FX 5200 & Far Cry?

[jrphoenix]

I just moved to Florida a couple months ago. My uncle came to visit and saw my new rig (check sig) and thought it was awesome. I let my cousing play some far cry and he loved the game. I told them both that Far Cry is the most demanding game on your system currently and they probably could not run the game on their dell. Needless to say, my cousin had to have the game and they bought it because their comptuer matched the minimum specs!!!

They called me to let me know they bought the game and to ask why the water looked black and the graphics basically sucked. I informed them that their intergrated "extreme" graphics was the problem. I told them I could probably put a video card in for a decent price ($200 9800 pro) and they could run the game.

Once again they didn't listen to me because they didn't want to void their dell warranty. Dell, the rip off artists they are, informed them they can only install a card purchased through Dell. They guy told them to run Far Cry they "should get" the 5200 FX with 256 Mb of ram. Why they sell a card for a game based on how much ram it has, I have no idea?

Can this run far cry at a somewhat decent resolution? I feel bad for even showing them this game and talking about how computer graphics blow away playstation / x-box graphics

 

[CraigRT]

the FX5200 should be able to run 1024x768 without problems.. even my ATI 8500 can run FC at that res without slowdowns (on recommended settings)

 

[Keysplayr]

FX 5200 & Far Cry should never be used in the same sentence. Minimum to run Far Cry at playable framerates with is a 5900XT. bare minimum.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: CraigRT
the FX5200 should be able to run 1024x768 without problems.. even my ATI 8500 can run FC at that res without slowdowns (on recommended settings)

No, it cant. You would be better off with a 9600pro/XT 128MB card.

 

[nick1985]

no

 

[StrangerGuy]

Originally posted by: jrphoenix
I just moved to Florida a couple months ago. My uncle came to visit and saw my new rig (check sig) and thought it was awesome. I let my cousing play some far cry and he loved the game. I told them both that Far Cry is the most demanding game on your system currently and they probably could not run the game on their dell. Needless to say, my cousin had to have the game and they bought it because their comptuer matched the minimum specs!!!

They called me to let me know they bought the game and to ask why the water looked black and the graphics basically sucked. I informed them that their intergrated "extreme" graphics was the problem. I told them I could probably put a video card in for a decent price ($200 9800 pro) and they could run the game.

Once again they didn't listen to me because they didn't want to void their dell warranty. Dell, the rip off artists they are, informed them they can only install a card purchased through Dell. They guy told them to run Far Cry they "should get" the 5200 FX with 256 Mb of ram. Why they sell a card for a game based on how much ram it has, I have no idea?

Can this run far cry at a somewhat decent resolution? I feel bad for even showing them this game and talking about how computer graphics blow away playstation / x-box graphics

If they didn't listen to your advice, its their fault, not yours. Nothing to feel bad about.

 

[SinfulWeeper]

KOTOR sux major arse on a 5200U. I do not want to even think how FarCry would be. Bare minimum, they should be running a 5700, if not a 5900 or 5950.

And BTW, it is not my computer that the 5200U is on. I would never insult my P4 2.4 OC'ed to 3.408 by putting that card on... lol

But you are right, computers are SO much better then console games except in one arena... what games are there that I can plug a second controller in to allow a good game between me a a couple friends?

 

[railer]

Of course a 5200 will run FC. I run it on my laptop with an underclocked 5200, that only has 32 meg of RAM. It looks a bit like ass on my system, but it's playable. A real 5200 with a normal amount of RAM would run the game fine. Those of you who have never even owned a 5200, and have never even tried to play it on a 5200, why do you post ignorant responses?

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: railer
Of course a 5200 will run FC. I run it on my laptop with an underclocked 5200, that only has 32 meg of RAM. It looks a bit like ass on my system, but it's playable. A real 5200 with a normal amount of RAM would run the game fine. Those of you who have never even owned a 5200, and have never even tried to play it on a 5200, why do you post ignorant responses?

i have seen it played on a 5200. i dont call 640*480 on low detail with everything looking like crap "playable".

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Tell them matter of factly, that they still won't get to see the ubersweet graphics they saw running on your setup if they buy the 5200. They will have to pony up for a nice vid card through Dell if they are really that worried over the warranty and would also like to see the game in most/all it's glory. Link some benchies that will clearly demonstrate the 5200 is garbage. If that doesn't sink in then let ignorance be it's own punishment :evil:

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: CraigRT
the FX5200 should be able to run 1024x768 without problems.. even my ATI 8500 can run FC at that res without slowdowns (on recommended settings)

No, it cant. You would be better off with a 9600pro/XT 128MB card.

well alright, i've seen it done, but whatever you say...

 

[Aleksandar]

when i used my Fx5200 256 ddr i run FC at 1024X7 medium everything plays Fine

 

[JackBurton]

Can this run far cry at a somewhat decent resolution? I feel bad for even showing them this game and talking about how computer graphics blow away playstation / x-box graphics

Yes, computer graphics blow away consoles, but they also blow away the wallet MUCH more. If you want the ABSOLUTE sh!t in graphics on a PC, you'll need ~$400+ just for the video card. If you want the best looking graphics on a console you'll need $149 for the whole machine. In the PC world, you gotta pay to play.

 

[Appledrop]

i hate how ati and nvidia even manufacture such crippled POS as the 9200se.. or 5200... the 5200 is the worst, they try and fool non-nerds by slapping on 256mb of ram. not cool!

 

[phreaqe]

Originally posted by: CraigRT

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: CraigRT
the FX5200 should be able to run 1024x768 without problems.. even my ATI 8500 can run FC at that res without slowdowns (on recommended settings)

No, it cant. You would be better off with a 9600pro/XT 128MB card.

well alright, i've seen it done, but whatever you say...

Craig is right. i played it on my geforce 3 ti 500 and it worked great. 800x600 medium settings and it ran like a champ. barely ever noticed a slowdown

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: phreaqe

Originally posted by: CraigRT

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: CraigRT
the FX5200 should be able to run 1024x768 without problems.. even my ATI 8500 can run FC at that res without slowdowns (on recommended settings)

No, it cant. You would be better off with a 9600pro/XT 128MB card.

well alright, i've seen it done, but whatever you say...

Craig is right. i played it on my geforce 3 ti 500 and it worked great. 800x600 medium settings and it ran like a champ. barely ever noticed a slowdown

But does the 5200 use the DX9 path in FarCry? If so then older dx cards performance isn't apples to apples is it? I mean given how FarCry laid the smackdown on my 5800U@525/1050 10x7 med. settings once I hit the caves in the research level demo, I can't imagine what a 5200 would do in the same situation. I don't think it would be pretty....


BTW, the difference between how FarCry looked on my 9800p and 5800U was very noticeable. If they saw it with all the eye candy on his system, and I think they did, then a 5200 is going to look like crap by comparison, playability aside.

 

[jrphoenix]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Tell them matter of factly, that they still won't get to see the ubersweet graphics they saw running on your setup if they buy the 5200. They will have to pony up for a nice vid card through Dell if they are really that worried over the warranty and would also like to see the game in most/all it's glory. Link some benchies that will clearly demonstrate the 5200 is garbage. If that doesn't sink in then let ignorance be it's own punishment :evil:

Yeah, I spoke with them last night on the phone and they seemed content with listening to the Dell guy's advice. Maybe that Dell rep should feel bad, not me After building my first system everyone in my family comes to me for computer advice now ... I just built my mom & dad a new system so they could scrap their intergrated, proprietary Dell

 

[jrphoenix]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Can this run far cry at a somewhat decent resolution? I feel bad for even showing them this game and talking about how computer graphics blow away playstation / x-box graphics

Yes, computer graphics blow away consoles, but they also blow away the wallet MUCH more. If you want the ABSOLUTE sh!t in graphics on a PC, you'll need ~$400+ just for the videa card. If you want the best looking graphics on a console you'll need $149 for the whole machine. In the PC world, you gotta pay to play.

How true... you should put that quote in your sig

 

[DrMindbender]

The demo sucked on my 5700 at 1028X768. It went all slide show during heavy firefights. I suppose with a 5200 even taking a step forward would mess things up.

 

[DrMindbender]

I also just read your post and saw the 256mb of slow low quality ram. It will definitely run like crap.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I'm not sure what you people consider "playable" frame-rates. On my AGP 8x R9200 (128-bit, non-SE), I couldn't get the FC (demo) to playable frame-rates, no matter what I did. (To me, "Playable" means a consistent 30+ fps.) Perhaps FarCry (and the FX5200's DX9 support) is an exception, because in every other benchmark that I've seen, the R9200 is around the same or slightly faster than the FX5200.
So if there's any sort of secret trick to getting playable performance in FarCry on older cards, please spill it now. Thanks.

 

[Childs]

"Playable" is subjective. I've seen my uncle play Doom 3 windowed doing like 25fps at 640x480 and he finished it like that. He thought it was completely playable. Of course I showed him what it should look like on my system and he was amazed, but if Doom 4 came out tomorrow he would play it windowed, at 20fps and probably finish it like that.

Well, we also started playing games when there was no framerate, just when something either worked or it didnt. You guys maybe spoiled. I know I have over time.

 

[Marsumane]

Originally posted by: jrphoenix

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Can this run far cry at a somewhat decent resolution? I feel bad for even showing them this game and talking about how computer graphics blow away playstation / x-box graphics

Yes, computer graphics blow away consoles, but they also blow away the wallet MUCH more. If you want the ABSOLUTE sh!t in graphics on a PC, you'll need ~$400+ just for the videa card. If you want the best looking graphics on a console you'll need $149 for the whole machine. In the PC world, you gotta pay to play.

How true... you should put that quote in your sig

You CANNOT compare like that. U have to compare apples to apples. A geforce 3, 700mhz processor, and 128mb of ram doesnt cost that much for a computer. (Xbox specs/ 4 yr old archetecture (GF3)) I would be wiser to compare a computer to the next-gen prices (which i dont think anyone knows yet). The fact is that with all the "creative ways to obtain cheaper games" (demos, game images, etc) that pc users have, the cost to upgrade a computer system is around the same cost as to buy an entire new console each generation that can only play limited games.

For instance, i spent ~$400-$500 upgrading my computer. I baught a proc @3.3 gigs, 160gb hd, 9800p @ ~XT speeds, a gig of dual channel ram, nf7-s mobo, a case, antec psu, case fans, ide cables, Z640 speakers, MX500 mouse, heatsink/fan for cpu. And for the rest of my system, it had cost me around another $100 (i just had the rest beforehand. So lets say $70 mobo + $55 proc + $160 video card + $120 gig of ram. That's ~$400 for an upgrade later on (considering prices dont change and the market stays fairly steady) vs the cost of the initial retail price of a console. Not much different huh? In another 2-3 yrs ill be spending another $400 on components for my pc, while other ppl will be spending much more on the next consoles + games + controlers + network adapters + memory cards + some new stupid technology that u "must" have but have had on pcs for 3 yrs now + etc, etc ,etc... I'm sure u can see the difference now. The price really isnt that much different IF you upgrade your current pc every few yrs and know how to get the best bang for ur buck.

 

[SneakyStuff]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
FX 5200 & Far Cry should never be used in the same sentence. Minimum to run Far Cry at playable framerates with is a 5900XT. bare minimum.

I would say the FX 5700 series, or the Radeon 9500 (not 9550) series is the cut-off, but that's just me.

 

[PrayForDeath]

Originally posted by: Marsumane

Originally posted by: jrphoenix

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Can this run far cry at a somewhat decent resolution? I feel bad for even showing them this game and talking about how computer graphics blow away playstation / x-box graphics

Yes, computer graphics blow away consoles, but they also blow away the wallet MUCH more. If you want the ABSOLUTE sh!t in graphics on a PC, you'll need ~$400+ just for the videa card. If you want the best looking graphics on a console you'll need $149 for the whole machine. In the PC world, you gotta pay to play.

How true... you should put that quote in your sig

You CANNOT compare like that. U have to compare apples to apples. A geforce 3, 700mhz processor, and 128mb of ram doesnt cost that much for a computer. (Xbox specs/ 4 yr old archetecture (GF3)) I would be wiser to compare a computer to the next-gen prices (which i dont think anyone knows yet). The fact is that with all the "creative ways to obtain cheaper games" (demos, game images, etc) that pc users have, the cost to upgrade a computer system is around the same cost as to buy an entire new console each generation that can only play limited games.

For instance, i spent ~$400-$500 upgrading my computer. I baught a proc @3.3 gigs, 160gb hd, 9800p @ ~XT speeds, a gig of dual channel ram, nf7-s mobo, a case, antec psu, case fans, ide cables, Z640 speakers, MX500 mouse, heatsink/fan for cpu. And for the rest of my system, it had cost me around another $100 (i just had the rest beforehand. So lets say $70 mobo + $55 proc + $160 video card + $120 gig of ram. That's ~$400 for an upgrade later on (considering prices dont change and the market stays fairly steady) vs the cost of the initial retail price of a console. Not much different huh? In another 2-3 yrs ill be spending another $400 on components for my pc, while other ppl will be spending much more on the next consoles + games + controlers + network adapters + memory cards + some new stupid technology that u "must" have but have had on pcs for 3 yrs now + etc, etc ,etc... I'm sure u can see the difference now. The price really isnt that much different IF you upgrade your current pc every few yrs and know how to get the best bang for ur buck.

Well said, that is very true