🚀 go-pugleaf

Definately.  Although all benchmarks seem like this on my system. (Celeron A 300
at 375 with 64 meg RAM)
Do you know what the least CPU-dependant benchmark is?

SilverBack wrote:

> LOL
> You just don't get it do you?
> If I get 42 fps at 1600x1200 and 50 at 640x480
> then the benchmark is null and void because at 640x480 the ceiling is
> capped!
> The point of the other benchmarks is to show that these types of games have
> no cap at all. UT on the other hand has very little differene in benchmarks
> making this a completely useless comparrison. It's flawed.....
> <DeadDred@nospam mail.com> wrote in message
> news:3886cc7d.70423068@perm.read.netcom.net.uk...
> > On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 07:18:57 -0500, "SilverBack" <downing7@gte.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > <erroneus links snipped>
> >
> > Why have you quoted 3dmark and Q3 scores in a discussion about UT?
> > >
> > >The answer here is fillrate.
> > >In UT the difference is 19% from 640x480 to 1600x1200?
> > >Sorry not possible. The benchmark procedure for UT is flawed. You are
> going
> > >to tell me that at 640x480 Your system "feels" like 50fps or less? I know
> > >better. You can tell that the game on my system is way over that type of
> > >frame
> > >rate, more like 80...or more.
> > >
> > I haven't played games at 640x480 since I got rid of my V1 ages ago. I
> > get little difference in performance between 800x600 and 1024x768, and
> > it never flys, it always feels bogged down - basically performing like
> > the demo performs.
> >
> > I am not saying that Phobia, or demo's in general are perfect, but
> > from the results I have seen, they are in line with the way the game
> > plays.
> >
> > DeadDred (ShaMaN)