Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: milo_morai who wrote (56725)	9/30/2001 11:02:17 AM
From: Robert Salasidis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

If you are getting 35 fps, then that is better than what you see on TV or in the theatre. The higher power does let you get higher refresh rates at higher resolutions, but the original comment was stating that 150 vs 175 fps is irrelevant - which is true. Your point is that say 35 vs 15 fps at a much higher resolution then clearly required more CPU power. Different arguments, both right.

To: milo_morai who wrote (56725)	9/30/2001 12:03:14 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Milo, Re: "So don't put words into Gamers Mouths please." You can speak for yourself, but I play a number of games with my Pentium III 800MHz, and I never find frame rates to fall to an unacceptable number. Then again, I'm sure a number of the newest games can bring my system to its knees, being that I am still running off my old Voodoo3 card. But we were talking about Quake III benchmarks, and I still think comparing the highest end systems at over 150fps is not representative of the real world user experience. But that doesn't mean that I don't find the benchmark meaningful in other ways. wanna_bmw