FPS with following specs?

Rev_Night said:

in all seriousness, i would get the following:

1x 512mg of pc3200
geforce BFG Tech 6800 GT OC


the geforce ultra would be bottlenecked by the 2.8 ghz cpu, and as such is a waste of money

Click to expand...

Judging by this an X800 series video card might be a better bet for Vengeance at least. Although the site somehow manages to mix Tribes 2 and Tribes: Vengeance :closet:

Emilee said:

Why do people think T:V is capped at 85?

Click to expand...

Because they have vertical sync enabled, and a monitor refresh rate of 85hz. Vsync attempts to match framerate to refreshrate.

Having 200 fps would be a waste of time anyway unless your monitor was refreshing at 200hz.

To the guy with the P4 2.8 / 9700pro: upgrading to a gig of ram is definately worth it in your case, but i would hold off upgrading your video card unless you can make a significant jump. Cards such as the 9800XT are still quite expensive, and 256mb ram or not the performance boost over a 9700pro would be too insignificant to be worth the cash. A 9700pro is a good match for your processor and quite capable of pushing frames at 1024x768, you may have to slide a couple of options down to high rather than ultra high, but you're talking about barely noticable visual differences.

I have a pretty much identical system to yours atm, and while i run with everything on lowest/off except drawing distance (I'm playing for the competition not to gawp at pretty images) I have run the beta at max settings before just for testing purposes, and bar the continual disk access from not having enough ram, it was relatively playable. If you want to upgrade your video card, i wouldn't bother with anything slower than a 6800GT. Going cheaper than that would not get you a worthwhile performance jump.

Emilee said:

I know you are. Dual PCI-E mobo's are not out, and neither are the PCI-E SLI capable 6800 Ultra's. Even with those, you wouldnt get those frames.

Click to expand...

Bingo. Even reviewers haven't recieved the SLI bridge piece yet.

I have a Mobile Athlon xp 2500 oc'ed to xp 3400 speeds, AIW 9700 Pro, and 1 gig of pc3200 ram (played beta with 512 as well). It's perfectly capable of playing the game at 1024 with the important settings (imo) on ultra high. Texture detail, fogging distance, and terrain detail. My other settings are a mix of medium and high - stuff like water and glow at medium (water looks like ass at high anyhow and glow can slow down even stellar computers when there's too much burner action). I did try other settings like bump mapping at ultra, but I didn't notice it on much besides the sensors.

I typically get 40-85 fps, and I haven't noticed it drop past 40 even in heavy action.

TeoH said:

Because they have vertical sync enabled, and a monitor refresh rate of 85hz. Vsync attempts to match framerate to refreshrate.

Having 200 fps would be a waste of time anyway unless your monitor was refreshing at 200hz.

Click to expand...

I know about vsync, that doesnt mean the game is capped at 85 frames though. What is can mean is as you say, they think it is.

i use vsync and my monitor refreshes at 85 mhz, but for some reason on all of my games, i never get above 60. Like it will stay rock solid at 60 and not go 1 fps above it.

Discourse said:

Judging by this an X800 series video card might be a better bet for Vengeance at least. Although the site somehow manages to mix Tribes 2 and Tribes: Vengeance :closet:

Click to expand...

well, maybe not. on that review, it is unfair. it is pairing an x800XT PE vs just a plain geforce 6800 U. that a $600 card vs a $500 card. For those to be equal, it should be a x800xt vs the 6800U or the x800xt PE vs the 6800UE.

either way, that review doesn't necessarily mean that the x800pro is better then the 6800GT. you see reviews seeing the xt beating the Ultra, but the pro losing to the GT.


also, am I the only one to suspect these scores? I highly doubt the xt PE would be TWICE as better as the 6800U