Frames Per Second? -1 reply

Please wait...

MattMarlin

Slightly cooler than a n00b

50 XP

5th March 2003

0 Uploads

40 Posts

0 Threads

#1 17 years ago

Whilst looking at the command list I noticed that you can see your Frames Per Second (FPS) by using the command Console.showfps 1.

I have a Radeon 9700 Pro :smokin: and I am getting just under 100 fps. Is this good? FYI I have Pentium 4 2.4Ghz, 512MB ram.

What I want to know is is that good? Are there any other Radeon 9700 Pro users out there, and if so what FPS are you getting?

What graphics card has everyone else got and what FPS are you pulling through?

Ta




Herr Dickmeister

Addicted to GF

50 XP

15th August 2002

0 Uploads

264 Posts

0 Threads

#2 17 years ago

Dzjeez, yes show-off just under 100 fps is good...anything above 60 fps is considered to be flawless motion. PLEASE tell me at which resolutions you play and that you have enabled AA and AF :D




MattMarlin

Slightly cooler than a n00b

50 XP

5th March 2003

0 Uploads

40 Posts

0 Threads

#3 17 years ago

Hey ****meister, I genuinely didn't mean to show off. Am a newbie so be gental!

I have been looking at some of the benchmarks on Toms Hardware www.tomshardware.com and they benchmark the Radeon 9700 Pro at 172 playing UT 2003. His Processor is better at 3.06Ghz and is hyper threaded, but I wouldn't have thought it would have made that much difference, would it?

Is Battlefield more hungry that Unreal?




VonMeyer

Waiting for Forgotten Hope 2

50 XP

22nd October 2002

0 Uploads

2,212 Posts

0 Threads

#4 17 years ago

My specs are in my sig below. Yes Bf is power hungry and i use to have a GF2MX400 and since i have this new card and system my frameratres incresed alot. Im buying another stick of 512 ram to increase the performance.




Vanthem

Medic With A Baseball Bat

50 XP

10th August 2002

0 Uploads

2,151 Posts

0 Threads

#5 17 years ago

[COLOR=burlywood]I'd say 100 is definitely good if not great for Battlefield 'cause the game is a huge hardware hog. Scoring 172 in Unreal Tournament 2003 is a whole other matter since Unreal Tournament is actually very easy on hardware, even at max settings (if you've got decent components) I've got a 9700 also but I've never checked the fps. Don't even have BF installed right now. :eek: [/COLOR]




Herr Dickmeister

Addicted to GF

50 XP

15th August 2002

0 Uploads

264 Posts

0 Threads

#6 17 years ago

In my opinion, UT2003 is harder on hardware than BF...and sorry for the "show-off" and shit, I had been having a less than optimal day... oh yeah I'm talking MP here...in SP the processor will be more loaded with BF since it calculates the move of more men even though they act like total morons :uhm:




303 Infinity-=03N=-

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

14th March 2003

0 Uploads

6 Posts

0 Threads

#7 17 years ago

I get like 95 fps To get higher fps/lower ping close all other programs.

I don't think Battle field engine will let u get anymore than like 115:rock:




303 Infinity-=03N=-

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

14th March 2003

0 Uploads

6 Posts

0 Threads

#8 17 years ago

L33T Machine Athlon XP 1900 Runnin at 1856 mhz Cooled by Volcano 11 ASUS A7N8X Deulex w00t N Force 2 1 gb PC 3500 gEil GeForce4 4600 MSI VIVO version Audigy 2 Platinum Dual Plex writers 48x and Pioneer DVD rom 16x and yes now i'm broke :rock: