|
|
#31
10-05-2005, 04:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: What\'s the best low-graphics FPS right now?
[ QUOTE ]
as far as 'disagreeing with this', what does nvidia have that's close to an X850 XT PE for $230? the 6800GT is $300. [/ QUOTE ] Well, to be honest, I just don't like ATI all that much. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] You may be right about it being the best value around $200, but I would rather save another $100 for a 6800. Without the extra hundred, I would probably still go with the BFG 6600 GT. Maybe it's silly, but I've had a few bad experiences with ATI. 
|
|
#32
10-05-2005, 04:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What\'s the best low-graphics FPS right now?
[ QUOTE ]
even had them put it in, which is about the biggest waste of $10 ever [/ QUOTE ] how did you get compusa to do an install for $10? [ QUOTE ] BUT, i am now thinking about getting a 4-chip commercial board with 4 or 8 gigs of memory for database crunching. if i get that i have to get Far Cry, because with the 256meg GeForce4 i would have the best private gaming system in Raleigh. [/ QUOTE ] 99.99% of games are single-threaded, so they won't benefit at all from multiple cpus/cores/hyperthreading. the extra ram won't improve the experience either, unless you're doing something like installing it to a ramdrive just to speed up level loads. above-standard amounts of video ram isn't a material factor in performance, either, it's a property of the gpu. somebody with a single identical cpu, 512MB of ram, and a 128MB video card with a faster gpu will generally do better. now that that's settled, when can i expect a thank you card from your wife?
|
|
#33
10-05-2005, 04:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What\'s the best low-graphics FPS right now?
[ QUOTE ]
You may be right about it being the best value around $200, but I would rather save another $100 for a 6800. [/ QUOTE ] a straight 6800? that would be crazy.
|
|
#35
10-05-2005, 05:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What\'s the best low-graphics FPS right now?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You may be right about it being the best value around $200, but I would rather save another $100 for a 6800. [/ QUOTE ] a straight 6800? that would be crazy. [/ QUOTE ] Well, although I only wrote it as a "6800," I actually meant the GT.
|
|
#36
10-05-2005, 05:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What\'s the best low-graphics FPS right now?
you're still looking at parity on doom 3 engine games (it doesn't look like it's going to be a popular engine), and x850 domination on the others. it's not close between the two at the same price, but at a 50% markup it's a really bad decision unless ati is responsible for the death of your family.
|
|
#37
10-05-2005, 05:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What\'s the best low-graphics FPS right now?
[ QUOTE ]
x850 domination on the others. [/ QUOTE ] Since I'm obviously soomewhat out of touch when it comes to current ATI cards, could you enlighten me as to whether or not the x850 supports shader 3? That's been one of my problems with the last generation or so of ATI cards. Nvidia cards saw a massive improvement in Far Cry when the game's devs put out a patch to take advantage of shader 3. Me thinks that won't be the last time the shader 3 advantage is used by devs. [ QUOTE ] unless ati is responsible for the death of your family. [/ QUOTE ] I don't like to talk about that.
|
|
#38
10-05-2005, 05:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What\'s the best low-graphics FPS right now?
[ QUOTE ]
Since I'm obviously soomewhat out of touch when it comes to current cards, could you enlighten me as to whether or not the x850 supports shader 3? [/ QUOTE ] no it doesn't. nvidia has been going apeshit about shader 3 for a long time and there still really aren't any games that are really using it. people aren't going to write themselves out of a market by crippling games on a huge percentage of the cards out there and they generally don't waste their time with vendor-specific (for the time being with mass market cards) optimizations unless they have a formal partnership with them. it's the same reason video ram never really matters in the present tense because people will still keep low-volume compressed textures in order to remain playable on all of the cards. when all the cards are 64MB, 128MB doesn't help. when all the cards are 128MB, 256MB doesn't help, etc. the difference is usually marginal.
|
|
#39
10-05-2005, 05:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What\'s the best low-graphics FPS right now?
far cry gives a crap because crytek is still considered small potatoes in the fps engine market (compared to id and valve). they want to be known for cutting-edge everything, used in every benchmark, etc so with every feature added to a video card they produce a patch to support it. they're basically alone in this regard.
|
|
#40
10-05-2005, 05:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What\'s the best low-graphics FPS right now?
[ QUOTE ]
no it doesn't. [/ QUOTE ] Well, that's another thing I don't like then. I concede that you may be completely right about everything discussed in this thread, but I do believe that shader 3 will matter more in the next couple of years than you think. As I said, Far Cry has already shown a big improvement on Nvidia cards using shader 3. Whether they're currently "alone" doesn't much matter to me here. It's the actual improvement shown that makes me a believer. If I'm wrong, well, I can live with that. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [ QUOTE ] it's the same reason video ram never really matters in the present tense because people will still keep low-volume compressed textures in order to remain playable on all of the cards. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I'm aware of this. That's one of the reasons I saw no problem with recommending the BFG 6600 GT OC.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
