What's a good bargain in 3D gaming graphics card?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
D

Doc

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2003
701
0
18,980
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

what's a good "bang for
the buck" gaming video card for PC? I don't have to have the latest
greatest, it can be an older card, just something that supports 3D
graphics and that I'm likely to find for a bargain on eBay. Under $100
ideally, under $50 would be even better.

The
particular games I'm fooling with are Novalogic F-16/F-22/MiG combat
plane games. The onboard video works but doesn't support 3-D. I'm
running a Compaq PIII 933mhz w/WinXP home.

Thanks for all shared wisdom.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

ok if i remember right the Compaq PIII 933mhz was a pci slot only sys with
the built in video saying it was agp but you dont have a agp slot so you
need a pci video card. and right in your price rang is the GeForce FX
5700LE 128MB. goes for $103.99 shiped from newegg.com

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814139166&CMP=OTC-pr1c3watch&ATT=Video+Cards

as for the rest of your sys you know you realy need more ram " as much as
the old sys will hold 512 or 720 megs" max out the ram and if you can get a
cpu the best the board will work with, i think the old compaq 933 was called
a 5000 or somthing like that and the board would work with a celeron1.2 gig
or 1.4 gig cpu but im not shur.
but even if you dont want to upgrade the mem and cpu the video card i linked
to will work for your needs.


"Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e8jDe.1667$6f.760@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> what's a good "bang for
> the buck" gaming video card for PC? I don't have to have the latest
> greatest, it can be an older card, just something that supports 3D
> graphics and that I'm likely to find for a bargain on eBay. Under $100
> ideally, under $50 would be even better.
>
> The
> particular games I'm fooling with are Novalogic F-16/F-22/MiG combat
> plane games. The onboard video works but doesn't support 3-D. I'm
> running a Compaq PIII 933mhz w/WinXP home.
>
> Thanks for all shared wisdom.
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

ops forgot its a low profile card but you can make it work if you have to.
other than that card its fx 5200 and they wil also work but not as good.
"mangyrat" <gmckean@homexpressway.net> wrote in message
news:dbknib$egr4$1@news3.infoave.net...
> ok if i remember right the Compaq PIII 933mhz was a pci slot only sys
> with the built in video saying it was agp but you dont have a agp slot so
> you need a pci video card. and right in your price rang is the GeForce FX
> 5700LE 128MB. goes for $103.99 shiped from newegg.com
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814139166&CMP=OTC-pr1c3watch&ATT=Video+Cards
>
> as for the rest of your sys you know you realy need more ram " as much as
> the old sys will hold 512 or 720 megs" max out the ram and if you can get
> a cpu the best the board will work with, i think the old compaq 933 was
> called a 5000 or somthing like that and the board would work with a
> celeron1.2 gig or 1.4 gig cpu but im not shur.
> but even if you dont want to upgrade the mem and cpu the video card i
> linked to will work for your needs.
>
>
> "Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e8jDe.1667$6f.760@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> what's a good "bang for
>> the buck" gaming video card for PC? I don't have to have the latest
>> greatest, it can be an older card, just something that supports 3D
>> graphics and that I'm likely to find for a bargain on eBay. Under $100
>> ideally, under $50 would be even better.
>>
>> The
>> particular games I'm fooling with are Novalogic F-16/F-22/MiG combat
>> plane games. The onboard video works but doesn't support 3-D. I'm
>> running a Compaq PIII 933mhz w/WinXP home.
>>
>> Thanks for all shared wisdom.
>>
>>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

I was able to get a used ATI 9600 128MB AGP card for $41 (including
shipping) off Ebay.
Also a Nvidia 5200 Ultra is a good cheap card.

"Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e8jDe.1667$6f.760@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> what's a good "bang for
> the buck" gaming video card for PC? I don't have to have the latest
> greatest, it can be an older card, just something that supports 3D
> graphics and that I'm likely to find for a bargain on eBay. Under $100
> ideally, under $50 would be even better.
>
> The
> particular games I'm fooling with are Novalogic F-16/F-22/MiG combat
> plane games. The onboard video works but doesn't support 3-D. I'm
> running a Compaq PIII 933mhz w/WinXP home.
>
> Thanks for all shared wisdom.
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

Doc wrote:

> what's a good "bang for
> the buck" gaming video card for PC? I don't have to have the latest
> greatest, it can be an older card, just something that supports 3D
> graphics and that I'm likely to find for a bargain on eBay. Under $100
> ideally, under $50 would be even better.
>
> The
> particular games I'm fooling with are Novalogic F-16/F-22/MiG combat
> plane games. The onboard video works but doesn't support 3-D. I'm
> running a Compaq PIII 933mhz w/WinXP home.
>
> Thanks for all shared wisdom.


At the upper end of your range, Crucial has refurb 128MB Radeon 9700PRO
cards for ~85.99 with FREE shipping.

http://www.crucial.com/store/PartSpecs.asp?imodule=CTRFBV9700P128A28&cat=

If you're willing to buy off Ebay, the 90 day Crucial waranty will seem
luxurious!

The 9700, Pro or not, has a 256 bit bus and reasonably modern core. A
good deal, IMO. Mine does very well with IL2 and the N2003 GTP mod. 4x
AA and mid level AF are nearly free at 1024x.

-Greg
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

i think he has a pci slot only sys. most likly a compaq 5000 with no agp
slot. so no ati 9600 or 9700.
best bet so far is the 5500fx


"Tod" <no_spam_me@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ka2dnQnJabBgwUPfRVn-1w@comcast.com...
>I was able to get a used ATI 9600 128MB AGP card for $41 (including
>shipping) off Ebay.
> Also a Nvidia 5200 Ultra is a good cheap card.
>
> "Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e8jDe.1667$6f.760@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> what's a good "bang for
>> the buck" gaming video card for PC? I don't have to have the latest
>> greatest, it can be an older card, just something that supports 3D
>> graphics and that I'm likely to find for a bargain on eBay. Under $100
>> ideally, under $50 would be even better.
>>
>> The
>> particular games I'm fooling with are Novalogic F-16/F-22/MiG combat
>> plane games. The onboard video works but doesn't support 3-D. I'm
>> running a Compaq PIII 933mhz w/WinXP home.
>>
>> Thanks for all shared wisdom.
>>
>>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

mangyrat wrote:

" ...and right in your price rang is the GeForce FX 5700LE 128MB. goes
for $103.99 shiped from newegg.com "


....and that is a 64-bit card clocked at 250/400.

The FX5500 is a 128-bit card clocked at 270/400, which will be twice as
good. It's also cheaper than the 64-bit FX5700LE.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16814133134
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

i missed the 64 bit part my bad.
i overlooked the 5500fx for some reason.


"Cuzman" <cuzNOSPAM@supanet.com> wrote in message
news:dblfr9$p2h$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
> mangyrat wrote:
>
> " ...and right in your price rang is the GeForce FX 5700LE 128MB. goes
> for $103.99 shiped from newegg.com "
>
>
> ...and that is a 64-bit card clocked at 250/400.
>
> The FX5500 is a 128-bit card clocked at 270/400, which will be twice as
> good. It's also cheaper than the 64-bit FX5700LE.
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16814133134
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

"Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e8jDe.1667$6f.760@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> what's a good "bang for
> the buck" gaming video card for PC? I don't have to have the latest
> greatest, it can be an older card, just something that supports 3D
> graphics and that I'm likely to find for a bargain on eBay. Under $100
> ideally, under $50 would be even better.
>
> The
> particular games I'm fooling with are Novalogic F-16/F-22/MiG combat
> plane games. The onboard video works but doesn't support 3-D. I'm
> running a Compaq PIII 933mhz w/WinXP home.
>
> Thanks for all shared wisdom.
>


If you are a gamer, stop cross-posting to the matrox group. We are all
power-user hardcore professionals here. We don't play games and have other
priorities for our graphics cards other than 3D frame rates.

ss.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:49:23 +0000 (UTC), "Synapse Syndrome"
<synapse@NOSPAMgomez404.elitemail.org> wrote:

>
>"Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:e8jDe.1667$6f.760@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> what's a good "bang for
>> the buck" gaming video card for PC? I don't have to have the latest
>> greatest, it can be an older card, just something that supports 3D
>> graphics and that I'm likely to find for a bargain on eBay. Under $100
>> ideally, under $50 would be even better.
>>
>> The
>> particular games I'm fooling with are Novalogic F-16/F-22/MiG combat
>> plane games. The onboard video works but doesn't support 3-D. I'm
>> running a Compaq PIII 933mhz w/WinXP home.
>>
>> Thanks for all shared wisdom.
>>
>
>
>If you are a gamer, stop cross-posting to the matrox group. We are all
>power-user hardcore professionals here. We don't play games and have other
>priorities for our graphics cards other than 3D frame rates.
>
>ss.
>


Maybe a Maxtrox Parhelia would be on topic!
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

"Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMgomez404.elitemail.org> wrote in message
news:dblvaj$csn$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e8jDe.1667$6f.760@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> what's a good "bang for
>> the buck" gaming video card for PC? I don't have to have the latest
>> greatest, it can be an older card, just something that supports 3D
>> graphics and that I'm likely to find for a bargain on eBay. Under $100
>> ideally, under $50 would be even better.
>>
>> The
>> particular games I'm fooling with are Novalogic F-16/F-22/MiG combat
>> plane games. The onboard video works but doesn't support 3-D. I'm
>> running a Compaq PIII 933mhz w/WinXP home.
>>
>> Thanks for all shared wisdom.
>>
>
>
> If you are a gamer, stop cross-posting to the matrox group. We are all
> power-user hardcore professionals here. We don't play games and have
> other priorities for our graphics cards other than 3D frame rates.
>
> ss.
Then why does Matrox sell their cards with stickers on them that talks about
what
great game gaming cards they make?
Remember the Matrox Mystique, it shipped with two game demos.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

Synapse Syndrome <synapse@NOSPAMgomez404.elitemail.org> wrote:
>
> If you are a gamer, stop cross-posting to the matrox group. We are
> all power-user hardcore professionals here. We don't play games and
> have other priorities for our graphics cards other than 3D frame
> rates.

With the triple-head Parhelia being one of the absolute best cards for
DX8 gaming, esp. flight simulators and FPS games, you are mistaken
(although you're right about frame rates -- as long as they're high
enough, it doesn't really matter all that much whether you get 50fps or
150fps. A movie is 24fps for comparision).

--
*Art
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:03:23 -0400, "Arthur Hagen"
<art@broomstick.com> wrote:

>With the triple-head Parhelia being one of the absolute best cards for
>DX8 gaming, esp. flight simulators and FPS games, you are mistaken
>(although you're right about frame rates -- as long as they're high
>enough, it doesn't really matter all that much whether you get 50fps or
>150fps. A movie is 24fps for comparision).

LOL, please get a clue before spouting such rubbish in a public forum.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:03:23 -0400, "Arthur Hagen"
> <art@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>> With the triple-head Parhelia being one of the absolute best cards
>> for DX8 gaming, esp. flight simulators and FPS games, you are
>> mistaken (although you're right about frame rates -- as long as
>> they're high enough, it doesn't really matter all that much whether
>> you get 50fps or 150fps. A movie is 24fps for comparision).
>
> LOL, please get a clue before spouting such rubbish in a public forum.

Exactly *what* is rubbish here?

Having several hundred bought games, six PC's, and a handful of
$400-range cards from nVidia, ATI and Matrox, I think I'm qualified to
voice my opinion. What's /your/ background for your opinion? And what,
exactly *is* your opinion, for that matter, except trolling?

--
*Art
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:06:32 -0400, "Arthur Hagen"
<art@broomstick.com> wrote:

>Having several hundred bought games, six PC's, and a handful of
>$400-range cards from nVidia, ATI and Matrox, I think I'm qualified to
>voice my opinion. What's /your/ background for your opinion? And what,
>exactly *is* your opinion, for that matter, except trolling?

Comparing movie fps (which in themselves are inadequate) to game fps
is rubbish.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:03:23 -0400, "Arthur Hagen"
<art@broomstick.com> wrote:

>A movie is 24fps for comparision).

As comparison to a game it is useless data.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

Fisher <fisher@no_email.here> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:03:23 -0400, "Arthur Hagen"
> <art@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>> A movie is 24fps for comparision).
>
> As comparison to a game it is useless data.

That depends on the game. Not all games are action games where fast
reflexes makes a difference.

It also depends on the monitor -- if your LCD monitor can't update
faster than 25fps (like a 40ms LCD display) or even 62fps (16ms
display), it makes no difference whatsoever whether FRAPS reports 75 or
200 fps. Except that by generating all the unneccessary graphics that
is discarded, you steal resources that the game could use for other
things, like AI or pathfinding.

Regards,
--
*Art
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

Matrox video cards are not considered gaming cards by anyone who plays alot
of current games. They are fine for Tetris ,2D, and games more than three or
four years old.

"Tod" <no_spam_me@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:yKGdnYSuuMcQRkPfRVn-3A@comcast.com...
>
> "Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMgomez404.elitemail.org> wrote in message
> news:dblvaj$csn$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> >
> > "Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:e8jDe.1667$6f.760@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >> what's a good "bang for
> >> the buck" gaming video card for PC? I don't have to have the latest
> >> greatest, it can be an older card, just something that supports 3D
> >> graphics and that I'm likely to find for a bargain on eBay. Under $100
> >> ideally, under $50 would be even better.
> >>
> >> The
> >> particular games I'm fooling with are Novalogic F-16/F-22/MiG combat
> >> plane games. The onboard video works but doesn't support 3-D. I'm
> >> running a Compaq PIII 933mhz w/WinXP home.
> >>
> >> Thanks for all shared wisdom.
> >>
> >
> >
> > If you are a gamer, stop cross-posting to the matrox group. We are all
> > power-user hardcore professionals here. We don't play games and have
> > other priorities for our graphics cards other than 3D frame rates.
> >
> > ss.
> Then why does Matrox sell their cards with stickers on them that talks
about
> what
> great game gaming cards they make?
> Remember the Matrox Mystique, it shipped with two game demos.
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

dawg <don't look@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Matrox video cards are not considered gaming cards by anyone who
> plays alot of current games.

I play a lot of games, and I consider the Parhelia a very fine gaming
card -- especially the games that can take advantage of three monitors
(of which there are several dozen). Having multiple PCs and cards from
both nVidia, ATI and Matrox, I think I'm qualified to voice my opinion.
🙂

I'd say "Matrox video cards are not considered gaming cards by people
who don't own one and want to justify *their* purchase".

> They are fine for Tetris ,2D, and games
> more than three or four years old.

Make that "one or two years old", and even then it's not entirely
true -- many newer games specifically list the Parhelia as supported
(although you won't get DX9 features if the games support that).
Flight Simulator 2004, for example, runs quite well on three monitors
with a Parhelia, and so do many other newer games. Of single-monitor
games, well GTA San Andreas works well, and Half-Life 2 too.
Some games I run on my nVidia 6800GT, which is _much_ faster and
supports advanced pixel shaders, while others run better on the Parhelia
with triple monitors and/or 16xFAA. If a game /requires/ pixel shaders
1.4 or higher, they won't run on a Parhelia (nor on a GF4 card, for that
matter).

No, you won't get top frame rates on a Matrox Parhelia compared to newer
cards (it's comparable to a GeForce Ti 4400 in speed -- slower for
low-res/noAA, and faster for high-res/full AA), and it doesn't support
DX9-only features. The Parhelia is still very much a gamer's card, for
games where 3 monitors is a distinct advantage compared to frame rates,
or where you combine gaming with multi-monitor work. Is it worth the
high price? Probably not, unless you also use it for video work or
Photoshop, where it definitely is a good card for the price.

Regards,
--
*Art
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 23:05:50 -0400, "Arthur Hagen"
<art@broomstick.com> wrote:


>>> A movie is 24fps for comparision).
>>
>> As comparison to a game it is useless data.
>
>That depends on the game. Not all games are action games where fast
>reflexes makes a difference.
>
>It also depends on the monitor -- if your LCD monitor can't update
>faster than 25fps (like a 40ms LCD display) or even 62fps (16ms
>display), it makes no difference whatsoever whether FRAPS reports 75 or
>200 fps. Except that by generating all the unneccessary graphics that
>is discarded, you steal resources that the game could use for other
>things, like AI or pathfinding.
>
>Regards,

Stop waffling. Just because 24fps appears smooth to you in a movie
doesn't mean it will in a game too. In fact it doesn't.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

Fisher <fisher@no_email.here> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 23:05:50 -0400, "Arthur Hagen"
> <art@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> A movie is 24fps for comparision).
>>>
>>> As comparison to a game it is useless data.
>>
>> That depends on the game. Not all games are action games where fast
>> reflexes makes a difference.
>>
>> It also depends on the monitor -- if your LCD monitor can't update
>> faster than 25fps (like a 40ms LCD display) or even 62fps (16ms
>> display), it makes no difference whatsoever whether FRAPS reports 75
>> or 200 fps. Except that by generating all the unneccessary graphics
>> that is discarded, you steal resources that the game could use for
>> other things, like AI or pathfinding.
>
> Stop waffling. Just because 24fps appears smooth to you in a movie
> doesn't mean it will in a game too. In fact it doesn't.

Start looking at what I write and not what you THINK I write.

--
*Art
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> If you are a gamer, stop cross-posting to the matrox group. We are all
> power-user hardcore professionals here. We don't play games and have
> other priorities for our graphics cards other than 3D frame rates.

Ahaha! Great spin man. Karl Rove would be proud.

rms
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:12:00 GMT, Fisher <fisher@no_email.here> wrote:

> Stop waffling. Just because 24fps appears smooth to you in a movie
> doesn't mean it will in a game too. In fact it doesn't.

In cinema they use 3 x 24 = 72 Hz flicker frequency.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:52:37 +0200, Ken <_ken_3_@telia.com> wrote:


>In cinema they use 3 x 24 = 72 Hz flicker frequency.

We are not discussing "flicker fusion frequency" we are discussing
"frames per second". In a 3D game it is desirable to achieve at least
approximately 50-60fps and to never drop below 30fps during heavy
action at any time if you want smooth game play.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.video (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:44:59 GMT, Fisher <fisher@no_email.here> wrote:

> >In cinema they use 3 x 24 = 72 Hz flicker frequency.
>
> We are not discussing "flicker fusion frequency" we are discussing
> "frames per second". In a 3D game it is desirable to achieve at least
> approximately 50-60fps and to never drop below 30fps during heavy
> action at any time if you want smooth game play.

I discuss flicker frequency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom