BF2S Forums Tempting gfx cards...

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

Well you're right, it was actually the 4870 that was <$200. So they're a little cheaper, but that's for the 512mb versions which perform a lot slower at high res. The GTX260 and 4870 1GB are the same price, but the GTX260 is faster. Look up benchies.

You would have to play in 1920x1200 before the 1Gb 4870 start to outrun the OC'ed 4870

actually no. Crysis for example runs about 10% faster even at 1280x1024 with 1GB VRAM.

There will allways be exceptions

But generally, the games out today applies to my first comment...

You are right however that crysis does indeed run faster with more ram, but then you can find other games, that do not... but generally, you have to reach those extreme resolutions before you get a justifiable boost of performance... And as the future comes, more games will use higher resolution textures, so in a year or two, 1Gb will definately be worth it, but imo that is not now...

ghettoperson wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

For all you guys that claim you can see 80fps, you're talking crap. Given that your monitor (well, almost all) has a refresh rate of 60Hz, you won't be able to see anything over that. And movies run at 24fps. I think 30 is perfectly adequate.

Every time. Every, fucking, time.

Every time an FPS subject emerges, someone has to pull the whole "you can't see that much FPS". Which by the way is incorrect, the human eye can see 80FPS.

Furthermore, it makes NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE what your eye can see. The game is hardcoded to only produce a certain amount of visible frames. Notice how the images don't appear faster when the FPS increases.

I can tell you for damn sure that I can tell the difference between 80FPS and 125+FPS. It's very clear.

So why then are movies smooth at 24fps?

Because a game is not a movie. A movie is a predetermined and optimized set of frames. A game is not. The amount of FPS you have is not what you see. It is what the computer is rendering the game at.

For example, say you have a 360 frame explosion sequence in a game. Say your refresh rate is 60Hz. That explosion sequence will take 6 seconds to play (assuming my mathz is correct, which isn't likely). Now say your game FPS is at like 120FPS. The game will render that sequence and wait for it to be displayed, therefore it's not rendering everything on a per request basis.

That theory may be completely bullshit, but that's how I understand it.

All I know is that I can tell a performance difference in every game I play. 40FPS is laggy to me.

haffeysucks wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

You would have to play in 1920x1200 before the 1Gb 4870 start to outrun the OC'ed 4870

actually no. Crysis for example runs about 10% faster even at 1280x1024 with 1GB VRAM.

and don't even start talking about GTA IV.

more vRAM = smoother FPS, the point is, you will notice the difference.

lol don't bring GTA IV into ANY conversations about benchmarking and performance..

the game is probably the worst optimized game of the year just because R* was so dumb to make the textures size up along with the resolution, completely ignoring the fact that us TFT users need to run our "optimal resolution" to get a semi-decent image quality...

man have I felt like returning that game ever since I got it...

Sydney wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

haffeysucks wrote:

and don't even start talking about GTA IV.

more vRAM = smoother FPS, the point is, you will notice the difference.

lol don't bring GTA IV into ANY conversations about benchmarking and performance..

the game is probably the worst optimized game of the year just because R* was so dumb to make the textures size up along with the resolution, completely ignoring the fact that us TFT users need to run our "optimal resolution" to get a semi-decent image quality...

man have I felt like returning that game ever since I got it...

That means the game was practically designed to wrestle my 100GB/s 8800GTX

I say BRING IT ON!

People are getting shitty frame rates with 4870 X2's. You've got no chance.

Sydney wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Sydney wrote:

That means the game was practically designed to wrestle my 100GB/s 8800GTX

I say BRING IT ON!

People are getting shitty frame rates with 4870 X2's. You've got no chance.

Oh well...

I sure hope Rockstar will patch the crap out of this game to make it reach the quality level of San Andreas which was a pretty good port even though the graphics were far from revolutionizing..

haffeysucks wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Sydney wrote:

That means the game was practically designed to wrestle my 100GB/s 8800GTX

I say BRING IT ON!

People are getting shitty frame rates with 4870 X2's. You've got no chance.

good thing i don't have the game then.  the point is, vRAM is being utilized a lot more nowadays.  even if GTA4 is a shitty port, other new games will be using a lot of texture memory etc. and you will appreciate the extra RAM.  not to mention (again) that it smooths FPS too, which is extremely important (to me at least).  both cards could have similar FPS averages (say 34 vs 39) but if the graph of the 512MB card is all jaggedy with really low minimum FPS, i want the 1GB card with a nice smooth graph.

that's kinda hard to explain but i hope you understand what i'm trying to say.

I getcha.