overall not impressed going from gtx260 to gtx470

[severus]

well I am at 3.8 now so I think going to 4.0 or 4.2 isnt going to do much more. I am probably going to go with an i5 quad in a few weeks. also I wonder if BC2 is more cpu demanding in DX11 because turning down the graphics settings isnt helping and I got 10-15 more fps using my gtx260 in DX10. basically the game was WAY smoother on my slower gtx260 in DX10 with max settings than it is with a gtx470 on DX11 with all settings lowered.

BC2 is really intensive on the CPU I've found. I have two machines right next to each other, similar setups in sig. The Phenom with less ram and Win XP runs bad company two times better than the e6750 and it's at 1920 x 1200. My e6750 is on 1440 x 900 and gets about 40fps with the game completely cranked. The phenom II is getting that at 1920 with the gtx 260.

 

[Duvie]

yeah perhaps the language was a bit much but its not against forum rules as for as I can tell. I had already asked for this thread to be closed yesterday since it has run its course. unless I am blind, I dont see a way to close it myself like on other forums.

I agree...I think the author of the thread should have the right to say when it should end....unless it has been stickied.

It has ran its course and gone off on about a dozen or so tangents....

Have you had a chance to run everything with the beta drivers? Did you notice any improvement? I saw a huge increase in a synthetic, but to be honest I dont game enough to notice real world....

I ask it to run 1920x1200, speed up my 3d work in my CAD apps, and fold on the side. I was coming from a 9800gt with 512mb of GDDR3. So ofcourse I noticed the difference in everything above...

Good luck....

 

[toyota]

I agree...I think the author of the thread should have the right to say when it should end....unless it has been stickied.

It has ran its course and gone off on about a dozen or so tangents....

Have you had a chance to run everything with the beta drivers? Did you notice any improvement? I saw a huge increase in a synthetic, but to be honest I dont game enough to notice real world....

I ask it to run 1920x1200, speed up my 3d work in my CAD apps, and fold on the side. I was coming from a 9800gt with 512mb of GDDR3. So ofcourse I noticed the difference in everything above...

Good luck....

actually I was using the 257.15 drivers the whole time

 

[ArchAngel777]

I don't regard AA and Shadows as important, I regard AF as the single most important thing and will never ever play another game without AF... AF is the single most important quality setting for a game, it takes precedence over ANYTHING else.

AA And shadows DO look nice, but not nice enough to justify several hundreds of dollars worth of extra hardware.

Anyways, feel free not to put much stock in my FRAPS benchmarks, obvious the fact I don't get a stiffy over AA and shadows means I am too stupid to run a benchmark properly...

I think we may have a misunderstanding here. I do not recall ever calling you stupid. I do my best at all times to refrain from talking down to people. Sometimes it may come across that way, but I can assure you that I do not consider you stupid, nor do I have anything against you.

With that said, knowing that you don't care for some of the particular eye candy options means that you probably didn't spend much time testing with those options. Since I have not seen the data, it seems logical to me.

 

[ArchAngel777]

BC2 is really intensive on the CPU I've found. I have two machines right next to each other, similar setups in sig. The Phenom with less ram and Win XP runs bad company two times better than the e6750 and it's at 1920 x 1200. My e6750 is on 1440 x 900 and gets about 40fps with the game completely cranked. The phenom II is getting that at 1920 with the gtx 260.

To be honest, you have too many major differences between your two test systems to be of any real conclusive results. How do I know that the ATI 4870 isn't holding you back? There is a way to find that out... Swap the cards in your rigs and give them an honest shot. You have at least kept it with the same GPU make/model. With nVidia and ATI trading so many blows in todays games, you really shouldn't cross platform compare to determine which CPU is better.

And to be clear, your conclusion might be right, but your test has a huge hole in it, which causes reasonable doubt.

 

[ArchAngel777]

PS3 or Xbox360 don't have bad graphics at all. Anyone who played God of War 3 should know this plus most of the PC titles are now available on consoles so I can't see how you can use this as an insult.

Overall the graphics are great on those systems, but the aliasing slices my eyes apart.. Heck, I almost swear that consoles have an option called "Pro-Aliasing" enabled...

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Overall the graphics are great on those systems, but the aliasing slices my eyes apart.. Heck, I almost swear that consoles have an option called "Pro-Aliasing" enabled...

Yeah the aliasing on consoles has gotten very tiresome. The next consoles will probably be no different other than maybe every game being "FULL 1080p". Which will help, but still give us at least 2xAA, damn.

 

[taltamir]

If we follow the arguments of the minimum FPS crowd, we’d be led to believe that games are unplayable unless you have a 4 GHz i7.

well, many games are.
heck, many games are unplayable period due to bad design, rampant bugs, horribly high system requirements, etc.

Overall the graphics are great on those systems, but the aliasing slices my eyes apart.. Heck, I almost swear that consoles have an option called "Pro-Aliasing" enabled...

they do... rendering the game without AA at much lower resolution and then stretching it with the crudest (IE, least costly) of methods produces increased aliasing. They could have at least used a better stretching filter or allow for different resolutions...

 

[BFG10K]

well, many games are.

Any game that has problems on something like an i5 750 is also going to run like shit on a i7 @ 4 GHz. I'm talking about the likes of Arma 2.