BF2S Forums Question about bottlenecking

xGj wrote:

.Sup you never make sense in your tech posts, and yes you are an elitist.. Go get some knowledge first.

Got knowledge. More than you in your peanut size brains.

.Sup wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Lol noob. I took some of your life. Bow to me.

Noob?

At least I'm not an elitist prick, unlike one of us....

.Sup wrote:

i saw what was before the "beep". We are not best friends anymore.

We never where *beep*

We never were? Dissapointed. (not really) Knowledge is on my side. Still in grammar school? Yes/no?

So you are going to start picking on me now?

ok Mr. Mature...

No I am in fact on my way to Uni soon....

Please remember that this started with you stating that all LCD's have the same refreshrate...

.Sup wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

.Sup wrote:

We never were? Dissapointed. (not really) Knowledge is on my side. Still in grammar school? Yes/no?

So you are going to start picking on me now?

ok Mr. Mature...

No I am in fact on my way to Uni soon....

Please remember that this started with you stating that all LCD's have the same refreshrate...

Really? Where did i say that? I did thought that all LCD MONITORS have the same refresh rate. I may be wrong, i havent bought an lcd monitor in ages.

Why the hell do you start being an asshole by letting him think he's dumb by not knowing your monitors refresh rate, while you don't know shit about it yourself. You just totally wiped away all your own arguments with this one ._. starting a riot when you don't know it yourself anyway, smart plan.

.Sup wrote:

xGj wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Really? Where did i say that? I did thought that all LCD MONITORS have the same refresh rate. I may be wrong, i havent bought an lcd monitor in ages.

Why the hell do you start being an asshole by letting him think he's dumb by not knowing your monitors refresh rate, while you don't know shit about it yourself. You just totally wiped away all your own arguments with this one ._. starting a riot when you don't know it yourself anyway, smart plan.

I know my refresh rate and i thought its obvious i use an lcd monitor. I guess it wasnt as obvious as i thought, as 2% of people who play games use a high end lcd tv with 120 mhz refresh rate! And btw i never become an asshole first.

Stop it, .Sup. I don't mind you usually, but you're fighting a lost battle in here. Give it up unless you make more of a fool out of yourself.

.Sup wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

.Sup wrote:

I know my refresh rate and i thought its obvious i use an lcd monitor. I guess it wasnt as obvious as i thought, as 2% of people who play games use a high end lcd tv with 120 mhz refresh rate! And btw i never become an asshole first.

Stop it, .Sup. I don't mind you usually, but you're fighting a lost battle in here. Give it up unless you make more of a fool out of yourself.

Ur right. Sry for bad words, just came from work and i have a headache.

Sooooo?.....

We cool ?

FloppY_ wrote:

.Sup wrote:

I shouldn't be that bad. I currently still have a amd 3500+ @2.2ghz and can play bf2 all on high. Cod should be pretty much the same. And besides you have 2.8ghz which is a lot better. You can't get wrong if you get an 8800gt even with this proc.

wow BF2 on high???

/sarcasm

It's not as easy as you think for some of us. 

FloppY_ wrote:

.Sup wrote:

We cool.

<3

_j5689_ wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

wow BF2 on high???

/sarcasm

It's not as easy as you think for some of us. 

Arw sry4u

1152x864
everything on medium except textures, which is on high
no AA

.Sup wrote:

I shouldn't be that bad. I currently still have a amd 3500+ @2.2ghz and can play bf2 all on high. Cod should be pretty much the same. And besides you have 2.8ghz which is a lot better. You can't get wrong if you get an 8800gt even with this proc.

at what 5fps?

FloppY_ wrote:

.Sup wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

I get way above 60 tbh

Even 60 isn't exactly great.

60-100 is no visible difference tbh,,,

Don't get elitist and tell me that nothing below 150 is good enough, because that's just stupid..

True.

aimless wrote:

AA shouldn't matter in multiplayer. If you play bf2, you should be playing for the gameplay (and all of it's hitboxes) and not solely for the graphics.

I cant' play without AA.

Freezer7Pro wrote:

.Sup wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

60-100 is no visible difference tbh,,,

Don't get elitist and tell me that nothing below 150 is good enough, because that's just stupid..

80 and above is good. Sry below 80 just isn't acceptable for me. Elitist? Yes!

The eye can barely spot any differance between 40 and 80FPS. No differance at all between 60 and 80.

And, if you run at 60Hz (Wich most TFTs do), you still won't get more than 20 skipped frames per second.

FUCKING IDIOT*




*search for any of my dozen or so previous posts that explain why

This thread is filled with so much nonsense it's unbelievable.

LCD refresh rates? WTF? BTW you need refresh rates to be AT LEAST DOUBLE the rate of the displayed content (to see all the frames), not even factoring in response times on top of that, which give additional latency.

BF2 a demanding game? Is that a joke? If you are running BF2 in normal resolutions a 7900GT/GTX should just about max it out at good FPS (60 min - not average).

Lucien wrote:

FUCKING IDIOT*

*search for any of my dozen or so previous posts that explain why

So you insult people to "prove a point" and demand they do work to find your argument? DST is elsewhere.