Nvidia Go Boom (Graphics card crap)
Count Four:
Quote from: Hegelian on 2009 December 11, 05:13:33
Given the symptoms you describe, it is most likely a problem with the graphics hardware rather than the driver. A driver problem is not impossible, but I would think it would be more consistent than what you report. The crashes appear to occur when you place the graphics controller under stress, which suggests hardware rather than drivers. But there's no harm in deleting the installed drivers and trying updated ones. I'm afraid I can't give you any guidance about which versions of the nVidia drivers are good and which to avoid, however.
*nods* The way it's acting, I believe it's a hardware problem, but it never hurts to ask. (I might try a new driver, just on the off chance.) Now, if I could figure out why these things always happen when I'm busy as hell anyway, I'd have all the answers I need. :P
Quote from: J. M. Pescado on 2009 December 11, 05:56:33
Yes, but note also that the resolution being drawn is COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE. Who the hell HAS a monitor like that?
Guys who are too socially maladjusted to have a life?
Hegelian:
Quote from: J. M. Pescado on 2009 December 11, 05:56:33
Yes, but note also that the resolution being drawn is COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE. Who the hell HAS a monitor like that?
I'm not in disagreement with you here. Anyway, don't serious gamers turn down the graphics quality to ensure maximum speed??
Maybe the tech-geek guys are playing with maxed-out graphics on HDTVs, using the HDMI output on these boards? Just wondering, since I don't know if an HDTV could support those kinds of resolutions or have a fast enough response time.
My relatively low-cost wide-screen LCD maxes out at 1680x1050, and it's probably not fast enough for high-twitch gaming; but then, I bought it for its color accuracy and shadow detail, for image editing. OTOH, while I don't play shooters often (I still have not finished the original Half-Life), when I do play, I prefer an exploration style of play as opposed to zoom and shoot, so the more detailed and realistic the environment, the better I like it. This has its disadvantages: I never did finish the second Crusader game because I got stuck on a timed level. :P
Of course, I also usually can't beat the end bosses without some sort of perma-armor cheat. ::)
When you ask, "what is the purpose of these new boards" (especially the $500+ ones), the obvious answer would seem to be "cash flow". AMD in particular has been hurting, so milking the early-adopters for 500 bills every six months is one way to help the revenue flow.
FWIW, our personal experience with TS2 is that the game runs more smoothly, with better image quality and more stuff (objects, sims) on a lot with the newer HD 38xx and 48xx boards we have now, than with the X800 boards they replaced—although in fairness, the upgrade in graphics boards was accompanied by new motherboards and Core 2 Duo CPUs (and 4 GB RAM).
Out of curiosity, I have looked at the Web site for Crysis. Despite the advanced graphics, the game itself looks rather stupid. Also, it seems weird to me that the weapons shown in the trailers and walk-through appear to be pretty much the same as in Duke Nukem 3D (1996!). You'd think they could come up with something more interesting than a shotgun.
J. M. Pescado:
Quote from: Hegelian on 2009 December 11, 19:24:46
I'm not in disagreement with you here. Anyway, don't serious gamers turn down the graphics quality to ensure maximum speed??
Yes, any serious gamer is going to dispense with all the unnecessary frills that actually impede gameplay. It's kind of hard to shoot your enemies when AA has rendered them into a fuzzy blur indistinguishable from the environment and you can't see anything at all because of all the bloom.
Quote from: Hegelian on 2009 December 11, 19:24:46
Maybe the tech-geek guys are playing with maxed-out graphics on HDTVs, using the HDMI output on these boards? Just wondering, since I don't know if an HDTV could support those kinds of resolutions or have a fast enough response time.
Pretty sure the entire point of such benchmark attempts is purely masturbatory, and there probably isn't even an actual monitor receiving the output.
Quote from: Hegelian on 2009 December 11, 19:24:46
My relatively low-cost wide-screen LCD maxes out at 1680x1050, and it's probably not fast enough for high-twitch gaming; but then, I bought it for its color accuracy and shadow detail, for image editing. OTOH, while I don't play shooters often (I still have not finished the original Half-Life), when I do play, I prefer an exploration style of play as opposed to zoom and shoot, so the more detailed and realistic the environment, the better I like it. This has its disadvantages: I never did finish the second Crusader game because I got stuck on a timed level. :P
Of course, I also usually can't beat the end bosses without some sort of perma-armor cheat. ::)
Zombies are not noted for the swift reflexes, no.
Quote from: Hegelian on 2009 December 11, 19:24:46
Out of curiosity, I have looked at the Web site for Crysis. Despite the advanced graphics, the game itself looks rather stupid. Also, it seems weird to me that the weapons shown in the trailers and walk-through appear to be pretty much the same as in Duke Nukem 3D (1996!). You'd think they could come up with something more interesting than a shotgun.
It is stupid. I like that the all-powerful endboss can be defeated by throwing a barrel at him, though.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page