How much graphics processing power do you have?

[MercurySteam]

We all know how vital graphics are in games, and that's why its sad to see that consoles are still stuck will graphics from well over half a decade ago. PCs however, are going stronger than ever. Framerates are through the roof on some of the most demanding games games on ultra settings with the latest 28nm GPUs. Some of us however are taking this opportunity to snatch bargains on previous 40nm chips and make use of SLI/Crossfire Technology. I'll go first:

Spoiler: Single GPU owners, eat your heart out

You're looking at two Gigabyte GeForce GTX 570 1280MB Overclocked V2 cards

Spoiler: Heaven DX11 Benchmark 3.0 Max settings

In Laymen's terms, this basically means there is enough graphics processing power to move a mountain, and both cards together out perform a single HD7970 or GTX 680 and are cheaper than either card too.

But enough from me. Escapists, what do you use to run your games?

 

[Esotera]

Spoiler: I didn't have a clue until I ran this command

description: VGA compatible controller
product: 2nd Generation Core Processor Family Integrated Graphics Controller
vendor: Intel Corporation
physical id: 2
bus info: pci@0000:00:02.0
version: 09
width: 64 bits
clock: 33MHz
capabilities: msi pm vga_controller bus_master cap_list rom
configuration: driver=i915 latency=0
resources: irq:53 memory:f6800000-f6bfffff memory:e0000000-efffffff ioport:f000(size=64)

So basically it's integrated graphics, and it's not very good. I think the clock speed is the current rate though.

Eh, it works well enough for me to run a local Minecraft server on it, so I'm not complaining.

 

[bobmus]

Upgraded for Skyrim, to a graphics card that technically needs more voltage than my power supply can give.
Works fine enough though.
It's a Radeon HD770 I think (it's at Uni still while I'm home), with about 1GB of memory.
Basically it's enough to run everything on ultra, and it cost me like £60!

 

[MercurySteam]

It's a Radeon HD770 I think (it's at Uni still while I'm home), with about 1GB of memory.
Basically it's enough to run everything on ultra, and it cost me like £60!

I think you mean HD7770. From looking around, its performance seems to be around that of a GTS 450 1GB (maybe even a GT440?). So yes, you could run all games on ultra but I question if you will get playable FPS.

Also, not having a PSU up to par can cause stability issues but if it works, it works.

 

[SckizoBoy]

I have a Radeon HD4850... *weeps*

...

Still, it works fine, played AC:R, DE:HR, Skyrim and most current gen games (well, all the ones I've got) with it without any graphical hitches.

 

[Heronblade]

Single Nvidia GeForce GTX 550 ti

Not the most advanced setup as the OP shows, but I have yet to play any game I could not run on at least mid level graphics, Crysis series included. Since I primarily play games for the story line and/or gameplay enjoyment rather than to be impressed by pixel count, that's all I ask.

(Well, that's not quite true, I had to cut back on the juice when playing "The Bard's Tale" recently, but the game is old enough I was lucky it would play at all on Win 7.)

 

[Vault101]

hahahaha....Men

always comparing the size of their [i/]"graphics cards"[/i]

me? bugger all...enough to run ME3 though

 

[purf]

eh, something that let's me run everything in Nice Enough. In Very Nice, actually, but Witcher 2 sucks.

 

[Antari]

About 6 to 7 times what I would need if game programmers were given enough time to optimize code properly.

 

[Final First]

Mine isn't the best but it was worth it, especially with the upgrade I got from a very old and already used graphics card. Mine is an Nvidia GTS 250 with 1GB of GDDR3 memory. The newest game I've ever ran it on was Skyrim and I could run it with every setting on ultra, with the exception of very high lighting effects that made dark dungeons with torches horrible to play in due to low FPS.

It also plays games that aren't as new but still have good graphics, such as Napoleon: Total War, very nicely without lag or low FPS at all. I hear it could run Battlefield 3 as well, but I am waiting to get it when they lower the price.

 

[A Satanic Panda]

HD 5870, the first commercial DX11 card. It can play amlost everything. It can barily play Metro 2033 and Crysis 2, but Saints Row: The Third, just completely kills it. Optimize code? Nah add more unfunny wackiness. And a special case for New Vegas because I have the script extender, 2 texture packs, and 2 non-vanilla shaders running.

 

[bobmus]

It's a Radeon HD770 I think (it's at Uni still while I'm home), with about 1GB of memory.
Basically it's enough to run everything on ultra, and it cost me like £60!

I think you mean HD7770. From looking around, its performance seems to be around that of a GTS 450 1GB (maybe even a GT440?). So yes, you could run all games on ultra but I question if you will get playable FPS.

Also, not having a PSU up to par can cause stability issues but if it works, it works.

Indeed, it works.
It may be that I said the wrong card then - mine handles them all at great frame rates. The only slow-downs I've had are from when I've forgotten to put Norton in silent mode or something else starts to update itself.

 

[Vault101]

hahahaha....Men

always comparing the size of their [i/]"graphics cards"[/i]

What? *Looks guilty*

Ohhhhh graphics cards.... phew I thought you were talking about something else.

what else could I possibly mean?

About 6 to 7 times what I would need if game programmers were given enough time to optimize code properly.

so what your saying is its to big for most to handle

 

[MercurySteam]

hahahaha....Men

always comparing the size of their [i/]"graphics cards"[/i]

Not just that, but the number too

eh, something that let's me run everything in Nice Enough. In Very Nice, actually, but Witcher 2 sucks.

Yeah, The Witcher 2 is quite demanding (and Ubersampling can utterly destroy some setups), but its good to have games around that can challenge our modern hardware.

 

[Silas13013]

Running 2 HD6950s in xfire but I will soon be selling them off to get 1 or more nvidia 680. I've never owned "the best of the best" so I feel like now is a good time. That or wait for the 685.

 

[omicron1]

Radeon HD 6870 here. Good enough to run everything short of Witcher 2's Ubersampling. I therefore intend to keep it for a while yet.

 

[ramboondiea]

i have a Radeon HD 6700 series.

i have no idea if this is good or not, but i can play games with it just fine so i am a happy camper

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

Spoiler

The last in a line of great graphics card.

I need to upgrade soon though, Battlefield 3 really pushed it to its limits and in some cases beyond.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

hahahaha....Men

always comparing the size of their [i/]"graphics cards"[/i]

me? bugger all...enough to run ME3 though

Its not what you got its how you play with it.

 

[BeerTent]

hahahaha....Men

always comparing the size of their [i/]"graphics cards"[/i]

me? bugger all...enough to run ME3 though

This made me so happy.

I pretty much specialize in budget machines. So, for the price of that video-card setup in the OP (assumptions...) I've got an entire rig that's capable of running what I want on high.

Most powerful game I tested my current rig was on the highest settings in Call of Prypyat. It was playable, with no stutter.