OP
OP
roweder
In Runtime
- Messages
- 170
- Location
- Pennsylvania
Ok I just tried it with call of duty 4, and I discovered that this computer is friggin amazing!
In call of duty 4 everything is adjustable, max fps, max packets, fov, etc... everything. I set max packets to 100, max fps to 250, and fov doesn't matter but I set it to 80. I also had the screen refresh rate set to 120. It played so smoothly it was amazing, like a dream. My FPS was well over 200 the entire time, so much so that I thought, what might happen if I set the max FPS to 500? So I tried it and FPS stayed around 300, but for a few seconds it went all the way up to 500! Then I set it to 150 figuring that if my monitor refreshes 120 times per second I don't need more than 120fps, but I know that if I set it to 120fps then it will typically be lower than 120fps.
So, I'm thinking that Modern Warfare 2 is probably just programmed poorly. The other two computers that I've played both of these games on both had more trouble playing COD4 than modern warfare 2 because COD4 is a bit more taxing on computer hardware.
In call of duty 4 everything is adjustable, max fps, max packets, fov, etc... everything. I set max packets to 100, max fps to 250, and fov doesn't matter but I set it to 80. I also had the screen refresh rate set to 120. It played so smoothly it was amazing, like a dream. My FPS was well over 200 the entire time, so much so that I thought, what might happen if I set the max FPS to 500? So I tried it and FPS stayed around 300, but for a few seconds it went all the way up to 500! Then I set it to 150 figuring that if my monitor refreshes 120 times per second I don't need more than 120fps, but I know that if I set it to 120fps then it will typically be lower than 120fps.
So, I'm thinking that Modern Warfare 2 is probably just programmed poorly. The other two computers that I've played both of these games on both had more trouble playing COD4 than modern warfare 2 because COD4 is a bit more taxing on computer hardware.
