MSI X800SE

Ok, so what are the three most relevant quality settings??? How do you determine them? Do you run exactly the same resolutions and quality settings on each and every video card?

By playable settings, I'm determining what I consider to be a smooth frame rate - I'm a hardcore death matcher (well, I used to play CS quite seriously for a fairly good clan, along with playing a lot of Quake and Quake 2), so smooth frame rate is quite important to me. In fact, I actually play CS 1.6 at 800x600, because that's the optimum resolution in that title for me - it's probably a psychological thing, but I get more kills at that resolution than I do at any other res.

Tbh, I think that finding my "subjective" best-playable settings is taking each card on its merits and finding what it is capable of, rather than just totally dismissing a low-end card because it can't run 1600x1200 with 4xAA.

 

I know what'ya mean, I've got an FX5200 until the 6800le arrives, and I can run COD on pretty much full, 1024x768, all with a small heatsink, no fan. And yet still it's been looked down on as a crap card, just because it can't do Doom3 at 1280 etc. But it cost me under £50, does the job, and is pure silence

<A88>

 

I was just trying to meet you half way. If you cant run every single possibility, you can at least eliminate a couple of resolutions for being either too fast or too slow. I'm saying there needs to be a compromise between showing every possiblility and just showing the results of the settings that suit the reviewer.

Not everyone wants the highest framerate, some prefer lower FPS and all the eye-candy turned on, but they cant tell from that review if its even possible with that card.

 

I'm not looking for a high frame rate! I'm looking for a smooth gaming experience... which is what I've found in all cases. If you want to increase settings beyond what I've used, you will find that the gaming experience will not be a smooth one, sure you can do it, if you want to lag. It will also depend on the rest of the system, I've tried to use a CPU that is relatively well-matched to the graphics card, what is the point of using an FX-55 at stock with a £200 graphics card?

I'm running around 20-30 manual run throughs for each title to find the smoothest settings, I have preferences, much like everyone else does... what if the "three" settings that you talk about are not to someone's preference? The only way to please every single person is for me to sit down and run every single setting from 640x480 to 1600x1200 on every card to give you an exact idea of how a product runs? I can do that, but I'm sure you would get as bored reading it as I would writing it...

 

useful information = highest playable quality setting full stop.

Everyone understands that if you run lower settings, you get higher fps. Knowing the highest playable quality settings is the only way to establish a frame of context.

 

Amen to that.

I don't think there's a huge range of different opinions on what constitutes "playable" out there, I know that when I say it people tend to know what I mean...

 

hey, lets agree to disagree. If most of the readers like it then who am I to say its the wrong way of doing it. At least there are sites that are still doing it the way I like, even if its not my 2 favourite ones.

Now lets see, which sites haven't jumped on the subjective bandwagon...

... Tom's hardware!!!

oh crap

 

gaming is a very subjective topic... I could run every setting and my conclusions are still going to be subjective. After all, I would expect people to trust my judgement due to the fact that I have had my hands on, and tested just about every single SKU at some point along the line.

 

meh, i'm more of the person who preferms high frame rates and good graphics. i never really notice the minor details unless it's standing out in the open or it's a slow paced game.

simple fact is, if you don't like the way the review is done,t hen don't read it. bigz puts out some of the best graphic card reviews (and no, i'm not sucking up). why don't you write us a review and we'll criticize it.

 

Ah, but the graph never lies. Im not talking about conclusions, as they are simply a subjective summary of the preceeding facts.
And I dont doubt your knowledge of graphics cards, you know an awful lot more than I do.

anyway, enough discussion, i have to get back to work

 

Illness (Sort of Off topic ......) butGFX related

All this framerate talk is rather interesting to me.

I one of those *special* people that have for ages been trying to decide if its the framerate issue that makes me motion sick in FPS type games.

Its weird but MMoRPG {and I've played a few and enjoyed them } don't get me like this. I lasted 5 mins in Quake3 and not even the intro into half-life. To be honest I have found the *better* the framerate the *worse* I get (or quicker I become ill!)

Has anyone else suffered the same and managed to find a cure (other than by the kill or cure method!)

 

sort out your spelling please bit-tech

 

Gotta love spellcheckers...

Corrected.