Your Computer Specs

currahee · Post by **currahee** » Mon 28 Nov, 2005 6:24 am

Actually I think the problem now is that the P3 doesn't have all the optimization crap. It doesn't even have SSE2. Not that it'd make a stunning run if it had SSE2.

hey are those tests done using intel's 915PM chipset?

EDIT: 915GM chipset on that laptop? Geez, I have a better chipset

lloydkirk1989 · Post by **lloydkirk1989** » Fri 02 Dec, 2005 4:51 pm

Out of curiosity, how does the nvidia geforce go 6600 compare with the ati radeon x700?

Spengo · Post by **Spengo** » Sat 03 Dec, 2005 1:50 am

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php ... &card2=193

mobility x700 is better imho, but the 6600 go has better shaders.

lloydkirk1989 · Post by **lloydkirk1989** » Sat 03 Dec, 2005 4:36 am

I just noticed this laptop.

currahee · Post by **currahee** » Sat 03 Dec, 2005 3:49 pm

For the prices, I think they're both the same price wise. Of course you get PS3 support with the 6600, but if cards have generally a hard time keeping up with pumping decent frames, then it makes you wonder how good it'll be with pixel shader 3.0.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1 ... 364,00.asp
X700 review

coelurus · Post by **coelurus** » Sun 04 Dec, 2005 12:18 am

Shader model 3.0 lets developers create visual effects that will force less capable programmable pipelines to run multiple passes (full rerenders generally) at best. This means, that even if you have a cheap, bad gfx card with SM3.0 support, older and faster cards trying to mimic the new card will get tremendous FPS drops or even fail totally.

NVidia is the most interesting to high-end developers and non-Windows users, I dunno any valid arguments for non-developing Windows users about the diff.

And "pixel shader" is wrong, use "fragment shader program" instead

currahee · Post by **currahee** » Sun 04 Dec, 2005 11:48 am

Hahah Fragment Shader, I was playing on Fable today and I wnated to see how shadows would look on the lowest setting, it was quite blocky