Author Topic: Better FPS  (Read 4211 times)

Marawanakid

  • PGP
  • Posts: 11
Better FPS
« on: June 29, 2011, 06:30:26 PM »
why cant servers have 4000fps+, i want better fps+ servers :D

ViciouZ

  • Map Committee
  • Autococker
  • Posts: 2227
Re: Better FPS
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2011, 06:36:57 AM »
Because 10fps is hardcoded and is a real female dog to change :)

KiLo

  • Autococker
  • Posts: 2086
Re: Better FPS
« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2011, 09:19:18 AM »
lawl 4,000 fps   I don't think any game gets that high. And in this game I can do about 1,000 on certain maps in the right areas. So you probably need to get better excrement.

f3l1x

  • Committee Member
  • VM-68
  • Posts: 213
Re: Better FPS
« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2011, 05:29:31 PM »
I have about 1000fps on 80% maps. It's depend on your graphic card.

PGPSandman

  • Stingray
  • Posts: 70
Re: Better FPS
« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2011, 10:51:48 PM »
Better graphics card as well as AMD which is better at handling graphics over Intel (Which is all I care for so I only use AMD ... Intel is better for word processing)
I am on a borrowed PC as mines down for some odd reason and I am using Intel with NVidea crap and crappy gameplay for now. go with AMD and ATI for gaming.

webhead

  • Committee Member
  • Autococker
  • Posts: 1185
Re: Better FPS
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2011, 02:25:10 PM »
Intel+nVidia is no worse than AMD+ATI (which is really AMD+AMD anymore). With something as simple as word-processing, I would challenge you to notice ANY difference between an AMD and an Intel CPU. Word processing does not tax a CPU in the least.
I was an AMD+ATI fan for a long while because I always felt like they were cheaper, although nowdays they're pretty even. My current desktop and laptop have nVidia cards, and both work well -- no complaints.
Also, as much of an AMD fan as I am, not even I can deny that Intel owns the high-performance end of the CPU spectrum. Their Core architecture is top-of-the-line, and their i-series chips (i3/i5/i7) are the cream of the crop.

As far as gaming, if you look up some gaming benchmarks, it all depends on the type of game being tested. Some run better on AMD CPUs, and others run better on Intels.

KiLo

  • Autococker
  • Posts: 2086
Re: Better FPS
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2011, 10:15:04 PM »
Better graphics card as well as AMD which is better at handling graphics over Intel (Which is all I care for so I only use AMD ... Intel is better for word processing)
I am on a borrowed PC as mines down for some odd reason and I am using Intel with NVidea crap and crappy gameplay for now. go with AMD and ATI for gaming.

Wow are you on crack?! Nvidia blows AMD out of the water every day of the week. The main problem with AMD is you always run into driver issues and other sorts of conflicts.

zimtstern

  • Committee Member
  • Autococker
  • Posts: 1356
Re: Better FPS
« Reply #7 on: July 02, 2011, 07:05:46 AM »
Better graphics card as well as AMD which is better at handling graphics over Intel (Which is all I care for so I only use AMD ... Intel is better for word processing)
I am on a borrowed PC as mines down for some odd reason and I am using Intel with NVidea crap and crappy gameplay for now. go with AMD and ATI for gaming.

amd and ati LolOlo3l0L=P=O

webhead

  • Committee Member
  • Autococker
  • Posts: 1185
Re: Better FPS
« Reply #8 on: July 02, 2011, 03:20:56 PM »
not to mention that nvidia has better linux support :) (i think)

flip

  • Committee Member
  • Autococker
  • Posts: 1388
Re: Better FPS
« Reply #9 on: July 02, 2011, 07:11:40 PM »
AMD is cheaper. If you use a very nice AMD processor it will cost you about half of what an Intel would. I doubt most of you would even see a difference in the games you play. The Intel i chips are the best to be used when multi tasking or simply running high end graphics software. In the video game world a simple AMD tri or quad core will handle everything you play. If it doesn't then you are probably lacking in the video card or memory department.

I run an overclocked tricore and it can run stable into 3.7 on liquid. That and 8gbs of 1600 mhz dominator coupled with 2 ati 1gb ddr5 graphics cards work just fine for anything I will ever use. Sure beats my old Atari computer from when I was a kid.

webhead

  • Committee Member
  • Autococker
  • Posts: 1185
Re: Better FPS
« Reply #10 on: July 03, 2011, 03:59:59 PM »
AMD is cheaper. If you use a very nice AMD processor it will cost you about half of what an Intel would.
That's what I always thought, but not too long ago I discovered that for my AMD Athlon II X2 240, an equivalent-performance Intel chip would be in the "Pentium Dual-Core" classification, which I'd always thought was just cheap crap, performance-wise -- but they're similar in performance and price.

However, that of course doesn't take overclock-ability into account. I've got that AMD running at 3.5 stable on air. No idea how the Intel would do.

flip

  • Committee Member
  • Autococker
  • Posts: 1388
Re: Better FPS
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2011, 06:46:03 AM »
The neat thing about AMD is most, if not all, of their current chips are built on their quad core technology. This allows you to buy a dual or tri core and actually unlock the other cores. This is a hit and miss sometimes though so you either need to know what you are doing or pray.