On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:06:50 GMT, "Paul Quin" wrote:

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... :-)

Not really.... In modern games (2003 and newer) there is a lot more
graphic detail.... playing CS or Quake 3 is a no brainer for a GF2mx /
440mx or an ATi 9200. Those are DX6 games or older OpenGL.

Play a game like UT2003 at full detail... it looks nice... but you
need horse power to see it. getting an avg of 50fps is what I would
require minimal requiremetns... newer games will knock it down more
so.

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).

True... Quake3 is very old.


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...

Yep... kinda... but not much concern with that.. with todays good
CPUs, plenty of power to work with.

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

Death to Palladium & WPA!!