot of people who went through exactly same thing as i did and became better at a game.

 

Indeed.

Here's one thing I don't understand (and Sylvain pointed it out quite nicely as well), why do you think that just because playing at 800x600 at low settings is good for you that it's good for everyone else? That's just being arrogant.

Secondly, attacking Havok was just wrong and shows just how much of a douche you can be. Go spread your superiority somewhere else... I'm not buying.

Thirdly, my question of why you created this thread still stands. Do you just enjoy making other people feel bad? Everyone on here knows that IGPs aren't for gaming, but sometimes that's all someone can afford. The x200M, Go6150, and x1150 are all decent IGPs, and everyone needs a place to start. If they can play comfortably at higher detail and lower framerates, that's their business, not yours. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that half the time you get killed in CS it's by a guy running it a 1280x800 at high settings and 60fps. My friend plays CS1.6 on his old FX5900 at decent levels with about 40fps and owns pretty well. If you can't do it, either you're not as good as you let on or you just like saying that you get 200 fps.

And about the framerates... okay. Maybe the eye can see more than 200fps. I'll give you that. But when you show me a screen that can display 200fps, then I'll concede to your point.

Another thing, performance is largely based on each individual computer. A person could very well get better framerates with a 5200 than a person with a 5700. Maybe they have a stronger CPU and more RAM. Maybe the guy's computer with the 5700 has a virus that's eating his resources. You don't know, so don't pretend to try to.

Lastly, I'll leave you with a bit of advice. This forum isn't here to make people feel bad or lord your superiority over everyone else. It's a community where people can get help and opinions, and crap like this just brings it all down and makes us all look bad. I hope you're happy with your attempts to make everyone with a modest computer feel bad. But honestly, I'm really happy that no one cares and that no one listens to you. I hope someone on here with an x200M gets on CS:S tonight and pwns your a$$.

 

A very good point, and I would know this better than a lot. My desktop may have a 256MB 6600GT, but it is limited by slow ram and an older Celeron processor. And my laptop has an X1400, but still plays Oblivion better. I know for a fact that the 6600GT is stronger than the X1400, but it just goes to show that other components make a difference too.

 

Applx I'm quite good at what I play. In fact here is a screen from BF2 pistols only, I think thats proof enough I'm a ok gamer.

Don't take everything to heart, it's only light hearted banter, but honestly you seem to think that you speak for all pro gamers when you talk about running games at crap levels to get 100fps. Well I have a surprise for you:

If you consider yourself a pro gamer, then so can most of us here I'm willing to bet, and I'm pretty sure most of us here are firmly against your ideals of sacrificing all your visual quality in order to get 100fps instead of 60fps so you should really stop this "Us Pro Gamers" talk. In fact you provided links, and when they went against you, you started complaining about them too?

In the end, you're just kidding yourself. I can pretty much guarantee the difference between 60 and 100fps is not contributing to your skills and all it is doing is putting you at a disadvantage because of the crap visuals, but if you're happy with such a claim then fine...

As someone else said, everytime you get killed in CS:S, its probably by some eagle eye running Source at 1280x768 with all options on at 35fps, because he can see you a mile away when all you can see is a giant bunch pixels that might be a guy....or a rock....or just a shoddy wall.

 

My x700 pro in my desktop could take take CS:S at those settings (actually a high res.) and still crank out 30 or 40 frames per second. I could run Fear on medium-low video settings at 1024x768 (it still lagged a lot though). I think you REALLY need to take into account your RAM, VRAM, and processor, that could be what makes the difference.

 

Wow, I just went back and read some of the later posts...is someone trying to say that you get more kills when you have a frame rate of 100 compared to 35? Thats idiotic, how could it make a difference? Ignore all of the "well when I used to play with a crap pc blah blah blah" -that is all irrelevant. The fact is you don't have a fast enough reaction time (no human does) for the difference between 50 and a 100 frames per seconds to matter.

Ohh, and havok, ****...nice scores, I'd be a little afraid to run into you in a back alley of mashtur city...then again it might be nice to cap your ass (haha, just talking smack).

 

this has gotten way off a bad topic in the first place

Havok, that kd ratio is impressive

it's pointless to argue anymore, people here have already provided more then enough evidence to prove applx wrong

some people just have an almost magical ability to resist logic of any sort -david gemmell

 

pwned.. high fps gives u advantage????bull****

 

wow no one cares to what i say but you all keep posting and trying to prove me wrong. thats actually very funny.
To be honest Havok your screenshot proves nothing for a number of reasons:
1. Any one could get that score
2. Ppl youve played are bad at BF2
3.What res is that?
Am not being arogant and not saying you crap or w/e all im saying is that going from 35 fps to a 100fps really does makes difference for a lot of ppl if it doesnt for you than oh well...

I dont play CS source that often now and when i did it was me and my clan or i went on 40 man servers. Yea i did die maybe because i went for it and didnt camp all the way.
Also whenever i was talking about 5200 and 5700 it was from my personal experience and i knew both system specs so that guy was talking crap oh and i do know that cpu and ram does makes difference.

Im not here to make people feel bad about their systems am after those who exaggerate their computers.

"In the end, you're just kidding yourself. I can pretty much guarantee the difference between 60 and 100fps is not contributing to your skills and all it is doing is putting you at a disadvantage because of the crap visuals"

Ok in some games like quake3 there are difference between 60 and 100 and anyone could tell that. Try it for yourself and find out or if you havent got q3 than try palying CS1.6 at 35 fps (max_fps "35").

"is someone trying to say that you get more kills when you have a frame rate of 100 compared to 35? Thats idiotic, how could it make a difference?" Well at 35 fps moving mouse around feels bad and it aint smooth and feel of lag itself makes difference. As ive said try CS1.6 at 35 and find out.

Dont forget none of you care what ive said

 

oh and one last thing:

what is the point of creating new graphics cards since most of you enjoy playing at 35fps why do you people upgrade dont you like laggin? xxx

 

Because every new game that comes out is coded more and more poorly than its predecessors and needs new graphics cards so it can run at the minimal level.

 

well even though Iam so happy to be getting a 7800 in my dell thats coming I still love my GMA900 to death, before this my fastest laptop was a 500mhz 600x that had no hardware 3D acceleration so I feel really greatful to have the GMA 900 that will actually play some basic 3D games, I feel even more greatful to be getting a 7800 which will be the fastest GPU i have ever had.

 

im sure you still will be able to play a new game on 1024 with 35fps

 

Well, there's a difference between ignoring what you say and not caring about what you say, but whatever...

He is right about one thing though. He won't shut up until we do. Therefore, as far as as I can tell, I'm done here. I think I've proven my points.

 

Let's keep this thread under control please . . no personal comments are allowed. If you have an issue with another issue, please contact me using the Private Messaging system.

 

Good show notebook_ftw. Thanks for standing up for us poor guys with IGP cards. I think that most of us that have posted that 'my IGP card runs this game great' are new to gaming, are coming from an even slower card, or are just so excited about their new notebook. I just think we should leave them be; let them say what they haev to say, it doesn't affect anyone in anyway. Well.... HL2 runs smooth at lowest settings on my IGP ATI X1100 and thats the truth. Can't say that about the GMA900/950 though but that's just my opinion.
Peace

 

Actually it ran okay on low settings at 640x480 on my intel gma 900.

 

I downgraded to this machine

 

Newer games require newer tech. Most of us want good visuals alongside 35fps. It's that simple.

 

why dont nvidia and ati stop making high end hardware and aim at people like you then?

 

Because, there aren't alot of budget consious people,they want the latest and greatest. They are willing to pay 1,000$ for a card. Let them be, we will stick with our 35 fps. At least I will.