LPC is a really rad pc. Gotta wonder how much it costs, though...
Never seen a Youtube video with that aspect ratio before.
The real test would be Gta 4. /sarcasm
why not a 4.0 ghz processor?
I expected it to look good.
now i can see even more detailed piles of shit!!!
This is faked, arma games cant run faster than 20 fps regardless of gpu, it's an universal law.
I like how it still manages to stutter. :v:
Honestly though, ARMA is extremely advanced, and streamlining code that complex is really hard.
Typical ARMA 3 pistols barely doing any damage.
[editline]18th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Doritos-pope;42907665]LPC is a really rad pc. Gotta wonder how much it costs, though...[/QUOTE]
It has 4 Titans, and now I know what will be the cause of the destruction of an entire galaxy.
It still stutters with 4 titans and my AMD 6750 gets a consistent 15 frames.
amd next gen
i can't get over how bad the leaves look
How long did it take to put the fire out?
To be fair the maps are huge, if it was ridiculously beautiful nobody would be able to run it.
The GTX Titan series uses advanced Nvidia™ technology that takes any fires it produces and incorporates it into itself for energy and computing power, this is an endless cycle that expotentially increases, as the more power it outputs the more fires are created, and the more fires are created the more power it outputs.
This is why you cannot run Titans for more than a total of one year, because it will eventually melt-down and create a black-hole inside your computer.
[QUOTE=ntzu;42909097]The GTX Titans used advanced Nvidia™ technology that takes any fires it produces and incorporates it into itself for energy and computing power.
This happens continuously, this is why you cannot run Titans for more than a total of one year, because it will eventually melt-down and create a black-hole inside your computer.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-science.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;42907875]This is faked, arma games cant run faster than 20 fps regardless of gpu, it's an universal law.[/QUOTE]
I'm 99% sure the ArmA games are actually just very advanced power point presentations
honestly not blown away
Well that was sort of underwhelming.
you would have to appreciate the game those specs are ripping that game apart
Never mind the graphics, but there's still plenty of small stuff that puts me off.. Like those flickering textures afar when scoped.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;42907875]This is faked, arma games cant run faster than 20 fps regardless of gpu, it's an universal law.[/QUOTE]
I get 40 FPS with a GTX 650 Ti with normal and high settings, so..
[QUOTE=FlamingBlizza;42907781]The real test would be Gta 4. /sarcasm
why not a 4.0 ghz processor?[/QUOTE]
GHz isn't a true performance figure.
Should've cranked every draw/view distance slider to the max too, since it doesn't seem like they did.
thought it was bf2 a couple of times tbh
Sweet Jesus look at that microstutter.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;42910847]thought it was bf2 a couple of times tbh[/QUOTE]
[t]http://media.moddb.com/images/games/1/1/109/battlefield2_pic4.jpg[/t]
[t]http://simhq.com/forum/files/usergals/2013/03/full-7278-52834-arma3_2013_03_06_20_57_36_98.png[/t]
Seriously?
Like, yeah, I know, it's not the graphical powerhouse everyone says it is, but come on, it's not as ugly as you guys are claiming it to be.
Some of you sound pretty entitled about the whole "it looks like shit" thing, sure, the plants look ugly unless they're right in front of you, and the midrange textures are bullshit, but come on, it still looks really good, far better than ArmA II, and way better than anything a console could ever do.
Also, keep in mind that YouTube likes to compress videos, a lot.
I can almost guarantee the microstutter is simply the YT player.
Microstutter actually drops a bit when going past 2 cards.
[QUOTE=Mr. Tripp;42911309][t]http://media.moddb.com/images/games/1/1/109/battlefield2_pic4.jpg[/t]
[t]http://simhq.com/forum/files/usergals/2013/03/full-7278-52834-arma3_2013_03_06_20_57_36_98.png[/t]
Seriously?
Like, yeah, I know, it's not the graphical powerhouse everyone says it is, but come on, it's not as ugly as you guys are claiming it to be.
Some of you sound pretty entitled about the whole "it looks like shit" thing, sure, the plants look ugly unless they're right in front of you, and the midrange textures are bullshit, but come on, it still looks really good, far better than ArmA II, and way better than anything a console could ever do.
Also, keep in mind that YouTube likes to compress videos, a lot.[/QUOTE]
it's really all about how it looks in the distance. sure character models are better but how much do they matter when most of the game takes place at 100 meters from others
and that's bf2 on low-medium settings lol
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZmynb1Lk2w[/media]
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;42911555]it's really all about how it looks in the distance. sure character models are better but how much do they matter when most of the game takes place at 100 meters from others
and that's bf2 on low-medium settings lol
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZmynb1Lk2w[/media][/QUOTE]
You can barely see in the distance anyway in BF2, the textures and models of everything looks nowhere near as good as ArmA III and I just got the first non-official screenshot of BF2 off the internet, I didn't know it was at low settings (I haven't played in a while)
The GTX780Ti is several hundred dollars cheaper and yields higher performance than the Titan. That thing is already outdated.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
