PDA

View Full Version : formula needed for video card vs processor


Peter
January 8th 08, 03:46 AM
Is there a formula for upgrading video cards on a gameing machine. Is there
a point where an 8800gt or 9800gx2 or other card would be a waste ie not a
significant improvement, let say if you had a dualcore AMD processor.

Mr.E Solved!
January 8th 08, 04:21 AM
Peter wrote:
> Is there a formula for upgrading video cards on a gameing machine. Is there
> a point where an 8800gt or 9800gx2 or other card would be a waste ie not a
> significant improvement, let say if you had a dualcore AMD processor.
>
>
>

That depends chiefly on your choice of application and what resolution
you run said game, plus the level of texture filtering applied to the scene.

Current cards are more than capable of running moderate resolutions at
almost any level of IQ for current DX9 and OpenGL titles, gains must be
measured against that adequacy.

Then, you must take the overall performance level of your PC, {if it is
already unbalanced, gains will be minimized} but a balanced PC will
always demonstrate the most gain with an upgrade.

There is no magic formula, only the algorithm above where you plug in
your specs, compare the price/performance ratio to the future specs,
factor that against your expectations and then divide by your budget.

You do the maths!

JLC
January 10th 08, 12:04 AM
"John Edmister" > wrote in message
...
Oh, and Crysis....<yea I tried it> pft, its a
> joke, I'v read that it chokes on just about ANY system!! It's built for
> "whats yet to come". I put the settings on high, and got between 10 and 20
> fps, as did everyone else I talked to even with multi-core processors, and
> single GPU 8800xxx cards. No one I know is willing to shell out over
> $1,000 for 8800 ultra cards <just the cards alone> to get the "optimal"
> effects.
> Not sure if what I said helped, but maybe it will at least lead you in the
> right direction!!!
>
>
> --
> =s5a=Jackyl
> Asus A8N32-SLI del
> AMD FX-57
> 2gb Geil performance 3200
> 350gb SATA II seagate barracuda 3.0
> XFX 7800GTX in SLI
> LG L226W @ 1680x1050 in DVI
>

Don't believe what you read about what kind of performance some people are
getting playing Crysis.
I have a 8800GT 512 and a E6850 Core 2 and I played the game at 1280x1024 no
AA 8xAF Vsync on, all settings set to high. My OS is XP, and I was getting
around 35-40 fps. It played great 95% of the game. There was just a couple
of spots in the game were the game did slow, but for the most part it ran
smooth and looked fantastic. BTW I upgraded from a E6600 after I started the
game and it really didn't do much when it came to performance. Loading was
faster, but the game really needs a good GPU.
The problem I think is that so many gamers now have large LCD monitors that
need to run at very high resolutions. So if they can't get the game to play
at their monitors native resolutions they get upset. I have a CRT and now
that games are getting so demanding I'm glad I still have it. If I have to
go down to 1024x768 which is what I used to game at for years, I can, and
with AA, games look great to me. Anyway that's my theory. JLC

Shawk
January 11th 08, 11:59 PM
John Edmister wrote:
> JLC,
> You are of course 100% correct!! That is the bad thing about LCD monitors.
> My drawback to getting a 22" monitor for Christmas..... Although I did have
> the same slow play with my old monitor my 17" LCD. I did not try playing
> Crysis with my 19" CRT, nor cutting my resolution with either of my LCD's.
> Being fairly new to LCD monitors, I really should read up on them, and
> changing resolutions on Toms..... I dont even know what effect it has, I
> just know what I've heard, they have a "native" resolution, and its best to
> stick with it.
> I DO have to add in Crysis's defense that if I put everything on medium, it
> does run 25-40 fps, but, man, seeing all the detail on high is a big, BIG
> difference. IE the clouds when you're first flying in... But, trying to frag
> at 9fps just doesn't cut it........ lol. Thanks for adding though, and as I
> said you are correct!!!!!
> Does anyone know how much it effects game play or performance/quality if you
> lower your rez on LCD's?


I suppose it depends on the quality of the screen. Before I had the
8800GTS 512 I had to lower the rez on my 22" Samsung to get decent
framerates at high settings in a number of games including Stalker,
Bioshock and of course Crysis. I didn't notice ANY degradation of image
quality (though of course many will argue)

Peter[_10_]
January 13th 08, 10:42 PM
Yes high resolutions like 1680X1050 eat up video ram and power in the days
of crt 800X 600 everything was awesome and you didnt have to upgrade for
years untill xp came out then you had to upgrade doh I think if you have 512
mg mem why get a 8800 if the 7900 works so you cant have AA and HDR big
deal.

"Shawk" > wrote in message
...
> John Edmister wrote:
>> JLC,
>> You are of course 100% correct!! That is the bad thing about LCD
>> monitors. My drawback to getting a 22" monitor for Christmas.....
>> Although I did have the same slow play with my old monitor my 17" LCD. I
>> did not try playing Crysis with my 19" CRT, nor cutting my resolution
>> with either of my LCD's.
>> Being fairly new to LCD monitors, I really should read up on them, and
>> changing resolutions on Toms..... I dont even know what effect it has, I
>> just know what I've heard, they have a "native" resolution, and its best
>> to stick with it.
>> I DO have to add in Crysis's defense that if I put everything on medium,
>> it does run 25-40 fps, but, man, seeing all the detail on high is a big,
>> BIG difference. IE the clouds when you're first flying in... But, trying
>> to frag at 9fps just doesn't cut it........ lol. Thanks for adding
>> though, and as I said you are correct!!!!!
>> Does anyone know how much it effects game play or performance/quality if
>> you lower your rez on LCD's?
>
>
> I suppose it depends on the quality of the screen. Before I had the
> 8800GTS 512 I had to lower the rez on my 22" Samsung to get decent
> framerates at high settings in a number of games including Stalker,
> Bioshock and of course Crysis. I didn't notice ANY degradation of image
> quality (though of course many will argue)