what kind of crappy card do you have that can only run ut at 800x600? who buys a 21" for such crappy resolutions?

my gf3 ti200 gets 80fps @ 1600x1200 (ok so I overclocked it to 220/500 but still)

it's not that he can only run in 800x600 dumbass, it's that he chooses to. I do the same for counter-strike though my comp can get 100 fps at any resolution

Anyoned ever tried Multires? This generic fix works forever for me. With any driver or any video card (don't forget to set it to lock refresh rate)
http://www.entechtaiwan.com (it's a freeware) Also it lets you choose lots of resolutions, which sometimes might not be present in the display properties (e.g. 640x480 is not in Windows XP, even though t drivers do support it)

Good luck

then that's even stupider...yay for worse graphics!!

LOL @ my monitors better than yours blah blah blah i run 800x600 blah blah blah........

My penis is bigger than your's bla bla bla... these threads always end up in such shite form... :x

YEP.....

although I still think that running at low resolutions on large monitors is sacriligious, refresh force works well...it's what I use to keep myself @85Hz at 1600x1200 :-p

was using 30.41's and bench at 11600 installed 40.52's and benched 12350
I tried 40.41's and they bench higher @ 12880 but a couple games are very fractal with the 40.41's.
So far all good with 40.52's!

i would like to know this also.

heres mine:

8010 3dmarkse


rig:

xp1800-1668@145 fsb
elsa 920=210/510
pc2400 corsair


note=this once again proves that if you have g3 or g3ti500 it is not worth upgrading...esp[ecially to the g4-which is just a oced g3-..only reason to go for g4 is if your building"new" gaming syatem or cant afford the ati 9700....


out.

no! no no no! you're a dumbass if you really think that
the gf4 is NOT an oc'ed gf3...it is significantly better and has many architectural improvements. Your ti500 can't even hold a candle to the 4200, not even counting the improvements in AA/AF and the significantly better DX8 feature performance (Pixel/vertex shaders)

but of course none of this matters because the 9700 obliterates them all

dude your a dumbas for giving in to the hype...im an consumer who will spend more money for something if it is worth it and im telling you trik that it is not worth it to upgrade from g3(basic)or a ti500....i had a leadtek 4400 and i couldnt even run q34 with 2xaa on in 1600x1200 with latest drivers and blah,blah so eat that $hit your trying to shovel biatch!!


to me what is the sense in more fps when after 60-80- smooth it doesnt matter anymore get real you pos.....the real reason to upgrade would be for aa/af like you mentioned which the ti4 series does not do well-known fact at 1600x1200-...why do i need such a high resolution you say my dik suking trik??


Well if you dont know why then STFU!!


my g3 has served me well and i wont upgrade till the 9700-this week or next-i had the g4 and to tell you the truth there not worth buying now if you want the fastest and "best" looking...i want 1600x1200 with 4x or better aa and as high as i can go af you df!!

lol your and nvidiot duma$$


out.

thats funny. why do all my games run very well without much performance losses with 4x AA with my ti4600?
youre right about AF, but AA is quite nice. youre the one talking shit here.
if your card was that slow AT Q3A you should consider your config-abilities a bit more realistic or get a faster CPU or maybe take a 128MB nvidia card... god what an idiot you are... german?

now you wanna get out the race card what a redneck....


dude you dont have it at 1600x1200 with 4x on and no serious performance hit...that is bs and your are DF......you know as well as i if you go at that res and 4x your slowing down to 20 fps with 8 bots at the same time.....sure i could go 1024x768 -4x-but that is for rookie ass triks like you.....

ps-eat a bowl of dicks up trailer trash......

out.