So the board line of minimum frame rates is ok at 20 fps ? I remember reading it was 25 fps at one review site but maybe there not a huge difference between 20 and 25 fps ?
I don't mine as long as 20 fps feels about as good as 25 fps.
So the board line of minimum frame rates is ok at 20 fps ? I remember reading it was 25 fps at one review site but maybe there not a huge difference between 20 and 25 fps ?
I don't mine as long as 20 fps feels about as good as 25 fps.
It depends on the game and for how long it dips. You don't want to be playing at 20fps all the time, a dip to 20fps and back up to 30+ is okay though. For fast paced shooters, were accuracy is vital you don't want it to happen, same goes for racers. But in a RTS it's not to bad if it happens. It really depends on the perception of the player as well. It's save to say you don't want any game to dip below 20fps though.
Originally posted by: MarcVenice
pcslookout is right. The gap between the 8800gts 320mb and the 8800gts 640mb actually doesn't become apparent even at resolutions as high as 1920*1200. The 320mb is because of the 320bit memory bus, not because it is half of the 640mb version
The 640MB version uses a 320bit memory bus too. So, the 640MB was a doubling of the 320MB and vice versa simply but scaling the memory amount and not the transmission to the core.
I seen that happen before in a few games like during huge gun battles it would dip for a few seconds like at 22 fps then go right back up to like 31 to 38 fps + as it settled down a little. I think this is the main reason why minimum frames rates can be so important when comparing video cards.
There not huge difference between minimum frame rates on a GTS vs a GTX only about 10 to 15 fps depending on the game but that can make all the difference in the world if it stays constant on ever game you try the card with! That means no game can bog it down! I couldn't believe the minimum frame rate you get with SLI! Wow! GTX and Ultra SLI minimum frame rate is awesome but not needed! Still nice to have though! I would take 50 to 60 fps + minimum frame rates anyday!
Company of heroes at 1280x1024 with 4x SuperSampling AA 8xAF uses 500MB of vram with all the settings @ max ( don't know if it "prevents" you or itself from using everything when it detects a lower than needed vram ).
With a card that doesn't have that amount of memory the rest are stored in the main memory ( RAM ) but thanks to PCI-Express's a full duplex bus you don't feel any lag during transfers...now if you were on AGP...hmm...good luck ( half-duplex ).
@MarcVenice I don't know if you don't mind getting as low as 20fps in intense scenes and if it "affects" your gameplay, but it certainly affects my eyes & gameplay.
Anyways...I rest my case now...
With a card that doesn't have that amount of memory the rest are stored in the main memory ( RAM ) but thanks to PCI-Express's a full duplex bus you don't feel any lag during transfers...now if you were on AGP...hmm...good luck ( half-duplex
).@MarcVenice I don't know if you don't mind getting as low as 20fps in intense scenes and if it "affects" your gameplay, but it certainly affects my eyes & gameplay.
Anyways...I rest my case now...
Originally posted by: BenchZowner
Company of heroes at 1280x1024 with 4x SuperSampling AA 8xAF uses 500MB of vram with all the settings @ max ( don't know if it "prevents" you or itself from using everything when it detects a lower than needed vram ).
With a card that doesn't have that amount of memory the rest are stored in the main memory ( RAM ) but thanks to PCI-Express's a full duplex bus you don't feel any lag during transfers...now if you were on AGP...hmm...good luck ( half-duplex
@MarcVenice I don't know if you don't mind getting as low as 20fps in intense scenes and if it "affects" your gameplay, but it certainly affects my eyes & gameplay.
Anyways...I rest my case now...
Wow I didn't even realize going from a AGP video card to a PCI Express video card allows you to use your extra system ram without any slowdown if you need more video ram! Awesome!
Do you think my 4 gigs of ddr 2 ram helps a lot sense most of the time I have at least 1 GB of system ram free?
Unless you have a really low amount of VRAM ( let's say 128MB ) you won't feel the difference ( gameplay-wise ).
But still it's a "additional" feature, not an essential one to base your gaming at.
And with Windows "Vista Memory Suckah" edition, you better not think about that
4gigs of ram though would be nice for future applications and games ( 2GB is already "mandatory" for some games + windows XP )
) you won't feel the difference ( gameplay-wise ).But still it's a "additional" feature, not an essential one to base your gaming at.
And with Windows "Vista Memory Suckah" edition, you better not think about that
4gigs of ram though would be nice for future applications and games ( 2GB is already "mandatory" for some games + windows XP )
With these cards the resolution is what you have to look at :
1280x1024 = 8800 GTS 320 MB
1600x1200 = 8800 GTS 640 MB
1920x1200 = 8800 GTX
The resolution you want equals the card you should get.
1280x1024 = 8800 GTS 320 MB
1600x1200 = 8800 GTS 640 MB
1920x1200 = 8800 GTX
The resolution you want equals the card you should get.
Damnit, the 50fps I'm getting at 1680*1050 in BioShock are just a lie The 40fps+ I'm getting in Stalker with partial dynamic lighting are just a lie too It can not be !!!
It doesn't come down to resolutions, it comes down to what you find affordable and playable. A 8800gts 320mb can perform very well at higher resolutions, in SOME games it get's outperformed by the 8800gts 640mb, and then you have to ask yourself, 4xaa and 8x af instead of 8x aa and 16x af and pay 100-150$ more, or not?
The 40fps+ I'm getting in Stalker with partial dynamic lighting are just a lie too It can not be !!!It doesn't come down to resolutions, it comes down to what you find affordable and playable. A 8800gts 320mb can perform very well at higher resolutions, in SOME games it get's outperformed by the 8800gts 640mb, and then you have to ask yourself, 4xaa and 8x af instead of 8x aa and 16x af and pay 100-150$ more, or not?
I agree.
The point I wanted to get across was if you want to play most (all?) games at their max quality
then you have to decide the resolution you want to play at and choose your card accordingly.
Anandtech says the Geforce 8000 GTS 320 can be played with resolutions all the way up to 1920x1200 fine. Its when you get into 30 inch lcd territory that you start to have a problem. I am going with 1680x1050 though because it gives me a little bit more room for AA and AF to be added a lot easier. He did a review a few months ago. Even Oblivion with the extra texture pack works at that high of resolution with high AA and AF. I tried it and if you always need a extra few fps to get the frame rate higher you can overclock a little.
pcslookout bought an 8800GTS-320. You won't be able to convince him that he could've bought better, whatever the resolution, detail, texture pack etc.
Your wrong there. I thought about getting the 640 but it was $100 more. Not worth it. Then thought about stepping up to a 640 or GTX later on. Still not worth it. I will instead get the next nvidia video card that comes out.
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter