• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Can The 4870 Handle Medieval 2: Total War?

I've always, always wanted to buy this game. For some reason I never got round to buying it :/

Every single time I see it I say to myself I'm going to buy it next time. I even wanted the previous total war games and never got round to buying one.

I will still buy it!
 
HangTime said:
This may be of interest: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17890989&highlight=rtw

Basically some guy just upgraded to a 4850 and M2TW has gone up to 35fps average.
I suspect a 4870 is not powerful enough to give you what you desire (50fps+ minimum on max settings) in this game, although I don't know how much CPU dependency there is.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that post. He got a good gain from his upgrade, but it's very different circumstances. Looks positive though...
 
Uriel said:
HardOCP used to use Medieval II in their benchmark suite. Unfortunately they don't anymore. Here was the last video card review I recall seeing with it in: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI5MywxMCwsMjA=

It's a shame that most sites video card reviews are almost completely dominated by shooters. Some people do play other games y'know...

Edit: Thinking about it, they've probably dropped it because of the way they do their reviews. HardOCP look for the highest 'playable' settings in a gameplay situation. As they found that they were happy with the experience with game settings maxed and some AA at 1920x1200 (on a 320MB 8800GTS), they may have decided it wasn't worth including for reviews of faster cards.
Click to expand...

Interesting results. Looks like my 8800GTX was underperforming a little then. As stated earlier, could be down to the current driver set.
 
Uriel said:
I honestly can't tell the difference once you get over x4 AA. Well - maybe if you show me enlarged still shots but not while playing a game.
Click to expand...

That is because your screen is only 24". When I owned a 2407WFP 4X AA was fine. On a 40" screen I aim for 8X. I can notice improvements with 16X too, so the more I can apply the better.
 
Linwig said:
Do you really need x8 AA at 1920x1080? ;) I would have thought x2 or x4 would be enough?
Click to expand...

He's playing on a 40" TV rather than a standard monitor, meaning much larger pixels and hence a requirement for more AA.

Remember that 1920x1080 on a 40" panel is actually a fairly 'low' resolution relative to screen size when you think about it. It's the equivalent of 960x540 on a 20" screen for example. Would you be happy with just 4xAA on a resolution barely above 800x600?
 
HangTime said:
Remember that 1920x1080 on a 40" panel is actually a fairly 'low' resolution relative to screen size when you think about it. It's the equivalent of 960x540 on a 20" screen for example. Would you be happy with just 4xAA on a resolution barely above 800x600?
Click to expand...

Probably wouldn't notice it that much if I was sitting 10-20ft away from the 20inch monitor.
 
HangTime said:
Out of interest how do you find it for general windows desktop usage?
Or do you use a seperate monitor for that?
Click to expand...

I find it better for absolutely everything. :)

Picture quality is superb and if you set your mouse sensitivity to very high you can zoom around at a normal pace. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom