Jump to content
|Topic||Stats||Last action by|
|Spec check? (£800)||
|Father bites off infant sons nose||
|What a waste of money||
|Couple kicked out of McDonald's, for over-staying||
|Cheap nVidia graphics card that is a worthwhile upgrade?||
Posted 24 October 2006 - 01:19
Posted 24 October 2006 - 02:06
Edited by Trong, 24 October 2006 - 02:20.
Posted 24 October 2006 - 02:46
Posted 24 October 2006 - 03:00
It tells you which cards are better than others (most of the time)? It's just benchmarking man. //Posted 5 minutes ago
They're benchmark scores? They aren't exactly useful unless you're benchmarking video cards. //Posted just now
Posted 24 October 2006 - 04:16
Posted 24 October 2006 - 18:52
Edited by Trong, 24 October 2006 - 19:20.
Posted 24 October 2006 - 18:57
Posted 24 October 2006 - 19:16
Posted 24 October 2006 - 21:50
Posted 25 October 2006 - 01:52
Posted 25 October 2006 - 02:11
thx for the back Amnesia, but it's all good, i think Trong's just playin anyway.
man, from my original post it's kind of apparent i have at least a clue as to what's going on in the computing world, and yes, it's just my slightly sarcastic tone when asking what it all means. no need to be offended Trong, it wasn't meant personally at you, clearly! i do appreciate your attitude tho: it shows you take posts seriously and want to help.
so yes, help: is that score reasonable? Here we have Rogue with a 7600GT scoring 30 percent higher! hence, there's the X factor. a technically faster card scoring lower. any explanations?
Posted 25 October 2006 - 05:32
Posted 25 October 2006 - 13:37
nice score Behemoth and thx for the input. why is it 3dmark then goes into a second cycle where everything slows down to 2-5 FPS? that big fish and airship sequence then takes forever!
and yes, i forgot Rogue had two GT's...
Posted 25 October 2006 - 16:15