The Socket 939 Appreciation Club and Knowledgebase [Official] - Page 1234 - Overclock.net

Tator Tot · 02-09-09

I can play CSS at 16x12 with 30FPS just fine.
Doesn't look bad to me.

The human eye does not see past 30FPS.

Maybe something to consider for more stable FPS is Vsync, I turn that on in every game. Makes them play so smooth. Especially source games.

blitz6804 · 02-09-09

The AVERAGE human eye does not see beyond 30 FPS. Some of us see an annoying flicker effect when watching a PAL TV. (50 Hz Interlaced; 25 effective FPS.)

pioneerisloud · 02-09-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tator Tot

I can play CSS at 16x12 with 30FPS just fine.
Doesn't look bad to me.

The human eye does not see past 30FPS.

Maybe something to consider for more stable FPS is Vsync, I turn that on in every game. Makes them play so smooth. Especially source games.

Ok, I agree that the human eye cannot see past a certain framerate. However I don't think its 30. I think it closer to 60, with exceptions to the rule.

However, with the above being said.....
Even with the limitations of our hardware (IE Monitors and a 60Hz refresh rate), and the "eye theory", CSS is STILL more smooth with a higher framerate. I can tell a difference between 120-150 FPS in CSS. Even though my monitor can't actually do it, and even though my eyes can't see it...the difference IS there.

N2Gaming · 02-09-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tator Tot

/

Is their that much difference between his x2 3800+ and my x2 4000+ if both are at the same speed?

I mean the only real difference I can see is that my RAM is faster. But he has twice as much as I do.

Does the x2 4000+ have more cpu cache then the x2 3800+??? Maybe that could be a slight advantage at the same clock speed.

pioneerisloud · 02-09-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by N2Gaming

Does the x2 4000+ have more cpu cache then the x2 3800+??? Maybe that could be a slight advantage at the same clock speed.

Not in CSS

. Like Pez said, I ran with him this morning at identical clocks, and we were within 1-2 FPS apart, and I was watching somebody else by mistake (I was spectating, he was playing). Cache makes very little to no difference in CSS...its all about clock speed, and that's it.

blitz6804 · 02-09-09

No. A Brisbane has the same amount of cache as a Manchester. (A Windsor matches a Toledo/Denmark.) It could be a difference of RAM bandwidth though. Unlikely since DDR2-800 in a Brisbane gets about the same as DDR-500 in a Toledo, but possible.

Hueristic · 02-09-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by N2Gaming

Hey Pio, I see you have server 2003 in the sig rig. Do you know what if any the difference is from xp x64.

XP server 2003 IIRC is the first iteration of vista without the eye candy and is still considered the best of either xp or vista.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackOmega

Ok heres some results @ 2.904, she was getting too hot @ 3.0 for my liking so I dialed it back so I can run at stock voltage.
Anyway, here they are. This is all @ 1680x1050.
Counterstrike source: Max settings, 208.49FPS(71fps improvement)
Crysis (16xQAA/AF): 26.27 (no improvement)
3Dmark06-10554 (+1353)
3Dmark03-35328 (+16831)

Well, Im not sure what to think anymore. Why is Joe score teh same as mine yet he has half the ram and was @ a lower clock speed?

I dont think my card is running up to snuff. Do you guys think I'm bottlenecking?
At anyrate, when I get back from school Im going to slap the 9600 in and run the tests again then we'll have a good comparison.

Dude, Not to be a grammar Nazi but can you stop the "teh" stuff? It confuses me when reading posts. My brain is foggy with the chronic pain and meds. I know it seems trite but I have to keep going back to read your posts multiple times. It's my problem but if you could stop it would help me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pioneerisloud

Okay, a local buddy of mine (PR1M3R) has acquired some DICE equipment. He wants to get some AMD records. Should I allow him to use my Opteron 165 + Corsair XMS that hits DDR550 + Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe?

I know this chip can PROBABLY hold records. I mean c'mon, I can get to near 3.3GHz on air with it. But is it worth the risk? What do you guys think?

Read my sig!

Quote:

Originally Posted by blitz6804

pioneerisloud: As long as you trust your friend not to kill it, go for it! Maybe see if you can get him to sign a guarantee; if he breaks it, he owes you $400 for it. (The approximate fair market value of a 939 capable of doing 3.3 GHz.)

Or if he will give you a comparable am3 board/chip.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pez

So as more proof, pio helped me out last night in determining under vista and win 7 that CS:S is very very CPU based. He clocked his opty down to 2.5GHz and we were both recieving similar minimums (just like the test w/ Desert). W/ his opty at 2.7, it was much better

. OPty 170 here I come.

:appl aud:
Let us know what you find before buying. There are a few people here with these that can help you get the best bang for your buck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tator Tot

I can play CSS at 16x12 with 30FPS just fine.
Doesn't look bad to me.

The human eye does not see past 30FPS.

Maybe something to consider for more stable FPS is Vsync, I turn that on in every game. Makes them play so smooth. Especially source games.

**thlnk3r** · 02-09-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackOmega

Ok heres some results @ 2.904, she was getting too hot @ 3.0 for my liking so I dialed it back so I can run at stock voltage.
Anyway, here they are. This is all @ 1680x1050.
Counterstrike source: Max settings, 208.49FPS(71fps improvement)
Crysis (16xQAA/AF): 26.27 (no improvement)
3Dmark06-10554 (+1353)
3Dmark03-35328 (+16831)

Well, Im not sure what to think anymore. Why is Joe score teh same as mine yet he has half the ram and was @ a lower clock speed?

I dont think my card is running up to snuff. Do you guys think I'm bottlenecking?
At anyrate, when I get back from school Im going to slap the 9600 in and run the tests again then we'll have a good comparison.

BlackOmega, I think your rig is running fine. Those are some great results from CSS. There could be some bottlenecking occurring. Like I said before these cards are just to fast for our rigs. You'd probably see some what of a difference with a Phenom II/Core i7 set up but is it really worth it? Probably not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tator Tot

The human eye does not see past 30FPS.

Tator, this is a common misconception. Some will disagree and some will agree. Everyone's eyes are different so to say the human eyes can't see past 30fps may not be accurate

Quote:

Originally Posted by blitz6804

No. A Brisbane has the same amount of cache as a Manchester.

Blitz, don't forget about the 3600+ X2 with 256K cache (Manchester).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hueristic

XP server 2003 IIRC is the first iteration of vista without the eye candy and is still considered the best of either xp or vista.

Hueristic, are you referring to the Windows 2003 Server (win2k3) OS? That is a completely different from Vista. It came out April of 03 so I don't think it has anything to do with Vista. Perhaps I'm just confused by your post?

N2Gaming · 02-09-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by thlnk3r

Hueristic, are you referring to the Windows 2003 Server (win2k3) OS? That is a completely different from Vista. It came out April of 03 so I don't think it has anything to do with Vista. Perhaps I'm just confused by your post?

Hueristic, were you meaning server 2008?

I was under the impression that xp x64 and server 2003 were the same engine and that is why the updates from microsoft use the same update for the service packs.

Now I'm really confused.

On a lighter note. I got my ICU system running smooth as butter with only one camera. turns out there is a option to disable the other ports so that when I'm running only 1 camera I don't have to split the fps from 60 to 15.

Now 15 fps is for the birds and 60 fps is FTW.

Hueristic · 02-09-09

Quote:

Hueristic, are you referring to the Windows 2003 Server (win2k3) OS? That is a completely different from Vista. It came out April of 03 so I don't think it has anything to do with Vista. Perhaps I'm just confused by your post?

My mind is fuzzy right now so I may be off base here. On a side not I just went to microsoft.com and I get

Code:

Address Not Found

Firefox can't find the server at www.microsoft.com.
      

The browser could not find the host server for the provided address.

    * Did you make a mistake when typing the domain? (e.g. "ww.mozilla.org" instead of "www.mozilla.org")
    * Are you certain this domain address exists?  Its registration may have expired.
    * Are you unable to browse other sites?  Check your network connection and DNS server settings.
    * Is your computer or network protected by a firewall or proxy?  Incorrect settings can interfere with Web browsing.

!!!!! I've never seen this before! LOl think they went out of business?

Is it just me? I can't get to grisoft.com either?? wierd

Code:

C:Documents and SettingsLicheLord>ping microsoft.com -a
Ping request could not find host microsoft.com. Please check the name and try ag
ain.

OK after thinking about this (server 2003/vista) IIRC I had a RC2 that had the NT 6.0 Kernal (I>E> Vista) I'll look around for it later. Right now I'm trying to figure out what is wrong with my DNS.
Does anyone else have a problem getting to microshaft? Post the direct IP please I can't even tracert it.

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > AMD > AMD - General
The Socket 939 Appreciation Club and Knowledgebase [Official]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)