PhysX + warhammer + video car?

BF04

Member
Sep 25, 2004
190
0
0
I have been doing some more reading and still undecided. Building 2 systems with the main game to play is Warhammer online.
Specs
E7200 Core @ Duo
Res 1680x1050
2gig memory
Win XP

they want to play it at max settings and be able to RvR with a lot people in the zone. I have not played beta so not sure on details of the game. I have also looked around and can not find if Warhammer will support PhyX or not, anyone know?

I have been looking at the the follow.
Saphire 4850 1Gb - thinking that more memory on card would good for heavy zones? $220

Gigabyte 4870 512mb - faster card but less memory, would it really make a difference at the settings and extra cost? $289

EVGA GTX 260 Superclocked 896Mb. PhyX. increased memory over 4870 but slightly slower? Increased cost from 4850, would it be much better for the game/resolution?

This video card will last the life of the system, so their is no changing later. Hence why I am trying to make the right decision. Reading the boards though it really does seem a toss up between the cards and what will happen in the future with PhyisX or DX10.1. Like I said the only game will really be Warhammer and or Warcraft if Warhammer sucks for the next couple of years. :)

Any thoughts would be appricated.

Thx
 

airhendrix13

Senior member
Oct 15, 2006
427
0
0
Originally posted by: BF04
I have been doing some more reading and still undecided. Building 2 systems with the main game to play is Warhammer online.
Specs
E7200 Core @ Duo
Res 1680x1050
2gig memory
Win XP

they want to play it at max settings and be able to RvR with a lot people in the zone. I have not played beta so not sure on details of the game. I have also looked around and can not find if Warhammer will support PhyX or not, anyone know?

I have been looking at the the follow.
Saphire 4850 1Gb - thinking that more memory on card would good for heavy zones? $220

Gigabyte 4870 512mb - faster card but less memory, would it really make a difference at the settings and extra cost? $289

EVGA GTX 260 Superclocked 896Mb. PhyX. increased memory over 4870 but slightly slower? Increased cost from 4850, would it be much better for the game/resolution?

This video card will last the life of the system, so their is no changing later. Hence why I am trying to make the right decision. Reading the boards though it really does seem a toss up between the cards and what will happen in the future with PhyisX or DX10.1. Like I said the only game will really be Warhammer and or Warcraft if Warhammer sucks for the next couple of years. :)

Any thoughts would be appricated.

Thx
I don't think Warhammer is getting PhysX support, but I could be wrong. 1GB of VRAM will be wasted at 1680x1050, I'd say a 4850 512mb would be suffice.
 

tvdang7

Platinum Member
Jun 4, 2005
2,242
5
81
actually i think the 1gb is clocked 100 mhz slower so if hes not overclocking it will do some harm. not much but still.
 

Denithor

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2004
6,300
23
81
I'd go with 3GB memory not 2GB, most games like this benefit nicely from having more RAM available (especially when you get into a busy zone with lots going on).

GTX 260 would be my pick. Definitely more powerful than 4850, plenty of VRAM for large framebuffer (in case you decide to upgrade the monitors later) and better cooling system than stock 4850/4870 cards.

MSI GTX 260 $245AR with FS
 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
Originally posted by: BF04
I have been doing some more reading and still undecided. Building 2 systems with the main game to play is Warhammer online.
Specs
E7200 Core @ Duo
Res 1680x1050
2gig memory
Win XP

they want to play it at max settings and be able to RvR with a lot people in the zone. I have not played beta so not sure on details of the game. I have also looked around and can not find if Warhammer will support PhyX or not, anyone know?

I have been looking at the the follow.
Saphire 4850 1Gb - thinking that more memory on card would good for heavy zones? $220

Gigabyte 4870 512mb - faster card but less memory, would it really make a difference at the settings and extra cost? $289

EVGA GTX 260 Superclocked 896Mb. PhyX. increased memory over 4870 but slightly slower? Increased cost from 4850, would it be much better for the game/resolution?

This video card will last the life of the system, so their is no changing later. Hence why I am trying to make the right decision. Reading the boards though it really does seem a toss up between the cards and what will happen in the future with PhyisX or DX10.1. Like I said the only game will really be Warhammer and or Warcraft if Warhammer sucks for the next couple of years. :)

Any thoughts would be appricated.

Thx
I'll go with Gigabyte 4870 ,infact I have for Warhammer too,512mb video ram is fine for 1680x1050 res.

One thing to remember the 260 is a big card,it wouldn't fit on my motherboard unless I removed one of my IDE cables that I use for my DVD drives.
 

Piuc2020

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2005
1,716
0
0
Originally posted by: Denithor
I'd go with 3GB memory not 2GB, most games like this benefit nicely from having more RAM available (especially when you get into a busy zone with lots going on).

GTX 260 would be my pick. Definitely more powerful than 4850, plenty of VRAM for large framebuffer (in case you decide to upgrade the monitors later) and better cooling system than stock 4850/4870 cards.

MSI GTX 260 $245AR with FS
On big areas on a MMORPG, performance is more dependant on your network throughput and your CPU, since the game can't load into memory the actions of other players, it doesn't matter much.

I would not sacrifice my video card choice to go with 3GB, not even Crysis shows benefits.
 

phantom404

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,460
2
81
42
Just got the 4870 and did the fan speed trick and moved it from low 20% to about 35% and now mine idles ~50c. I think its a great cooler, ATI just set the fan speed too low for some peoples taste. After I did the fan trick I oc mine to highest ccc would let me and moved the memory to 1000 and only goes up to ~75 under load.
 

9nines

Senior member
Sep 6, 2006
215
0
0
Unless changed from a month ago, the graphics of Warhammer are extremely dated. They seem about like graphics from original Dark Age Of Camelot, first Ever Quest after a few expansions, etc. So, it takes very little to play that game. For example, I played someone?s beta account about a month ago. I played it on XP, with 2 gigabytes of RAM on a 2004 DELL XPS with a 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 HT and an ATI X1950XTX. The game played smoother than any game I had ever played on that computer.

Maybe the graphics will be updated before release (if they are not, no matter how good of game play, I just do not see how the game will make it - it was really dated) but if it stays the same, I do not think it will take much of a system to play even large scale battles. If a machine handled the original Dark Of Age of Camelot in large battles, it should have no problem with this game.

If your current system is the one in your signature, I recommend not getting a new computer because even if Warhammer graphics are updated it likely will not much, and I think your current computer will laugh at Warhammer - seriously, a month ago the graphics were comparable to about 2002-2003 MMORPG's graphics (it is basically a step below WOW and without the detail to artwork) and about 1999-2000 FPS's.
 

BF04

Member
Sep 25, 2004
190
0
0
The 2 I am building are for the wife and a friend. I will not be updating my yet.

I have only seen SS of the game and no actually footage.

"actually i think the 1gb is clocked 100 mhz slower so if hes not overclocking it will do some harm. not much but still. "
- checking newegg, actually the 512 is clocked @ 625mhz core / 1880mhz mem and the 1GB is 625mhz core / 1986mhz memory so it is faster.

I think I am leaning towards the saphire 1Gb. Have to make decision by this weekend. Wish I was in beta that would help me know what to expect.

 

mharr7

Member
Feb 17, 2008
191
0
0
Originally posted by: 9nines
Unless changed from a month ago, the graphics of Warhammer are extremely dated. They seem about like graphics from original Dark Age Of Camelot, first Ever Quest after a few expansions, etc. So, it takes very little to play that game. For example, I played someone?s beta account about a month ago. I played it on XP, with 2 gigabytes of RAM on a 2004 DELL XPS with a 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 HT and an ATI X1950XTX. The game played smoother than any game I had ever played on that computer.

Maybe the graphics will be updated before release (if they are not, no matter how good of game play, I just do not see how the game will make it - it was really dated) but if it stays the same, I do not think it will take much of a system to play even large scale battles. If a machine handled the original Dark Of Age of Camelot in large battles, it should have no problem with this game.

If your current system is the one in your signature, I recommend not getting a new computer because even if Warhammer graphics are updated it likely will not much, and I think your current computer will laugh at Warhammer - seriously, a month ago the graphics were comparable to about 2002-2003 MMORPG's graphics (it is basically a step below WOW and without the detail to artwork) and about 1999-2000 FPS's.
*sigh* No the graphics are not outdated....The reason all the screen shots u have seen don't look good is because the general beta testers are set on low or medium settings. I'm in the beta, and the graphics are turned way down...there is literally like one option for graphics, so you cant turn it up. Now on one of the beta forums where they ignore the NDA, I have seen many screen shots of it on high graphics. I think these are the Elder testers, which have access to the higher graphic settings...and they force the AA/AF so its looks better. The SS's are insane. I played AOC on a 9800GTX, and WAR looks better. Just wait till its released. It has beautiful scenery...
I was playing last night and kept stopping to just look around....I cant wait for the final build....

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY