Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)
will my mx440 64mb g/card b enough to play cs:source?
--
Life?
will my mx440 64mb g/card b enough to play cs:source?
--
Life?
mx440
- Thread starter Guest
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Dialog Runtime Video Games
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)
"I like Toys and Cake" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1098462424.17105.0@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>
> 90 fps, at what resolution? Prove it!
forgot to add that even if you do get high fps, the MX range will take
source's DirectX 7 path which means
Screen space effects are really simple.
No model decals
No detail props
No refractive water
Reduced decal visibility distance
No bumpmaps
Reduced model LODs
Reduced material mip level
"I like Toys and Cake" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1098462424.17105.0@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>
> 90 fps, at what resolution? Prove it!
forgot to add that even if you do get high fps, the MX range will take
source's DirectX 7 path which means
Screen space effects are really simple.
No model decals
No detail props
No refractive water
Reduced decal visibility distance
No bumpmaps
Reduced model LODs
Reduced material mip level
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)
I like Toys and Cake wrote:
> "I like Toys and Cake" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:1098462424.17105.0@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>>
>> 90 fps, at what resolution? Prove it!
>
> forgot to add that even if you do get high fps, the MX range will take
> source's DirectX 7 path which means
>
> Screen space effects are really simple.
> No model decals
> No detail props
> No refractive water
> Reduced decal visibility distance
> No bumpmaps
> Reduced model LODs
> Reduced material mip level
92 fps came from the video test which ran when I installed CS Source. Is
this the wrong measure?
What I am saying is that the game is eminently playable (and enjoyable) with
this card.
I like Toys and Cake wrote:
> "I like Toys and Cake" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:1098462424.17105.0@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>>
>> 90 fps, at what resolution? Prove it!
>
> forgot to add that even if you do get high fps, the MX range will take
> source's DirectX 7 path which means
>
> Screen space effects are really simple.
> No model decals
> No detail props
> No refractive water
> Reduced decal visibility distance
> No bumpmaps
> Reduced model LODs
> Reduced material mip level
92 fps came from the video test which ran when I installed CS Source. Is
this the wrong measure?
What I am saying is that the game is eminently playable (and enjoyable) with
this card.
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)
--
---
Outgoing mail scanned with Kaspersky antivirus
"Damien McBain" <ask@me.for.it> wrote in message
news:41798b34$0$23013$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>I like Toys and Cake wrote:
>> "I like Toys and Cake" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:1098462424.17105.0@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>>>
>>> 90 fps, at what resolution? Prove it!
>>
>> forgot to add that even if you do get high fps, the MX range will
>> take
>> source's DirectX 7 path which means
>>
>> Screen space effects are really simple.
>> No model decals
>> No detail props
>> No refractive water
>> Reduced decal visibility distance
>> No bumpmaps
>> Reduced model LODs
>> Reduced material mip level
>
> 92 fps came from the video test which ran when I installed CS
> Source. Is
> this the wrong measure?
> What I am saying is that the game is eminently playable (and
> enjoyable) with
> this card.
Possibly playable but without all the new fluffy things source can
draw, you may as well stick to 1.6. Sure the physics are excellent and
it is an improvement in graphic quality over 1.6 but you will not see
the game in anywhere near the same way as a graphics card costing less
than 100 UK pounds can draw let alone a Geforce 6 series or radeon X
series.
DirectX 7 and 8 generation cards such as the MX series, Ti series,
some FX series, and the early and cut-down radeons have their place
but running "new" games is not it. I understand that not everyone puts
buying new hardware every couple of months as high on their list of
priorities as I do but really, buying a new game and running it on old
hardware is like buying a Ferrari and only driving it in first gear or
buying a DVD player and connecting it to a 14 inch portable TV.
If I had worked for years creating a game engine with the capabilities
of source I would be offended to hear people were playing and judging
my work on hardware that cannot show it's capabilities. In fact if I
were Gabe I would have insisted that there was only the DX9 path
included.
--
---
Outgoing mail scanned with Kaspersky antivirus
"Damien McBain" <ask@me.for.it> wrote in message
news:41798b34$0$23013$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>I like Toys and Cake wrote:
>> "I like Toys and Cake" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:1098462424.17105.0@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>>>
>>> 90 fps, at what resolution? Prove it!
>>
>> forgot to add that even if you do get high fps, the MX range will
>> take
>> source's DirectX 7 path which means
>>
>> Screen space effects are really simple.
>> No model decals
>> No detail props
>> No refractive water
>> Reduced decal visibility distance
>> No bumpmaps
>> Reduced model LODs
>> Reduced material mip level
>
> 92 fps came from the video test which ran when I installed CS
> Source. Is
> this the wrong measure?
> What I am saying is that the game is eminently playable (and
> enjoyable) with
> this card.
Possibly playable but without all the new fluffy things source can
draw, you may as well stick to 1.6. Sure the physics are excellent and
it is an improvement in graphic quality over 1.6 but you will not see
the game in anywhere near the same way as a graphics card costing less
than 100 UK pounds can draw let alone a Geforce 6 series or radeon X
series.
DirectX 7 and 8 generation cards such as the MX series, Ti series,
some FX series, and the early and cut-down radeons have their place
but running "new" games is not it. I understand that not everyone puts
buying new hardware every couple of months as high on their list of
priorities as I do but really, buying a new game and running it on old
hardware is like buying a Ferrari and only driving it in first gear or
buying a DVD player and connecting it to a 14 inch portable TV.
If I had worked for years creating a game engine with the capabilities
of source I would be offended to hear people were playing and judging
my work on hardware that cannot show it's capabilities. In fact if I
were Gabe I would have insisted that there was only the DX9 path
included.
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)
I like Toys and Cake wrote:
>> I like Toys and Cake wrote:
>>> "I like Toys and Cake" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>> news:1098462424.17105.0@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>>>>
>>>> 90 fps, at what resolution? Prove it!
>>>
>>> forgot to add that even if you do get high fps, the MX range will
>>> take
>>> source's DirectX 7 path which means
>>>
>>> Screen space effects are really simple.
>>> No model decals
>>> No detail props
>>> No refractive water
>>> Reduced decal visibility distance
>>> No bumpmaps
>>> Reduced model LODs
>>> Reduced material mip level
>>
>> 92 fps came from the video test which ran when I installed CS
>> Source. Is
>> this the wrong measure?
>> What I am saying is that the game is eminently playable (and
>> enjoyable) with
>> this card.
>
> Possibly playable but without all the new fluffy things source can
> draw, you may as well stick to 1.6. Sure the physics are excellent and
> it is an improvement in graphic quality over 1.6 but you will not see
> the game in anywhere near the same way as a graphics card costing less
> than 100 UK pounds can draw let alone a Geforce 6 series or radeon X
> series.
>
> DirectX 7 and 8 generation cards such as the MX series, Ti series,
> some FX series, and the early and cut-down radeons have their place
> but running "new" games is not it. I understand that not everyone puts
> buying new hardware every couple of months as high on their list of
> priorities as I do but really, buying a new game and running it on old
> hardware is like buying a Ferrari and only driving it in first gear or
> buying a DVD player and connecting it to a 14 inch portable TV.
>
> If I had worked for years creating a game engine with the capabilities
> of source I would be offended to hear people were playing and judging
> my work on hardware that cannot show it's capabilities. In fact if I
> were Gabe I would have insisted that there was only the DX9 path
> included.
So without going overboard, which card would be a nice balance between price
and performance for use with HL2?
I like Toys and Cake wrote:
>> I like Toys and Cake wrote:
>>> "I like Toys and Cake" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>> news:1098462424.17105.0@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>>>>
>>>> 90 fps, at what resolution? Prove it!
>>>
>>> forgot to add that even if you do get high fps, the MX range will
>>> take
>>> source's DirectX 7 path which means
>>>
>>> Screen space effects are really simple.
>>> No model decals
>>> No detail props
>>> No refractive water
>>> Reduced decal visibility distance
>>> No bumpmaps
>>> Reduced model LODs
>>> Reduced material mip level
>>
>> 92 fps came from the video test which ran when I installed CS
>> Source. Is
>> this the wrong measure?
>> What I am saying is that the game is eminently playable (and
>> enjoyable) with
>> this card.
>
> Possibly playable but without all the new fluffy things source can
> draw, you may as well stick to 1.6. Sure the physics are excellent and
> it is an improvement in graphic quality over 1.6 but you will not see
> the game in anywhere near the same way as a graphics card costing less
> than 100 UK pounds can draw let alone a Geforce 6 series or radeon X
> series.
>
> DirectX 7 and 8 generation cards such as the MX series, Ti series,
> some FX series, and the early and cut-down radeons have their place
> but running "new" games is not it. I understand that not everyone puts
> buying new hardware every couple of months as high on their list of
> priorities as I do but really, buying a new game and running it on old
> hardware is like buying a Ferrari and only driving it in first gear or
> buying a DVD player and connecting it to a 14 inch portable TV.
>
> If I had worked for years creating a game engine with the capabilities
> of source I would be offended to hear people were playing and judging
> my work on hardware that cannot show it's capabilities. In fact if I
> were Gabe I would have insisted that there was only the DX9 path
> included.
So without going overboard, which card would be a nice balance between price
and performance for use with HL2?
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)
"Damien McBain" <ask@me.for.it> wrote in message
news:4179a267$0$23025$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>I like Toys and Cake wrote:
>>> I like Toys and Cake wrote:
>>>> "I like Toys and Cake" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:1098462424.17105.0@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> 90 fps, at what resolution? Prove it!
>>>>
>>>> forgot to add that even if you do get high fps, the MX range will
>>>> take
>>>> source's DirectX 7 path which means
>>>>
>>>> Screen space effects are really simple.
>>>> No model decals
>>>> No detail props
>>>> No refractive water
>>>> Reduced decal visibility distance
>>>> No bumpmaps
>>>> Reduced model LODs
>>>> Reduced material mip level
>>>
>>> 92 fps came from the video test which ran when I installed CS
>>> Source. Is
>>> this the wrong measure?
>>> What I am saying is that the game is eminently playable (and
>>> enjoyable) with
>>> this card.
>>
>> Possibly playable but without all the new fluffy things source can
>> draw, you may as well stick to 1.6. Sure the physics are excellent
>> and
>> it is an improvement in graphic quality over 1.6 but you will not
>> see
>> the game in anywhere near the same way as a graphics card costing
>> less
>> than 100 UK pounds can draw let alone a Geforce 6 series or radeon
>> X
>> series.
>>
>> DirectX 7 and 8 generation cards such as the MX series, Ti series,
>> some FX series, and the early and cut-down radeons have their place
>> but running "new" games is not it. I understand that not everyone
>> puts
>> buying new hardware every couple of months as high on their list of
>> priorities as I do but really, buying a new game and running it on
>> old
>> hardware is like buying a Ferrari and only driving it in first gear
>> or
>> buying a DVD player and connecting it to a 14 inch portable TV.
>>
>> If I had worked for years creating a game engine with the
>> capabilities
>> of source I would be offended to hear people were playing and
>> judging
>> my work on hardware that cannot show it's capabilities. In fact if
>> I
>> were Gabe I would have insisted that there was only the DX9 path
>> included.
>
> So without going overboard, which card would be a nice balance
> between price
> and performance for use with HL2?
Radeon 9600XT or 9700 Pro or 9800XT the 9600XT is under 100 UK pounds
(especially the sapphire lite retail one) if you want to spend a
little more then a geforce 6800 GT has a fair price for the amount of
power you can extract from it with even the smallest amount of
overclocking and it won't require an upgrade for several years as most
games for the foreseeable future will be based on HL2 or Doom3. All
these do DirectX 9 in hardware so you get all the fluffy things source
can do.
"Damien McBain" <ask@me.for.it> wrote in message
news:4179a267$0$23025$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>I like Toys and Cake wrote:
>>> I like Toys and Cake wrote:
>>>> "I like Toys and Cake" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:1098462424.17105.0@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> 90 fps, at what resolution? Prove it!
>>>>
>>>> forgot to add that even if you do get high fps, the MX range will
>>>> take
>>>> source's DirectX 7 path which means
>>>>
>>>> Screen space effects are really simple.
>>>> No model decals
>>>> No detail props
>>>> No refractive water
>>>> Reduced decal visibility distance
>>>> No bumpmaps
>>>> Reduced model LODs
>>>> Reduced material mip level
>>>
>>> 92 fps came from the video test which ran when I installed CS
>>> Source. Is
>>> this the wrong measure?
>>> What I am saying is that the game is eminently playable (and
>>> enjoyable) with
>>> this card.
>>
>> Possibly playable but without all the new fluffy things source can
>> draw, you may as well stick to 1.6. Sure the physics are excellent
>> and
>> it is an improvement in graphic quality over 1.6 but you will not
>> see
>> the game in anywhere near the same way as a graphics card costing
>> less
>> than 100 UK pounds can draw let alone a Geforce 6 series or radeon
>> X
>> series.
>>
>> DirectX 7 and 8 generation cards such as the MX series, Ti series,
>> some FX series, and the early and cut-down radeons have their place
>> but running "new" games is not it. I understand that not everyone
>> puts
>> buying new hardware every couple of months as high on their list of
>> priorities as I do but really, buying a new game and running it on
>> old
>> hardware is like buying a Ferrari and only driving it in first gear
>> or
>> buying a DVD player and connecting it to a 14 inch portable TV.
>>
>> If I had worked for years creating a game engine with the
>> capabilities
>> of source I would be offended to hear people were playing and
>> judging
>> my work on hardware that cannot show it's capabilities. In fact if
>> I
>> were Gabe I would have insisted that there was only the DX9 path
>> included.
>
> So without going overboard, which card would be a nice balance
> between price
> and performance for use with HL2?
Radeon 9600XT or 9700 Pro or 9800XT the 9600XT is under 100 UK pounds
(especially the sapphire lite retail one) if you want to spend a
little more then a geforce 6800 GT has a fair price for the amount of
power you can extract from it with even the smallest amount of
overclocking and it won't require an upgrade for several years as most
games for the foreseeable future will be based on HL2 or Doom3. All
these do DirectX 9 in hardware so you get all the fluffy things source
can do.
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)
I like Toys and Cake wrote:
> "Damien McBain" <ask@me.for.it> wrote in message
> news:4179a267$0$23025$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> I like Toys and Cake wrote:
>>>> I like Toys and Cake wrote:
>>>>> "I like Toys and Cake" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1098462424.17105.0@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 90 fps, at what resolution? Prove it!
>>>>>
>>>>> forgot to add that even if you do get high fps, the MX range will
>>>>> take
>>>>> source's DirectX 7 path which means
>>>>>
>>>>> Screen space effects are really simple.
>>>>> No model decals
>>>>> No detail props
>>>>> No refractive water
>>>>> Reduced decal visibility distance
>>>>> No bumpmaps
>>>>> Reduced model LODs
>>>>> Reduced material mip level
>>>>
>>>> 92 fps came from the video test which ran when I installed CS
>>>> Source. Is
>>>> this the wrong measure?
>>>> What I am saying is that the game is eminently playable (and
>>>> enjoyable) with
>>>> this card.
>>>
>>> Possibly playable but without all the new fluffy things source can
>>> draw, you may as well stick to 1.6. Sure the physics are excellent
>>> and
>>> it is an improvement in graphic quality over 1.6 but you will not
>>> see
>>> the game in anywhere near the same way as a graphics card costing
>>> less
>>> than 100 UK pounds can draw let alone a Geforce 6 series or radeon
>>> X
>>> series.
>>>
>>> DirectX 7 and 8 generation cards such as the MX series, Ti series,
>>> some FX series, and the early and cut-down radeons have their place
>>> but running "new" games is not it. I understand that not everyone
>>> puts
>>> buying new hardware every couple of months as high on their list of
>>> priorities as I do but really, buying a new game and running it on
>>> old
>>> hardware is like buying a Ferrari and only driving it in first gear
>>> or
>>> buying a DVD player and connecting it to a 14 inch portable TV.
>>>
>>> If I had worked for years creating a game engine with the
>>> capabilities
>>> of source I would be offended to hear people were playing and
>>> judging
>>> my work on hardware that cannot show it's capabilities. In fact if
>>> I
>>> were Gabe I would have insisted that there was only the DX9 path
>>> included.
>>
>> So without going overboard, which card would be a nice balance
>> between price
>> and performance for use with HL2?
>
> Radeon 9600XT or 9700 Pro or 9800XT the 9600XT is under 100 UK pounds
> (especially the sapphire lite retail one) if you want to spend a
> little more then a geforce 6800 GT has a fair price for the amount of
> power you can extract from it with even the smallest amount of
> overclocking and it won't require an upgrade for several years as most
> games for the foreseeable future will be based on HL2 or Doom3. All
> these do DirectX 9 in hardware so you get all the fluffy things source
> can do.
So would a 9800 pro be a good choice? Its just that i heard radeon are
bringing a new card out thats better and at the same price?
--
Life?
I like Toys and Cake wrote:
> "Damien McBain" <ask@me.for.it> wrote in message
> news:4179a267$0$23025$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> I like Toys and Cake wrote:
>>>> I like Toys and Cake wrote:
>>>>> "I like Toys and Cake" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1098462424.17105.0@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 90 fps, at what resolution? Prove it!
>>>>>
>>>>> forgot to add that even if you do get high fps, the MX range will
>>>>> take
>>>>> source's DirectX 7 path which means
>>>>>
>>>>> Screen space effects are really simple.
>>>>> No model decals
>>>>> No detail props
>>>>> No refractive water
>>>>> Reduced decal visibility distance
>>>>> No bumpmaps
>>>>> Reduced model LODs
>>>>> Reduced material mip level
>>>>
>>>> 92 fps came from the video test which ran when I installed CS
>>>> Source. Is
>>>> this the wrong measure?
>>>> What I am saying is that the game is eminently playable (and
>>>> enjoyable) with
>>>> this card.
>>>
>>> Possibly playable but without all the new fluffy things source can
>>> draw, you may as well stick to 1.6. Sure the physics are excellent
>>> and
>>> it is an improvement in graphic quality over 1.6 but you will not
>>> see
>>> the game in anywhere near the same way as a graphics card costing
>>> less
>>> than 100 UK pounds can draw let alone a Geforce 6 series or radeon
>>> X
>>> series.
>>>
>>> DirectX 7 and 8 generation cards such as the MX series, Ti series,
>>> some FX series, and the early and cut-down radeons have their place
>>> but running "new" games is not it. I understand that not everyone
>>> puts
>>> buying new hardware every couple of months as high on their list of
>>> priorities as I do but really, buying a new game and running it on
>>> old
>>> hardware is like buying a Ferrari and only driving it in first gear
>>> or
>>> buying a DVD player and connecting it to a 14 inch portable TV.
>>>
>>> If I had worked for years creating a game engine with the
>>> capabilities
>>> of source I would be offended to hear people were playing and
>>> judging
>>> my work on hardware that cannot show it's capabilities. In fact if
>>> I
>>> were Gabe I would have insisted that there was only the DX9 path
>>> included.
>>
>> So without going overboard, which card would be a nice balance
>> between price
>> and performance for use with HL2?
>
> Radeon 9600XT or 9700 Pro or 9800XT the 9600XT is under 100 UK pounds
> (especially the sapphire lite retail one) if you want to spend a
> little more then a geforce 6800 GT has a fair price for the amount of
> power you can extract from it with even the smallest amount of
> overclocking and it won't require an upgrade for several years as most
> games for the foreseeable future will be based on HL2 or Doom3. All
> these do DirectX 9 in hardware so you get all the fluffy things source
> can do.
So would a 9800 pro be a good choice? Its just that i heard radeon are
bringing a new card out thats better and at the same price?
--
Life?
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)
"John Barnes" <THeeAndMEE@SPAMCENTRALSTATION.com> wrote in message
news:2tuledF24el2fU1@uni-berlin.de...
>I like Toys and Cake wrote:
>> Radeon 9600XT or 9700 Pro or 9800XT the 9600XT is under 100 UK
>> pounds
>> (especially the sapphire lite retail one) if you want to spend a
>> little more then a geforce 6800 GT has a fair price for the amount
>> of
>> power you can extract from it with even the smallest amount of
>> overclocking and it won't require an upgrade for several years as
>> most
>> games for the foreseeable future will be based on HL2 or Doom3. All
>> these do DirectX 9 in hardware so you get all the fluffy things
>> source
>> can do.
>
> So would a 9800 pro be a good choice? Its just that i heard radeon
> are
> bringing a new card out thats better and at the same price?
>
Personally if I were going for a pre-X series I would only get an XT,
although there is not much difference between a 9800 pro and XT, there
is a difference. There are many X series cards with a similar price
tag to a 9800 and they will outperform one but most if not all of the
cheaper X series are PCI express, so that means a new motherboard too.
Sadly there is never a right choice of graphics card or any PC
hardware because as soon as you buy anything, the next day something
better and cheaper will be released.
The trick is to wait until your current hardware no longer does what
you want ( like an MX not drawing DX9 stuff) then shop around and read
reviews and buy the very best that you can currently afford. If you
think, oh I'll wait a couple of months because a new thing is on the
way then that is a couple of months that you are not getting what you
want from your hardware and by the time the new thing comes out there
will be another new thing a couple of months away.
"John Barnes" <THeeAndMEE@SPAMCENTRALSTATION.com> wrote in message
news:2tuledF24el2fU1@uni-berlin.de...
>I like Toys and Cake wrote:
>> Radeon 9600XT or 9700 Pro or 9800XT the 9600XT is under 100 UK
>> pounds
>> (especially the sapphire lite retail one) if you want to spend a
>> little more then a geforce 6800 GT has a fair price for the amount
>> of
>> power you can extract from it with even the smallest amount of
>> overclocking and it won't require an upgrade for several years as
>> most
>> games for the foreseeable future will be based on HL2 or Doom3. All
>> these do DirectX 9 in hardware so you get all the fluffy things
>> source
>> can do.
>
> So would a 9800 pro be a good choice? Its just that i heard radeon
> are
> bringing a new card out thats better and at the same price?
>
Personally if I were going for a pre-X series I would only get an XT,
although there is not much difference between a 9800 pro and XT, there
is a difference. There are many X series cards with a similar price
tag to a 9800 and they will outperform one but most if not all of the
cheaper X series are PCI express, so that means a new motherboard too.
Sadly there is never a right choice of graphics card or any PC
hardware because as soon as you buy anything, the next day something
better and cheaper will be released.
The trick is to wait until your current hardware no longer does what
you want ( like an MX not drawing DX9 stuff) then shop around and read
reviews and buy the very best that you can currently afford. If you
think, oh I'll wait a couple of months because a new thing is on the
way then that is a couple of months that you are not getting what you
want from your hardware and by the time the new thing comes out there
will be another new thing a couple of months away.
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)
dunno about source but I have a MX 440 and it plays Battlefield 1942 and
Unreal Tournament and Americas Army all fine
"JohnBarns" <THeeAndMEE@SPAMCENTRALSTATION.com> wrote in message
news:2ti55aF1v5hssU1@uni-berlin.de...
> will my mx440 64mb g/card b enough to play cs:source?
>
> --
>
> Life?
>
>
>
>
>
dunno about source but I have a MX 440 and it plays Battlefield 1942 and
Unreal Tournament and Americas Army all fine
"JohnBarns" <THeeAndMEE@SPAMCENTRALSTATION.com> wrote in message
news:2ti55aF1v5hssU1@uni-berlin.de...
> will my mx440 64mb g/card b enough to play cs:source?
>
> --
>
> Life?
>
>
>
>
>
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)
"Andrei Sharko" <andreisharko@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:acNed.845$lF1.35246@news.xtra.co.nz...
> dunno about source but I have a MX 440 and it plays Battlefield 1942
> and Unreal Tournament and Americas Army all fine
>
It doesn't play them all fine. It plays them at their lowest possible
setting with lots of stuff missing, it's a DirectX 7 card it can't
draw DirectX 8 and 9 stuff.
"Andrei Sharko" <andreisharko@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:acNed.845$lF1.35246@news.xtra.co.nz...
> dunno about source but I have a MX 440 and it plays Battlefield 1942
> and Unreal Tournament and Americas Army all fine
>
It doesn't play them all fine. It plays them at their lowest possible
setting with lots of stuff missing, it's a DirectX 7 card it can't
draw DirectX 8 and 9 stuff.
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)
> It doesn't play them all fine. It plays them at their lowest possible
> setting with lots of stuff missing, it's a DirectX 7 card it can't draw
> DirectX 8 and 9 stuff.
Bzzzt - I'm afraid you gave a wrong answer. Please take a seat over
there.
The correct answer was: It plays them all fine even without the Direct 8 and
9 stuff (because the games were designed for that).
> It doesn't play them all fine. It plays them at their lowest possible
> setting with lots of stuff missing, it's a DirectX 7 card it can't draw
> DirectX 8 and 9 stuff.
Bzzzt - I'm afraid you gave a wrong answer. Please take a seat over
there.
The correct answer was: It plays them all fine even without the Direct 8 and
9 stuff (because the games were designed for that).
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 21:46:04 +1300, "Andrei Sharko"
<andreisharko@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>> It doesn't play them all fine. It plays them at their lowest possible
>> setting with lots of stuff missing, it's a DirectX 7 card it can't draw
>> DirectX 8 and 9 stuff.
>
>Bzzzt - I'm afraid you gave a wrong answer. Please take a seat over
>there.
>The correct answer was: It plays them all fine even without the Direct 8 and
>9 stuff (because the games were designed for that).
Which is what he said.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 21:46:04 +1300, "Andrei Sharko"
<andreisharko@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>> It doesn't play them all fine. It plays them at their lowest possible
>> setting with lots of stuff missing, it's a DirectX 7 card it can't draw
>> DirectX 8 and 9 stuff.
>
>Bzzzt - I'm afraid you gave a wrong answer. Please take a seat over
>there.
>The correct answer was: It plays them all fine even without the Direct 8 and
>9 stuff (because the games were designed for that).
Which is what he said.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)
Andrew wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 21:46:04 +1300, "Andrei Sharko"
> <andreisharko@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>> It doesn't play them all fine. It plays them at their lowest
>>> possible setting with lots of stuff missing, it's a DirectX 7 card
>>> it can't draw DirectX 8 and 9 stuff.
>>
>> Bzzzt - I'm afraid you gave a wrong answer. Please take a seat
>> over there.
>> The correct answer was: It plays them all fine even without the
>> Direct 8 and 9 stuff (because the games were designed for that).
>
> Which is what he said.
The game plays well, but I can't see all the frills. One advantage is that
when I get a new dx9 card it'll be like having a new game!
Andrew wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 21:46:04 +1300, "Andrei Sharko"
> <andreisharko@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>> It doesn't play them all fine. It plays them at their lowest
>>> possible setting with lots of stuff missing, it's a DirectX 7 card
>>> it can't draw DirectX 8 and 9 stuff.
>>
>> Bzzzt - I'm afraid you gave a wrong answer. Please take a seat
>> over there.
>> The correct answer was: It plays them all fine even without the
>> Direct 8 and 9 stuff (because the games were designed for that).
>
> Which is what he said.
The game plays well, but I can't see all the frills. One advantage is that
when I get a new dx9 card it'll be like having a new game!
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Download speed is slow on only my PC - please help!- Started by Ograsmium
- Replies: 16
-
-
Question Buying a used card, what should I look for before purchase?- Started by MatthewJamess
- Replies: 8
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram