What card for 60+ fps at 1920x1200 and no AA?

[asintu]

What current video card can play games consistently at 60+ fps at 1920 x 1200 resolution assuming AA is turned off but details are set to max.?
Also, approximately how long will it keep playing upcoming games at 60+ fps ?

 

[Syntax Error]

Games like Crysis? Nothing.

Other games like COD4? Unless you like spending around $500 on an HD3870X2 or $600 on an 8800 Ultra, I'd say an 8800GTS for around $300 or less.

 

[n7]

Well, that's not going to happen with newer games, but your best bet would be the 8800 GTS 512 MB.

 

[asintu]

So how long would that play games at the resolution mentioned with 60+ fps? About 1,2 years or what?

 

[Ika]

Maybe negative 6 months. Give or take.

 

[taltamir]

not possible there... only way you are getting 60+ fps @ 1920x1200 is if you play older games, at reduced quality, with the fastest cards on the market.

 

[Syntax Error]

Also, don't expect your processor to help you in rendering games at WUXGA resolution, either.

 

[asintu]

Originally posted by: taltamir
not possible there... only way you are getting 60+ fps @ 1920x1200 is if you play older games, at reduced quality, with the fastest cards on the market.

interesting..well i guess that rules out the option of getting a 24''...guess ill stick with a 22'' with 1680 resolution.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

why do u need 60fps? many games are very playable under that. for example crysis is VERY PLAYABLE at 30fps..

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
why do u need 60fps? many games are very playable under that. for example crysis is VERY PLAYABLE at 30fps..

IIRC, the human eye can't discern the difference above 20-25fps anyway.

 

[asintu]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
why do u need 60fps? many games are very playable under that. for example crysis is VERY PLAYABLE at 30fps..

well sure but in graphically intense moments i bet it drops below that...anyways i was just asking to see how long current video cards can handle 1920 vs 1680 resolutions.

 

[sgrinavi]

Originally posted by: asintu


well sure but in graphically intense moments i bet it drops below that...anyways i was just asking to see how long current video cards can handle 1920 vs 1680 resolutions.

What does that mean? Are you asking if one of todays video cards will handle the games that are comming out in two yrs at 60 fps? I don't think anybody can really answer that, do you?

I suppose if there is some magic breakthrough in driver and/or code technology then, sure, but other than that you will not get that sort of performance with recent releases at their highest settings even with sli or crossfire setups.

I play crysis on my 24" monitor with a mixture of high and very high settings at 1680x1050 or 1400x900 and it looks BEAUTIFUL, it's smooth and very playable even under heavy load conditons.

 

[asintu]

Originally posted by: sgrinavi

Originally posted by: asintu


well sure but in graphically intense moments i bet it drops below that...anyways i was just asking to see how long current video cards can handle 1920 vs 1680 resolutions.

What does that mean? Are you asking if one of todays video cards will handle the games that are comming out in two yrs at 60 fps? I don't think anybody can really answer that, do you?

I suppose if there is some magic breakthrough in driver and/or code technology then, sure, but other than that you will not get that sort of performance with recent releases at their highest settings even with sli or crossfire setups.

I play crysis on my 24" monitor with a mixture of high and very high settings at 1680x1050 or 1400x900 and it looks BEAUTIFUL, it's smooth and very playable even under heavy load conditons.

ya but those resolutions are not native...i bet it's a big difference.

 

[Cheex]

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
why do u need 60fps? many games are very playable under that. for example crysis is VERY PLAYABLE at 30fps..

IIRC, the human eye can't discern the difference above 20-25fps anyway.

Good point.

It is all about what your eye perceives as smooth...:thumbsup:

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
why do u need 60fps? many games are very playable under that. for example crysis is VERY PLAYABLE at 30fps..

I disagree. I would much rather run at reduced graphical settings to get a better framerate than play through the game like that. Although in the case of Crysis (the demo), I couldn't get it to run genuinely well at just about any settings I tried.

The whole concept of a "playable" framerate is meaningless for this reason. Everyone has a different idea of what playable means. I have seen people who find 3-5fps perfectly playable and also others who find anything under a constant 120fps to be too slow.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Cheex

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
why do u need 60fps? many games are very playable under that. for example crysis is VERY PLAYABLE at 30fps..

IIRC, the human eye can't discern the difference above 20-25fps anyway.

Good point.

It is all about what your eye perceives as smooth...:thumbsup:

There was a military study where pilots were shown an image of an airplane for a very short period of time...about 1/600th of a second. They were able to not only notice the image, but discern which plane it was.

So we can definitely see above 20-25fps; I know I can for sure.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
why do u need 60fps? many games are very playable under that. for example crysis is VERY PLAYABLE at 30fps..

IIRC, the human eye can't discern the difference above 20-25fps anyway.

I can... however, while discernable its not significant enough to justify the extra expense / loss of visual quality.

Also the TYPE of game matters greatly. A game with slow moving characters will be tolerable at much lower framerates then a game with very fast action.

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Cheex

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
why do u need 60fps? many games are very playable under that. for example crysis is VERY PLAYABLE at 30fps..

IIRC, the human eye can't discern the difference above 20-25fps anyway.

Good point.

It is all about what your eye perceives as smooth...:thumbsup:

There was a military study where pilots were shown an image of an airplane for a very short period of time...about 1/600th of a second. They were able to not only notice the image, but discern which plane it was.

So we can definitely see above 20-25fps; I know I can for sure.

Correct, the human senses are impressive, the eye is the most developed sense a human has. The only animal with a superior eye to a human that I know of is an eagle. (and a few other predatory birds). So it does not suprise me at the least that pilots could identify items at 1/6000th of a second (6000fps?).

Which reminds me... its amusing how evil magic gives people slitted eyes, slitted eyes are vastly inferior (and simpler to create) then a round pupiled eye. Now felines have night vision capabilities that we don't. but that has nothing to do with the shape of their pupil. Combine a bird's ability to see UV, a human/eagle pupil design, an eagle's resolution, and a cats night vision capability, and you got yourself the ultimate eye. (and it will be indiscernible to the naked eye from a human eye during the day)

Also, anyone remember the mcdonnalds subconscious advertising? they tried to slip in one frame of McDonnalds during normal broadcast... it was SUPPOSED to only be noticed by people's subconscious because it was 1/24th of a second (or whatever the frame rate is for TV)... Except, everyone noticed and got pissed. I looked at it and it seemed to last a LOONG time, easily identifiable and very annoying.

 

[superbooga]

Originally posted by: asintu
What current video card can play games consistently at 60+ fps at 1920 x 1200 resolution assuming AA is turned off but details are set to max.?
Also, approximately how long will it keep playing upcoming games at 60+ fps ?

Not every game requires 60+ fps to be smooth. Crysis at 30 fps is extremely smooth. And your remark about it dropping in graphically intense moments makes no sense. If we're talking about 30 fps, we're not talking about 30 fps average. Just 30 fps at any given moment. And 30 fps in even the biggest gunfight in Crysis is more than adequate, actually 25 fps would be fine.

Games like Bioshock and UT3 require considerably higher framerates than Crysis, generally 50+, to be considered very smooth.

Perhaps a better question would have been what cards can handle 1920 x 1200 with max details smoothly? If you throw out Crysis, which at max details is really way beyond the capabilities of today's cards, then a 8800gt will run every game at max details at 1920 x 1200 smoothly. But don't expect that to last more for than 6 - 12 months.

 

[CP5670]

Not every game requires 60+ fps to be smooth. Crysis at 30 fps is extremely smooth. And your remark about it dropping in graphically intense moments makes no sense. If we're talking about 30 fps, we're not talking about 30 fps average. Just 30 fps at any given moment. And 30 fps in even the biggest gunfight in Crysis is more than adequate, actually 25 fps would be fine.

Maybe it does for him. As I mentioned earlier, 30fps does not look smooth at all to me in any game, and I mean 30fps at any one point. There is no right or wrong answer to this issue; it's all a matter of opinion.

 

[superbooga]

Originally posted by: CP5670

Not every game requires 60+ fps to be smooth. Crysis at 30 fps is extremely smooth. And your remark about it dropping in graphically intense moments makes no sense. If we're talking about 30 fps, we're not talking about 30 fps average. Just 30 fps at any given moment. And 30 fps in even the biggest gunfight in Crysis is more than adequate, actually 25 fps would be fine.

Maybe it does for him. As I mentioned earlier, 30fps does not look smooth at all to me in any game, and I mean 30fps at any one point. There is no right or wrong answer to this issue; it's all a matter of opinion.

I agree that it's subjective, but there are a lot of factors, and to say 30 fps in any game is probably an exaggeration. Quality of animation and size of movements make a difference; so RTS games usually look smooth at 30 fps. 3rd person games that have a mostly fixed camera also look smooth at 30 fps. Also, smoothness is heavily correlated with control; if you just watched someone else play your perception of smoothness would be different.

 

[tigersty1e]

I can most definitely notice moving images above 30 fps...

Give me a game at 30 fps and another at 60 fps and 100 times out of 100, I can tell the difference.

We're at the tail-end of the current generation of video cards. Technology constantly gets better, but if you look in the past, you can see fluctuations or patterns.

2005 was AMD's end of their technology run. It wouldn't have made sense to buy an AMD then because Intel's Core 2 series was emerging.

I'm not saying ATI will come out over Nvidia in the next gen. Just saying that this gen of cards is done with. The 8800 pattern started in late 06-early 07. We're due for another pattern emerging. The current single card... Ultra, came out ~ year ago. That's really old in this industry.


Bottom line: Save your money and buy the next fastest single card and skip over the X2 junk coming up.

 

[superbooga]

Originally posted by: tigersty1e
Give me a game at 30 fps and another at 60 fps and 100 times out of 100, I can tell the difference.

Same here, unless we're talking about online chess or something similar. But that doesn't mean 30 fps won't be smooth (although for me, the majority of games aren't smooth at 30 fps).

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: superbooga

Originally posted by: CP5670

Not every game requires 60+ fps to be smooth. Crysis at 30 fps is extremely smooth. And your remark about it dropping in graphically intense moments makes no sense. If we're talking about 30 fps, we're not talking about 30 fps average. Just 30 fps at any given moment. And 30 fps in even the biggest gunfight in Crysis is more than adequate, actually 25 fps would be fine.

Maybe it does for him. As I mentioned earlier, 30fps does not look smooth at all to me in any game, and I mean 30fps at any one point. There is no right or wrong answer to this issue; it's all a matter of opinion.

I agree that it's subjective, but there are a lot of factors, and to say 30 fps in any game is probably an exaggeration. Quality of animation and size of movements make a difference; so RTS games usually look smooth at 30 fps. 3rd person games that have a mostly fixed camera also look smooth at 30 fps. Also, smoothness is heavily correlated with control; if you just watched someone else play your perception of smoothness would be different.

It does depend on the game but I have never felt something as low as 30fps to be smooth in any game I've played in the last several years, and RTSs or TPSs are no exception. This is one thing that annoyed me about C&C3 actually. It's capped at 30fps, even though the engine is fairly old and can easily run much faster on modern hardware. I can of course tolerate it but I certainly would not call it smooth. I actually found a way to remove the framecap, but it also alters the game speed so it's not very useful.

Bottom line: Save your money and buy the next fastest single card and skip over the X2 junk coming up.

:thumbsup:

 

[zeroburrito]

you will see how unplayable 30 fps is when you play online against non ai. 15 fps is playable singleplayer...i wont touch an online fps without AT LEAST 60 fps.

 

[QuixoticOne]

I'm not that much of a gamer, though I do have
a couple dozen of the popular games from the past
few years for the PC.

I have a system with a Q6600 @ 3GHz,
8GB DDR2-800 memory, VISTA 64 bit, and an
EVGA 8800GT-512 overclocked,
DELL 24" 2405 LCD @ 1920x1200.

I can empirically tell you that virtually all games run
at 60FPS or much higher *most if not of the time*
at 1900x1200, typically with essentially max. quality
settings, NO AF, and either NO AA or slight (2x or
whatever AA).

COD4 is like that.

Certainly all the older stuff like BF2, Oblivion, FEAR,
HL2CS, DOD-source, Supreme Commander, CIV4,
etc. all run pretty much as fast as I'd want under most
circumstances.

I haven't tried Crysis, UT3, ETQW yet.

Does it EVER go below 60FPS? Sure.. depends on the
game, sometimes it briefly drops to 45, 38, whatever,
probably mainly when it's loading something from
memory / disk and it's going to slow down WHATEVER
graphics card you have.

How fast would Crysis work in this setup?
According to benchmarks, probably not
60FPS at max. DX9 quality.
Certainly not 60 FPS sustained at MAX DX10 quality.
Would it do well over 30FPS, often 60FPS, most often
not a whole lot less than 60FPS? Probably.

Also you have to be a little reasonable about what you
mean by "max quality" usually there are 1-2 things
in EVERY game that you can turn to LOW or MEDIUM
quality and NEVER even know the visual difference,
but it'll give you like 25% better performance to compromise.

Oblivion -- GRASS SHADOWS??? Do I really need to look
at shadows of 2D blades of grass that aren't even that
realistic even WHEN you turn that on? No.

Do I really need 8X or 16X AF at the cost of like double
the GPU memory and 30% performance cut? NO.

High quality water specular reflection details for a FPS
shooter like COD4? No real benefit. If it was
Oblivion or Guild wars I might want the eye candy, but
those aren't FPS games so I don't need 60-100Hz speeds in
those either, 30 does just fine...

There is NO single or double (SLI / Crossfire) card you
can buy today that will max. out EVERY quality setting
at that resolution at 60 Hz 98% of the time in the top
5% of the highest demanding games, especially
not in DX10, like Crysis, WIC, etc.

Get an 8800GT or 8800GTS-512 and it'll be 90% of the
benefit for 40% of the cost of something MUCH higher
end that will probably not save you from FPS drops at
various times anyway.

If it bothers you then save the money you would have
spent NOW to get the NEW high end card of the
next generation 11 months from now and THAT will
probably get closer to your desires.

You can always drop down to 1600x1200 or whatever
for a speed boost in the few cases where you want
max. eye candy and it's just not cutting it at 1900x1200,
but 90% of the time you shouldn't need to do that.