What do i need to run Battlefield Vietnam @ max detail with minimal 70FPS?

[Schadenfroh]

Will the 5900 suffice or will i have to wait for the 6800gt to pull off FPS that never drop below 70 at highest detail settings at 1024X768? I just want to upgrade my video card since btx is less than a year away. I dont care about AF or FSAA

A7N8X deluxe Rev2.0
1gb Corsair XMS PC3200
Athlon XP 3200+
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS
Geforce4 TI4200 8x 128mb

btw, how bad is my video holding me back?

 

[Bucksnort]

I run it high settings 4xaa 8xaf. Frames 40 lowest to 120. Average being 68 or so. A 5900 will noway do it with aa, af. I had a 5900se and it crawls with aa, af. I got a 9800p and it gives to above results with my system:
2400+
1 gig 2100 ram
iceQ 9800p

so in short with your more potent system you will meet your goal with a 9800p or a new gen card but not with a 5900 series.

 

[ForceCalibur]

Its true that Nvidia cards suffer under AA/AF, but if you don't plan on such marginal eye candy benefits, it will do fine. Get whatevers cheaper (and, well R9800 Pros ARE cheaper in general). I'd wait until GT/800XT.

 

[DoobieOnline]

It sounds like you want to stick with Nvidia, so I'd say wait for the 6800GT. The 5900XT or SE would play well with max detail at 1024 x 768 but you might see some lag when there's a lot of action on the screen. If you get a 5900 that's highly overclockable you'd probably be in good shape, though. My 9800 Pro sometimes lags just a little with max detail at 1024 x 768 whenever there is lots of action on the screen. There's much more lag at 1280 x 1024 (or 1280 x 960 - can't remember exactly) so I run 1024 x 768 until I get a better card. This is all with a P4 2.8C running at 3.5GHz and a gig of PC4000 at 1:1. I think the 6800GT is going to be the card to get on the higher end for price/performance and it should overclock pretty well.

Doobie

 

[Schadenfroh]

i dont care about AA and AF, i just dont want my FPS do drop below 70 at any given time with max detail in the game itself.

 

[Dman877]

No cards, even the new ones will play current games at maxed settings without dropping below 70 unless you play at 8x6 or lower on a really fast oc'd cpu. Why do you need 70 fps so badly?

 

[Description]

Get more RAM.

 

[SickBeast]

Battlefield Vietnam isn't THAT serious of a game is it? If it's OpenGL I would say the 5900 would be fine, if it'd D3D the 9800PRO would be better. 1024 is low-res and 70FPS should definately be attainable IMO. That said, it's foolhearted to invest in a 5900 now with the 6800 series on the horizon. That's if nVidia can manage to produce the things in mass quantity, which the inquirer seems to think they cannot do ATM. Oh well, there's always ATi, right Schadenfroh??

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Dman877
Why do you need 70 fps so badly?

i hate lag

 

[jhurst]

You mention lag....maybe it is the network that is causing your FPS to drop. The Ti4200 is a still a good card IMO, maybe not 70FPS @ high settings but still a good card. I have a 9600XT and I run BF1942 @ full settings and it is fine. I have noticed network lag before, especially when I get like 16+ players on a map (even with a 3mb connection on my part)

 

[Schadenfroh]

i have 30 constant ping to severs i play on, not a network issue, i have to turn graphics down to low in order to not get any lag during major firefights. If it were a network problem, lag would still occur at the lower detail settings, but it does not. looks like crap, still fun

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
btw, how bad is my video holding me back?

It's the only thing that holds you back a 9800pro should make it run just fine.

 

[M0NEYSH0T]

Get a 9800 PRO or XT.

In the majority of cases the 9800 will out perform the 5900's (I had a 5900 ultra, glad I took it back for the ATI).

 

[M0NEYSH0T]

d00d, who cares if it goes below 70... Your eyes can only see like 27 FPS anyway.

 

[Pentium]

Your eyes can detect more than 27 fps.

And a Radeon 9800 pro might fulfill your needs. I get good constant fps on everything with mine

Dont bother with the 5900 series. they are inferior in many regards to ATI cards.

 

[jhurst]

Just for a reference, movies run @ 24 FPS and DVD's run @ 28 FPS. And you can't see any hiccups in that picture. Anything above 60 I would say is fine for gaming. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 60 FPS and 70 FPS, much like you can't tell the difference between 300 FPS and 400 FPS (while benchmarking).

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: M0NEYSH0T
d00d, who cares if it goes below 70... Your eyes can only see like 27 FPS anyway.

Because if you turn really fast 27 FPS will feel very choppy. Lets say a 180 degrees turn should take 0.1 sec, then you will only get three frames, 1 showing forward, 1 looking at the side and 1 looking behind you.

 

[jhurst]

lol, 180 degrees in .1 seconds? If you EVER need to turn that fast in a game (if it is even possible), then your eyeballs wouldnt even have time to adjust to anything in the 2-179 degree planes.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: M0NEYSH0T
d00d, who cares if it goes below 70... Your eyes can only see like 27 FPS anyway.

dude, im sure you can tell the differance between 27 and 70fps, anything below 60 is some lag man

btw, any benchies of minimum frame rates in BFV?

 

[Schadenfroh]

no benchies of BFV eh?

 

[high]

i can tell the difference between 30-50, 50-70, 70-90 .... after 90 it tears so it's no good. But I saw a comment about the 180 degree turn and that is true, anything below 60 with a 180 degree turn looks REALLY choppy

 

[Gamingphreek]

In this game i would definately get an Nvidia card. ATI is better at D3d and DX but Nvidia dominates in OpenGL. You should easily be able to run everything max with a 5900 or 9800class card. But dont go for 9600 or 5700 memory bandwidth is crippled.

I would rather not start this POS aregument again but everyone in this thread seems to be an ATI fanboy. Yes ATI does a bit better with AA and AF filtering on because Nvidia is to stupid to do that with hardware... i think it uses software for that.... thats why Nvidia always dies in AA and AF. But aside from that both cards are awesome with the ATI cards coming out a LITTLE bit faster. I think ATI wins around 60% and Nvidia wins around 40% of the time. Both cards are awesome. THe only game that is EXTREMELY BIASED is HL2 were they do practically no Nvidia optimizations. I wouldn't even think about running anything but ATI hardware on it.
Damn biased valve.

-Kevin

 

[YouAreForbidden]

yeah but its a D3D game isnt it?

9800Pro best bet for 70+ fps for the money.
what are they $180 now at frys?

Heres a bench of what to expect to get from some available cards.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Yes, BFV is a DX game, although, if it has a OpenGL path, let me know how to enable it, the nearist frys is 800 miles away, so if i leave now. but those benchies are average frame rates, im looking for minimum. i guess i will have to purchase a x800 or better to get minimal 70fps, perhaps the 6800gt will beet it, dang i wish prices would come down quicker

 

[YouAreForbidden]

the city maps press BFV hard, and at 1024*768 2xAA/NoAF i maintained about a 70-80 minimum fps. i know i know... BS. yeah yeah. not here to argue my fps. just saying that if you want to play BFV fast with no or few filters (AT LEAST 2xAA.... how can you deal with the jaggies?) get the 9800Pro. settings were maxed out and no slowdown except the zoom bug.

on my FX5600 i have to use med, med, high settings without AA (jaggies SUCK, i HATE them... so much) to get about 45fps.
on my 9800Pro i maxed everything out and threw on 2xAA and still avg 70+.

if youre not planning on using much more than 2xAA then id highly recommend the 9800Pro.
and frys was just an example... 800 miles though? my god, there are 3 with 35 miles of me... arent i spoiled.

Regards,
Y.A.F.
:beer: