like I'm confused about a small issue with my system - and hope someone can shed some light on this.
Basically I have been spending most of my gaming time of late playing the Joint Operaions demo - and have begun to upgrade my system in preperation for the full release in a couple of weeks. I had noticed that for some reason, my display peformance was pretty sketchy - frame rates were very low and the game got very VERY jerky at busy moments making it both frustrating and difficualt to play competitively.
I never thought too much about it, blaming the fact that my GPU is pretty basic (5200 FX) and tried to soldier on with medium graphics settings and shadows off, etc.
It wasn't until my bro (Potshot) visited and remarked on how lousy the performance was - so much so that he simply refused ot play it - claiming it was 'impossible' when it was that jerky. That got me confused. You see, his system at the time, was virtually identical to mine. Same mobo, same CPU, and only the graphics card was different - he had a 440MX/64Mb.
The following week I was out home - and saw his JO in action. Silky smooth!?!
His settings were exactly the same (except Water had been set to Low by force - no other option avail) yet the performance was hugely improved over my rig. What makes it doubly confusing is that by this time I had upgraded my mobo to an Asus a7N8x-E deluxe, upgraded to 1Gb 333 RAM ,and new CPU (AMD 3000+) - yet my machine still struggled with JO.
In other tests - including GR itself - it was great....better than my bros and getting good fps at high levels of detail.
Then I realised that JO was probably the only game I ws playing that was written with DX9.0 in mind....and began to wonder. I had heard that the 5200 FX was a bit of a doorstop when it came to DX9 and wasn't all it was cracked up to be - even for a low-end budget job.
So I nicked an old 440 MX off a mate who wasnt using his machine...and bunged it in my rig tonight....and guess what?
JO runs like a belter - super smooth in comparison to what Ive been struggling with for the past 2 months!!!
What's goin on here? I did notice that the MX does NOT support pixel shading (in the diagnostic screen of JO as it loads for first time after a display change) whereas the FX does...is it just a case of the 5200 being unable to do some of the stuff that it TRIES to do and just falling over...while the MX keeps things simple and does it fine?
WHy is the 440MX much better than the 5200 FX when it comes to me and JO??
What's the mystery??
Either way - I have a 9800XT on the way soon, so not too fussed - but would like to know.
My head hurts.