I have 5.7ghz CPU according to steam, steam is retarted.
- Thread starter Xycron
- Start date
LOL steam can run on a 8MB video card(oh yes i have tryed, used to run DoD n it, untill i got my 16MB from my other Pc, then got my 32, then 64, and now 128), its the games that require more, and my MX440 128MB's can run all the games on my list which is all the steam games except Rag doll kung fu, which includes me playing half life 2, and CS:S, on meduim or high settings with no lag, people overrate video cards, i can get 40-50fps on most games and another 30-60fps on that wont really do much s i dont care, although i will be gettign a new video card from the FX sereis just for the shader technology for some of the games that requir it(not on steam)
and yes its DX9 compatible, steam is just dumb.
Notice thats just the recomened requirments anyways.
and yes its DX9 compatible, steam is just dumb.
Notice thats just the recomened requirments anyways.
.Some of us seem confused here. Because a card doesn't support DX9 doesn't mean it won't run it. You can install DX9 on a DX8 card, because they are backwards/forwards compatible. However, your card will run BEST with w/e version it supports, and might have SOME problems playing newer versions of DX.
It is DX9 compatible.....and i know it doesn;t support pixil sader thats why i was going to get the FX sersois soon thats what i said, and steam does run fine with it, its coming up with an error for a UNREASLED game if you read it, and also you think maybe since it also says i have a 5.7ghz CPU thats its not all 100% accurate?
and what would you choose my FX440 or a newer FX series card? why would a newer FX series card be sooo horrrible compared to my MX440.
and what would you choose my FX440 or a newer FX series card? why would a newer FX series card be sooo horrrible compared to my MX440.
Of course a newer FX is going to be better than your MX440 (well unless you get an FX5200, which performance wise isn't worth the cash. it's jsut got newer features/support.) But performance wise, a Radeon would be a better buy I say (and I'm an nVidia fan.) For $50 you can find a 9500 or 9600 card that overclocks like a champ, and will blow away an FX5500 or FX5700.
Xycron said:
Sure, you could spend less money and get a weaker card, but your performance in HL2 and similiar higher requirement steam based games still still be poor/mediocre. Of course if you're like me, a 9600PRO is plenty fast enough (I jsut don't play newer games with it.)
lmao again i reapte people overrate video cards, I can play half-life two on meduim setting right now, and that was before i got my new ram9before only had 512) and i had no lag ot anything at all. High was just in certain spots it started to lag.
and those prices are without even looking for a gooddeal, just opening up my new paper and looking in the back of the registar.
and those prices are without even looking for a gooddeal, just opening up my new paper and looking in the back of the registar.
Xycron said:
I find it hard to believe your MX440 runs HL2 "just fine" even on medium settings. What are your average FPS ratings on medium detail, and resolution of 1024*768? If it's below 60FPS, it's considered "lagging" because below 60FPS the human eye/brain can detect the "stuttering." Screenshots perhaps with fraps?
From what I read its 30fps not 60(and think of it this way, movie's at a movie theater run at 24fps and they look just fine, although I do relize there is the highly reflective white wall its reflecting off off in a dark room while you experance afterimage, but from what i have read that doesn't do that much anyways. and seroisly I'm not going to waist my time on that, I dont care weather you belive me or not, and I also run that reslaltion on all my steam games except for DoD that ii run much higher(older steam game)
Last edited: