K
Kevin C.
This makes me wonder if the reviewers at Tom's are really a bunch of
fire-panted liars.
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-05.html
In the first test, they claim to run UT2004 at max detail, 1024x768x32, no
AA/AF and post a score of 116 fps for the 9800 Pro, on the map
AS-FallenCity. I got nowhere near this score. My average while walking
around the map was something in the 45 fps range. When I asked the reviewer
if he could supply the demo he was using, I never got a response. The way I
see it, they must have been using a flyby demo that basically stared at a
single wall the whole time. But even when I do that, I only get like 70 fps.
How they got anything close to 116 is beyond me.
I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit that I purchased a 9800 Pro thinking that
100+ fps would be the norm in UT2004. Is that supposed to be the case? Is it
just my system or do you guys actually get numbers like that? Perhaps I am
CPU-limited by my XP3200+ (the test was done with a P4 3.2ghz), though I
don't think it should make THAT much of a difference? Or perhaps because
they were using 1gig of RAM while I am using 512, though my usage doesn't
exceed 430MB? I dunno, you tell me if I'm crazy or what.
Naturally, I am using all the latest drivers/software etc.
fire-panted liars.
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-05.html
In the first test, they claim to run UT2004 at max detail, 1024x768x32, no
AA/AF and post a score of 116 fps for the 9800 Pro, on the map
AS-FallenCity. I got nowhere near this score. My average while walking
around the map was something in the 45 fps range. When I asked the reviewer
if he could supply the demo he was using, I never got a response. The way I
see it, they must have been using a flyby demo that basically stared at a
single wall the whole time. But even when I do that, I only get like 70 fps.
How they got anything close to 116 is beyond me.
I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit that I purchased a 9800 Pro thinking that
100+ fps would be the norm in UT2004. Is that supposed to be the case? Is it
just my system or do you guys actually get numbers like that? Perhaps I am
CPU-limited by my XP3200+ (the test was done with a P4 3.2ghz), though I
don't think it should make THAT much of a difference? Or perhaps because
they were using 1gig of RAM while I am using 512, though my usage doesn't
exceed 430MB? I dunno, you tell me if I'm crazy or what.
Naturally, I am using all the latest drivers/software etc.