Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New UT2003 at Anandtech

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    mmmm... very interesting... we all play at 100+ fps even though our monitors normally handle 85hz...

    Why didn't he use 1024x768 with some anti aliasing ? Cause in these test's he's get something like 60fps and the nvidia gf4 would have looked much less impressive ?

    IMHO, once you put a faster CPU it's usually in order to pump up the resolution and details.

    Why don't we e-mail him asking to do those benchmarks with Quake 2 and use software rendering to test the cards ?

    Comment


    • #17
      85hz? who the **** runs 85 hz nowadays? 120 all the way! both monitors!
      Im saving for my 3rd and my parhelia 256mb UT2k3 at 800*600*32*3 everything full and 120 hz

      note the new standard resolution description of four numbers instead of three: width:height:bpp:monitors
      Last edited by Kruzin; 11 July 2002, 09:34.
      Main Machine: Intel Q6600@3.33, Abit IP-35 E, 4 x Geil 2048MB PC2-6400-CL4, Asus Geforce 8800GTS 512MB@700/2100, 150GB WD Raptor, Highpoint RR2640, 3x Seagate LP 1.5TB (RAID5), NEC-3500 DVD+/-R(W), Antec SLK3700BQE case, BeQuiet! DarkPower Pro 530W

      Comment


      • #18
        <B>I</B> run 85Hz. Once you've got a refresh rate fast enough that your eyes don't tire, anything over that just reduced the life of your monitor.
        Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.

        Comment


        • #19
          I run 80Hz. Because at 1600x1200 my old Iiyama doesn't do more
          no matrox, no matroxusers.

          Comment


          • #20
            watch your language knirfie, this is a 'family' forum
            Core2 Duo E7500 2.93, Asus P5Q Pro Turbo, 4gig 1066 DDR2, 1gig Asus ENGTS250, SB X-Fi Gamer ,WD Caviar Black 1tb, Plextor PX-880SA, Dual Samsung 2494s

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by knirfie
              85hz? who the **** runs 85 hz nowadays? 120 all the way! both monitors!
              Im saving for my 3rd and my parhelia 256mb UT2k3 at 800*600*32*3 everything full and 120 hz

              note the new standard resolution description of four numbers instead of three: width:height:bpp:monitors
              Since I had to save somewhere, I could only afford a 17" monitor which makes max. 1280x1024 at 60Hz, I am using 1024x768 at 85Hz, and even that is over the recommend specs of that crappy monitor!
              Specs:
              MSI 745 Ultra :: AMD Athlon XP 2000+ :: 1024 MB PC-266 DDR-RAM :: HIS Radeon 9700 (Catalyst 3.1) :: Creative Soundblaster Live! 1024 :: Pioneer DVD-106S :: Western Digital WD800BB :: IBM IC35L040AVVN07

              Comment


              • #22
                I usually use 85Hz, say 95% of the time - but if I'm working for an exceptionally long period I pump it up to 90Hz (UXGA32).

                Knirfie: Who the murc uses 800x600? 1600x1200 all the way baby.

                And I prefer 2 x 1600x1200x32 for the resolution part, as 2 is the 1337357 part of the spec

                P.
                Meet Jasmine.
                flickr.com/photos/pace3000

                Comment


                • #23
                  hey I cant help it if both my monitors run 1024 at 120 hz, I just wish I had a parhelia
                  Main Machine: Intel Q6600@3.33, Abit IP-35 E, 4 x Geil 2048MB PC2-6400-CL4, Asus Geforce 8800GTS 512MB@700/2100, 150GB WD Raptor, Highpoint RR2640, 3x Seagate LP 1.5TB (RAID5), NEC-3500 DVD+/-R(W), Antec SLK3700BQE case, BeQuiet! DarkPower Pro 530W

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Not noticed any difference above 85Hz ... so it's 1280*1024 @ 85Hz for me
                    Cheers, Reckless

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X