Overkill?

[xtreme26]

In my next build, I'm planning to get a eVGA 7800 gt co. Would that be a overkill for a 17" hp f70 which supports only upto 1240x1024? I also have a 5 year old 17" crt monitor that supports upto 1600x1200, would the 7800gt still be an overkill?

 

[Munky]

No. Even a x1900xtx is not overkill at 1280x960 in modern stressful games like FEAR and COD2, so a 7800gt is definitely not.

 

[JBT]

I don't think so. Just crank up the AA and AF and you'll be fine. newer games are always comming out and I don't even know if you would get good frames at those settings in FEAR.

 

[Piuc2020]

Besides, gaming at 1280x1024 will be very possible in 2007 with a 7800GT while it may not be so at 1600x1200.

Anyway you look at it, even 800x600 is not overkill because eventually, your card will lag even at 800x600.

 

[xtreme26]

awesome thanks

 

[xtknight]

A 7800GT is certainly not overkill for running 1280x1024 with everything on high settings. Battlefield 2 is very slow (30 FPS maybe) with everything on. I like to play with vertical sync and triple buffering too which makes matters worse performance-wise.

 

[Cheesetogo]

Originally posted by: xtknight
A 7800GT is certainly not overkill for running 1280x1024 with everything on high settings. Battlefield 2 is very slow (30 FPS maybe) with everything on. I like to play with vertical sync and triple buffering too which makes matters worse performance-wise.

Are you talking about the expansion? With a 7800gtx I got ~60fps with full settings (4 AA, 16 AF, 1600x1200) in the original.

 

[JAG87]

yea hes drunk, my friend has an evga 7800 GT CO, and at 1280 x 1024 with everything turned up to max (except shadows i think), and he gets >60 fps all the time

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Cheesetogo

Originally posted by: xtknight
A 7800GT is certainly not overkill for running 1280x1024 with everything on high settings. Battlefield 2 is very slow (30 FPS maybe) with everything on. I like to play with vertical sync and triple buffering too which makes matters worse performance-wise.

Are you talking about the expansion? With a 7800gtx I got ~60fps with full settings (4 AA, 16 AF, 1600x1200) in the original.

I'm talking about the regular Battlefield 2 retail with A64 3500+/2 GB of memory and a 7800GT 256MB. You use VSync on and transparent AA set to supersampling, coupled with everything at high and 100% view distance? Also, I use 'quality' mipmaps and VSync forced on (BF2 does not enable VSync by default) in the NVIDIA ForceWare control panel. I get frequent drops to 1/2 FPS due to the VSync@75Hz, but I hate tearing so I can't live without the VSync. And triple buffering sacrifices my VRAM so it's not much help either. It's not that bad when flying aircraft but in huge areas with lots of foliage, stuff gets laggy, possibly 50 FPS, but again, I'm running VSync so that drops to 37.5 FPS at 75 Hz and that's too slow for my taste. Enabling triple buffering didn't seem to make any difference, it was still slow, so maybe it was only ~45 FPS to start with anyway, or possibly triple buffering took up needed VRAM and the result was mutually exclusive.

I got 7069 in 3Dmark05 with my 7800GT and the GTX gets 7800 IIRC so it's not far off-base and my card isn't defective or anything as far as I can tell. Could be these 82.12 beta drivers possibly. I've tried XG drivers before and they offered a noticeable improvement so maybe I should try them again. OK, enough rambling...

Anyhow this year's coming games will be obviously more intensive so that's also something to consider when buying a graphics card.

 

[sodcha0s]

17" LCD here (12x10) and just ordered an x1900xtx. I figured total eye candy now, still serviceable 2+ yrs from now. I was actually considering sli'd 7800gt's instead, but figured the xtx will handle future games better.

 

[xtreme26]

yea, true. basically I should just get it for futureproofing, since I am planning to use future build for atleast 4-5 years, by then i would buy a better card, an oc the cpu