1920x1200 - warhammer/warcraft - which gfx card?

[TheRealDeal]

Ignore.

 

[TheRealDeal]

Thanks a lot guys - btw what is the advantage of the 1024mb model? I don't change cards that often and the price difference is not huge. If the 1024mb will give me something extra i'll buy it - but if its a waste of time let me know and ill skip it.

The fact is he states he does not change cards to often the 4870 has to be the way to go it handles the res very well so it will last him much longer than a 4850 which with its much slower memory may limit him quickly depending on games released which the 4870 will not.

 

[Dark_Angel]

WOW is basically so old now anything plays it.

Even WOTLK with its new shadows its fine at 1920x1200 (beta versions).

Regular wow with Graphics macro to improve them, with AA, at 1920x1200 was 60 FPS on my 8800 GTS 320MB.

QUOTE]


Not quite, a 2.66Ghz Pentium D with a 8800GTX lags like hell in Sunwell, we're talking 7fps, with cpu at 100% load.

On the other hand a 2.66Ghz Core 2 + 7900GTX and Wow rarely drops below 40fps, and is often 100+. Wow needs a balanced machine with both CPU and GPU being "ok".

The Wrath of the Liche king shadows hit performance hard on older cards like the 7900's too.

My post was obviously referring to the GPU side of things, because that is what the OP asked about.

WOW is mostly CPU Dependant, with several addons loaded, it usually comes to around 800 mega bytes (at least, according to CTRL+ALT+DEL)

 

[TheRealDeal]

I agree if he was gonna play those games and no new ones over a decent period of time get a 4850 but if he does start to play newer games in that period its a 4870 all the way.

 

[Dark_Angel]

I agree if he was gonna play those games and no new ones over a decent period of time get a 4850 but if he does start to play newer games in that period its a 4870 all the way.

What you are saying doesn't even make sense.

I am running Crysis fine on my 4850, as well as COD 4 and more. Reviews show that the card is perfectly fine at even 2560x1600.

Now I know what you are going to say, more future proof. The 4870 isn't that much faster (it is faster, but not like 60 percent or something) than the 4850.

By the time a game struggles on the 4850, then the 4870 will also probably be fighting.

That isn't to say that the 4870 is a bad buy, but to imply that newer games can't run perfectly well on the 4850 is wrong.

*EDIT*

The fact is he states he does not change cards to often the 4870 has to be the way to go it handles the res very well so it will last him much longer than a 4850 which with its much slower memory may limit him quickly depending on games released which the 4870 will not.

I also noted that in your above reply, you state the 4870 will "last him much longer" I highly doubt that is even slightly true. The only card which might last him much longer is the 4870x2.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_4850_4870_performance/page11.asp

That shows that in crysis, there is (at 1920x1200) 4 frames per second difference.

Also, the RAM on my 4850 overclocks to 1200, which isn't to bad at all.

Once again, I am *NOT* saying the 4870 is bad, waste of money, or pointless. But I completely disagree that it will last "a lot longer than the 4850" or that "modern games is a 4870 all the way"

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-4850-2-gb-gddr3-review/10 that is a review of a 4850 with 2GB of ram, vs one with 512MB of ram. Overall they seem to be about even. (just in case memory size makes you curious).

*edit again*

Forgot to mention I am using the HIS 4850 ICE Q 4. I have clocked the RAM to 1200 (it can go higher) and the Core at 750 (1 successful 3d mark 2006 test, I didn't bother to do more because I wanted to run games, am using 700/1200 for every day use though, which is more than fast enough on COD 4 for example ~1920x1200, 4x AA, Adaptive AA, 16x AF, everything maxed, which runs (according to fraps) at 60FPS.

 

[TheRealDeal]

You are not really getting the point a 8800gtx with more memory and bandwidth is starting to struggle a little in graphics intense games at that res and is around the same speed as the 4850. Overclock the memory on the 4850 it still can't get near the bandwidth on the 4870 which overclocks to silly speeds also. The majority will tell you that the 4870 is the much better card for the res and as games get more intense so will the lead the 4870 has over the 4850 so why not get a card that has around 30 percent speed advantage with the memory that will not hold the card back in the near future. I am not in the minority with my views on this. 512 and gddr 3 struggles now and again with some games which the 4870 does not at higr res. I guess what i am saying is for his res the extra money will give him more piece of mind.

 

[Rhaos]

What about if you use a rez of 2560x1600 within WoW or WAR? I currently use a 8800GTX 768MB and things aren't that smooth in WoW or in WAR. Yeah I could play at a lower rez, but surely I'd need an X2 for a less juddier experience?

 

[Dark_Angel]

You are not really getting the point a 8800gtx with more memory and bandwidth is starting to struggle a little in graphics intense games at that res and is around the same speed as the 4850. Overclock the memory on the 4850 it still can't get near the bandwidth on the 4870 which overclocks to silly speeds also. The majority will tell you that the 4870 is the much better card for the res and as games get more intense so will the lead the 4870 has over the 4850 so why not get a card that has around 30 percent speed advantage with the memory that will not hold the card back in the near future. I am not in the minority with my views on this. 512 and gddr 3 struggles now and again with some games which the 4870 does not at higr res. I guess what i am saying is for his res the extra money will give him more piece of mind.

The 4870 also comes with 512MB of ram as standard.

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=2684&cid=3&pg=8

Here shows the 1GB version vs the 512MB version in crysis, at various different resolutions. You are right, the 1GB is faster. BUT, please note when it really gains a lead, when the FPS is basically not playable anyway. We are talking like a few FPS difference, when the game is unplayable (crysis with AA DX 10, everything maxed at 1920x1440).

In other games on that site, you will notice that the difference is smaller at higher resolutions.

I think what I am trying to say is, IF you want the faster card for *NOW* then get a 4870, or even better a 4870x2. But do not get one of these cards because you will think it will last you longer.

The 8800 GTX was clearly faster (by a large margin) than the 8800 GTS series, but now where the ultra is concerned, it isn't what you can call really making a massive difference over the GTX. When the next gen of games come out, I don't think a card being 20 percent (just as an example figure) faster will really make it fast enough to run games of the next gen easily.

Especially considering what is being released next year, with Intel and AMD both waiting for its new CPU structure to be unleashed, the 260 and the 280+s to be released soon from NV, and god knows what they (both companies) are secretly working on for early next years release (the real new cards, which I will assume is the 58x0's).

Finally, I will include this:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_ati_radeon_4870_x2_performance_review/page6.asp

Which will show you a review of a variety of different games (mostly showcasing the x2 card, including it in cross fire), so there you have it.

Bottom line is, the 4850/70 won't last you longer than each other, the x2's will probable (if history in graphics cards tell us anything) that they will be a bit slower than 1 single card of the next gen.

@Rhaos, for some reason people complain about WOW a lot, at various screen resolutions and with different GPU setups, and different CPU speeds.

I typically had no issues what so ever 1920x1200 x4 AA, (the macro to improve graphics) everything maxed of course, on an 8800 GTS 320 MB, with Q6600 (and previous to that an E4300) with 4GB of ram (and previous to that, 2GB of ram).

Now, at 1920x1200, max AA supported in game (can't remember what that is off hand) max AF, same graphics macro, everything maxed, on the Q6600, 4GB of ram and a 4850 (overclocked or not) I get a rock solid 60FPS.

I have a feeling the games performance is being hammered by various addons, or slower CPU speeds.

I might for fun run the game with my GPU severely underclocked, to see if that makes a difference, the only thing I will disable is AA.

 

[fross]

To reopne this now Warhammer has gone live and is being played a lot, I have to say that at 1680x1050, graphic settings on high, my 8800GT OC2 is struggling a little when doing a VERY busy area eg a siege. I'd really recommend a 4870 over a 4850 for it (probably what I will be upgrading to next!)