|
The Official Graphics Card and PC gaming Thread
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. August 2008 @ 10:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
27. August 2008 @ 10:41 |
Link to this message
|
I know which one you would consider but I like the "double slot" coolers for some reason. :) Maybe a friend has influenced to much... lol.
link to 2600XT gfx cards
...gm
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. August 2008 @ 10:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
HIS, if you want a 2600XT, you do realise the HD4850 is a full triple the speed though right?
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
27. August 2008 @ 11:01 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
HIS, if you want a 2600XT, you do realise the HD4850 is a full triple the speed though right?
Yeh something like that. lol. :P I'm waiting to see what Christmas prices bring and also for that B-day and X-mas cash. ;) Me thinks ahead sometimes. ;)
I was just checking out the HD2600XT cards and wanted to see where they stood on prices... ;) As of right now the one that I would get is about 1/2 of the price of a decent HD4850. ;) I'll just wait as I've mentioned before.... NO hurries really... NOT sure the wife could handle me playing games on the puter with the 3 game consoles we have now.... hehehe. :P
...gm
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. August 2008 @ 11:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
True that. :)
|
|
harvrdguy
Senior Member
|
27. August 2008 @ 14:12 |
Link to this message
|
Hey guys, backing up a bit
Originally posted by sam:
Oh and Rich? Allan at Driverheaven pulled that off with his skulltrail board and three GTX280s, he got 50-70fps, 30 in the heavy bits... I'd say that's playable! :) (This was Very high settings, Vista DX10)
What resolution? Sam, can you link to the driverheaven?
TechReport on Crysis, GTX280 triple SLI, not very high, not 2560x1600
Quote:
Estuansis: When turned up, Crysis is a graphical tour de force. It blew me away like no other game has or will. It's far ahead of anything I have seen yet. Sam: The shadows in Crysis are still rubbish even on high settings - you need them very high to work properly.
Well okay then, let's run the game at Very High, or not at all. Estuansis' enthusiasm is slowly but steadily getting to me. The game obviously is a hardware killer, but it is packed with every enhancement known to mankind. "graphical tour de force."
In my opinion, from listening to you two guys, I deduce the following:
1. don't judge the graphic quality of the game if you can't run the Very High settings
2. get the hardware that will run the Very High settings at least at 1680x1050, better yet 1920x1200, and maybe the future hardware that will handle 2560x1600.
Originally posted by shaff:
2.93GHz i7 and a 5870x2 or a GTX380
Estuansis, do you have some screens that show what you are talking about:
Quote:
parallax occlusion mapping(which BTW looks amazing)
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
27. August 2008 @ 14:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
Shaf said that and he is talking about future tech. The i7 is the Nehalem CPU and he is talking about unreleased, unspeced, and pretty much unknown new video cards. lol He just said 5870X2 because thats the logical new name.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. August 2008 @ 14:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
harvrdguy
Senior Member
|
27. August 2008 @ 14:37 |
Link to this message
|
Thanks for the link, Sam. Ok, at triple SLI gtx280 they got 70fps average, very playable.
Crysis at Very High and 70fps average
They were running very high settings on crysis, 1920x1200, but they had AA turned off, and they had anisotropic filtering turned off. (I forget what AF does.)
I guess that really means they WEREN'T running very high settings. You have talked about AA in crysis, Sam. I seem to recall that you have said it doesn't work very well. What results do you think they would have gotten with full Very High settings, nothing turned off?
Back to 20fps, right? Lol
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27. August 2008 @ 14:39
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. August 2008 @ 14:47 |
Link to this message
|
I never use AA in Crysis in any of my tests, at my resolution it eats video memory and renders the game unplayable, it doesn't even look that nice.
AF, rather than smoothing out jagged edges, clears distortion on forward-length surfaces. Say for example you're facing forwards and a chain-link fence runs parallel to how you're looking, in the distance the detail on that chain link fence will get fuzzy and distorted normally. AF Counters this.
|
|
harvrdguy
Senior Member
|
27. August 2008 @ 16:17 |
Link to this message
|
So, sounds like AA is a real killer, and how is AF, another killer? In your opinion, then, is Very high, without AA and without AF, pretty much going to give anyone the extraordinary graphics experience that estuansis gets excited about? If so, then playable Very High is available today, at 1920x1200. But still not at 2560x1600, right?
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
27. August 2008 @ 17:29 |
Link to this message
|
I'm only playing it at high with only cheap very high settings. You can hack "full" very high or "cheap" very high in DX9. "Full" is all the object distance(far beyond line of sight), physics, all the stuff that makes almost no difference. "Cheap" is only the visual settings, which do make a difference. I use cheap very high. Look it up on google.
In-game Very High is only available on DX10 and Vista. DX9 very high is about 90% of what DX10 is and it has almost no performance hit, maybe 2-3FPS.
I'd say a 4870 is about perfect for my settings at 1920 x 1200, plus higher shadows and higher post processing. Though I'll have to do some test runs with FRAPS, I expect it to be fully playable like sam was showing.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388 |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. August 2008 @ 18:55 |
Link to this message
|
I used all high (DX9, so no very high, you can hack it, but I haven't yet) - that's everything, but no AA or AF, it still looks amazing though.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
28. August 2008 @ 06:36 |
Link to this message
|
Some Quad core X2 Crysis results:
Paradise Lost (beginning)
1920x1200: 54-60
1920x1200 4x: 31-35
2560x1600: 34-37
2560x1600 4x: 16-20
Reckoning (Walker)
1920x1200: 27-40
1920x1200 4x: 15-28
2560x1600: 21-28
2560x1600 4x: 12-19
Reckoning (Final scene)
1920x1200: 28-45
1920x1200 4x: 19-28
2560x1600: 26-45
2560x1600 4x: 17-24
Core (Chamber)
1920x1200: 46-56
1920x1200 4x: 26-36
2560x1600: 33-41
2560x1600 4x: 15-21
That's an official 'Playable' sticker on Crysis all High at 2560x1600. Not with AA, mind you, but given Crysis' slightly half-hearted AA, no great loss.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. August 2008 @ 06:38
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
28. August 2008 @ 10:20 |
Link to this message
|
O-M-F-G... that's crazy :O
The 1920 res FPS at the "Walker" and "Paradise Lost" sections are especially impressive. Wow, just wow.
I wouldn't bother with AA either. In native res, Crysis isn't really prone to jaggies. I have a hard time finding them even in 1280 res. But you bring it out of native res, and it goes sour quickly.
I would be even happier if I had a 22" widescreen vs my 24". At that point, I might not even need a 4870, lol. But 1920 is my goal, so 1920 is what I'll get :P
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
28. August 2008 @ 10:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
Indeed, I didn't find that much jaggyness even when running 1920x1200 fullscreened on my monitor. The only time they ever really appear are if you stare closely at the grass, and the outlines of characters at a distance, though at high settings that seems far more prevalent than low.
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
30. August 2008 @ 07:30 |
Link to this message
|
OMG OMG OMG
So many good games coming out. Fallout 3, Left 4 Dead, Gears of War 2, Little Big Planet. Many others I cant name right now.
|
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
30. August 2008 @ 07:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
30. August 2008 @ 07:40 |
Link to this message
|
Yeah ok all of those, but not Stalker. I didn't like the first one.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. August 2008 @ 07:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
Crysis: Warhead, Project Origin, COD5, Dead Rising 2, and a few others I can't remember the name of...
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
30. August 2008 @ 07:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
Cod5? I dont have high hopes for it. No Infinity ward :(
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. August 2008 @ 08:04 |
Link to this message
|
True, but it's by Treyarch, the producers for all the preceding COD games, so I doubt it will be that bad. Sadly though we're back to another WW2 title again...
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
30. August 2008 @ 08:12 |
Link to this message
|
Dude, Call of Duty, Call of Duty 2, and Call of Duty 4 were made by Infinity Ward. Basically all the good ones.
Treyarch made Call of Duty 2: Bid Red One(sucked balls) and Call of Duty 3(sucked as well).
|
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
30. August 2008 @ 08:42 |
Link to this message
|
actually the best cod, United offence was by teyarch.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
30. August 2008 @ 08:43 |
Link to this message
|
United Offense was good, but no way better than COD2 or COD4. Plus recent games show the quality keeps on going DOWN.
|
