![]() |
|
|||||||
| Notices |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#21 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end
On Oct 21, 7:58 am, johns <> wrote: > On Oct 20, 1:42 am, JAB <> wrote: > > > I wonder why they didn't ask you - go on have a think it about it? > > Simple .. they are ( professors ) ... shhh! > > not me When a high-end card becomes morally obsolete, its price should significantly fall. But _they_ do not want that to happen, because they want you to buy their newest high-end card, and thus they want you to part with your money. |
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end
johns wrote:
> On Oct 20, 1:42 am, JAB <> wrote: >> I wonder why they didn't ask you - go on have a think it about it? > > Simple .. they are ( professors ) ... shhh! > > not me > Not because you have views like your one about DX10 software mode as to why one card is more 'powerful' than another. Maybe they know you talk rubbish and that's the reason they didn't ask you - ever considered that? That fact your you haven't been sacked yet can only lead me to believe that your place of employment has absolutely nobody with more technical knowledge than you which sort of narrows it down to either a nunnery or it's a one man company. |
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 06:47:08 -0700, Beladi Nasralla
<> wrote: > But there is a positive >side to it, too. With a 1650x1050 screen, my games would run 20% >slower than now ith a 1440x900 screen... Do not assume that 20% more pixels necessarily means 20% slower. There are a lot of factors at work there. 20% more pixels might run 40% slower in some games. The performance drop off could be logarithmic in some cases. |
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end
Brabl <> writes:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 06:47:08 -0700, Beladi Nasralla > <> wrote: > >> But there is a positive >>side to it, too. With a 1650x1050 screen, my games would run 20% >>slower than now ith a 1440x900 screen... > > Do not assume that 20% more pixels necessarily means 20% slower. There > are a lot of factors at work there. 20% more pixels might run 40% > slower in some games. The performance drop off could be logarithmic > in some cases. And also don't forget that this is more like 35% more pixels. |
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end
It's a Nunnery.
johns |
|
|
|
#26 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end
johns <> writes:
> It's a Nunnery. > > johns What is? |
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
< Windows Help - MS Office Help - Hardware Support >
| New To Site? | Need Help? |