DaveBaumann said:What on earth are you talking about?
Tomshardware stated that benchmarks weren't allowed.
DaveBaumann said:What on earth are you talking about?
Ozymandis said:A lot of games do have smaller text and HUDs at higher res though
Chalnoth said:DaveBaumann said:What on earth are you talking about?
Tomshardware stated that benchmarks weren't allowed.
And yet Tom listed 3DM2K1 scores, and Anand listed an FSAA score ("above 85fps"). Not to mention it doesn't take a genius to interpret the ratios. In fact, the ratios are a bit clearer than straight fps numbers, IMO.Tomshardware stated that benchmarks weren't allowed.
Fuz said:Its a bit OT, but who plays at 1280x1024??? Or has thier windows set at that res?
640/480 = 1.3'
800/600 = 1.3'
1024/768 = 1.3'
1600/1200 = 1.3'
Now, if you run at 1280x1024, it seems the aspect ratio is out of wack, right? Cause 1280/1024 = 1.25
So you should be runnning it at 1280x960, correct? Or is there something fundamentally wrong with my logic?
Hellbinder[CE said:]What irritates me is that several of you have bought into the idea that his editorial is actually about the *choke hold* issue. It clearly is not. He attacks ATi in several areas, while not mentioning any other company.
If this was a preview about an Nvidia product this *editorial* would have never been written. it is clear that ED is a close minded Nvidia Fan-boy. Plain and simple. Matrox did the exact same thing with their parhelia.. yet no comentary on that.. The ONLY reason this lame excuse for and *editorial* was written is becuases of bitterness that ATi's new card is faster than the current Nvidia offering.
It makes me ill that the only ones defending this slanderous trash are other Nvidia Fan-boys.
Brand loyalty has gotten way out of control. The internet in general is getting to be nothing more than an online version of The Enquirer or Star magazine.
Well, if you have a 5:4 tft display, it's just the other way round. Windows desktop at 1280x1024 is fine (because pixels are square), but 3d may be a bit stretched as games tend to use a 4:3 ratio in their viewport transformation (while some games allow you to adjust the field of view).Nagorak said:I asked this same question a couple weeks back. Basically you're right, and setting your windows desktop to 1280*1024 is not really great, but in 3D everything's fine.
Chalnoth said:I'd be kind of surprised if the R300 was ever twice as fast as a GeForce4 Ti 4600 without FSAA or anisotropic filtering.
Chalnoth said:True...but how in the world did 1280x1024 become one of the "standard" resolutions? Doesn't make any sense at all...
We were told outright in the HardOCP preview that the R300 was scoring "right at 200%" of the GeForce4 Ti 4600's results in 3DMark's Nature scene, running at 1024x768x32 without anisotropic filtering or anti-aliasing (i.e. - default settings for the benchmark).