Any games that really use the 7800/X1800/1900 really

[Wooly Back]

lol, I just came back to read the responses and noticed that I managed to get my very first post on this forum "moderated".

I cannot see what is so wrong about complaining that we are paying £150 - £160 for a X1900XTX than the Americans are. It's not like Overclockers are price gouging or anything because it's the same situation with all their competitors.

 

[Jimbo Mahoney]

lol, I just came back to read the responses and noticed that I managed to get my very first post on this forum "moderated".

I cannot see what is so wrong about complaining that we are paying £150 - £160 for a X1900XTX than the Americans are. It's not like Overclockers are price gouging or anything because it's the same situation with all their competitors.

Indeed.

You're not in Kansas anymore, this is OcUK....




Back on topic...

I think the majority of people who doubt the necessity of high-end gfx cards are running 17" TFTs and are happy with 30fps, which is great! I wish I was!

Some people (and this is not elitist) run high resolution screens and don't enjoy playing games @ less than 60fps (minimum), in which case, even the latest gfx cards can struggle.

 

[bananaman]

all i can say is that even the x1900xt gets a good work out when running at high settings with AA and AF at 1920x1200 (the new source version of Militia in particular! - think it is all the trees )

but as has been stated above these cards are just ticking over at lower resolutions

 

[conundrum]

Looking at both the highest end cards available I can see that there appears to be virtually no difference between them. All tests just seem to only show a difference in the cards when high resolution and high AA/AF is selected.

As an example take this review from xbitlabs.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-x1900xtx_14.html

In BF2 everything is equal until 1600x1200 and max AA/AF.

 

[Mundu]

I play all games at 1280x1024 with 2xAA at highest settings apart from FEAR and it's mostuy smooth but CoD2 used to get in to high 20 FPS in intensive parts of the game. That' on my 7800GTX 490/1300 and 3700+ @ 2.7GHz. I get 8400 in 3dmark 05 and 4300in 06.

 

[chaparral]

This thread title should be = Any monitors that really use the 7800/X1800/1900 really

The res you play at is more important then what spec the game needs.
Some people are happy at 800x600 on there 15" screen where the next person wants 2560 x 1600 on there 30" screen..

 

[Wooly Back]

One of the reasons why I'm holding off buying an LCD as long as possible.

 

[Mundu]

This thread title should be = Any monitors that really use the 7800/X1800/1900 really

The res you play at is more important then what spec the game needs.
Some people are happy at 800x600 on there 15" screen where the next person wants 2560 x 1600 on there 30" screen..

Yeah. For me size isn't a issue so the price and fact I can lower the res when newer games come out is why I have a 930SB, although I have my eyes on a FW900 although a 24" widescreen CRT will mean a desk that could hold an elephant probably.

 

[matt100]

I cannot see what is so wrong about complaining that we are paying £150 - £160 for a X1900XTX than the Americans are..

I can, its called an exchange rate

Seriously.. everything costs less and they get paid less, its not entirely linear but its nowhere near as simple as saying things are cheaper there.

Anyway, I agree that this thread should be more like "what monitors can push x1900/7800" because its absolutely the case that the res drives the load. Its not as if its a big secret either but I'd love to see how many people who have sli/high end cards in their sigs are using 17/19" monitors. I bet there's loads

I've often considered getting a smaller monitor to save myself some money on gfx cards.

 

[Arcane]

I've got a 19" IIyama VMpro 454, it does 2038x1536 very nicely...or 1600x1200...

 

[HangTime]

Sure there are, FEAR will cripple any card on the market if you set everything to maximum. Even at 1280x1024, the min fps drops as low as 31 on the x1900xtx according to Firingsquad's tests.

Looking over at anandtech, stick Black and White 2 on max and even it can only average 15fps (dread to think what minimum is).

 

[GAMEfreak]

what do the developers use to test these bits of software then 0_O, multi-cored GPU's?

 

[Lanz]

I dont understand people who are upgrading, just because one game, i.e FEAR doesnt work very good. Surely everyone has completed FEAR ages ago anyway, its not as if you'll be playing it online for the next year. I can understand people upgrading for the likes of BF2 etc, a game what you play every day, for months, but for an average game like FEAR, guys, if that's your only reason for buying a new card, you need to step back a little.

 

[lemonkettaz]

i dont upgrade for games.

i upgrade for the ladies

 

[LoadsaMoney]

Sure there are, FEAR will cripple any card on the market if you set everything to maximum. Even at 1280x1024, the min fps drops as low as 31 on the x1900xtx according to Firingsquad's tests.

Looking over at anandtech, stick Black and White 2 on max and even it can only average 15fps (dread to think what minimum is).

Fear didn't cripple my x1800 XT maxed out at 1280x1024, ran fine here.

The x1900 is the only card that can play Fear at higher resloutions than 1600x1200, and still give a playable game.

 

[Wooly Back]

I can, its called an exchange rate

Seriously.. everything costs less and they get paid less, its not entirely linear but its nowhere near as simple as saying things are cheaper there.

Really? That'll be why there has been a collective w00t from all the yanks at XS when the card got launched.

No, it's because we get ripped off in the UK and I'm not just talking about computer hardware. Have you not noticed that there are no British overclockers going for #1 benching scores anymore?