PDA

View Full Version : My only question -- Video card



Doug-Thompson
06-04-2003, 16:08
The "movie" from RTW runs very well on my computer, but what will be the video card requirements for this game?

I'm looking forward to the release, but will not buy the game if I have to buy a new card to play it.

SgtAndrew
06-04-2003, 16:20
I'm just making a wild guess, but I don't think you'd want anything less than an NVIDIA GeForce2 or ATI Radeon 9000.

jones21
06-04-2003, 16:27
it better not be anything higher than an ATI Radeon 9000 because thats what i got and cant afford anything else http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Sockeye
06-04-2003, 16:33
Well, with what is rumoured to be a full year still to come in development guessing is going to be fairly pointless.

having said that.....

they state same spec as for M:TW http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Ave

Sir Robin
06-05-2003, 16:22
That is the most amazing part of RTW for me.

I am working with an older pc and though it runs well enough with MTW, I have my doubts about RTW.

I am impressed that CA is trying to aim at the older pc market.

With the current softness in technology markets it is a wise move.

I know I won't have the eye-candy that newer pcs have but it will be wonderful to see the pachyderm parade.

Mr Durian
06-06-2003, 02:57
I need to get myself a new video card as well. All these new games seem to me will be a system hog...especially Half-Life 2 and Doom 3.

Has anybody seen the Half-Life 2 gampley video. I was like WOW when I saw it.

FesterShinetop
06-06-2003, 10:35
Quote[/b] (SgtAndrew @ June 04 2003,16:20)]I'm just making a wild guess, but I don't think you'd want anything less than an NVIDIA GeForce2 or ATI Radeon 9000.
Well, most new games require at least these video cards. If you have something older it's time to upgrade. And a GeForce 2 isn't that expensive anymore

Jacque Schtrapp
06-06-2003, 16:40
Quote[/b] (Apache @ June 06 2003,04:35)]Well, most new games require at least these video cards. If you have something older it's time to upgrade. And a GeForce 2 isn't that expensive anymore
Since RTW likely won't be out before Xmas at the very earliest, video cards will have continued to decline in price with new cards from ATI and Nvidia expected out by then also. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

FesterShinetop
06-06-2003, 20:06
Yes, but the new cards will likely put you back 500 euro/dollar... The slightly older cards will be down a bit more though... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif But if you go look at it like that you'll never get a new card http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Big King Sanctaphrax
06-06-2003, 20:24
My Hercule Prohet Radeon 9800 should be arriving soon...aahh... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

eXistenZi
06-10-2003, 13:19
Quote[/b] (SgtAndrew @ June 04 2003,11:20)]I'm just making a wild guess, but I don't think you'd want anything less than an NVIDIA GeForce2 or ATI Radeon 9000.
Umm those cards are completely different. The radeon 9000 is even better than a geforce 3.

SgtAndrew
06-10-2003, 14:16
Says who?

Jacque Schtrapp
06-10-2003, 15:41
Quote[/b] (SgtAndrew @ June 10 2003,08:16)]Says who?
3DMark or any other benchmark you can name.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Hate to break the news to the Nvidia fanatics.... your card of choice is lodged firmly in second place where it will remain for the forseeable future. I especially enjoyed hearing how the new FX card was barely outperforming the Radeon 9700 and then they found out that Nvidia had written its drivers to detect benchmarking and fake performance increases to achieve a better score. New patches for benchmarks erased their cheating ways and dropped performance by 24 percent so that the new Nvidia card is now slightly outperformed by the old ATI card. The harder these two fight the better the rewards the consumer will reap ala cheaper and faster processors thanks to the Intel vs. AMD wars. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

SgtAndrew
06-10-2003, 17:00
Yes, it is true that the Radeon 9800 Pro outperforms the GeForce 5800 Ultra... however, the 5900 Ultra, which comes out very soon, outperforms the 9800 Pro very soundly. I have heard of NVIDIA perhaps tweaking their stuff to look better on the 3DMark test, but does that automatically make theirs the worse card? Look at framerate and fillrate that the 5900 Ultra puts out compared to the 9800 Pro during testing of actual games. Regardless of whether they cheated on the 3DMark test, NVIDIA still has the better card.

eXistenZi
06-10-2003, 20:45
Quote[/b] (SgtAndrew @ June 10 2003,09:16)]Says who?
OK I don't mean to be rude, but you should really do some research before rediculing my point.

SgtAndrew
06-10-2003, 20:54
ok, ExistNazi or whatever the fuck your name is, two things:

1. It was you that initially ridiculed MY point.
2. I have done research, dickbrain. I don't give a fuck about 3DMark, it doesn't mean shit. I look at framerates on games. That's what matters... after all, it's GAMES that we use our video cards for, not benchmarks.

Sir Robin
06-10-2003, 21:02
Please watch the language.

I am not sure what card will be the best.

As long as it gives me some eye candy and runs smoothly I will be happy.

Big King Sanctaphrax
06-10-2003, 21:58
Quote[/b] (SgtAndrew @ June 10 2003,14:54)]ok, ExistNazi or whatever the fuck your name is, two things:

1. It was you that initially ridiculed MY point.
2. I have done research, dickbrain. I don't give a fuck about 3DMark, it doesn't mean shit. I look at framerates on games. That's what matters... after all, it's GAMES that we use our video cards for, not benchmarks.
Wow Calm it. We're all civilised people, so lets watch the flames, before a mod has to intervene. Both of your viewpoints are equally valid, and there was no need for a personal attack and abusive language.

RisingSun
06-10-2003, 22:10
I highly doubt anything will be outperorming the 9800 Pro for some time to come. NVidia is clearly falling behind, and has to hope for some kind f miracle to catch up.

Doug-Thompson
06-10-2003, 22:23
A major hardware company cheated on its tests?

===============

I have to agree with the point that -- for games -- frame rates are what matters.

I'd rather have somewhat bland graphics that flow well than beautiful graphics that skip and jerk.

About the only time I was ever blown away by beautiful graphics was with IL-2 Sturmovik.

===========

[Edited p.s.] Found what appears to be a nice article at something called "geek.com" Apparently, BOTH the major competitors have a history of stunts like this.

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2003Jun/gee20030609020320.htm

SgtAndrew
06-10-2003, 23:08
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030512/geforce_fx_5900-11.html

There it is, in black and white... or something. I don't just mean for you to look at this page, look at the rest of the games/settings that they test, so you can see an even and fair view of the two cards. It's a pity that NVIDIA couldn't seem to get its cards out when they wanted them to, otherwise all of this "victorious underdog" stuff never would have come up. ATI has ONE good card... the 9700 Pro, and for some reason people think that it means NVIDIA blows now, even though NVIDIA has always had the better stuff in the past. Let's wait till the next generation of cards and see what happens.

eXistenZi
06-11-2003, 05:06
Quote[/b] (SgtAndrew @ June 10 2003,15:54)]ok, ExistNazi or whatever the fuck your name is, two things:

1. It was you that initially ridiculed MY point.
2. I have done research, dickbrain. I don't give a fuck about 3DMark, it doesn't mean shit. I look at framerates on games. That's what matters... after all, it's GAMES that we use our video cards for, not benchmarks.
Uhhh

1. I ridiculed your point because it was a load of bullshit.
2. YOU HAVEN'T DONE RESEARCH. I BUILD COMPUTERS FOR A LIVING YOU SHITBRAINED MAGGOT. I KNOW THE PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GEFORCE 2 AND A RADEON 9000 PRO. The difference is huge.

So there. Sit down and shut up.

Div Hunter
06-11-2003, 06:06
You guys like your gaphics chips manufacturers WAY too much. Kind of an unfair matchup there the GeForce 2 being a much older card. If the Radeon 9000 didn't out perform it I would be VERY worried for ATi. At any rate I find most of the time nVidia does better in terms of price/performance balance (In Australia anyway).

Benchmarking doesn't mean too much in real terms. It is only through extensive testing of 'real world' applications with various settings and other hardware set-ups that you'll find the card that suits your needs. So you need to find people that have the cards you're looking at or have a very understanding retailer http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

BTW monkeys can build computers it doesn't mean they know how it all works, after all it's all 'stick it where it fits'

Leet Eriksson
06-11-2003, 06:58
watch the language kids..

benF86
06-11-2003, 07:58
I loved 3dfx, I love nVidia but still, if I can get a better deal on a Radeon I'll take it.
And I agree on the point, that 3dmark and benchmark proggies don't mean anything useful. I wanna know how games will work.
Still, GF4 Ti2000 ain't too xpensive so u can probably buy it.
I dunno about radeons since ATI isn't almost at all sold in my town

eXistenZi
06-11-2003, 12:59
Quote[/b] (Div Hunter @ June 11 2003,01:06)]You guys like your gaphics chips manufacturers WAY too much. Kind of an unfair matchup there the GeForce 2 being a much older card. If the Radeon 9000 didn't out perform it I would be VERY worried for ATi. At any rate I find most of the time nVidia does better in terms of price/performance balance (In Australia anyway).

Benchmarking doesn't mean too much in real terms. It is only through extensive testing of 'real world' applications with various settings and other hardware set-ups that you'll find the card that suits your needs. So you need to find people that have the cards you're looking at or have a very understanding retailer http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

BTW monkeys can build computers it doesn't mean they know how it all works, after all it's all 'stick it where it fits'
Yes exactly but this guy is saying that the GeForce 2 performs the same as a Radeon 9000. He says he's done research. His only research is what some kid on the playground told him.

hoom
06-11-2003, 13:38
Geforce2 is directx7 hardware.
Radeon 9000 is directx8.1.
If the directx8.1 isn't better than the 7 I'd be very surprised.
9000 vs Geforce4ti would seem a more fair test. (dunno the numbers myself)

ATI got busted for cheating last year. Nvidia this year. (so did ATI but they fessed up quickly)
Now Nvidia has had driver based image quality & performance issues but it seems to be fixed now with ATI better just a smidgen at quality, Nvidia better just a smidgen at framerate.
Futuremark copped out & is now just letting them optimise to their hearts' content... mind you, there is the good point that they let AMD & Intel optimise their drivers (hang on, do CPUs have drivers??? maybe they just helped out optimising the benchmark?) for PCmark2002.

Looks to me like the 5900 ultra is gonna beat the 9800 significantly but we've not yet seen the 9900 (or whatever the next Radeon will be)...
The 5900 seems to be what the 5800 should have been.
The 9800 with 256mb ram seems to be a dud.

But I'm more interested in Geforce FX5600 ultra vs Radeon 9500 pro vs Radeon 9600 pro vs Radeon 9700 (not pro).

So far as I can tell, the 9700 is much superior outright, being a 9700 pro down clocked a bit, while the others have half the transistors ripped out or other impediments but the 9700 is still a fair bit more expensive than the others.

Some stuff I've seen indicates the production 5600 is quite a bit better than the pre-release versions most sites benchmarked?
The 9500 pro seems to be just a little better than the 9600 pro -which is more efficient, doing it with nearly half the transistors, less power & heat due to the .13 micron process.
Then there's the 9600 pro 256 which is substantially cheaper than the 128??
The non pro/ultra versions of 9600/5600???

Oh so confused http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

I figure that the bottom end PCs will run the game with substantially reduced texture quality, shortened draw distance & severe lod. Should still be pretty though like UT2003 was on my 600mhz with geforce2mx http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

At the moment I'm reasonably happy with my Nforce IGP (Geforce4mx) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Its certainly much better than the gf2mx.

Looks like RTW is essentially gonna be just a directx7 pipeline game? No fancy shaders & stuff, just lots of fairly low poly models & single relatively low-res textures.
If its directx7 (8 & 9 still use the 7 hardware pipeline) then probably a Geforce4ti would be best? Because they were mostly about fill rate etc while the newer directx9 hardware is more concentrated on shaders/AA/AF & seems to run directx7 stuff slower than the gf4s do.

Div Hunter
06-12-2003, 13:18
Quote[/b] (eXistenZi @ June 11 2003,16:59)]His only research is what some kid on the playground told him.
Never disputed that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Knight_Yellow
06-12-2003, 15:15
lol flaming when ur not involved in it is funny.

ill be staying with my lovely geforce cards for the forseeable future since the radeon is like £200 dearer.

i can get a geforce 4 128mg (good one) for 100 pound

radeom is 350 so its even more than 200

its all a matter of money

AlanH_30
06-12-2003, 15:37
Hmm - a Radeon is £200 dearer than a GeForce4?

I don't think so.

I've just bought a Radeon 9700 pro for £230 including VAT and delivery.

Catiline
06-12-2003, 17:01
Not related to RTW anymore, and too much of an unseemly squabble for the Taven. Thread closed