Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (
More info?)
I like Toys and Cake wrote:
> "Damien McBain" <ask@me.for.it> wrote in message
> news:4179a267$0$23025$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> I like Toys and Cake wrote:
>>>> I like Toys and Cake wrote:
>>>>> "I like Toys and Cake" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1098462424.17105.0@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 90 fps, at what resolution? Prove it!
>>>>>
>>>>> forgot to add that even if you do get high fps, the MX range will
>>>>> take
>>>>> source's DirectX 7 path which means
>>>>>
>>>>> Screen space effects are really simple.
>>>>> No model decals
>>>>> No detail props
>>>>> No refractive water
>>>>> Reduced decal visibility distance
>>>>> No bumpmaps
>>>>> Reduced model LODs
>>>>> Reduced material mip level
>>>>
>>>> 92 fps came from the video test which ran when I installed CS
>>>> Source. Is
>>>> this the wrong measure?
>>>> What I am saying is that the game is eminently playable (and
>>>> enjoyable) with
>>>> this card.
>>>
>>> Possibly playable but without all the new fluffy things source can
>>> draw, you may as well stick to 1.6. Sure the physics are excellent
>>> and
>>> it is an improvement in graphic quality over 1.6 but you will not
>>> see
>>> the game in anywhere near the same way as a graphics card costing
>>> less
>>> than 100 UK pounds can draw let alone a Geforce 6 series or radeon
>>> X
>>> series.
>>>
>>> DirectX 7 and 8 generation cards such as the MX series, Ti series,
>>> some FX series, and the early and cut-down radeons have their place
>>> but running "new" games is not it. I understand that not everyone
>>> puts
>>> buying new hardware every couple of months as high on their list of
>>> priorities as I do but really, buying a new game and running it on
>>> old
>>> hardware is like buying a Ferrari and only driving it in first gear
>>> or
>>> buying a DVD player and connecting it to a 14 inch portable TV.
>>>
>>> If I had worked for years creating a game engine with the
>>> capabilities
>>> of source I would be offended to hear people were playing and
>>> judging
>>> my work on hardware that cannot show it's capabilities. In fact if
>>> I
>>> were Gabe I would have insisted that there was only the DX9 path
>>> included.
>>
>> So without going overboard, which card would be a nice balance
>> between price
>> and performance for use with HL2?
>
> Radeon 9600XT or 9700 Pro or 9800XT the 9600XT is under 100 UK pounds
> (especially the sapphire lite retail one) if you want to spend a
> little more then a geforce 6800 GT has a fair price for the amount of
> power you can extract from it with even the smallest amount of
> overclocking and it won't require an upgrade for several years as most
> games for the foreseeable future will be based on HL2 or Doom3. All
> these do DirectX 9 in hardware so you get all the fluffy things source
> can do.
So would a 9800 pro be a good choice? Its just that i heard radeon are
bringing a new card out thats better and at the same price?
--
Life?