I completely agree. For 90% of stuff nowdays, even a 7600 or X1600 will perform decently. An 8800GT is more than enough for exactly every game out there, and a 4870 512 is everything you'll need to max everything out on 1680x1050 with 4xAA.TimmmmaaaaH wrote:
I don't see the point. My 8800GTS 320MB is working fine for me, my problem is my RAM and CPU. The 4870 is enough to notice more performance, and isnt expensive.
I have played Crysis, wont do it again. I dont see the need for a $700 card atm. I can always get a new $400 in 6 months that will be much better anyway. Same cost.
Last edited by Freezer7Pro (2008-11-16 21:17:20)
I guess I should note that I have a 24" 1920x1200 screen.Freezer7Pro wrote:
I completely agree. For 90% of stuff nowdays, even a 7600 or X1600 will perform decently. An 8800GT is more than enough for exactly every game out there, and a 4870 512 is everything you'll need to max everything out on 1680x1050 with 4xAA.TimmmmaaaaH wrote:
I don't see the point. My 8800GTS 320MB is working fine for me, my problem is my RAM and CPU. The 4870 is enough to notice more performance, and isnt expensive.
I have played Crysis, wont do it again. I dont see the need for a $700 card atm. I can always get a new $400 in 6 months that will be much better anyway. Same cost.
EDIT: And you should always be one gen behind. Unless you're a performance enthusiast like Maxishine, there's nothing to loose. Games currently can't keep up with the hardware.
and use it on something else besides the PCphishman420 wrote:
Save your money.
Last edited by blademaster (2008-11-16 23:12:33)
lol @ maxishine. He got ~80FS on the Crysis benchmark with his extreme gaming quad-SLi rig. Worth over $5000 AUS, with $1500 AUS in video cards (or something like that, look him up on YouTube)Freezer7Pro wrote:
Unless you're a performance enthusiast like Maxishine, there's nothing to loose. Games currently can't keep up with the hardware.
/orly owlScorpion0x17 wrote:
What???Mekstizzle wrote:
around the time Core 2 came out. That was a long time ago.
Core2 came out, what, 2-3 years ago.
That is NOT a long time ago.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-11-20 02:18:30)
When you remember the release of the 386, it's not.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I've been looking forward to Nehalem. The CPU I'd like is cheap enough, but the motherboard is not.../orly owlScorpion0x17 wrote:
What???Mekstizzle wrote:
around the time Core 2 came out. That was a long time ago.
Core2 came out, what, 2-3 years ago.
That is NOT a long time ago.
o hai thar mr.mooreScorpion0x17 wrote:
When you remember the release of the 386, it's not.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I've been looking forward to Nehalem. The CPU I'd like is cheap enough, but the motherboard is not.../orly owlScorpion0x17 wrote:
What???
Core2 came out, what, 2-3 years ago.
That is NOT a long time ago.
You say that, yet I still haven't seen a system attain good FPS on Crysis, DX10 Ultra high full AA at high res.Freezer7Pro wrote:
EDIT: And you should always be one gen behind. Unless you're a performance enthusiast like Maxishine, there's nothing to loose. Games currently can't keep up with the hardware.
That's because Crysis is a ridiculously unoptimized and "over-graphicized" game. It was made in the sole purpose of putting computers to the test. It isn't the only game there is, you know.CrazeD wrote:
You say that, yet I still haven't seen a system attain good FPS on Crysis, DX10 Ultra high full AA at high res.Freezer7Pro wrote:
EDIT: And you should always be one gen behind. Unless you're a performance enthusiast like Maxishine, there's nothing to loose. Games currently can't keep up with the hardware.
Crysis still makes even the best PC's shit their pants.
It's like trying to make Olympic sprinters run through tar.Freezer7Pro wrote:
That's because Crysis is a ridiculously unoptimized and "over-graphicized" game. It was made in the sole purpose of putting computers to the test. It isn't the only game there is, you know.CrazeD wrote:
You say that, yet I still haven't seen a system attain good FPS on Crysis, DX10 Ultra high full AA at high res.Freezer7Pro wrote:
EDIT: And you should always be one gen behind. Unless you're a performance enthusiast like Maxishine, there's nothing to loose. Games currently can't keep up with the hardware.
Crysis still makes even the best PC's shit their pants.
I recently ordered a 1GB 4870... personally i decided on it because the price difference wasnt huge ($25) and i had found a better screen with a bigger max resolution for cheaper and also i checked out some benchmarks/reviews and the 1GB out performed the 512MB easily.TimmmmaaaaH wrote:
I guess I should note that I have a 24" 1920x1200 screen.Freezer7Pro wrote:
I completely agree. For 90% of stuff nowdays, even a 7600 or X1600 will perform decently. An 8800GT is more than enough for exactly every game out there, and a 4870 512 is everything you'll need to max everything out on 1680x1050 with 4xAA.TimmmmaaaaH wrote:
I don't see the point. My 8800GTS 320MB is working fine for me, my problem is my RAM and CPU. The 4870 is enough to notice more performance, and isnt expensive.
I have played Crysis, wont do it again. I dont see the need for a $700 card atm. I can always get a new $400 in 6 months that will be much better anyway. Same cost.
EDIT: And you should always be one gen behind. Unless you're a performance enthusiast like Maxishine, there's nothing to loose. Games currently can't keep up with the hardware.
I might bump it to the 1gb one. Depends.
Of course I know there are other games. There are also other very demanding games that you'd have a hard time running with a single 4870 on high res.Freezer7Pro wrote:
That's because Crysis is a ridiculously unoptimized and "over-graphicized" game. It was made in the sole purpose of putting computers to the test. It isn't the only game there is, you know.CrazeD wrote:
You say that, yet I still haven't seen a system attain good FPS on Crysis, DX10 Ultra high full AA at high res.Freezer7Pro wrote:
EDIT: And you should always be one gen behind. Unless you're a performance enthusiast like Maxishine, there's nothing to loose. Games currently can't keep up with the hardware.
Crysis still makes even the best PC's shit their pants.
Name one non-Cryengine game that a single 4870 won't do well on at medium.CrazeD wrote:
Of course I know there are other games. There are also other very demanding games that you'd have a hard time running with a single 4870 on high res.Freezer7Pro wrote:
That's because Crysis is a ridiculously unoptimized and "over-graphicized" game. It was made in the sole purpose of putting computers to the test. It isn't the only game there is, you know.CrazeD wrote:
You say that, yet I still haven't seen a system attain good FPS on Crysis, DX10 Ultra high full AA at high res.
Crysis still makes even the best PC's shit their pants.
I heard the latest minesweeper was quite demanding.Freezer7Pro wrote:
Name one non-Cryengine game that a single 4870 won't do well on at medium.CrazeD wrote:
Of course I know there are other games. There are also other very demanding games that you'd have a hard time running with a single 4870 on high res.Freezer7Pro wrote:
That's because Crysis is a ridiculously unoptimized and "over-graphicized" game. It was made in the sole purpose of putting computers to the test. It isn't the only game there is, you know.
Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2008-11-21 12:21:51)
Wrong.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
I completely agree with freezer about Crysis being ridiculously unoptimized.
have you tried it with anything other than nvidia card? even significantly more powerful ati card struggles with it because it was solely coded for geforce.Bertster7 wrote:
Wrong.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
I completely agree with freezer about Crysis being ridiculously unoptimized.
Crysis is more demanding, certainly. Doesn't mean it's less optimised.
Crysis is both very demanding and very poorly optimized.Bertster7 wrote:
Wrong.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
I completely agree with freezer about Crysis being ridiculously unoptimized.
Crysis is more demanding, certainly. Doesn't mean it's less optimised.
Yes I have. It runs very badly. The fact that it's optimised for nVidia cards doesn't mean it isn't optimised. They do recommend playing it on an nVidia card after all. Your real complaint seems to be that it's not optimised for ATi cards, which is a fair point - just a different one.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
have you tried it with anything other than nvidia card? even significantly more powerful ati card struggles with it because it was solely coded for geforce.Bertster7 wrote:
Wrong.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
I completely agree with freezer about Crysis being ridiculously unoptimized.
Crysis is more demanding, certainly. Doesn't mean it's less optimised.
Crysis: Warhead is the most obvious proof that Crysis is unoptimized. Same graphics, way better fps on all machines.Bertster7 wrote:
Yes I have. It runs very badly. The fact that it's optimised for nVidia cards doesn't mean it isn't optimised. They do recommend playing it on an nVidia card after all. Your real complaint seems to be that it's not optimised for ATi cards, which is a fair point - just a different one.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
have you tried it with anything other than nvidia card? even significantly more powerful ati card struggles with it because it was solely coded for geforce.Bertster7 wrote:
Wrong.
Crysis is more demanding, certainly. Doesn't mean it's less optimised.
For the graphics you get with Crysis it runs surprisingly well. There is nothing else that comes even remotely close to the graphics seen in Crysis, which is why it doesn't perform as well in general - not due to optimisation.
It does indeed have awsome looking graphics but the fact someone just forgets a very large group of ppl (now angry ppl) in favor of another group is unacceptable in long term.Bertster7 wrote:
Yes I have. It runs very badly. The fact that it's optimised for nVidia cards doesn't mean it isn't optimised. They do recommend playing it on an nVidia card after all. Your real complaint seems to be that it's not optimised for ATi cards, which is a fair point - just a different one.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
have you tried it with anything other than nvidia card? even significantly more powerful ati card struggles with it because it was solely coded for geforce.Bertster7 wrote:
Wrong.
Crysis is more demanding, certainly. Doesn't mean it's less optimised.
For the graphics you get with Crysis it runs surprisingly well. There is nothing else that comes even remotely close to the graphics seen in Crysis, which is why it doesn't perform as well in general - not due to optimisation.
Well, that's always happened since the dawn of 3D Accelerators. And it always will.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
It does indeed have awsome looking graphics but the fact someone just forgets a very large group of ppl (now angry ppl) in favor of another group is unacceptable in long term.Bertster7 wrote:
Yes I have. It runs very badly. The fact that it's optimised for nVidia cards doesn't mean it isn't optimised. They do recommend playing it on an nVidia card after all. Your real complaint seems to be that it's not optimised for ATi cards, which is a fair point - just a different one.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
have you tried it with anything other than nvidia card? even significantly more powerful ati card struggles with it because it was solely coded for geforce.
For the graphics you get with Crysis it runs surprisingly well. There is nothing else that comes even remotely close to the graphics seen in Crysis, which is why it doesn't perform as well in general - not due to optimisation.
Hey you need OUR card to run THIS game well and THEIR card to run THAT game well. sounds ugly to me...