Video Cards
- Thread starter LaBlallin
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well seeings how Im being quoted, what exactly was I supposed to have missed? The point being made of bottleneck of pcie 2.0? or the processor/mobo bottleneck of a FSB of only what appears to be 800? Or is there something more painfully obvious than recommending an unneeded degree of expense and horsepower for a game that wont utilize it? Even the card I recommended is not needed to obtain 45-60 fps in 1920x1080 reso, but for 65$ on a low profile card that is not going to require a PSU rail you simply cant top that especially for someone who is worried about the complexities of installing a card to the point they would pay someone else to do it. I mean Im willing to accept I missed something in the equation if its actually something logical I missed and not a part of some imaginary pissing contest.gl1koz3 said:
I stand by the card I suggested, until facts are presented that can disprove its validity. Given the processor config, the Ram archetype, and the system requirements of the game in question verified by canyourunit.com I see no reason why the card I suggested would not be sufficient to run the game in question in the configuration presented with the tinyurl. I welcome you to illustrate how I am incorrect provided you do so with information and not just insinuating I didn't pay attention.
I also stand by my original assessment. OP It does seem that you needed suggestions regarding what type of hardware would provide you the type of exp you are looking for. I made the suggestion to counteract what happens all too often on web forums when you ask about hardware suggestions. You encounter people who will only tell you that you need infinitely more than what you actually need and try to convince you into paying hundreds of dollars more for a part than what you actually need to.
I'd ignore Viranimus's recommendation of a Nvidia 430. That won't play Just Cause 2 well at 1920x1080. The 430 gets 21 FPS on average at 1680x1050 in JC2. You want to play at a higher resolution than that, so it'd perform even worse. The 21 FPS benchmark was even on low settings with no AA and no AF. So on a 430, @ 1920x1080, Just Cause 2 will look bad and play bad. LINK: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gt-430-gf108-fermi,2766-7.html (3rd chart down from the top is my reference)viranimus said:
Here's a current chart showing the relative power of many graphics cards on the market: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-radeon-hd-6870-geforce-gtx-570,2834-7.html
Using a similar computer to yours and an ATI 4870 (6 Tiers down from the top, as shown linked above) I get ~50 average FPS in Just Cause 2 @ 1920x1080(~27 avg FPS in the major cities, but I just upgraded to a Quad-Core, maybe it'll help?). I can even turn everything up to high settings, 2x AA and 16x AF, SSAO off. Don't turn on SSAO, it'll kick your FPS in the crotch
, unless your system is amazing.I recommend a Nvidia 460 or ATI 6850; for a step better, get a: Nvidia 470 or a ATI 6870. Get the 6850/6870 if you're concerned about your Power Supply Unit, because the 6850 consumes less power and produces less heat than the 460.
If I were you, I'd go for a ATI 6870 or 6950, or a Nvidia 460 or 470 @ your budget. Get a 570 or 6970 if you're willing to pay around $350. Once you jump up to a 6950 or 470 territory or higher, the power requirements go up significantly, so make sure your PSU is good.
EDIT: Can You Run It is not a good way to verify if the game will run WELL on your system. It doesn't take into account what resolution or quality settings you'll be playing on.
The above suggestions are based on your $200-300 budget, current system and wanting to play @ 1920x1080 resolution on HIGH settings with a SMOOTH framerate. If you don't need all the fancy eye candy, get a graphics card at or below the tier of the ATI HD 5770 on that chart. As usual, do Google research before making a buying decision.
Well, I had planned on buying JC2 about this time next year when the price dropped, but between ZP giving it game of the year nod and coming across some unexpected cash I went ahead and picked it up on steam to test this out. (had wanted to wait to build my next PC rig, but Ehh, Its in my backlog anyway)
So, I just ran the benchmarks on it with my PC which sports Dual core 2.3 4gb of DDR2 ram and GTS 250 1gb card on 32bit Win7.
Using what I would consider Mid level specs. (High textures, High water, 4x AA, SSAO & Point light Off) And ran the following ratings at 1920x1080 reso
Dark tower Benchmark: 43.8 fps average
Concrete Jungle : 32.1 FSP average.
Between the 2 thats basically a 38 fps average.
Just watching the benchmarks save for a few minor studders that I barely noticed, it was clean and clear and certainly playable. Didnt run the third cause Im assuming that its just the midrange benchmark anyway.
So, Compared to the PC in question, if I can get these type of results out of a PC with 2 less processors, a generation behind of ram and a 250 card and have it playable, I am absolutely not seeing any reason why a 430 in a superior machine is not going to give at least equal to if not vastly superior fps ratings.
I will be more than glad to provide any benchmark log data or specified system data requested.
So, if you want to disagree with me your entitled to your position, but I reiterate my point because this serves as validation to what I had originally stated, that people try to convince you that you need to spend more money than you actually need to on parts to win some imaginary epeen contest. OP you are entitled to spend your money as you wish, but ask yourself this. Would you rather spend 350-400$ today on a graphics card only to have to replace it in 2 years time to get equivalent performance, Or would you rather spend 65-100$ a year to do the same? An equivilent card running 350$ today will likely be closer to 100$ by this time next year anyway.
Another thing I do also want to point out. fuzzy logic, I do applaud you for at least illustrating substantiation to your claim. Kudos because at least your backing it up.
You also hit on a very important.
One last thing I will also point out. When I tried to run the game initially I only got benchmarks of about 15fps. I had to update DirectX and when I did I was getting the 38fps average, so with as little effort as that requires that might be worth looking into.
So, I just ran the benchmarks on it with my PC which sports Dual core 2.3 4gb of DDR2 ram and GTS 250 1gb card on 32bit Win7.
Using what I would consider Mid level specs. (High textures, High water, 4x AA, SSAO & Point light Off) And ran the following ratings at 1920x1080 reso
Dark tower Benchmark: 43.8 fps average
Concrete Jungle : 32.1 FSP average.
Between the 2 thats basically a 38 fps average.
Just watching the benchmarks save for a few minor studders that I barely noticed, it was clean and clear and certainly playable. Didnt run the third cause Im assuming that its just the midrange benchmark anyway.
So, Compared to the PC in question, if I can get these type of results out of a PC with 2 less processors, a generation behind of ram and a 250 card and have it playable, I am absolutely not seeing any reason why a 430 in a superior machine is not going to give at least equal to if not vastly superior fps ratings.
I will be more than glad to provide any benchmark log data or specified system data requested.
So, if you want to disagree with me your entitled to your position, but I reiterate my point because this serves as validation to what I had originally stated, that people try to convince you that you need to spend more money than you actually need to on parts to win some imaginary epeen contest. OP you are entitled to spend your money as you wish, but ask yourself this. Would you rather spend 350-400$ today on a graphics card only to have to replace it in 2 years time to get equivalent performance, Or would you rather spend 65-100$ a year to do the same? An equivilent card running 350$ today will likely be closer to 100$ by this time next year anyway.
Another thing I do also want to point out. fuzzy logic, I do applaud you for at least illustrating substantiation to your claim. Kudos because at least your backing it up.
You also hit on a very important.
This got me thinking of possibly explaining the disparity in performance. One of the strong suits of my personal configuration is that my processor is rated at 1333 FSB and the mobo FSB rates at 1600 thus dramatically reducing bottlenecking. Unless Im totally misreading the CPU-Z tabs from the TinyURL, (which is possible, Im not familiar with CPU-Z) it looks like the OPs configuration is bottlenecked with a slower fsb. If that is indeed the case then the issue of the video card is kind of moot anyway cause the problem lies elsewhere. Not saying you shouldnt bump up the horsepower of the card, but more to the effect the card isnt going to get you where you want to go.fuzzy logic said:
One last thing I will also point out. When I tried to run the game initially I only got benchmarks of about 15fps. I had to update DirectX and when I did I was getting the 38fps average, so with as little effort as that requires that might be worth looking into.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gt-430-gf108-fermi,2766-3.html : The benchmark for a Nvidia 430 in Just Cause 2 that I linked in my previous post was using a machine similar to the OP's (check the link). Except the processor was a little better. It still averaged 21 FPS on LOW settings at a resolution BELOW 1920x1080. Now, can you see?viranimus said:
This is all because games are very graphics card hungry; no matter how good the rest of your PC is, games are going to run like crap unless you have a graphics card up to snuff. Which leads me to: the Nvidia 430 is significantly LESS powerful than a Nvidia 250. Yes, the numbers on it may be higher, but that doesn't mean it's more powerful. The "4" indicates the series the card belongs to. Usually newer series support newer tech, but that doesn't mean they're all faster than earlier series. The following numbers "30" give it a general indication of its graphical power. Usually, around X50 (Nvidia) or X500 (ATI) and above the card starts to be considered suitable for gaming.
You even demonstrated in your own post that a Nvidia 250 is more powerful than a Nvidia 430. You got around 38 FPS on average @ 1080p on med-high settings. The 430 got 21 average FPS on LOW settings at 1680x1050! Clearly, the 250 is MUCH better. A quad-core and DDR3 RAM are not going to make up that difference, because they used that level of hardware in the 430 benchmarks!
As far as gaming goes DDR2 and DDR3 RAM present almost no difference in performance. I'm sick of looking up information; if you really want me to, I can find some documentation to support this statement. *cries* Long post is long!
The point of buying a more expensive card is to "future-proof." A $200-$350 card will run 95% of current games fantastically (except maybe Crysis, Metro 2033 or Aliens V Predator, because they're evil) at HIGHEST quality in 1080p. A cheaper card of around $100 will run most current games okay, but will sputter and die horribly trying to run future games.
I'm trying to say something like this:
Performance @ 1080p
Expensive Card VS Cheaper Card
TODAY'S GAMES: Great @ HIGH settings VS Okay @ MED settings
1 Year from now: Great @ HIGH settings VS Okay @ LOW-MED
2 Years from now: Great @ MED, GREAT @ HIGH but lower res VS Okay @ MED on lower res?
I'm saying that a better card will run all current stuff great and offer good performance in the future. Cheaper cards run current stuff okay, and won't be able to play future stuff at all unless you significantly lower visual quality.
I agree he shouldn't buy a Nvidia 580 or a ATI 6970 @ $500! But around $250 is a good investment in my eyes.
Thank you.
You mentioned him possibly having bottle-necking in his CPU's FSB? You said it appeared to be 800. So I assume you're looking at this: http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x310/Oppity/For%20Escapist%20Thread/IsThisWhatYouMean.jpg because the 4.0x multiplier with the bus speed is 800.
It's only that low because the CPU is at idle and has lowered its clock speeds to reduce power usage; this is known as "throttling." Once it's given something to do, the multiplier will rise dramatically thus increasing the clock and bus speeds, as illustrated on my own computer in these screenshots:
My CPU @ Idle:http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x310/Oppity/For%20Escapist%20Thread/MyFSBatIdle.jpg
My CPU @ Full Load: http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x310/Oppity/For%20Escapist%20Thread/MyFSBatFullLoad.jpg
Because his CPU is the same as mine (mine's just a newer version that's clocked higher) his front side bus is not 800 and is not a bottle-neck. His system can support a nice graphics card, as long as his power supply can handle it.
Long post is long. I think I answered everything. I once again implore the OP to not get a Nvidia 430. It's a bad card for gaming. The Nvidia 250 is fine, but if it were me, I'd still get something better.
