The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
a '3d THRILL SIS 315, clocking at a behemoth 130mhz core and 150mhz memory.
strange thing is, it 'looks' the dog's danglies. it has two boards that make it look like a multi-storey car park with a balcony.
strange thing is, it 'looks' the dog's danglies. it has two boards that make it look like a multi-storey car park with a balcony.
Page:
gamezfreak wrote:
> g33k1y-w33k1y.com
LOL - excellent. You a member too then ;-)
> g33k1y-w33k1y.com
LOL - excellent. You a member too then ;-)
gamezfreak wrote:
> and that post just sounded "Oh I'm better then you" kind of thing.
To be honest, the majority of his posts look like that to me.
> and that post just sounded "Oh I'm better then you" kind of thing.
To be honest, the majority of his posts look like that to me.
I was wrong about you, you're more than just a bit of a imbecile. Would you honestly recommend to someone that had an FX5600 that they should throw it in the bin, and get a 9600 Pro instead? Lets revisit the relevant quote, no?
Miserableman wrote:
> UrkiE-UK wrote:
> hopefully it should be far better than the FX5600 i just booted out
> the door.
>
> Unlikely...
Reliability problems notwithstanding, what would constitute "far better"? The 9600 Pro performs at best around 20% better than the FX5600, at worst there is no speed increase at all. I wouldn't say this makes for a "far better" card, if you or any of your eXtReMe OvErClOcKiNg forum buddiez disagree then it's your money to p*ss away. I wouldn't recommend someone chuck a FX5600 just to get a 9600 Pro, and I don't respect the opinion of anyone who says otherwise (hardware conflicts/problems excepted).
If there's anything I've learned today, it's that you never trust internet rumours. You may hang off every word Gabe "omgz he replied to me in personn I love u gabe u r god!!!" Newell says, or debate at length performance issues of a game that has not been released yet, but back on planet Earth we're concerned with real issues like "Okay that card is better, but is it £120 better than what I've already got? No? Stuff that then." Normal people are just not as anal as you, and 65fps as opposed to 60fps is not going to significantly dictate our buying choices. Furthermore, we just don't like you or your attitude problem round here - what point are you trying to prove, pasting my quotes onto another forum and then telling me about it *? Are you trying to put me down, make me feel this ' ' big? Do you get off on this?
In summary, calm down or get lost. We don't need to be corrected on every DirectX9 release note errata mistake we make and we don't need someone preening themselves in public because they know so much about such an unimportant subject, which means we don't need you. You can go back to [H]ardOCP or forums.analtech.com or wherever you come from if you like, or do they think you're a twit there as well?
*html for emphasis
Miserableman wrote:
> UrkiE-UK wrote:
> hopefully it should be far better than the FX5600 i just booted out
> the door.
>
> Unlikely...
Reliability problems notwithstanding, what would constitute "far better"? The 9600 Pro performs at best around 20% better than the FX5600, at worst there is no speed increase at all. I wouldn't say this makes for a "far better" card, if you or any of your eXtReMe OvErClOcKiNg forum buddiez disagree then it's your money to p*ss away. I wouldn't recommend someone chuck a FX5600 just to get a 9600 Pro, and I don't respect the opinion of anyone who says otherwise (hardware conflicts/problems excepted).
If there's anything I've learned today, it's that you never trust internet rumours. You may hang off every word Gabe "omgz he replied to me in personn I love u gabe u r god!!!" Newell says, or debate at length performance issues of a game that has not been released yet, but back on planet Earth we're concerned with real issues like "Okay that card is better, but is it £120 better than what I've already got? No? Stuff that then." Normal people are just not as anal as you, and 65fps as opposed to 60fps is not going to significantly dictate our buying choices. Furthermore, we just don't like you or your attitude problem round here - what point are you trying to prove, pasting my quotes onto another forum and then telling me about it *? Are you trying to put me down, make me feel this ' ' big? Do you get off on this?
In summary, calm down or get lost. We don't need to be corrected on every DirectX9 release note errata mistake we make and we don't need someone preening themselves in public because they know so much about such an unimportant subject, which means we don't need you. You can go back to [H]ardOCP or forums.analtech.com or wherever you come from if you like, or do they think you're a twit there as well?
*html for emphasis
Calm it Safedisc, not everyone knows their stuff about video cards. Misrableman is a well respected member of this forum, and that post just sounded "Oh I'm better then you" kind of thing.
And I don't think he really cares if you posted quotes from him on g33k1y-w33k1y.com
And I don't think he really cares if you posted quotes from him on g33k1y-w33k1y.com
Miserableman wrote:
> The FX5600 and the Radeon 9600 are direct competitors
Sadly, that statement alone is enough to prove my initial fear of you having a total lack of knowledge to be correct. Yes, they may be aimed at the same segment of the market, but to say they are, in reality, direct competitors is a joke. I think you would be very hard pushed to find anyone who would rate a FX5600 anywhere near a 9600Pro.
, how can you
> say that he will notice the difference going from one to the other?
> He may get 45fps as opposed to 40fps in Doom III or Half-Life 2, but
> that's not nearly worth justifying buying a whole new card for.
Hmmm, but what about the poor PS 2.0 speed of the FX5600, what about the poor DX9 speeds, what about the fact that it has problem running Doom 3 without using its own custom backend that lowers the precision depth and IQ - what about the fact that is has been stated by Gabe at Valve that to get an FX5600 to run HL2 at a decent frame rate, it's best to treat the card as a DX8 card? - thus making it no better than the last generation of nVidia cards.
> Miserableman.complete_lack_of_knowledge = false;
If you want to start getting techy here, then please feel free, I could do with a laugh!
You seem to have a limited amount of knowledge with regard to video cards. Why not read about the subject you are talking about - you'll look a lot less foolish in the long run.
Also, I couldn’t resist quote you post on a few of the more hardcore hardware forums. Sorry, but it was rather amusing. My bad. ;-)
> The FX5600 and the Radeon 9600 are direct competitors
Sadly, that statement alone is enough to prove my initial fear of you having a total lack of knowledge to be correct. Yes, they may be aimed at the same segment of the market, but to say they are, in reality, direct competitors is a joke. I think you would be very hard pushed to find anyone who would rate a FX5600 anywhere near a 9600Pro.
, how can you
> say that he will notice the difference going from one to the other?
> He may get 45fps as opposed to 40fps in Doom III or Half-Life 2, but
> that's not nearly worth justifying buying a whole new card for.
Hmmm, but what about the poor PS 2.0 speed of the FX5600, what about the poor DX9 speeds, what about the fact that it has problem running Doom 3 without using its own custom backend that lowers the precision depth and IQ - what about the fact that is has been stated by Gabe at Valve that to get an FX5600 to run HL2 at a decent frame rate, it's best to treat the card as a DX8 card? - thus making it no better than the last generation of nVidia cards.
> Miserableman.complete_lack_of_knowledge = false;
If you want to start getting techy here, then please feel free, I could do with a laugh!
You seem to have a limited amount of knowledge with regard to video cards. Why not read about the subject you are talking about - you'll look a lot less foolish in the long run.
Also, I couldn’t resist quote you post on a few of the more hardcore hardware forums. Sorry, but it was rather amusing. My bad. ;-)
UrkiE-UK wrote:
> http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/ (space)
> 2003q3/tyan-9600pro/index.x?pg=1
Hardware reviews are often a bit of a joke - "in this test we review the latest batch of 9600 Pro's, lo and behold we find that they perform just like any other 9600 Pro!!! Therefore we conclude the only difference between cards is measured in 0.2% performance gains in certain 3D games!!!!!" What conclusions can a hardware review make on reliability, or customer support?
Hope your Tyan card works out for you though.
> http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/ (space)
> 2003q3/tyan-9600pro/index.x?pg=1
Hardware reviews are often a bit of a joke - "in this test we review the latest batch of 9600 Pro's, lo and behold we find that they perform just like any other 9600 Pro!!! Therefore we conclude the only difference between cards is measured in 0.2% performance gains in certain 3D games!!!!!" What conclusions can a hardware review make on reliability, or customer support?
Hope your Tyan card works out for you though.
Lipe wrote:
> Hehe, I got 60fps on counter-strike :D
geforce2mxs roolz!!!
> Hehe, I got 60fps on counter-strike :D
geforce2mxs roolz!!!
Lipe wrote:
> Hehe, I got 60fps on counter-strike :D
Constantly?
> Hehe, I got 60fps on counter-strike :D
Constantly?
and i'm not buying it *just* to get a little better performance, i'm buying it because i get terrible glitches with my FX.
http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/ (space) 2003q3/tyan-9600pro/index.x?pg=1
Page: