Hello everybody;
I have a question for the people of Tom's Hardware:
In the VGA charts, so far you have only used resolutions of 1024x768x32 and above.
This is NOT very interesting for people who have a budget card, because these cards were never made to run games at such high relosutions.
Don't forget that MOST people have a budget video card, so I think that with the current VGA charts, you are only adressing the people who have an expensive video card.
That means that the VGA charts may not be interesting for, say 50% of your readers!
So PLEASE: add 800x600x16, so that people like me can see if their budget card perfroms adequately in this resolution.
eg. I have a GF2MX, a Kyro1 and even an old TNT2.
If I want to know if these cards can play UT2003, the current VGA charts are useless to me. I know that these cards cannot play UT2003 or Jedi Knight in 1024x768x32,
but I would like to know if they can play those games adequately in 800x600x16.
So please, for the people with a lower budget, add 800x600x16 to your charts, so that they can see if their budget card CAN play these games at this lower resolution.
My opinion is that currently, your VGA charts are only interesting for people who bought expensive video cards, like the GeForce 3 and up, but not interesting for people who have budget cards like the Kyro1 or GF2MX.
Even for the GF4MX which you tested it is not very interesting, because the only thing the charts show is that it is not fast enough for 1024x768x32 in most cases. So even people who have a GF4MX still have an unanswered question: if I go down to 800x600x16, will my card be fast enough then to make the games "playable"?
Thank you and greetings from Belgium;
Carl
PS: If you still have a Kyro1, I hope that you will add this card to Part II of your VGA cards, not just the Kyro2.
I have a question for the people of Tom's Hardware:
In the VGA charts, so far you have only used resolutions of 1024x768x32 and above.
This is NOT very interesting for people who have a budget card, because these cards were never made to run games at such high relosutions.
Don't forget that MOST people have a budget video card, so I think that with the current VGA charts, you are only adressing the people who have an expensive video card.
That means that the VGA charts may not be interesting for, say 50% of your readers!
So PLEASE: add 800x600x16, so that people like me can see if their budget card perfroms adequately in this resolution.
eg. I have a GF2MX, a Kyro1 and even an old TNT2.
If I want to know if these cards can play UT2003, the current VGA charts are useless to me. I know that these cards cannot play UT2003 or Jedi Knight in 1024x768x32,
but I would like to know if they can play those games adequately in 800x600x16.
So please, for the people with a lower budget, add 800x600x16 to your charts, so that they can see if their budget card CAN play these games at this lower resolution.
My opinion is that currently, your VGA charts are only interesting for people who bought expensive video cards, like the GeForce 3 and up, but not interesting for people who have budget cards like the Kyro1 or GF2MX.
Even for the GF4MX which you tested it is not very interesting, because the only thing the charts show is that it is not fast enough for 1024x768x32 in most cases. So even people who have a GF4MX still have an unanswered question: if I go down to 800x600x16, will my card be fast enough then to make the games "playable"?
Thank you and greetings from Belgium;
Carl
PS: If you still have a Kyro1, I hope that you will add this card to Part II of your VGA cards, not just the Kyro2.