TwistedShadow
Member
Lol playable =D! Imma Show ya :
Own an Nvidia GTX 580?
- Thread starter JF_097
- Start date
JF_097
Member
You play on low resolutions that's why. 1440x900.
I'm an Nvidia fanboy so I won't settle for AMD video cards. But I love their CPUs.
So it's either the 580, 570, or the 560. I'd pick the 580 if I earn some more money but I can pick up a 570 and 560 when it comes out.
LindN
Member
that's on the absolute lowest settings, i said not playable on high settings as you said in your other post.
please post a pic in game on high settings with acceptable FPS (40-50 is playable)
Siper
Private Tester
Eh, crysis is fairly old game now, Im tempted to get it just to see how well the video card runs it.
LindN
Member
eeeh... i'm not understanding the logic your using.
budget graphic cards won't suddenly make a graphic heavy game run smooth on high settings just cause the game isn't new anymore. the 200 series is just as old as the crysis series (mind you 220 is more recent but still old) sooooooo.... uuuh...
and tbh, graphics haven't been improved at all since the first crysis and crysis warhead, wait for crysis 2 to bring it further, all the rest of the games are stuck in the cod4-mw2 era of graphics.
JF_097
Member
I can run Crysis and JC2 @ very low settings but @ 1680x1050 (fullscreen resolution). Getting around 19-31 FPS which I think is manageable on my NVIDIA 8800m GTS 512MB DDR3 Video RAM. So if you analyze, Crysis is very old. At least my laptop GPU handled 3 years of gaming. During times of Crysis, Just Cause, Far Cry, Just Cause 2, Far Cry 2, Mafia, Mafia 2, etc. Now is the time for me to upgrade.
Siper
Private Tester
Pardon me, you need to play more and better games! Metro 2033 is probably the best graphic wise game on the market right now, pls don't lower all games to mw2, as there is many games better than it.
Edit: after some testing, LindN is right, crysis wont run at full settings with a decent resolution, it will though run fairly well on the lowest resolutions.
LindN
Member
still does not change the fact that old cards on old games won't run better with time.
JF_097
Member
Lol. The GTX 560 and 595 are on the verge of being unveiled. I'm also planning on running 1 16:10 19" monitor for main and two 4:3 19" monitors with all 1366x768 and up resolutions. (PREDICTION) Which is better in terms of price, performance, and power consumption: one GTX 595, or two GTX 560?
I'll be playing Battlefield 3, StarCraft II, Legions:Overdrive (ofc), and other games.
I'll be playing Battlefield 3, StarCraft II, Legions:Overdrive (ofc), and other games.
LindN
Member
do you have the cash? 595.
not currently but will have in the future? 560.
either way, get the 595 if you can.
SeymourGore
Flatulent Cherub
Don't rule out the Radeon 6900s!
Here's a recent article comparing the latest cards.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/01/11/amd_69706950_cfx_nvidia_580570_sli_review
Here's a recent article comparing the latest cards.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/01/11/amd_69706950_cfx_nvidia_580570_sli_review
JF_097
Member
I'll be looking out the 6990. Then compare the GTX595 with the HD6990.
If I get two GTX560s and run them in SLI, then my expansion ports are now full (mATX). I was originally planning on placing my boot drive which is the OCZ Revodrive into the 1st PCI-e x16, then the video card on the 2nd PCI-e x16. But I can get 2 SSDs then run them in RAID0 in place of the RevoDrive. I'm thinking of two Crucial C400s SATAIII in RAID0. The read speed I'm sure will match the RevoDrive, but the write speed is slower (my only concern).