PureBasic Forums - English

Sorry to hijack this thread, but I saw this a bit relevant enough to try get an answer here:

For mid-range gaming on a tight budget and 24" LCD with 1920x1080 resolution, which offerings from ATI and NVIDIA will get the job done? I am talking about "simple" games like World of Warcraft, Starcraft 2, Counter-Strike 1.6, Half-Life 2. Also, what are the chances that I can get Crysis to run with decent graphics settings at 1920x1080 using a graphics card below 140 USD / 100 EUR?

Thanks!

Digital Wargames wrote:In the end, I bought a Nvidia 9400GT. It was the best card I could buy without having to get a new power supply.

Yeah, them newer GPUs can get mighty power hungry!

talisman wrote:For mid-range gaming on a tight budget and 24" LCD with 1920x1080 resolution, which offerings from ATI and NVIDIA will get the job done? I am talking about "simple" games like World of Warcraft, Starcraft 2, Counter-Strike 1.6, Half-Life 2.

Without knowing the rest of the system's specs it's really hard to recommend one card over another but at $140 this is the best perforuming card, SAPPHIRE 100247L Radeon HD 4870 512MB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16.

But me being an nVidia fan, I'd spend an extra $3 and get this card, EVGA 01G-P3-1155-TR GeForce GTS 250 1GB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16

talisman wrote:Also, what are the chances that I can get Crysis to run with decent graphics settings at 1920x1080 using a graphics card below 140 USD / 100 EUR?

Probably not that great, oh you can get it to run and look reasonable. But to get it to run smooth as butter and look great I believe you need multiple GPUs (SLI or Crossfire). I played it at 1280 x 768 (desktop resolution) on high with a GTX 260. I wouldn't call it smooth as butter but it was plenty smooth to be playable without worrying about the framerates I was getting.

this one is cheap and powerfull:

http://shop.ebay.de/?_from=R40&_trksid= ... Categories

Medium settings, 1280*1024 Crysis:
Avg: 29,01 --> X1950Pro @ 590/ 720 (orig. 580/702)
Min:13,42 @frame 172
Max: 41.12 @frame 98

Im sure there are better ones out there, but I think this would be enough.

gnasen wrote:Avg: 29,01 --> X1950Pro @ 590/ 720 (orig. 580/702)

I wouldn't get that card, I've seen a number of games that won't support some of the ATi X series chips, though usually it's the X1550, but still.

localmotion34 wrote:However, I have no experience with the NVIDIA GTX 295s, and was just wondering how they stack up.

Well, per my NPR charts the GTX295 is a fraction better, a few frames faster than the 4870X2, then again the is a difference in cost. (the ATI is cheaper I assume?)
Even in Crossfire/SLI they are neck to neck.
After all Nvidia and ATI put those two cards out as competitors.

Your crossfire 4890X2 (2x2 cores) has a NPR of 8.34
and the SLI GTX 295 (2x2 cores) has a NPR of 8.64
Barely a difference.

Myself I currently have a Geforce 8800GT (512MB) with a NPR of 3.08
When a Nvidia or ATI card with a NPR of about 6.xx at the cost of a 8800 is available I will probably upgrade. In other words a doubling in performance.

I've always upgraded that way. At least a doubling in performance at the same cost as my old was when I bought it.

This means I do not have top end performance, but my upgrade cycle keeps me "in the loop" without making me go broke.

GWarner wrote:

gnasen wrote:Avg: 29,01 --> X1950Pro @ 590/ 720 (orig. 580/702)

I wouldn't get that card, I've seen a number of games that won't support some of the ATi X series chips, though usually it's the X1550, but still.

Agreed! the X1950Pro only has a NPR of 1.53.
I do not advise getting anything less than a NPR of 3.0 these days. (and with DX10)
http://emsai.net/reviews/gpu/

Yeah, them newer GPUs can get mighty power hungry!

The BestBuy here, has graphics cards on the top shelf and power supplies on the bottom shelf.

Rescator wrote:This means I do not have top end performance, but my upgrade cycle keeps me "in the loop" without making me go broke.

Same here though I do it by choice, not because I have to financially. If you always had to be at the bleeding edge, you always be upgrading and never using, where's the fun in that?

So about once a year I do some upgrades just to stay current, then about every three or four years to a complete new build.

Rescator wrote:I do not advise getting anything less than a NPR of 3.0 these days. (and with DX10)

I tend to agree with the NPR of 3 as a minimum but DX10 isn't all that important unless you have to have the eye candy. Not many games or even graphics programs utilize DX10 specific features.

This could be because of Vista's relative unpopularity. Windows 7 looks like it's going to kill Vista so DX11 may end up being more widely supported than DX10. Me personally am happy with the graphics I get from DX9 so DX10 and/or 11 is of little interest to me.

Digital Wargames wrote:The BestBuy here, has graphics cards on the top shelf and power supplies on the bottom shelf.

If you want to configure a business, home, or gaming computer to see what it would cost, try this site: http://www.velocitymicro.com

I bought my last desktop system from Velocity Micro and appreciated them taking the time to answer my questions and provide first-class customer service.

Look at their top-of-the-line Raptor gaming computer and click on the "customize" button and outfit it to see what different configurations would cost you. Then scale down to what you can afford.

I love zooming along with 12GB of DDR3 RAM on a 1333MHz FSB, 3.9GHz overclocked quad core CPU, two 1GB nVidia GeForce video cards, four 300GB 10,000 RPM Raid 1 hard drives and a 1TB 7,200 RPM second drive using Vista Ultimate 64-bit OS.

Of course, all this takes a 1,000 watt power supply, liquid cooling lines, and six fans to keep the motherboard and video cards from burning up.

You think PureBasic compiles fast on a Pentium system, wait until you try it out on one of these screamers! I barely push the compile button and the program explodes onto the screen.

Actually, what I use this system for is writing and testing simulation/modeling programs for supersonic aircraft flight envelopes and developing weather pattern/monitoring software--thus the gaming aspect of my needs. I was using Ada, but am porting everything over to PureBasic because of its graphics libraries and ability to incorporate inline/direct assembly code so I can get into those 80/128-bit registers for floating point calculations.

I'd use a Cray supercomputer with liquid nitrogen cooling, but I'm just a little short on the funding for one of these right now.

And my wife just uses it for email.

Logman

Be a bit suspicious of Pure's mathemathics, or better it's interpretation of mixed type expressions, it's a subject I've been harassing the dev team over for quite a bit of time yet

Wouldn't like to sit in that supersonic plane when it goes down due to mathematical errors in your program

GWarner wrote:

Rescator wrote:I do not advise getting anything less than a NPR of 3.0 these days. (and with DX10)

I tend to agree with the NPR of 3 as a minimum but DX10 isn't all that important unless you have to have the eye candy. Not many games or even graphics programs utilize DX10 specific features.

This could be because of Vista's relative unpopularity. Windows 7 looks like it's going to kill Vista so DX11 may end up being more widely supported than DX10. Me personally am happy with the graphics I get from DX9 so DX10 and/or 11 is of little interest to me.

Well, if you look at the NPR chart you'll see that with one or two exceptions, anything above a 3 in NPR is DX10 these days so if you buy a new GFX card it'll most likely be at least DX10.
And DX11 will be available and DX11 games will run on DX10 hardware (weather features are emulated in software or not used I don't know, but they will work)
So there is no excuse not to get a DX10 card these days