Need a new video card

balls2dawall said:
if you save or put away $6 dollars a day you could have a GTX 580 by release date Oct. 25th. Usually, you get what you pay for. I don't think I would enjoy mediocre graphics & wondering why I'm getting owned because everybody is 100 fames in front of you.
Click to expand...


He would most likely need a new psu to go with it. I am also guessing that if his system doesnt have the gpu to run BC2 his CPU is a problem going forward in BF3. 6 Bucks a day is a shitload of money for someone on minimum wage btw, not sure what his deal is tho.

Would I be an ass to point out that you couldn't be 100 frames behind someone? It would actually be interesting to know the position report rate of this and most games. But its likely not more than 100 times a second. Your CPU sends position data for modeling to the graphics card at render time. If your actually getting less than a minimum of 24 fps then you will have definite gaps in player position. But over that latency has a much more pronounced affect on position inaccuracy than a gpu only getting 45 fps.

Latency is the reason the guy not facing you just shot you, also the reason why the guy you just saw already shot you. If the report rate was very high and there was latency less than 10 ms those things wouldnt happen even at 30 fps. Lots of lag or a low position report rate can easily cause those things on a system getting 500 fps. As i said id love to know what the report rate on positions was in any given game it would give either side more ground in these discussions.

I get 60 to 90 FPS in BC2 Vietnam versus my 30 to 60 in BC2 Vanilla. My accuracy reflects almost no difference though the flamethrower shoots it up due to small number of weapons and its high accuracy. I suck no matter how well the gpu is doing. Only when it drops below fluid motion do i do worse. I suck anyways.

EDIT - Still as usual having issues finding the "tick rate" default of bad company 2 servers.
 
Talking to frit0z and clutch it seems BC2 works on a fast as the server receives and can send back to the clients method. Which is actually how other games work except they tend to cap servers for output to minimize bandwidth usage. If the servers lagging the report rate wont be good either. Of course getting a lagged position is even worse if your connection is the problem.

I still say a GTX 580 isnt going to solve the fact he needs a whole new machine to go with it, a PSU to power the card and the rest to actually play BF3. 55 Bucks now play BC2 and save the rest for later.
 
I first started playing BF2142 on my old laptop P4 with Ati X600 could I play the game....yes
Did the game look like shit....yes
Did I enjoy getting owned....no
Did I get 60fps...well yes most of the time

I started playing on my desktop with 8800 graphics
did the game look like shit...no
Did I own...yes
Did I get 60fps ...over 300 most of the time
 
We will find out how well i improve soon lol. According to RENNO who had an argument with Dirty Lex that a better computer wouldnt improve his gameplay. Mind you i disagree with him and lexs computer isnt even up to playing the game properly. The argument i think renno wanted to have and the one were discussing is if adequete equipment is worse than overkill. Sadly i dunno if my framerate is gonna be all that uber after i jack up the settings and resolution on the new box. Consistant in comparison for sure tho.
 
balls2dawall said:
I first started playing BF2142 on my old laptop P4 with Ati X600 could I play the game....yes
Did the game look like shit....yes
Did I enjoy getting owned....no
Did I get 60fps...well yes most of the time

I started playing on my desktop with 8800 graphics
did the game look like shit...no
Did I own...yes
Did I get 60fps ...over 300 most of the time
Click to expand...

I agree with balls - on halo pc I played on an old ass dell... the graphics where literally black and white - I played decently - had to lead alot - my shots i could tell registered for what felt like 2 seconds later - I upgraded my machine back in 07 spend 1400$ and was no scoping - sniping - melleing - I went from average to pro literally in weeks.

BFBC2 Im decent at it with my current machine i5 quad @ 4.0ghz - 4gb ram - gtx 260 216 core - I get about 90-100fps everything on low - the game to ME looks good even at low settings - Im sure at max it looks even more amazing - I also agree with rain - you can have a beast card but without a psu to power it - or a cpu to not bottleneck it its pointless


point is players with good hardware who have some skill play very well because everything is rendered faster and with good ping theyre shots register smoothly. What both of you failed to mention is that a monitor with high latency also affects gameplay - if you get a monitor @ 120hz with 5ms response time better yet 0ms response time you will have better results. Will a beast machine cure noobyness - or give you skill if you have none? no. But if your decent with old specs and you upgrade you will see better performance.
 
1) rain ur a dick.

2) i had the 9500 like for 3 months and 9600 1gb till i sold my old pc each, with my old pc, dual core cpu at 2.8 stock, 4 gigs of ram and bc2 ran flawlessly at mid - low settings on 1620 ~ or lower resolution. and the game ran well.

3) he just wants to be able to play bc2 now according to my conversation with him on ts hes not interested in bf3 for now.

4) anything above that price would imply buying more things, a psu or even a new cpu.

5) now i dont remember the size of his monitor.....soooo..... a more powerfull vcard on a small monitor would be overkill...... thats my opinion.
 
Chivo the 9500 GT is literally half a 9600 GT. Half the number of cores and half the memory interface.

So as i put it down GT 240 for 55 bucks bang for the buck for BC2. 96 cores versus the 9500 GT's 32. Really shitty versus sorta shitty. The GT 240 is the same card with 3 times as many streaming cores and its cheaper. The downside it has ram Bad Company 2 probably wont max or for a few bucks more than the 9500 the same.

Thanks for confirming he is definitely not aiming for BF3 anymore for this machine.
 
I think you're right, Rain. Rex had the same problem until he upgraded and I saw an immediate improvement in his gameplay. He wasn't lagging, his FPS were up and he started mowing people down. He was like a little kid in a candy store.

Balls is right too; you get what you pay for and how anyone would be satisfied with something that barely runs the game is beyond me. GPU prices aren't what they were ten years ago so that means coughing up the money for a new one. The plus side is that when newer ones come out, you can sell your current one for decent cash and upgrade for very little. It doesn't pay to hold on to the parts any more with games demanding more of the cpu and gpu these days.
 
sixer9682 said:
I think you're right, Rain.
Click to expand...

You lie IM WRONG! I dont disagree with balls up until we start talking 300 fps then were getting into umm territory since even uncapped most servers aren't updating player positions that fast.

I cant freaking wait to be running Dual GTX 560 Ti's if my schedule wasn't so tight it would be 570's. Game is coming too soon lol.
 
I dont disagree with balls up until we start talking 300 fps then were getting into umm territory since even uncapped most servers aren't updating player positions that fast.
Click to expand...

Disagree all you want but in BF2142 I was getting aournd 240fps and lots of times other players shot at where they thought I was in front of them while I could run around behind them and shoot them in the back and I know balls had the same experience. The fact of it is the gpus outpaced that game after a while and it does give you and edge in fighting.
 
mmmm yeah i seems that the gt 240 1gb is the best option.

and yes better hardware does help and improves your gameplay a lot.
i can camp happily now, u can react faster to someone behind u, because ur game wont lag at all, try doing quick scopes with a shitty system and ull see what i mean.
 
Sixer once a game has reached that point thats one thing but were also looking at recent and coming out in a minute games. I passed over 2142 the moment i stopped playing it.

Here is the problem with the situation you described. Your character is limited by the game design in how fast you can move. So no matter how many millions of fps you get its not going to allow you to move around someone in what would be to them the blink of an eye. Unless the game was bugged or a hack was in place of course. Lag on their end and the overall latency of the server causes that sort of problem all the time as their game isnt even showing your movements as they happen.

We already know you weren't moving any faster than the game allows. If you were making 240 position changes per second and he was only receiving 60 per second your movements in a properly designed game would still show u running around behind him and then his ass dying. This is assuming he wasnt lagging like a mofo or only getting 15 fps.

I didn't code the game but if your high frame rate caused that there is something seriously wrong. Scenario is you at 240 fps and him at 60 fps your not moving any faster than he can and in general he is seeing your movements even if their isn't super fine detail in each transition of a frame.

I am not saying it didnt happen and im not saying your incorrect I am not sure how to end this at all lol. All I know these days is I hear yall bitching when someone with their back to you shoots you lol.

chivoX said:
and yes better hardware does help and improves your gameplay a lot.
Click to expand...

Exactly I would never disagree with that but ask lex what he got told lol. I obviously know this pos limits me alot mainly thanks to punkbuster meddling with my cpu usage.
 
i think that what we are talking about here rain is that is u have ur game running at like 100 fps by example, theres a minimun chance that itll drop below anything unplayable but if u are on the very edge where if u see more than 3 players and someones blowing up a building near u or smoke granade and u lagggggg, thats no fun. but if ur pc runs the game flawlessly without lag in any situation ull perform better thats a fact.

its not about having 100fps its about the playability of the game.
 
chivoX said:
i think that what we are talking about here rain is that is u have ur game running at like 100 fps by example, theres a minimun chance that itll drop below anything unplayable but if u are on the very edge where if u see more than 3 players and someones blowing up a building near u or smoke granade and u lagggggg, thats no fun. but if ur pc runs the game flawlessly without lag in any situation ull perform better thats a fact.

its not about having 100fps its about the playability of the game.
Click to expand...

I am actually glad you brought that up. Because in this you will notice when I mention MINIMUM FPS. Anytime the Minimum FPS drops below 24 it gets choppy. Someone getting 30 FPS average may very will be dipping into unplayable frames all the time. 60 fps average COULD mean your minimums are in the clear.

But games are dynamic as well as buggy. I get 100+ FPS in fear these days but theres this one spot I get 6 fps on lol.
 
Food for thought. The human eye can only see 60 cycles per second or in this case 60 frames per second. This is why in the united states our electricity runs at 60Hz. if you go to Europe it runs at 50Hz and you will notice the lights having a flicker to them. That is because you can see the delay at 50Hz.

Now when it comes to video games a higher framerate does nothing to influence the game itself it only influences the picture on your monitor. 240 frames per second means that your graphics card is rendering 240 frames each second for your monitor. The situation of running around a guy probably has more to do with his latency/ framerate. If he has a shitty frame rate where its rendering 20 frames per second then he is going to have problems keeping up with you. As well as if he has a high latency.

I dont know if im saying something that is already known but it seems like its not that well known. I try to set my max fps around 100-120. that way my low shouldnt go below 60 and i should never see choppyness.

While im writing about this lets look at Lag vs FPS. say i have a 20ms ping. basically the server is going to send everyone my location and send me everyones location 50 times per second. (0.020ms * 50= 1second) So at a 20ms ping if i go below 50FPS then im going to have problems with hit detection and tracking people. But if i have 10ms ping then that would be sending everyone my location and sending me everyones location 100 times per second which is useless because we cant notice anything about 60 unless you have good eyes you may reach 70. Alot of servers are set up to max out at a certain point to reduce strain/lag on the server.

This is a cutout from our old call of duty server config.

// FPS
set sv_fps "20"
 
Let's not forget GPU drivers as well. I had ATI and for 4 driver versions got horrible lag and stutters, and about a minute to load into each new map with the initial drivers. If you have buggy drivers that can affect your experience in game and maybe your fps as well.

And Fritoz, I know the human eye can only see 60hz, but I still play on a 120HZ monitor. Why? Because the picture is much sharper, brighter, and more pleasing to look at than 60hz. Maybe I can't see the technical differences, but I know it looks a hell of a lot better at 120hz versus 60hz.
 
Frit0z said:
Food for thought. The human eye can only see 60 cycles per second or in this case 60 frames per second. This is why in the united states our electricity runs at 60Hz. if you go to Europe it runs at 50Hz and you will notice the lights having a flicker to them. That is because you can see the delay at 50Hz.

Now when it comes to video games a higher framerate does nothing to influence the game itself it only influences the picture on your monitor. 240 frames per second means that your graphics card is rendering 240 frames each second for your monitor. The situation of running around a guy probably has more to do with his latency/ framerate. If he has a shitty frame rate where its rendering 20 frames per second then he is going to have problems keeping up with you. As well as if he has a high latency.

I dont know if im saying something that is already known but it seems like its not that well known. I try to set my max fps around 100-120. that way my low shouldnt go below 60 and i should never see choppyness.

While im writing about this lets look at Lag vs FPS. say i have a 20ms ping. basically the server is going to send everyone my location and send me everyones location 50 times per second. (0.020ms * 50= 1second) So at a 20ms ping if i go below 50FPS then im going to have problems with hit detection and tracking people. But if i have 10ms ping then that would be sending everyone my location and sending me everyones location 100 times per second which is useless because we cant notice anything about 60 unless you have good eyes you may reach 70. Alot of servers are set up to max out at a certain point to reduce strain/lag on the server.

This is a cutout from our old call of duty server config.

// FPS
set sv_fps "20"
Click to expand...

i think frit0z just wraped it up.
 
sixer9682 said:
Let's not forget GPU drivers as well. I had ATI and for 4 driver versions got horrible lag and stutters, and about a minute to load into each new map with the initial drivers. If you have buggy drivers that can affect your experience in game and maybe your fps as well.

And Fritoz, I know the human eye can only see 60hz, but I still play on a 120HZ monitor. Why? Because the picture is much sharper, brighter, and more pleasing to look at than 60hz. Maybe I can't see the technical differences, but I know it looks a hell of a lot better at 120hz versus 60hz.
Click to expand...

If you do a side by side comparasing - and actually record it - you will see objects that move fast are drawn better on a 120hz screen - for example

take your typical 5ms 60hz @ 1280x1080 screen - when ur in a long range fire fight ( 1v1 sniper duel ) you will notice the bullets flying at you are drawn later when theyre actually almost at your screen - on a 120hz screen you will notice the bullet drawn earlier so you will see it coming earlier on a screen with 120hz - thing is at 120hz faster moving objects can be drawn and be seen earlier on.

The technicallity is there and to 60% of gamers it doesnt matter - but to those people like me who pay attention to detail it matters. The diffrence in sharpness and how smooth the picture is being shown on a 120hz screen is dramatic. To the regular user with an un-trained eye it doesnt make a diffrence. BTW I play on 60hz >_< Hate it so much lol
 
DEATH said:
If you do a side by side comparasing - and actually record it - you will see objects that move fast are drawn better on a 120hz screen - for example

take your typical 5ms 60hz @ 1280x1080 screen - when ur in a long range fire fight ( 1v1 sniper duel ) you will notice the bullets flying at you are drawn later when theyre actually almost at your screen - on a 120hz screen you will notice the bullet drawn earlier so you will see it coming earlier on a screen with 120hz - thing is at 120hz faster moving objects can be drawn and be seen earlier on.

The technicallity is there and to 60% of gamers it doesnt matter - but to those people like me who pay attention to detail it matters. The diffrence in sharpness and how smooth the picture is being shown on a 120hz screen is dramatic. To the regular user with an un-trained eye it doesnt make a diffrence. BTW I play on 60hz >_< Hate it so much lol
Click to expand...

Well, if you hate it so much, I've got a 3D monitor with your name on it! Actually, I'm looking to buy a 27" 3D monitor and want to sell the one I have now so if you're serious let me know.
 
I sent u a pm - can u send me a link if you can of the actual monitor. Im getting a bonus in like 2 weeks + im saving for a new card for BF3 so yay for upgrades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top