SlasherMan's forum posts

#1 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@Cameron said:

In case anyone is wondering, this is US only. Not even US and Canada, just US.

You can use a fake US billing address and it'll work just fine. No IP checks, no nothing.

#2 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@IrrelevantJohn said:

@Raven10 said:

Does it actually run at 60 fps on PC? I got The Run last year and it was locked at 30 and I'm pretty sure Hot Pursuit was locked at 30 as well. Has EA confirmed you can run this game at 60 fps on PC?

Fuck... You actually made a really good point there about Hot Pursuit being locked at 30fps.

Hot Pursuit was locked to 30 on consoles, not on PC. Link.

The Run was indeed locked to 30 on all platforms (though apparently it can be unlocked on PC through some community patch or whatever).

#3 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior: They did indeed mess up the naming schemes for the 6000 series, however, a 6850 is just a bit faster than a 5830. It's actually equivalent to Nvidia's 285.

@AiurFlux: Yeah some games just overcompensate and go too far. Check out Metro 2033's recommended settings for example. And I played that game on a dual core with an 8800GT and 2GB RAM just fine on normal settings at 1920x1080, and it still looked and ran great.

Keep in mind that Dishonored is an Unreal Engine 3 game. UE3 games are known to run generally really great and scale well across all kinds of hardware.

#4 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

I wake up feeling like an absolute wreck every day. How's that for feeling old?

#5 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@AsperGamer said:

@FluxWaveZ said:

I loved it, but you shouldn't buy it.

I am intrigued by this response. Why wouldn't I also love it? Or perhaps I should just steal it?

He probably means rent it?

I recently got it for relatively cheap too but I haven't played it yet, so I can't comment on whether it was worth it or not. It just seemed like a unique enough game to warrant a purchase at $20-$25. We'll see if I still feel the same when I get to playing it (especially considering the fact that the plot has already been ruined for me).

#6 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@Jams: I'm disputing your claims that the 660 Ti is "barely on-par" with a 285. It is a ridiculous statement to make, and even worse when you're quoting numbers without knowing what they actually mean. The whole point of my post was to show that having a much smaller memory bus is not as detrimental as you seem to believe when you put much faster memory on the card, and perhaps at least explain a bit about how those matter. Memory buses and clocks affect memory bandwidth, and that's where the 660 Ti falls slightly short of the 285 (13 GB/s short as I've stated). However, that alone does not stop it from being the significantly faster card of the two (which it is). That game suffering in performance is more likely the result of it being a very old game, and the card being very new so you can see how drivers can be an issue here especially when it comes to older games like that.

#7 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@Jams said:

These are the two cards I have. I don't know what else to tell you other than the 285 could really hold it's own.

I wasn't disputing that. There's no doubt it's still a very capable card.

#8 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@Jams said:

@Alexandru said:

@Jams: 660 Ti ? Are you sure you don't have a CPU botleneck?

I don't have a CPU bottleneck. It is an early generation i7 920, but it's more than enough to run games. The way they made the 660 Ti cheaper was to cut the memory interface from 256-bit to 192-bit and it definitely can show up in certain types of games. For instance, one of the games I tested the card out with was Everquest 2. The 285 could handle it on near max no problem. The 660 Ti would bog down pretty bad on parts where there was a lot of enemies in sight and in one city in particular, the games FPS dropped to single digits until I dropped the settings to really low. But in the Witcher 2, I couldn't really run it maxed out on the 285, but I could on the 660Ti even with ubersampling on.

I find it hard to believe that a 13 GB/s difference in memory bandwidth (which is about all that the 285 has over the 660 Ti) would be the cause of an old game (notorious for being CPU bound, mind you) running this bad. It's more likely that this is just a driver issue with the newer cards. And while you're correct about cutting the memory bus down to 192-bit, you're forgetting that the 660 Ti runs much faster GDDR5 memory than the 285's GDDR3. Running faster memory allows you to get the same or better bandwidth rates even if you cut down the bus width, so it's not as significant as you may think (think of it as a street, wider street with lower speed vs a narrower one with a much higher top speed allowed). A 680 has half the bus width of a 285, and yet that's easily 35 GB/s ahead in memory bandwidth.

Regardless, something's wrong with your setup or drivers if you're not getting significantly better results than your 285 (at least in newer games, where those should definitely be optimized for newer cards with fairly functional drivers).

#9 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@Doctorchimp: That's not true at all.

The 285 is about the same performance-wise as a 460. And a 580 is actually a bit faster than a 660, but about the same as a 660 Ti.

#10 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@SuperJoe said:

@SlasherMan said:

@Branthog: I believe Kenny only helps if you appeal to him saying that Clem is your only family. He agrees to join even if he says you were always against him at first. That's how it was for me anyway.

I chose to say "Clementine is family", but that only made Kenny angrier in my playthrough where he says something like "Who are you to talk about family when mine is dead."

Ah, then it probably also takes into account some of your previous decisions involving Duck and Katjaa.