Do I have enough juice?

[techboie]

RIG

C2D E7300 @ 3.5GHz
4GB DDR2 800
HD4850 512 @ Stock

Does my rig have enough juice to power the following?

UT3
1920x1080 MAX no AA
Min 60 FPS

MW
1920x1080 4x AA MAX
Min FPS 60

Carbon
1920x1080 4x AA MAX
Min FPS 50

Undercover
1920x1080 MAX no AA
Min FPS 30-40

Oblivion
1920x1080 MAX no AA
Min FPS 30

Crysis
1440x900 High no AA
Min FPS 30

Farcry 2
1440x900 MAX no AA
Min FPS 30

FEAR 2
1920x1080 MAX 4x AA
Min FPS 60

Basically in short I want to know whether games I can play at 1280x1024 with 4x AA maxed out will run as good if not better at 1920x1080 with the same settings without the AA.

 

[MBrown]

I think so. But What aspect ratio do you want to run at? 1920x1080 is 16:9 and 1440x900 is 16:10. If you want to run Crysis at 16:9 then you might want to consider 1280x720 or some something close to that resolution you suggested but in 16:9.

 

[techboie]

thanks for replying

what about the others???

 

[ther00kie16]

Looks doable. I've always liked higher resolution (native is best) and no AA better. May dip below what you want for Min for certain games and maps and whether or not you are playing online. You could always push the e7300 and 4850 a little bit (3.8ghz for e7300) provided you have good cooling.

 

[techboie]

I am talking about offline. And I am particular about the min FPS.

With this card I doubt 3.5 -> 3.8 will show any benefit at all, even with a 4870X2 it would probably be like 5%.

Also, my card doesn't oc, I tried but it reduced my FPS. So...

 

[MBrown]

Originally posted by: techboie
I am talking about offline. And I am particular about the min FPS.

With this card I doubt 3.5 -> 3.8 will show any benefit at all, even with a 4870X2 it would probably be like 5%.

Also, my card doesn't oc, I tried but it reduced my FPS. So...

something must be wrong if u overclock your gpu and your frames go down. What is your power supply? Do you have enough case cooling?

 

[techboie]

Antec NeoHE 500

 

[MBrown]

Originally posted by: techboie
Antec NeoHE 500

Hmm I am not sure why you are loosing frames then. I think people are overclocking their 4850 and getting close to 4870 performance.

 

[alcoholbob]

Like the other guy says, higher resolution should offset AA. AA also gives a fairly large hit to minimum framerate. This is one reason I've always avoided AA. I can't tell when I'm in motion anyway since I don't have time to enjoy the scenery. The only time I particularly care is if I'm playing an RPG or adventure game.

As far as Crysis DX9 vs DX10 is night and day difference. If you are talking about DX9 most cards have no problems with high settings with playable minimum framerates. DX10 performance dives big time.

 

[techboie]

how to play crysis in dx9?

 

[TheInternal]

you can get that high a framerate smoothly on all those games with a 4850? holy cow. Maybe it's time I upgrade -.-

 

[techboie]

what does that mean?

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: techboie
how to play crysis in dx9?

Right click on it, then hit "Play DX9"

 

[techboie]

Tried a few games at 1920x1080

UT3
Occasional dips below 60FPS with no AA

COD4& FEAR
Nearly flawless with 4x AA

NFS U2& MW
1600x1200 4x AA min 50+ avg 60+

Currently running on 2GB RAM in Vista 32 Ultimate. Prolly min 'FPS for UT3 and COD3 will improve with 4GB in Windows 7 64. Right?

 

[angry hampster]

WTF is wrong with 50-60 FPS?

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: angry hampster
WTF is wrong with 50-60 FPS?

 

[techboie]

whenever fps dips ut3 looses smoothness, mw,u2,cod4,crysis,fc2,fear play fine.

 

[n7]

You need more cores/cache for UT3 to be extremely smooth; it runs best on quads.
Still, i doubt it's anywhere close to unplayable with an E7300 @ 3.5 GHz.

 

[yusux]

looks fine

 

[kmmatney]

Oblivion
1920x1080 MAX no AA
Min FPS 30


I can play this pretty comfortably on my HD4830 overclocked to HD4850-like performance, so you should be OK there (especially with your CPU). In fact, you should be able to through in a little AA.

 

[techboie]

No, UT3 doesn't need a quad. It runs flawless in XP. In Vista there are FPS drops. Could that be due to only 2GB RAM? I am upgrading to 4GB very soon.

My other rig:
E4500 @ 3.02GHz
4GB DDR2 667 @ 688
9600GT 512

runs UT3 nearly flawless at 12x10 4x AA in Win XP 32. Although there are more frequent drops in FPS even in 40s, the performance is smoother. Could that be due to the addition RAM?

 

[cusideabelincoln]

I think that's because of the resolution...

 

[n7]

I didn't say UT3 required a quad to play; i said it does better with CPUs with more cache (L2), & even better on quad cores.

I've done more than enough of my own testing with fraps & just playing the game to know this.

Benchmarks really do not tell the whole story with UT3, as the majority of reviews don't bother mentioning fps dips or minimum fps, & they often run flybyes not actual gameplay, which give useless results.

I've run UT3 with a Opteron 165 @ 2.6 GHz/E6600 @ stock to 3.5 GHz/& a Q6700 + 8800 GTX, & the difference is very interesting.

With the Opteron, no matter how low i turned down settings & resolution, it always got bad minimum fps & choppiness in areas of certain maps; absolutely not a GPU limitation as this would happen at 2560x1600 or at 800x600.

Even the stock E6600 was drastically better, & at my OCed speeds, it was very decent.
There were still some parts of some maps that struggled though, & i'd see ugly low fps that i couldn't understand.

Next CPU with the same 8800 GTX was the Q6700, & that's when i became sold 100% on quads for my own personal use.

The game utilizes all four cores, & actually spreads the load around enough that when OCed, i'd never even hit 100% on any core during game.
I tried with disabling two core vs. four, & while the two-cored Q6700 was still very good, minimum fps in certain areas of Warfare maps were consistently better with all four cores.
Not for all maps though; the majority of maps are indeed fine with just two cores.

But in really intense areas with tons of players, a couple extra cores will maintain better minimum fps.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: techboie
No, UT3 doesn't need a quad. It runs flawless in XP. In Vista there are FPS drops. Could that be due to only 2GB RAM? I am upgrading to 4GB very soon.

My other rig:
E4500 @ 3.02GHz
4GB DDR2 667 @ 688
9600GT 512

runs UT3 nearly flawless at 12x10 4x AA in Win XP 32. Although there are more frequent drops in FPS even in 40s, the performance is smoother. Could that be due to the addition RAM?

Since nobody seems to be answering you on this - YES. 4GB for Vista is a MUST.