Thanks Guys,

Right now, my clunker of a Celeron is able to draw frames just as fast as my
monitor will display them (for the games that I play{not a hard core gamer
yet...}). I don't want to spend a bunch of money to draw polygons that I
will never see. But I do have that option when I need it... :-)

If you're hitting 300 fps, then you're never seeing 3 out of 4 frames that
your video card is drawing (assuming a monitor refresh rate of 75 - 100 Hz).

If your games allow it, cap the maximum fps so that it equals your monitor
refresh rate and free up your processor to spend time on AI etc...

pgq



"Darthy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 02:38:26 GMT, "Paul Quin" wrote:



GET THAT CELERON OUT OF THAT SYSTEM!

YOU FOOL! Do know that the celeron kills ALL possible performance of
any
system!

LOL, yes, good advices, I will upgrade to a P4 when finances allow. Does
an
extra 384 Kb of cash really make that much difference??

Its a lot more than that.... The design of the P4 requires as much
cache as possible for speed, same for hi speed memory.

But no-ones answered my question about just what in 3DMark2001 SE test #2
is
so tough on my system?

Because your system is slow... Test 2 is an easy one... I get an AVG
of 300fps on LOW detail and 160fps in High Detail... even with my old
GF3 on my P3, it was easy... Its Nature (Test 4) thats rough on
graphics card. I avg about 120fps on that test.

But I'm on an ATI9800Pro. Nothing is overclocked and I'm downloading
stuff in the background.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!