Can The 4870 Handle Medieval 2: Total War?

Overslop · 28 Jun 2008 at 20:31

I haven't seen any benchmarks for this card with this game.

It makes my 8800GTX its bitch.

Only way to to get it running smoothly at all times is to make shadows crappy and disable AA. Performance-wise, it demands similar to Crysis I would wager, albeit in a different manner.

Crilly · 28 Jun 2008 at 20:33

err runs smooth as butter with my hd2900xt and e6400 2gb in xp.

Overslop · 28 Jun 2008 at 20:34

My resolution is 1920x1080 btw.

Overslop · 28 Jun 2008 at 20:35

Crilly said:
err runs smooth as butter with my hd2900xt and e6400 2gb in xp.

All settings maxed and very high resolution?

Nickolai · 28 Jun 2008 at 20:46

That card will not only run that game, but run a marathon whilst doing it

Overslop · 28 Jun 2008 at 20:49

Has anyone tried it though? I mean, the 8800GTX is not far behind a 4870...

willhub · 28 Jun 2008 at 20:51

Overslop said:
Has anyone tried it though? I mean, the 8800GTX is not far behind a 4870...

The 4870 is a lot faster than an 8800GTX!!

Paradiso · 28 Jun 2008 at 20:56

I've been playing this all day at 1900x1200 at max setting on my HD2900xt with q6600 on vista 64 4gb and its smooth as butter, not exactly a stressing game these days.

Overslop · 28 Jun 2008 at 21:02

Paradiso said:
I've been playing this all day at 1900x1200 at max setting on my HD2900xt with q6600 on vista 64 4gb and its smooth as butter, not exactly a stressing game these days.

8XAA then?

Extreme Shadows?

Vsync?

Lightnix · 28 Jun 2008 at 21:04

Well the 4870 will certainly handle the AA (it takes tiny performance hit from MSAA). Then again I can't find any benchmarks of the game so who knows?

Overslop · 28 Jun 2008 at 21:09

willhub said:
The 4870 is a lot faster than an 8800GTX!!

About 30%, not a great improvement when FPS is so low anyway.

Paradiso · 28 Jun 2008 at 21:36

Overslop said:
8XAA then?

Extreme Shadows?

Vsync?

yes all maxed 8x aa and extreme with vsync, game hovers around 20-26 fps moving around with fraps. This is in battles and on the campaign map, its obviously up in the 40's on the campaign map. Cant say i have it on extreme shadows all the time though, mostly medium in case of mega huge city battles where i have to quickly coordinate various units, give a nice 10fps boost.

icey_haj · 28 Jun 2008 at 21:39

Overslop said:
About 30%, not a great improvement when FPS is so low anyway.

I would have thought 30% to be a big improvement :confused:

Overslop · 28 Jun 2008 at 21:39

I see...

20-26FPS is not tolerable for me.

I know strategy games don't matter for FPS so much, but it detracts from the fun for me. And I noticed it more playing on a 40" 1080P TV.

If the 4870 can manage 50FPS+ for this game I will be happy enough with it.

Waiting for someone who has the card and the game to let me know!

Overslop · 28 Jun 2008 at 21:41

icey_haj said:
I would have thought 30% to be a big improvement

Only when the FPS rate is high.

E.G. Crysis at 10FPS or Crysis at 13FPS. It's a 30% improvement but still unplayable.

willhub · 28 Jun 2008 at 21:54

Overslop said:
Only when the FPS rate is high.

E.G. Crysis at 10FPS or Crysis at 13FPS. It's a 30% improvement but still unplayable.

Crysis wont be playable at what you want it at for a long time... The 4870 is a lot faster in other titles.

Overslop · 28 Jun 2008 at 21:59

willhub said:
Oh I see all you play is Crysis and not other games, do you just use medieval 2 as a benchmark?

I'm not saying that a 30% increase isn't good, I'm saying that it's not very good when you have a very low number anyway.

This topic isn't about the 4870 in all games, it's about the 4870 in Medieval 2...

Overslop · 28 Jun 2008 at 22:02

willhub said:
Crysis wont be playable at what you want it at for a long time... The 4870 is a lot faster in other titles.

I already replied to your post before you edited it, but I will respond to this one too.

I don't even own Crysis and don't intend to buy it until the hardware has caught up with it (I don't buy that nonsense about it just being a terribly coded game, heard it all before).

I used it as an example of a game that demands too much of a 8800GTX if you want to play at very high settings. It's one of the few games I know of that my system can't handle in such a way.

willhub · 28 Jun 2008 at 22:05

Overslop said:
I already replied to your post before you edited it, but I will respond to this one too.

I don't even own Crysis and don't intend to buy it until the hardware has caught up with it (I don't buy that nonsense about it just being a terribly coded game, heard it all before).

I used it as an example of a game that demands too much of a 8800GTX if you want to play at very high settings. It's one of the few games I know of that my system can't handle in such a way.

Well it will be a long time untill you can run crysis it will be a very long time, its not about the coding, its due to the fact it is too advanced. Anyway someone replied that the 2900XT runs the game you said smooth as butter, now the 4870 is a lot faster than the 2900XT so it will to, the 8800GTX should aswell.

Overslop · 28 Jun 2008 at 22:10

willhub said:
Well it will be a long time untill you can run crysis it will be a very long time, its not about the coding, its due to the fact it is too advanced. Anyway someone replied that the 2900XT runs the game you said smooth as butter, now the 4870 is a lot faster than the 2900XT so it will to, the 8800GTX should aswell.

I don't mind waiting for ages, not remotely desperate to play the game. Would rather save it for when I can play it in its full glory.

Medieval 2 on the other hand is a game I do really want to play and I'm happy to play it on lower settings if needed. But I would ideally like to play it with lots of AA, Vsync etc. and have 50-60FPS without dips.

The guy who wrote "smooth as butter" described his experience of the game at 20FPS. For me, that's a frame rate far too low.