Opinions on graphics?

704 Views 9 Replies 4 Participants Last post by Kovacevic, Jul 2, 2010

Kovacevic

Discussion Starter · Jun 30, 2010

It has been a year since my previous (and first) build, already...like yesterday :4-dontkno

I would like to hear what the knowledgeable members of this forum have to say about graphics and recommend me a new ATI chip. So basically first I would like to know whether my system would restrict any of the HD 5-series video cards and in that case, which cards. And second, I would like to know what you would do in my place, go for a top-end graphics now, or just wait some time for an overall upgrade including the upcoming 6-series chips?

I'm not interested in Crossfire. Thanks.

ray:

Save

Status: Not open for further replies.

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

Zealex

· #2 · Jun 30, 2010

Hey Kovacevic :wave:

I'll let someone more experienced with hardware answer the first. But if you ask me, I don't really see why you can't.

Secondly your computer looks fine to me, and I can't say it would be worth an upgrade. I would honestly wait a while before getting any new parts. It seems most games can run your rig on high without a problem. Do you have any issues with running games at the moment?

Save

Tyree

· #3 · Jun 30, 2010

Does your present GPU have problems? Does it not do what you need?
Your system is capable of a 5xxx series GPU..

Save

Kovacevic

Discussion Starter · #4 · Jun 30, 2010 (Edited)

Zealex said:
Hey Kovacevic :wave:

I'll let someone more experienced with hardware answer the first. But if you ask me, I don't really see why you can't.

Secondly your computer looks fine to me, and I can't say it would be worth an upgrade. I would honestly wait a while before getting any new parts. It seems most games can run your rig on high without a problem. Do you have any issues with running games at the moment?

I know it doesn't worth an overall upgrade, I was just thinking about new graphics since I could sell my 4870 and for some extra money to get a 5870 for instance and boost gaming performance to a higher level (with system permission...) without too much a hassle. :grin:

As for you question, the only game I'm having minor lag is Crysis ( surprised? :grin

in certain areas when I play on Enthusiast and 1680x1050 res. Framerate never drops below 25fps with these settings but it's not the best experience playing those levels.

Save

Kovacevic

Discussion Starter · #5 · Jun 30, 2010

Tyree said:
Your system is capable of a 5xxx series GPU..

Thanks

ray:

Btw I would replace the 4870 for something like 58xx and above, not below.

Save

Zealex

· #6 · Jun 30, 2010

Crysis...aye.

Well on newegg the 5870 card is around 400 dollars. A new 4870 is around 120-160. Selling a used part, it would be cheaper so you won't be getting much.

The choice is really yours. Do you want to spend 400 dollars just for a little improvement in a game? If it were me, I would lower the graphics a bit. Doesn't seem worth the 400 dollars, just for one game that I would soon get bored of.

If you really want the card, I would wait for some sort of special deal. 400 dollars is way to expensive for a graphics card.

That is my opinion.

Save

LetJimiTakeOver

· #7 · Jun 30, 2010

Kovacevic said:
As for you question, the only game I'm having minor lag is Crysis ( surprised? :grin in certain areas when I play on Enthusiast and 1680x1050 res. Framerate never drops below 25fps with these settings but it's not the best experience playing those levels.

Little off topic here. But do you mind me asking what's the min. FPS you get when playing on Gamer settings? Also, how high are your AA settings?

Save

Kovacevic

Discussion Starter · #8 · Jun 30, 2010

Zealex said:
Crysis...aye.

Well on newegg the 5870 card is around 400 dollars. A new 4870 is around 120-160. Selling a used part, it would be cheaper so you won't be getting much.

The choice is really yours. Do you want to spend 400 dollars just for a little improvement in a game? If it were me, I would lower the graphics a bit. Doesn't seem worth the 400 dollars, just for one game that I would soon get bored of.

If you really want the card, I would wait for some sort of special deal. 400 dollars is way to expensive for a graphics card.

That is my opinion.

Nah if I get the 5870 now it will cost me x3 the money selling the 4870, at most. I can sell it now for 120 Euros, maybe 130, and get the new one for 350 the most. I would never spend x4 for this kind of upgrade!

Even now I'm reluctant...I'm not rich, these are called savings...:laugh:

My intention it to have a more future-proof gaming system since the rest of the components can support better graphics. I'm not interested to get a new card just for Crysis, but to have a better gaming experience overall, also DX11. Maybe I will wait for a while and watch for the prices, I'm not rushing

Save

Kovacevic

Discussion Starter · #9 · Jul 1, 2010 (Edited)

LetJimiTakeOver said:
Little off topic here. But do you mind me asking what's the min. FPS you get when playing on Gamer settings? Also, how high are your AA settings?

I got an enormous boost in frames at Gamer mode on Win 7. I just recently installed Windows 7, and I remember on XP and at Gamer/no AA/1680x1050 I was getting on average 35fps in the first level of the game and for the same settings on Win 7, 55fps (!), but not on a constant basis. Some levels draw a lot of resources. But I would say the Crysis/Warhead games take advantage of the multiple cores, not on XP though due to OS limitations. In contrast, Call of duty games don't seem to benefit much from multi-core cpus, at least on my system. Whether XP or Win 7 the framerates are high and similar.

Talking specifically for Win 7, I have some approx. numbers in mind from when I was testing the game:

I remember for instance: Enthusiast/x8 AA/1680x1050, 18-20 fps.
Enthusiast/no AA/1680x1050, 25-35 fps.
Enthusiast/no AA/1360x768, 35-45 fps.
Gamer/no AA/1680x1050, 45-60 fps.
Gamer/no AA/1360x768, 60+ fps.

Regarding the resolutions, everything is relative....For example, 1360x768 on a 20-inch monitor will produce much better image quality than a huge screen running on the same resolution....Conserving the same image quality on a bigger monitor has it's costs (framerates)....Also I haven't noticed any difference in games quality between 1360x768 and 1680x1050 on the SuncMaster T200HD.

See less See more

Save

Kovacevic

Discussion Starter · #10 · Jul 2, 2010 (Edited)

After today I have no doubt that any thoughts of replacing my graphics card now it would not be clever, because I did something somehow unusual...overclocked the graphics! :grin:

Well I've never tried this before because it's not so common tuning the graphics compared to cpu overclock which is very common these days.

Results? At least impressive.. :smile: By just sliding the core and memory frequency bars 10Mhz at a time each separately in Catalyst 10.6 and testing on Crysis Warhead every time I was able to have a stable overclock at 800/1050. But the good part was not the Gamer mode which showed little impovement. The performance increase on max settings (no AA) peaked at 40%...Whereas at factory settings (750/900) I had an average of 28+ fps it went to 35+....:grin:

I also tested the bridge mission on Modern Warfare 2, and it gave some crazy number peaking at 217 fps flawless animation and 90 fps minimum under heavy processing....I have no doubt that Crysis "leaks"..:grin:

Save

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

Status: Not open for further replies.

Top Contributors this Month