EVE General Discussion

You'd need oxygen on the surface of the moon to sit around and roast marhmallows, but though you could in theory manufacture a marshmallow roaster to work under those conditions, it would be relatively pointless as you could not eat them. Not immediately anyway, which defeats the purpose.

Smoke would be frozen, (i.e: solid), depending on what it was comprised of wouldn't it. Every element has different states depending on pressure and temperature. Also, it takes time to cool something, particularly in the wake of a heat source. I don't imagine you think it's cold in the vacuum of space near the sun do you, for the matter that is there?

Don't make arbitrary assumptions based on only a few facts; you're bound to be wrong, though that hasn't stopped even brilliant scientist, (by histories measure), from doing the same thing now and then.

Actually, one major benefit of AMD processors is that they are durable and tend to function well in adverse conditions and seem to be lest susceptible to voltage spikes and unclean power. That's a pretty good benefit, and if I wanted a computer that functioned post apocalypse, I'd probably want an AMD.

I don't sell Intel chips. I'm also not going to try and convince you to buy one, though I might recommend you upgrade to a better AMD processor based on your system specs and you preference. There really isn't any reason an AMD can't do what an Intel does provided good hardware compatibility, good hardware, and a decent set-up.

It may not have quite the performance per clock and it might be more visibly inferior at higher clock speeds, and it might show less gain from an overclock, but it is still perfectly functional provided you have a good one that is relatively recent when using more recent technologies.

---

Just for reference, an OC quite often grants you very little performance increase, and most benefit gained through OC is due to opening up pathways for data transfer and the like, which allow components to feed data back and forth more effectively. More often, people pump 2-3 times the power into their system for marginal gains of 10-15% processing capability which doesn't necessarly translate to better gameplay or faster program loading and executing.

Quite often, (more often than more often), they just end up with an unstable PC that garbles all the code in it and makes a mess of everything, and they eventually have to either restore their PC to an earlier time or reinstall their operating system. Net result being that OC doesn't count for much for the average user.

However, if you compare similar clocked AMD and Intel processors of the same, (approx.), generation, the Intel does process better and handle memory and any other things more effectively in recent years. On the other hand, most people wouldn't notice the difference in everday use or even while gaming. Fact is, most gaming is GPU dependent these days, (with a few exceptions), so that often matters much more than the effectiveness per clock of your processor.

tl;dr: buy whatever you like; just make sure it is good.

I used to play with ~150, but hard capped mine at 60 and I frankly don't notice any difference whatsoever. In fact nowadays I run all my games at a stable 60 and am quite pleased with it. In fact, I'm too lazy to check right now but pretty sure I never record/fraps stuff above 30 even? But as other people pointed out, there's more to it than just fps.

Well I don't know what the report looked like but FPS drops are clearly not a feature, and we are most definitely not done optimizing this feature. In fact CCP Choloepus (the man who built the feature) sits right next to me and just burned his hand swapping out his graphics card for an ATI card because he's working on this stuff right now.

My GTX560Ti will run at around 80 C if I don't force the fan to run at 70% or more. Now, I don't feel like doing the math to convert it so something my simple American mind can understand, but I do believe that is too hot to touch. I hear alot of people say that's really bad for the card, I can't understand why the auto-fan insists on letting it get that high. Do the manufacturers not feel the same way, or is it a super sekrat conspiracy to burn out their cards, insuring future sales for new cards? Inquiring minds want to know.

the bug report is id 136183 then you can look at it, i replyed a bit harder after the 1st answer he give me, i agree, but desactivating a function is not a solution for me

the good news is that you actually looking at this problem, and i hope you found the solution

I have a Sapphire Radeon OC 7970 and I wanted to see what the missile trails looked like so I went into a belt with my cerberus, fired 5 beautiful missiles then noticed that my fps went from 60 to 40 where it hovered for as long as I was firing.

So confirming the missiles are the issue.

Microprocessor 2.00 GHz AMD Turion X2 RM-70 Dual-Core Mobile Processor
Microprocessor Cache 1 MB L2 Cache
Memory 4096 MB
Video Graphics ATI Radeon HD 3200


Even in tactical view, with particles off when i'm in a room with 10 frigates firing at me (and my Caracal shooting them) the game is barely playable.


Before inferno i had 0 problems.

On a Radeon HD5700 my FPS drops from 60 (in space) to 10FPS the moment i enter a mission, from the slideshow that is the mission then, the effects looks really cool.

Time for a new GPU, I know

That's not correct at all, read the article on Flicker Fusion Threshold. Also, most LCD monitors max out at 60 Hz anyway therefore having the game render more than 60 FPS won't visually matter at all. So, if you're saying you can't see a difference with more than 60 FPS then perhaps it's because your monitor is only updating at 60 Hz to begin with. I know from personal experience that with an old Viewsonic 1024x768 CRT if it wasn't running at least 85 Hz then I would notice an annoying flicker because the phosphor had rather low persistence below 14 milliseconds causing it to flicker. While LCDs subpixels don't require updates at a minimal rate therefore they do not flicker.

Can we just get a new version of the "Premium Lite" client again? I miss a lot about the "classic" graphics, at any rate.
Yes, I get the frame-rate hit too, and I don't have much to spare as it is.

Rig (Yes, I know, I know--upgrades hopefully soon, not Soon(TM)):

HP MediaCentre m8125x
2 GB RAM (DDR2)
Intel CoreQuad2 Q6600 quad-core at 2.4GHz
NVIDIA GeForce 7350LE (<---first thing to go once $$$ is available, I'm well aware that it's the weak link here)
Windows Vista SP2 32bit.

Most settings medium, with shaders and shadow quality low or off, A/A off, all effects on.