LOL, I´m so happy i haven´t bought a PC for 1700$

A friend of mine bought a AMD Thunderbird 1200 Mhz with 256 mb ram and a Geforce 2 card. 19" monitor
He payed 1700 $ for it.

I went over to him 25/5 and played some starcraft in a LAN. One of the guys there had Black and white with him, we installed it on my friends 1200 Mhz TB. In the setup we choosed high detail, shadows and everything else, we used the resolution 1200x1024 32 colour.

The game lag hard, I guess we got about 10-15 fps.
Jesus the charachters looks really bad, just look at the feets and hands, looks like FFVII charachters.

If this game had been on the PS2/xbox or the GC nobody would have said that the game looked good.

I havent played the game a lot, but the onces that had says that the game is great. I don´t doubt that, but it does not look good. (IMO)

Maybe I´m a console fan but IMO B&W does not look good.

the peasant models werent the point of that game.  the envirement looked great didnt it?

how about the creature AI?  you will not find AI like that in any other game.  B&W was revolutionary in terms of gameplay and interaction

[nO-One]

The amount of things going on slowed it down.The AI in the game is massive.

Also lower it to 16 bit color you\'ll get better framerates.

Im waiting for the PS2 version.

I hear the game is good!

Well I don\'t know about the rest of your friend\'s setup but mine is a 1.2Ghz T-bird C-class 266fsb w/256 DDR PC2100 on a Radeon LE, and wrap it up for $1100 (w/o monitor).

I haven\'t tested B&W, Hell I don\'t even own the game.  I\'m kind of anxious to try Tribes2, but I don\'t want to buy it.

Is Tribes 2 gonna be online for PS2??

I wanna play it, but my PC is very old..
So Ill just wait for the PS2 version.  

while we\'re comparing things to consoles, how about putting down the resolution to good ol 640x480?

Originally posted by Avatarr
while we\'re comparing things to consoles, how about putting down the resolution to good ol 640x480?

No kidding... that\'s your problem.  Trying to run that game at 1200 x 1024 in 32 bit color is very unrealistic, especially for an AMD and a GeForce 2.  Try 800 x 600 to start, and then see if you can push it up to 1024 x 768.  Try to get the highest res you can accomplish with 32 bit color.  32 bit color is much better than 16 bit.

You also might want to make sure you don\'t have any other useless applets running in the system tray.  Lots of vendors set up their systems with tons applets you don\'t need.  Run msconfig to see what\'s running.

[nO-One]

Originally posted by Coredweller
Trying to run that game at 1200 x 1024 in 32 bit color is very unrealistic, especially for an AMD

I hope I got this the wrong way,but are you saying that AMD\'s are bad?

Because if you are,that will bring upon you nO-One\'s wrath.

Intel sucks!
AMD rules!

Now Im nO-One\'s best friend!

[nO-One]

------>>

Meet my new best friend

Originally posted by nO-One


I hope I got this the wrong way,but are you saying that AMD\'s are bad?

Because if you are,that will bring upon you nO-One\'s wrath.

I haven\'t made up my mind about AMD yet.  I must tell you that I worked with an AMD Athlon PC about a year ago, and it was a real pain in the ass.  I realize that it was running on one of the first Athlon motherboards released, and it probably had a buggy and inferior chipset, but it\'s still hard to get that experience out of my mind.  I\'ve always used Intel CPUs, and never had the kind of stability and compatibility problems I had with that AMD.  I\'m sure they work fine in general, and they are certainly a lot cheaper than Intel.

This is supposed to be console debating, not CPU debating, right?  

Originally posted by nO-One
------>>

Meet my new best friend

[nO-One]

Originally posted by Coredweller

I haven\'t made up my mind about AMD yet.  I must tell you that I worked with an AMD Athlon PC about a year ago, and it was a real pain in the ass.  I realize that it was running on one of the first Athlon motherboards released, and it probably had a buggy and inferior chipset, but it\'s still hard to get that experience out of my mind.  I\'ve always used Intel CPUs, and never had the kind of stability and compatibility problems I had with that AMD.  I\'m sure they work fine in general, and they are certainly a lot cheaper than Intel.

This is supposed to be console debating, not CPU debating, right?  

The first AMD chipsets were horrible,and best left forgotten.And while they aren\'t perfect yet they have come a long was since then.
The only really good chipset ever was the Intel bx440.

But the Athlon outmatches Intel CPU\'s in just about everything due to it\'s massive floating point power.The main complaint about the CPU is that it get\'s hot,but the upcoming Athlon.4 (The Palomino core) is alot cooler than the current Tbirds it uses less power even if it has a higher number of transistors.

But Intel CPU\'s don\'t have FPU\'s that are powerful enough (especially the Pentium.4) it\'s one if the main reason they perform so badly against Tbirds with a much lower clockspeed.

For starters, does your friend know anything about computers? Tons of things need to be tweaked and optimized. I play B&W @ 1024x768x32 on a Athlon T-Bird 1ghz w/a GeForce 2 + 256mb RAM and it runs nowhere near 15fps.

especially for an AMD and a GeForce 2.

As opposed to what? AMD is rockin\' right now, and a GeForce 3 is overrated.

- dm
- the trick is to keep breathing.