Constant hate towards AMD

SuperDuperMe

New Member
Now thats very immature. My "ghetto gear" gets me by. I know personally that 20-25fps gets me by just fine. When you actually play arma 2 then come back as its obvious you've never played it. And if you have you've never played it on a lower end rig.

Its quite sad that you have to try and put people down for the size of there wallet as opposed to any reason actually helpful or constructive. Please by all means by me an i7 and 3 gtx 580's then i can be just the greatest guy, just like you. Until then, im going to get back to my "ghetto gear"and play arma 2 to my hearts content knowing that it is a) playable, 2) enjoyable and 3) (probably the most important) a contradiction to
what you believe.


EDIT: At 34 i would expect your manner to be a bit more mature, i mean "mofo" really?
 

Okedokey

Well-Known Member
Touchy hey? I said nothing about your wallet, you did.

I talked about fps, so turn down your resolution and meet the requirement.

30fps for first person shooters is the absolute minimum. Not my standard.
 

SuperDuperMe

New Member
Touchy hey? I said nothing about your wallet, you did.

I talked about fps, so turn down your resolution and meet the requirement.

30fps for first person shooters is the absolute minimum. Not my standard.

Please educate yourself on BIS forums and spread that nonsense there see how far that gets you. People may believe this crap here but i doubt you'll get far over there.

That said, you still haven't said whether you have played the game?

Also im not touchy im merely stating observations and personal opinion.
 

Okedokey

Well-Known Member
OK so you're saying less than 25fps is playable on ARMA? lol really?>

btw ive played arma and armaII a lot.
 
Last edited:

SuperDuperMe

New Member
OK so you're saying less than 25fps is playable on ARMA? lol really?>

btw ive played arma and armaII a lot.

I am saying 25 and less on arma 2 is playable. Unless your playing it like a cod game its very playable. Your either one of these idiots who sets up cqb battles on the editor or is just generally picky. Either way theres no chance were going to agree. So for the sake of not derailing this thread anymore than the pair of us have i would suggest we should agree to disagree.
 

TrainTrackHack

VIP Member
Ummm, huh?
Your case was that 25fps or less is unplayable. I said that "[20fps] is still quite playable". You said you rest your case. The fact that it sometimes got in the way and was a bit harsh on the eyes didn't make it unplayable by any means. And that's the problem with what you're saying here - see, you can go on about commonly accepted standards or acceptable minimums until your fingers fall off, they still don't necessarly set the standards for playability. For a shooter, yes, you would most likely need a steady 30fps for it not to get int the way (as in negatively affect the actual gameplay to any significant degree rather than just visuals), but that doesn't mean its unplayable. Yes, 20fps is shit and is especially annoying when I get in close combat with a really slow semi-auto weapon, or when trying to snipe a guy with a movement patterns of a jack russell terrier on coffee, or when playing online (0.4KDR FTW), but what the hell. It's like playing tennis on the backyard. Yes, the ground is uneven and the ball bounces at weird angles and you can never quite tell if it was in or out because all we're using is posts to mark the corners. Whatever, I can dig that. I'm still having a good time.
 

jonnyp11

New Member
Anyone else reading this thinking about how much of an immature dick bigfella is being on here. I mean, did he really call his setup "ghetto gear?" Also i don't think you can say the ARMA's are unplayable at 20fps cuz i doubt you've ever had close to that at least semi recently. And for your reply yesterday about playing anything at 25fps, that was the lowest fps recorded in the bench, it probably was hit once or twice in the entire bench and for less that a second for the entire dip, also there are ways to prevent that stuff they probably didn't use, like upping the games priority some might've kept that number at 30 or higher, so playing at 25fps has nothing to do with what i was saying that you replied to
 

M1kkelZR

Active Member
OK so you're saying less than 25fps is playable on ARMA? lol really?>

btw ive played arma and armaII a lot.

20-25FPS is playable, by nearly any standard.
my laptop plays Skyrim at about 20-25fps, i still enjoy it.
it plays Crysis2 at 10-15fps, i enjoy it just the sheer fact of fast voices and slow animations.

and even when my "salvage build" is done. i can still run most games for about 40-60fps and still have fun.

at 34, saying "coz" and "mofo" makes you no better than me, a 17 year old prick who thinks they know everything. atleast i admit it, now its your turn
 

SuperDuperMe

New Member
I think we've all took the discussion between myself and bigfella a bit to much to heart. At the end of the day its a computer forum not a rage forum :p. Regardless of what i think of bigfella and his opinions or vie versa im not going to ruin it for new users and get my knickers in a twist. So i reckon we should all just drop it and get back on topic because the offensive name calling is a bit much.
 

Mishkin

New Member
I think we've all took the discussion between myself and bigfella a bit to much to heart. At the end of the day its a computer forum not a rage forum :p. Regardless of what i think of bigfella and his opinions or vie versa im not going to ruin it for new users and get my knickers in a twist. So i reckon we should all just drop it and get back on topic because the offensive name calling is a bit much.

*shrug* Some people are douche bags. Whether it's from insecurity, blind arrogance, or they simply were raised poorly. It happens.

That said, bigfella is definitely a douche bag, and it's pretty obvious as to the reasoning behind it. Getting into it with these people is never needed, because if you really think about it, they make crap out of themselves by blatantly pointing out and announcing their own mental issues. These things go hand in hand, almost like life's very own safety catch. :)
 

Perkomate

Active Member
*shrug* Some people are douche bags. Whether it's from insecurity, blind arrogance, or they simply were raised poorly. It happens.

That said, bigfella is definitely a douche bag, and it's pretty obvious as to the reasoning behind it. Getting into it with these people is never needed, because if you really think about it, they make crap out of themselves by blatantly pointing out and announcing their own mental issues. These things go hand in hand, almost like life's very own safety catch. :)

that was completely out of line. There is no need to say any of that. You have no idea who he is, and therefore no right to call him a douchebag.
 

Okedokey

Well-Known Member
I apologise if i offended anyone.

Secondly, in terms of minimum frames per second, I think you need to review most benchmarks as they concur with 30FPS, and less than 25FPS being unplayable such as:

Further down the order even potent cards from last year such as the GTX 460 1GB struggle, just surpassing the minimum playable frame rate of 25fps.
here

and same reference again here
Every card manages a minimum frame rate of above 25fps,

and here Advances in visual computing: 4th international symposium, ISVC 2008

And here
Even the powerful Radeon HD 6850 struggles to achieve a minimum of 28 FPS. The Radeon HD 5770 (and everything below it) is simply unplayable

there are many more...
 

TrainTrackHack

VIP Member
Secondly, in terms of minimum frames per second, I think you need to review most benchmarks as they concur with 30FPS, and less than 25FPS being unplayable such as:
I don't think that by "unplayable" they mean "not playable by anyone, anywhere, ever, personal subjective perception be damned", I think what they concur on is that 25-30fps the minimum fps without hampering the player's performance/enjoyment on those games.
 

Okedokey

Well-Known Member
Agreed, FPS is subjective. However unplayable has a definition and it means you cannot play it. Especially in first person shooters where accuracy and speed is everything. Also, you must agree that its a common threshold, 30FPS and above is considered playable by most, below that is a massive compromise.
 

jon76

Member
I personally prefer AMD, I seen an amd 8 core 3.6ghz processor the other day for £199 and the motherboard to go with it supporting upto 32gb ram for a further £170. I can only imagine what a similar Intel setup would cost you
 

TrainTrackHack

VIP Member
Agreed, FPS is subjective. However unplayable has a definition and it means you cannot play it. Especially in first person shooters where accuracy and speed is everything. Also, you must agree that its a common threshold, 30FPS and above is considered playable by most, below that is a massive compromise.
Well I do agree with all of that, all I wanted to do is point out that there are people outside the "most" that find even shooters at low fps playable, and that poor playability does not necessarily imply unplayable.

But eh. The stench of a dead equine is beginning to hit pretty hard.
 
Top