LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksLOL thats a stupid question. if ur a hardcore gamer that plays the lates games you need the power to do and at the moment there is not a single card that plays crysis at abover 50fps on its highest settings at 1680x resOriginally Posted by McPhee
LOL thats a stupid question. if ur a hardcore gamer that plays the lates games you need the power to do and at the moment there is not a single card that plays crysis at abover 50fps on its highest settings at 1680x res
How much does anyon actually care about playing crysis on highest settings.. should do a poll.
It looks fine with medium settings.
looks average at medium. i want it to LOOK like th E3 vids we saw years ago. i care. maybe teh cards out now play yesterdays games fine but what about tomorrows games like alan wake, far cry2, battlefied 3?
Is there a 8800gs 768mb available?
Today's cards can't play tomorrow's games on max settings. This will forever be the case, and the reason why we continue to spend money upgrading our gear.
Nope, but all that memory on a mid-range card would be pointless anyways. Having said that, the 8800GS in general seems pretty pointless to me...
so they had some kind of super cards to play it back then...
I can't get into the frame of mind where the detail really counts.. surely the gameplay is good enough
Don't have Crysis so really couldn't give a monkeys.
On the other hand I can understand that people want to be able to play at the highest settings but as you say Mike it should be more abut gameplay than graphics, buy a game and rave about it because its good to play not because it looks pretty! Now if it didn't play well because the graphics were poor that would be a different matter.
I dont have crysis either.. my mate does. He tried it on high settings obviously with not much luck but the frames didn't look that dissimilar to the medium setting ones..
Maybe im just not fussy enough.
When I buy a game, I kind of what to play it with all the details on, because I think that is how the artist intended to look (this may, of course, not be true - but I reckon it's more likely that they intended to look even better but decided to cut back even at max settings to avoid the complaints we now see in Crysis). Of course, all the eye candy won't compensate for rubbish gameplay, but it's not like you have to pick one or the other.
That is why I would buy today's GFX card to play yesterday's game (I've yet to play FEAR and it's likely the first game I'll play on the next PC I build with a current gen GFX card). By the time I play the game, I'll be able to play it on max setting. I won't think it looks like crap, because I've never played Crysis, so my current eye candy reference point is more like Q4/HL2. And I'd imagine that the game should be well patched now.
As for the GS being pointless, I am not so sure. It trades hit with the 256MB GT: It's a little slower in games the GT is not bottlenecked, but is also less likely to hit the memory bottleneck (there are one or two games the 256MB is stretched even at mid-range resolutions), especially with some AA/AF on. Overall, I think the GS edges the 256MB GT in usefulness, and I think those cards are currently nVidia's best reply against the 3850 (although still a little more expensive).
Last edited by TooNice; 01-02-2008 at 12:00 AM.
I think COD4 looks amazing even on limited hardware. If you havn't played that yet give it a go. My System runs it on full @ 1680 x 1050
Definitely will once my new system is built. Your little tip on the IP-35 Pro has helped me along (I was quite sure that was the last thing I would be able to find a decent deal on)
On the downside, I ran into a little setback CPU wise. I was set on buying a 2nd hand Q6600 but that the plan had to be scrapped due to an accident. I'll have to study the E8400 a little more now (I am weary of the early 4.5Ghz craze).
Back to the graphics card, are there are GTS that come with 'silent' cooling out of the box? It's well accepted that the stock cooler of a reference GTS is better than the stock cooler of a reference GT. But there are at least two passive GT.
Cant say i've seen one.
My mate has just bought the aftermarket zalman cooler for the GTS which is very quiet (as near to silent as you will probably notice) and isn't huuuuge like the thermalright HR-03GT
Cost a fair bit though. Something like £50 including the memory heatsinks.
Zalman VF1000-LED VGA Cooler
Zalman ZM-RHS88 GeForce 8800 Series VGA RAM Heatsink
Woah, that's a lot to put on a GFX card. Isn't the Arctic S1 a good bit smaller than the HR-03? I used to be sceptical about it (probably for no other reason than being comparatively inexpensive), but I can't ignore the praise it received from SPCR.
Yeah looks a bit smaller. Havn't read much about that one yet.
Wow! You're one hardcore gamer, man! I mean, you even use "teh" instead of "the"
I guess i may as well retire from gaming, skill is no longer enough...
Last edited by McPhee; 01-02-2008 at 02:37 AM.
No such thing as enough graphics power, but there is such a thing as too much cost.
I play a few games that run much slower than I would like, even on one of the fastest single GPU cards (8800GTS 512 with a 15% OC, making it a bit faster than a GTX at the resolution I use).
Even in somewhat older games such as Oblivion, I do not get the frames I find ideal at the graphics settings I would like. Even SLI 8800Ultra's would not do this.
In general, I find that it takes about 4 years from the time a game is released to the time I am able to run them "perfectly" (by my definition this is with everything maxed out at the native res of whatever monitor I am using with at least 4x AA and 16x AF, and never, ever, see below 60FPS) with high-end hardware.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
