GTA IV's TFR analysis

[Stinky12]

After reading this thread, which a debate has started.

One member states GTA IV's primary performance advantage is based on TFR and VRAM while some say otherwise.

Let's set this straight and find out.

 

Note: For those that don't know what is TFR and VRAM

TFR: Texture Fill Rate

VRAM: Video Memory

e.g. If you got a video card which has 512MB, the amount of VRAM you have is 512MB

 

 

Test bed (It's in my sig)

Intel Xeon X3350 @ 2.66GHz (stock clocks)

Asus ROG board based on the Intel X48 chipset

4GB DDR2 800MHz (Kingston Hyper X)

Western Digital Black 500GB SATA 3Gb/s

ATi Radeon HD5850 (Catalyst 10.9) on PCIe x16 @full x16

Creative X-FI Xtreme Music

Vista Ultimate x64 w/SP2

24" @ 1920x1200

Game: Grand Theft Auto IV patched 1.0.7.0

 

All test ran at these settings:

 

Test #1

Using ATi's OverDrive tuning utility I've set both the GPU and RAM clocks to its lowest levels.

This brings the TFR down to 39.6

 

 

Test #1 results

 

StatisticsAverage FPS: 34.61Duration: 37.53 secCPU Usage: 79%System memory usage: 89%Video memory usage: 81%Graphics SettingsVideo Mode: 1920 x 1200 (60 Hz)Texture Quality: HighShadow Quality: HighReflection Resolution: HighWater Quality: HighTexture Filter Quality: Anisotropic x16Night Shadows: HighView Distance: 50Detail Distance: 50HardwareMicrosoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 2Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series Video Driver version: 8.17.10.1043Audio Adapter: Speakers (Creative SB X-Fi)Intel® Xeon® CPU           X3350  @ 2.66GHzFile ID: Benchmark.cli

 

 

Test #2

This time, the clocks are set back to its factory defaults.

TFR is now at 52.2

 

 

Test #2 results

 

StatisticsAverage FPS: 45.40Duration: 37.38 secCPU Usage: 88%System memory usage: 81%Video memory usage: 81%Graphics SettingsVideo Mode: 1920 x 1200 (60 Hz)Texture Quality: HighShadow Quality: HighReflection Resolution: HighWater Quality: HighTexture Filter Quality: Anisotropic x16Night Shadows: HighView Distance: 50Detail Distance: 50HardwareMicrosoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 2Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series Video Driver version: 8.17.10.1043Audio Adapter: Speakers (Creative SB X-Fi)Intel® Xeon® CPU           X3350  @ 2.66GHzFile ID: Benchmark.cli

 

 

Test #3

Set the graphic card to its max.

TFR at 55.8

 

 

Test #3 results

 

StatisticsAverage FPS: 45.46Duration: 37.37 secCPU Usage: 87%System memory usage: 81%Video memory usage: 81%Graphics SettingsVideo Mode: 1920 x 1200 (60 Hz)Texture Quality: HighShadow Quality: HighReflection Resolution: HighWater Quality: HighTexture Filter Quality: Anisotropic x16Night Shadows: HighView Distance: 50Detail Distance: 50HardwareMicrosoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 2Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series Video Driver version: 8.17.10.1043Audio Adapter: Speakers (Creative SB X-Fi)Intel® Xeon® CPU           X3350  @ 2.66GHzFile ID: Benchmark.cli

 

 

Test #4

Decided to do some further research, this time the GPU to its max while RAM to its lowest.

TFR at 55.8

 

 

Test #4 results

 

StatisticsAverage FPS: 39.51Duration: 37.46 secCPU Usage: 85%System memory usage: 79%Video memory usage: 81%Graphics SettingsVideo Mode: 1920 x 1200 (60 Hz)Texture Quality: HighShadow Quality: HighReflection Resolution: HighWater Quality: HighTexture Filter Quality: Anisotropic x16Night Shadows: HighView Distance: 50Detail Distance: 50HardwareMicrosoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 2Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series Video Driver version: 8.17.10.1043Audio Adapter: Speakers (Creative SB X-Fi)Intel® Xeon® CPU           X3350  @ 2.66GHzFile ID: Benchmark.cli

 

 

Test #5

The opposite is set: RAM and its highest, while GPU at its lowest

TFR: 39.6

 

 

Test #5 results

 

StatisticsAverage FPS: 41.82Duration: 37.45 secCPU Usage: 87%System memory usage: 79%Video memory usage: 81%Graphics SettingsVideo Mode: 1920 x 1200 (60 Hz)Texture Quality: HighShadow Quality: HighReflection Resolution: HighWater Quality: HighTexture Filter Quality: Anisotropic x16Night Shadows: HighView Distance: 50Detail Distance: 50HardwareMicrosoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 2Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series Video Driver version: 8.17.10.1043Audio Adapter: Speakers (Creative SB X-Fi)Intel® Xeon® CPU           X3350  @ 2.66GHzFile ID: Benchmark.cli

 

 

 

Summary/Conclusion

 

1. TFR is affected by the clock speed of the graphic's GPU.

 

2. TFR does not have any advantage towards GTA IV. In fact it's the opposite.

We can see this clearly in Test #4.

 

3. GTA IV is affected by the speed of your graphic memory as stated in Test #5.

 

Note: Amount of VRAM does not equal to clock speed

[mkey82]

Nice work and I personally appreciate the time you have invested into this. Respect+

 

The problem is, however, the benchmark "tool" is a tool, it's broken and I remember the good ole days while trying to use it, it gave me everything but consistent results. If I ran sequential tests on my PC on same settings, there was about 10-15% variance of the FPS results. So basically, you would have to run each and every test for at least 5 times in a row and get an average value. Also, it would be needed to restart the game after every sequence to get more credible results. Maybe even restart the PC

 

Oh yeah, almost forgot, I like tables

 

 

GPU clocks	Memory clocks	Texture fill rate	Framerate*
550	500	39,6	34,61
725	1000	52,2	45,40
775	1125	55,8	45,46
775	500	55,8	39,51
550	1125	39,6	41,82

* to be taken with a grain of salt

Edited October 28, 2010 by mkey82

[crackdawg]

"3. GTA IV is affected by the speed of your graphic memory as stated in Test #5."

 

and TFR doesn't matter how exactly? TFR is a benchmark, and literally your entire post verifies it does in fact matter. ESPECIALLY test number 5 where you restore memory clock and throw number 2 of your prove-wrong index in the toilet. You're not doing any better than the other people who attempted to discredit my theory.

 

now stay at home dads can tell me how I don't know what I'm talking about again..

Edited October 28, 2010 by crackdawg

[mkey82]

Wait, am I the only one to see performance difference in despite of the same TFR?

[crackdawg]

Wait, am I the only one to see performance difference in despite of the same TFR?

39.6:34.61

52.2:45.40

55.8:45.46

55.8:39.51(500/1000 memory clock..725/775 core)

 

It's different cause they under-clocked core and memory clock. Still just verifies my formula on literally every test.

 

Here is something they didn't teach at the A+ cert you took to get into Geek Squad, and the reason I'm right and you're all wrong and obviously trying to achieve glory despite being clueless xD

 

"Texture Fill Rate = (# of TMUs) x (Core Clock)"

 

wait..am I the only one who has a grade school education? I look forward to your next attempts. Read about TMU and the RAGE rendering pipeline and you might save yourselves some embarrassment. I'm sure others agree with you on this, and I don't know what I'm talking about..

[mkey82]

But haven't you said on multiple occasions when handing out your precious hardware advice that the only thing that matters is TFR? Even above you state TFR is the most important parameter. I could drag out some quotes of yours but I have work to do and you are really not worth my time. Like at all.

 

I don't have certification nor do I need any. I don't go around posing as a hardware guru nor do I need it for my work. Plus, those certificates are for people who put a lot value on a piece of paper, you know, just like people who see a lot of value in medals and likes. I don't need that kind of false self-assurance. By no means do I consider myself a hardware or software expert and these medals obviously mean a lot more to people like you then it does to me. It has brought me more bullsh*t from various trolls then anything else.

[crackdawg]

 

But haven't you said on multiple occasions when handing out your precious hardware advice that the only thing that matters is TFR? Even above you state TFR is the most important parameter. I could drag out some quotes of yours but I have work to do and you are really not worth my time. Like at all.

 

I don't have certification nor do I need any. I don't go around posing as a hardware guru nor do I need it for my work. Plus, those certificates are for people who put a lot value on a piece of paper, you know, just like people who see a lot of value in medals and likes. I don't need that kind of false self-assurance. By no means do I consider myself a hardware or software expert and these medals obviously mean a lot more to people like you then it does to me. It has brought me more bullsh*t from various trolls then anything else.

Yes I say that a lot. It's very true though. If a game engine exclusively uses texture-pipeline and frame buffer of a card ignoring most other instructions, then you want a card strongest in that area. Thus why a TFR benchmark means more than any clock rate with RAGE based games.

 

Before I even first suggested that I read literally hundreds of user-benchmark posts here, and cross referenced hardware specs for literally all ATI, Nvidia, and even IGP benchmarks(especially GTA IV ones) before I could come up with that formula. I also knew about the proprietary deferred renderer in RAGE from a long time ago(a lot of people still don't know it uses one, and also that SLI and x2 cards are useless for the game).

 

In a primitive example you could get a card with really nice clocks on memory and core, and even a 256bit interface with 400Mhz RAMDAC, and if the TFR is low GTA will slideshow at anything over XGA, and even XGA when speeding. TFR 30+ handles at least XGA even when speeding no matter what the other specs are..VRAM just allows better visual because of storage of larger scaled textures.

 

Maxxing you just gotta get one that is 1.3GB or better. It's a simple formula for everyone, and saves money and time.

 

EDIT: I'm not posing either. I was researching this when Nvidia was Voodoo..That was in high school, and I'm a software engineer now. I actually find hardware boring, it's a consumer field. Also I've been despised on these forums way way before this whole thing, so I have no credibility to gain, nor do I want to..I just like giving people information that is not generalized garbage just to piss the ass kissers off who think they are the resident authorities.

Edited October 28, 2010 by crackdawg

[Stinky12]

 

EDIT: I'm not posing either. I was researching this when Nvidia was Voodoo..That was in high school, and I'm a software engineer now. I actually find hardware boring, it's a consumer field. Also I've been despised on these forums way way before this whole thing, so I have no credibility to gain, nor do I want to..I just like giving people information that is not generalized garbage just to piss the ass kissers off who think they are the resident authorities.

Nvidia was Voodoo?

 

Voodoo is a graphic card brand by 3DFX and was popular during its time because it was the only card capable of playing intense games while Nvidia, ATi, Matrox, Intel, and others tried to grab a piece of the gaming market.

 

3DFX is also the one who invented SLI, though not the same as Nvidia's SLI

Nvidia acquired 3DFX during its weakest time, it was a chance to make sure they will never rise again.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Stinky12

[viometrix]

dont waste your time arguing with crackdawg, its like arguing astrophysics to a 4 yr old.... in other words he knows not a F U C K I N G thing he talks about. he just learned the lingo so he can talk a good game to other idiots, to a tech like most of us he is the idiot.

[IronHide-AW]

...3DFX is also the one who invented SLI, though not the same as Nvidia's SLI...

 

Brings back wonderful memories. I recall getting 2x12meg flagships, slapping them in and throwing down some crazy FPS in the asteroids of Descent... and their SLI was a literal (or closest possible) doubling in performance because it was a straight Scan Line Interleave split if I recall right. Think nVidia calls it Scalable Link Interface. Would need to go look up the naming conventions to confirm but think that's correct.

[crackdawg]

 

EDIT: I'm not posing either. I was researching this when Nvidia was Voodoo..That was in high school, and I'm a software engineer now. I actually find hardware boring, it's a consumer field. Also I've been despised on these forums way way before this whole thing, so I have no credibility to gain, nor do I want to..I just like giving people information that is not generalized garbage just to piss the ass kissers off who think they are the resident authorities.

Nvidia was Voodoo?

 

Voodoo is a graphic card brand by 3DFX and was popular during its time because it was the only card capable of playing intense games while Nvidia, ATi, Matrox, Intel, and others tried to grab a piece of the gaming market.

 

3DFX is also the one who invented SLI, though not the same as Nvidia's SLI

Nvidia acquired 3DFX during its weakest time, it was a chance to make sure they will never rise again.

"Nvidia was voodoo?"..."Nvidia acquired 3DFX"

 

 

Consistency..isn't it a bitch?

 

Oh you guys were saying?

 

@viometrix: where the 4 year old keeps intellectually and technically outwitting the pseudo-intellectuals? I've proved my side of the debate in an epic fashion in literally every thread. Even showing someone else's formula that worked nicely as a prove-all causing all the ones with at least elementary level comprehension to finally realize it is consistent even cross-referenced to their debunk sources.

 

You basically just called me intelligently inferior after I pretty much won the debate..now all that is left is posts like yours that don't actually present anything but pseudo-intellectual bitterness. Go hang out on myspace where you belong and probably really have an active account..

Edited October 28, 2010 by crackdawg

[Stinky12]

 

EDIT: I'm not posing either. I was researching this when Nvidia was Voodoo..That was in high school, and I'm a software engineer now. I actually find hardware boring, it's a consumer field. Also I've been despised on these forums way way before this whole thing, so I have no credibility to gain, nor do I want to..I just like giving people information that is not generalized garbage just to piss the ass kissers off who think they are the resident authorities.

Nvidia was Voodoo?

 

Voodoo is a graphic card brand by 3DFX and was popular during its time because it was the only card capable of playing intense games while Nvidia, ATi, Matrox, Intel, and others tried to grab a piece of the gaming market.

 

3DFX is also the one who invented SLI, though not the same as Nvidia's SLI

Nvidia acquired 3DFX during its weakest time, it was a chance to make sure they will never rise again.

"Nvidia was voodoo?"..."Nvidia acquired 3DFX"

 

 

Consistency..isn't it a bitch?

 

Oh you guys were saying?

 

@viometrix: where the 4 year old keeps intellectually and technically outwitting the pseudo-intellectuals? I've proved my side of the debate in an epic fashion in literally every thread. Even showing someone else's formula that worked nicely as a prove-all causing all the ones with at least elementary level comprehension to finally realize it is consistent even cross-referenced to their debunk sources.

 

You basically just called me intelligently inferior after I pretty much won the debate..now all that is left is posts like yours that don't actually present anything but pseudo-intellectual bitterness. Go hang out on myspace where you belong and probably really have an active account..

 

Since your a "software engineer" explain in your scientific terms on how can

"Nvidia was Voodoo to Nvidia acquired 3DFX" be consistent?

 

Some graphs and charts will be a nice touch.

[Jigglyass]

TL;DR

[mkey82]

I never understood these Tl;DR posts ^^^^

 

You haven't debunked *any* sources, I have to say. Like here , just calling a source inconsistent or not trustworthy in your opinion does not debunk it. You just keep saying "yes but..." once some of your formulas are proven not to be universal.

 

The fact of the matter is, TFR is not the only and most important parameter for GTAIV. Debunk this statement.

[Stinky12]

I've decided* to execute the benchmarks for five consecutive times to show whether its consistent or not.

After five runs, the totals of each test are average out.

 

Test bed (It's in my sig)

Intel Xeon X3350 @ 2.66GHz (stock clocks)

Asus ROG board based on the Intel X48 chipset

4GB DDR2 800MHz (Kingston Hyper X)

Western Digital Black 500GB SATA 3Gb/s

ATi Radeon HD5850 (Catalyst 10.9) on PCIe x16 @full x16

Creative X-FI Xtreme Music

Vista Ultimate x64 w/SP2

24" @ 1920x1200

Game: Grand Theft Auto IV patched 1.0.7.0

 

All test ran at these settings:

 

In the benchmarks below the number on the left is for the GPU and the number on the right is for the VRAM

e.g. GPU:550/VRAM:500

 

As we can see, the numbers are pretty consistent.

Note: In the "2nd and 5th" runs, you may notice some scores in triple digits. The last digit is a zero, therefore it's not displayed.

 

The total average.

Note: The pink bar score is 47.438 as it's blocked off by the bar legend.

 

This benchmark focus directly whether TFR has any improvements to GTA IV or not? Apparently it does not.

 

 

By now most of you might have read our resident "software engineer" have told numerous times the most important things to look for when buying a video card to play GTA IV is "TFR and VRAM".

 

For us with technical background, we can tell this is complete BS as other members here have prove him wrong.

 

From a consumer stand point (the average Joe), you guys are the ones that will get affected as receiving false information isn't a good thing. If you trust that person and believe in what they say (even if it's the wrong info). It's extremely difficult for us with (true technical background) to correct their mistakes (you believe in the wrong info, it's difficult for us to change your beliefs). Since you guys have no technical background, what you guys will be looking at are only "TFR and VRAM". You won't be looking at anything else because to you guys, it's not important. And all you guys want is to be able to run GTA IV at a smooth experience.

 

In the last benchmark chart, the GPU clock is purposely set to its lowest speed while VRAM clock is set to its highest. This throws out TFR at 39.6.

The total average after five test runs and you get a total a score of 43.652. Let's round that off to 44FPS

 

Then the settings are switched, where the GPU clock is set to its highest and VRAM to its lowest. The TFR is now at a whopping 55.8

After five runs, the total average it spit out is 40.8. Let's round that off to 41FPS

 

Remember our "software engineer" said "TFR and VRAM" is the most important in a video card especially in GTA IV?

If that is the case, then why is a lower TFR able to get a higher FPS than a higher TFR?

 

Because the "software engineer" knows nothing about hardware and has no idea what he's talking about.

 

 

I was researching this when Nvidia was Voodoo..That was in high school, and I'm a software engineer now. I actually find hardware boring, it's a consumer field...

"Nvidia was voodoo?"..."Nvidia acquired 3DFX" Consistency..isn't it a bitch?

 

 

Most of us who knows English, the interpretation between "Nvidia was Voodoo" to "Nvidia acquired 3DFX" are different from one another.

 

By saying "Nvidia was Voodoo" interprets as in the past Nvidia called themselves Voodoo. Later on they've changed their name to Nvidia.

If that is true, then "Nvidia was Voodoo" will be correct, sadly it's not as Nvidia never called themselves Voodoo.

 

By saying "Nvidia acquired 3DFX" interprets as Nvidia and 3DFX are two separate companies. Nvidia later on went and bought 3DFX.

Voodoo is never a company of its own. In fact in the IT industry Voodoo isn't a company at all. It's just a name for the line of video cards made by 3DFX.

 

If both are different then one another, then why is our "software engineer" say it's consistent?

(still waiting for his scientific analysis along with some graphs and charts).

 

Our "software engineer" also said VRAM is another important part to play GTA IV. By his terms it means the larger the VRAM the better. that is slight correct, but one major part left out. To you average Joes, you will go out and find a video card with the highest VRAM, pop it in your system and being to wonder what the heck is this 2GB video card run so piss poor with GTA IV ?!

The reason for that is VRAM's clock speed. As in the last chart, we can see when VRAM is at its highest operating frequency you get a better FPS.

Protip: The amount of VRAM does not determine performance.

e.g. A video card with 2GB of VRAM will not be faster than a card with 1GB of VRAM

A video card with 1GB of VRAM running at 850MHz will out perform a video card with 2GB of VRAM running at 800MHz

 

Now you can see, if a person is right then a credit is due (GTA IV likes VRAM too), if your wrong just admit it.

The sky isn't going to fall if you made a mistake, but to dig yourself deeper into the hole isn't a good thing.

 

*advice from mkey82, did that first test at 1AM in the morning, tired...

[crackdawg]

@Stinky12: Seriously? I was asked "nvidia was voodoo?" then I showed how so even from quoting the person asking..it's consistent by definition...

 

How does any test posted in an effort to criticize the formula not reflect it? I even quoted the numbers to make it blatantly obvious..

 

Texture Fill Rate = (# of TMUs) x (Core Clock)

 

This is my last post ever on the subject. I've made it so obvious by now that if you're still questioning it you're either -that- dumb or you're just trolling.

 

Buy a card according to that formula and it will do good, even as my ignorant critics posted benchmarks show..

 

 

Some of you might want to tune up on the bare necessities of comprehension and logic before you make statements about others intelligence..I win you lose..the formula is right their and your numbers verify it...give up already...

Edited October 29, 2010 by crackdawg

[mkey82]

@Stinkt12: Seriously? I was asked "nvidia was voodoo?" then I showed how so even from quoting the person asking..it's consistant by definition...

Grand master, let's make it easy, for us idiotic simpletons:-

 

Was Nvidia known as Woodoo sometime in the past? Yes or no answers accepted only.

 

If it was, the history is wrong. If it wasn't you are wrong and the space time continuum's collapse is imminent.

 

Again, the benchmarks show that a card with the same TFR but with slower VRAM will be slower in total for GTAIV. If you can't understand this, I can offer a translation to a few more languages in the hopes you could maybe comprehend.

[crackdawg]

 

@Stinkt12: Seriously? I was asked "nvidia was voodoo?" then I showed how so even from quoting the person asking..it's consistant by definition...

Grand master, let's make it easy, for us idiotic simpletons:-

 

Was Nvidia known as Woodoo sometime in the past? Yes or no answers accepted only.

 

If it was, the history is wrong. If it wasn't you are wrong and the space time continuum's collapse is imminent.

 

Again, the benchmarks show that a card with the same TFR but with slower VRAM will be slower in total for GTAIV. If you can't understand this, I can offer a translation to a few more languages in the hopes you could maybe comprehend.

Most of their engineering team came from "Woodoo" though the process. It is by definition consistent with my statement, and thanks to all the stupid people like you who helped by posting benchmarks and self-pwning through this big waste of time.

 

I know..I know..I'm an idiot. The idiot who can spell and epically prove poorly thought out criticism wrong with a single equation. Continue with the astrophysics analogies and trolling(might want to learn the algebra I posted before you start boasting about being enlightened to the field of physics..just a tip).'

 

EDIT: Yes I posted again, I don't like people who make little effort to debate, and obviously lack education questioning my intellect after I bitch smacked their criticism on a technical level.

Edited October 29, 2010 by crackdawg

[anus]

You've lost, crackdawg.

[crackdawg]

 

You've lost, crackdawg.

Under what logic? I posted a single formula that shows every single benchmark posted reflects TFR being beneficial in FPS..

 

All other posts were said benchmarks, and posts like yours that name call or simply say I'm an idiot or I lost despite the apparent logic..or common sense. Not actually attempting to even give reason.

 

Half the people trying to prove me wrong couldn't even spell the names correctly..

Edited October 29, 2010 by crackdawg

[mkey82]

Like I said, no need to be paranoid. The only parties name calling here would be you and viometrix. Get in sync with the reality, at first it won't be nice, but in time it will be rewarding.

[anus]

Nah, you've lost.

[crackdawg]

I am in sync reality..by the way that's called a metaphor..

 

@Warlord:wow...never seen that..I've been proved wrong, it looks like you and your friends were correct after all xD

[viometrix]

 

Like I said, no need to be paranoid. The only parties name calling here would be you and viometrix. Get in sync with the reality, at first it won't be nice, but in time it will be rewarding.

i wasnt name calling... just pointing out hes wrong in my own way like the rest of you are doing in yours. funny to me that we all say he is wrong, yet he still insists hes right. are we all really that stupid, or is he just really wrong and doesnt admit defeat.

[mkey82]

Yes, sorry I reread your reply and you clearly didn't.

 

So the only person here calling people idiots, stay home dads, illiterate kids etc in fact is crackdawg.

Edited October 29, 2010 by mkey82

[crackdawg]

 

Like I said, no need to be paranoid. The only parties name calling here would be you and viometrix. Get in sync with the reality, at first it won't be nice, but in time it will be rewarding.

i wasnt name calling... just pointing out hes wrong in my own way like the rest of you are doing in yours. funny to me that we all say he is wrong, yet he still insists hes right. are we all really that stupid, or is he just really wrong and doesnt admit defeat.

When someone posts a mathematical formula that validates their own and proves your criticism of said formula to be wrong, you usually say okay and give up.

 

-Literally- the only data your side presented did nothing but show how the formula is true..repetitively. This isn't even scientific anymore, it's a breaking ground into lack of common sense on your side's part. The fact that so many people agree against me does nothing but display lack of working knowledge among some annoying bitter forum posters.

 

BTW there are gas station clerks and walmart greeters who were also doing stuff with video cards in the nineties xD What can you do now besides tell about something you did that everyone else was also doing then on a forum full of internet trolls who couldn't use a PC before NT? When being smart wasn't cool I was actually learning, and now have stuff to show for it. Most of you don't which is why you troll forums all day, and hate I have a logical and statistical edge over your sh*tty knowledge.

 

EDIT: Admit defeat and go watch porn and eat yoyos already..

Edited October 29, 2010 by crackdawg

[viometrix]

we could say the same to you

[Stinky12]

And while he's at it, he can go bang his head on the pavement for spreading false info and tried desperately to say he's right by going deeper than what he originally said in the first place.

 

GTA IV only needs TFR and VRAM

 

[crackdawg]

 

And while he's at it, he can go bang his head on the pavement for spreading false info and tried desperately to say he's right by going deeper than what he originally said in the first place.

 

GTA IV only needs TFR and VRAM 

Saying it's false info is saying the OP and all the other benchmarks don't show how this formula is true for GTA: Texture Fill Rate = (# of TMUs) x (Core Clock). There is actually a major technical inconsistency in OP, especially where they under-clock core and TFR stays the same thus defying architectural standards..

 

 

Yet another credible source that proves my side and reveals yours to be noob wannabes: http://www.overclock.net/faqs/28489-info-w...-pipelines.html

 

 

I'll keep proving my side till the mods ban me. I have no problem going other places, I'm not the talentless lurker. Your side presents nothing except repetitive trolling and one liners doing nothing but stating I'm wrong..what little you did I used to show how you are so obviously(even using basic math and well established standards in abstract) that your side should of known long ago you were wrong..

 

next pointless bitter post please..

Edited October 29, 2010 by crackdawg

[mkey82]

That's not a credible source, your TFR theory has been debunked many times in this thread.