looks good... i got a ATI 9800Pro 256meg 256bit... runs every thing in high at 1280x960@85hz AA 2x get about 30fps... should turn it down a bit tho get a few more fps...
-
-
dude i love these people that think 512 cards are so amazing a 6800gt even a 128 version would kick the **** outa the x800gt 512 theres no comparison that would be a very dumb mistake.Comment
-
Weird, this is the only place on the internet that mentions a 512MB X800GT. The X800GT is being released by Gecube, HIS, Sapphire and Powercolor and none of them are making a 512MB version.
The most expensive version is 256MB, which will retail for about $160, so it'd be way fairer to compare it to a 6600GT than a 6800GT.Comment
-
I have seen dirt cheap versions of the 6800 around. That's a 12 pipeline card. I would take it anyday over a 8 pipeline card. The X800 also has 12 pipelines. If I couldn't afford a new one there are webshop's selling demo cards and always some friend eager to have the latest.Comment
-
Hmmm... 512mb? I would seriously consider it so I can play ultra high textures.Comment
-
lmfao 256 is more than enough.Comment
-
no it wouldnt... not if you had the textures set to high, the 512mb X800GT would handle HIGH textures a lot better..Originally posted by $G-MONEY SMITH$
SO your specific reference of a 6800GT 128mb kicking the "sh1t" out of a X800GT 512mb, would not be entirely true in all casesComment
-
hahah yes it would check ur statistics and maybe you will learn smething. everyone thats not a complete noob at hardware would agree.Comment
-
IF the game recognizes and utilizes 512MB on your graphics card and IF the game uploads all the textures during map load. The 6800GT would still whoop the X800GT between texture loads.Originally posted by evogre3nComment
-
hmm, but the 128mb WOULD need to swap with the page file to load HIGH textures, and the 512 would not, so in some aspect, it wouldnt totally woop the X800XGT.. but generally, i am not contesting that the X800GT is faster, infact im 100% sure and agree with you that its slower, ofcourse it is half the pipelines, it doesnt stand a chance, but in some way that 512mb does help, (no dif between 256 and 512... yet)
I resent you implying that I am noob with hardware
I can assure you I am not :PComment
-
exactly thank you sir, evergreen maybe you learned something today.Comment
-
i learn new things every day, unfortunately if you mean this topic.. hasnt taught me a single thing
hehe
Comment
-
yes but how much is the 6800GT 128MB? Price is a big factor (at least with me)Comment
-
idk its like 230 but just get the 6800gt 256 the 128 has slower clocks, and the 256 is like waht 270 now?Comment
-
You misunderstand me, from reading your posts I know that you are no noob.Originally posted by evogre3nhmm, but the 128mb WOULD need to swap with the page file to load HIGH textures, and the 512 would not, so in some aspect, it wouldnt totally woop the X800XGT.. but generally, i am not contesting that the X800GT is faster, infact im 100% sure and agree with you that its slower, ofcourse it is half the pipelines, it doesnt stand a chance, but in some way that 512mb does help, (no dif between 256 and 512... yet)
I resent you implying that I am noob with hardware
I can assure you I am not :P
There are a lot of issues with BF2 that I haven't found any answers to and that has bearing on what we are discussing.
Why does BF2 need to use the harddrive when you use high quality graphic settings with a 256MB video card? Does BF2 use any form of texture compression? Does BF2 simply treat all graphic cards as 128MB? Isn't 256MB video memory enough on maps like Daqin Oilfields?
I would say that harddrive access during gameplay is generally a big no no in my book. Especially when you have 256MB video cards and 1 GB of system ram.Comment
Comment