ricanflow
Golden Master
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Euless, Tx
yeah, and when I was running 1440x900 which is less than 1280x1024 I was using around 340mb with the same settings.
Then why do i get more fps in 1280x1024 than 1440x900?
yeah, and when I was running 1440x900 which is less than 1280x1024 I was using around 340mb with the same settings.
I don't.Then why do i get more fps in 1280x1024 than 1440x900?
Then why do i get more fps in 1280x1024 than 1440x900?
you have to understand that this ranking is not a bible. It's a general guideline that should be LOOSLEY. You are a bit biased with owning an 8800GT 256 and thats reasonable however most people play at 1280x1024 and above these days which makes anything above that much more common than any resolution lower. Sure a lot of the cards at 1280x1024 are different rankings than what is posted however once again once they go above and beyond the ones with more memory start to pull ahead a bit, so therefore these ranking appeal more to the people who look at them becuase there is a much more likely chance anymore for someone to have a higher resolution than the standard 1280x1024 than the outdated 1026x768 or so. Does that make sense? You should ALWAYS check benchmarks and ask questions to really figure out which car is right for you and your system and thats what I'm going to have to have added so people understand this.
9,906 | TheRascalKing614 | X2 6000+ @ 3.014GHz | 8800GTS 640 SSC | XP Pro | Futuremark - ORB - Result Analyzer
Well yes at only 1280x1024 the lower memory doesn't hurt it...but try it at 1680x1080 or 1900x1200 and see the difference on the newest games. You have to also understand 3Dmark06 is old...almost 2 years old now and those games don't nearly use as much memory as the newer games such as Crysis and CoD4
no offense but those screenshots you posted look pretty bad. ugly textures and tons of jaggy lines. I can't play a game like that really