Your system is among the top 2% of all systems scanned by the Game Advisor.
Hmm, I'm in the top 21% Kinda good.
me pwns too 38% lol[BambiKillerz]Brian wrote:
mines 39% LOL
not as bad as i thought top 25% now its time to go test my housemates! good find btw.
nah just 32bit windows and nah nothings over clocked!..the_outsider38 wrote:
Actually im not all that pleased with the FX-53, doesnt multitask worth shit, however it does work well when focused on one task, what i wouldnt give for an FX-60 dual core mmmm, but thats like $1800 Canadian. Are you runnign Windows x64? I am, never tried the system on 32 bit Windows. wonder if it would be faster, not having to emulate Futuremark. Its a close race between the X2's and the FX's except that the FX-60 is the best of both worlds, Dual core and blazing fast. Way beter then any intel out there. Is your system overclocked? I need a more efficent heatsink/liquid cooling before im even going to touch mine, those video cards put out soo much heat the processoer doesnt even have a chance. Need a BTX motherboard!! Have to try Futuremark06, but my damned internet connection times out?? whats with that, im on cable for god sakes!!
we got 06... from internode.. they were fast for anyone in australia tryin to get it
we got 6747 on 06
SM2.0 = 3150
HDR/SM3.0 = 2924
CPU = 1654
top 1%
and 3d mark 05..
with no OCin.
and 3d mark 05..
with no OCin.
The PC here at school is in the top 87 lol
nicccccccccccccccccccce lol
Top 3%
1% PWND...
11000 in 3dmark.. im good.
but rofl i should pull the ibm from 92 out put ie on it and see what happens. ill get the slowest..
11000 in 3dmark.. im good.
but rofl i should pull the ibm from 92 out put ie on it and see what happens. ill get the slowest..
Last edited by Teckademics (2006-02-06 09:28:17)
ur good, but not good enough.Teckademics wrote:
1% PWND...
11000 in 3dmark.. im good.
but rofl i should pull the ibm from 92 out put ie on it and see what happens. ill get the slowest..
hihi
Ohhh not good enough you say? well i just have to go buy an fx60 with 2 of the 1900's
3DMark06 must be a real killer.Stoned_Smurfz wrote:
we got 6747 on 06
SM2.0 = 3150
HDR/SM3.0 = 2924
CPU = 1654
Damned Cable!!Cand DL 06 and now 05 stopped working since i put on a fresh copy of windows, wtf? It gets through Proxycon but then it hangs on Firefly Forest!
I wish my schools computers were that good. Our teacher is still using an old Mac. must run at like 4mhz. LOL!
FX-60 all the way man. Hope u got lotsa cash .
hehe, sighs, but u have got it yet. lolTeckademics wrote:
Ohhh not good enough you say? well i just have to go buy an fx60 with 2 of the 1900's
anyway.. m2 socket is coming..
still doesnt mean itl get u ultra smooth playTeckademics wrote:
Ohhh not good enough you say? well i just have to go buy an fx60 with 2 of the 1900's
true... besides...
we cant actually notice more than 60fps.. due to "eye lag".. over 100 suits me
we cant actually notice more than 60fps.. due to "eye lag".. over 100 suits me
we cant even detect 20...iLLmatic wrote:
true... besides...
we cant actually notice more than 60fps.. due to "eye lag".. over 100 suits me
top 11%
this program is dodgy. i have radeon x1900XT(512mb ram), 2GB of crucial ballistax ram, amd 3700+, superfast dvd drives and my system kicks ass in games , yet this piece of software says that 89% of systems are better than mine, so either the software sucks or it bases your score on what hard drive you have, because thats the only thing in my system that isn't top end.
top 1%
Processor AMD Athlon(tm) 64 2201MHz
Display Card ATI RADEON X850 XT PE
Memory 2048MB
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP
Free Disk Space 13.47GB
Display Card Memory 256MB
Display Driver Version 6.14.10.6587
DirectX Version 9.0c
Optical Drive CD/DVD
Sound Card Realtek AC97 Audio
Processor AMD Athlon(tm) 64 2201MHz
Display Card ATI RADEON X850 XT PE
Memory 2048MB
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP
Free Disk Space 13.47GB
Display Card Memory 256MB
Display Driver Version 6.14.10.6587
DirectX Version 9.0c
Optical Drive CD/DVD
Sound Card Realtek AC97 Audio
That's not true, I certainly can tell the difference between 20 FPS, and 60.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
we cant even detect 20...iLLmatic wrote:
true... besides...
we cant actually notice more than 60fps.. due to "eye lag".. over 100 suits me
the break point between moving and still is actually as low as 20-30 FPS, the sense of moving actually starts as low as 16 but gets better untill about 25-30. Most TV signals are in this range, so no, i dont think you could tell the difference between 30 and 60, its still just a blur.
http://www.cs.nps.navy.mil/people/facul … sld016.htm
Although i do enjoy running BF2 @ 100FPS just cuz i can , still get those framerate drops when i blow shit up though (50-60FPS) damn those explosions.
http://www.cs.nps.navy.mil/people/facul … sld016.htm
Although i do enjoy running BF2 @ 100FPS just cuz i can , still get those framerate drops when i blow shit up though (50-60FPS) damn those explosions.
I can tell the difference between 30, and 60 FPS in a game. Games, TV, and movies are different, you can't compare them. Games do not have motion blur so it's harder to get a fluid motion at lower frames per second.the_outsider38 wrote:
the break point between moving and still is actually as low as 20-30 FPS, the sense of moving actually starts as low as 16 but gets better untill about 25-30. Most TV signals are in this range, so no, i dont think you could tell the difference between 30 and 60, its still just a blur.
http://www.cs.nps.navy.mil/people/facul … sld016.htm
Although i do enjoy running BF2 @ 100FPS just cuz i can , still get those framerate drops when i blow shit up though (50-60FPS) damn those explosions.
http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_1.html
Last edited by psychotoxic187 (2006-02-10 14:54:53)