Curse

Delil Isiorion · May 18, 2005, 12:29 AM // 00:29

If you can honestly show me the differences, i'd love to see you analyze them. Yes, I agree that shadows and light are an integral part of immersion, I will agree that higher texture formats, and AA can improve the overall quality of the game. But for a broke college student, it doesn't justify spending $400-$500+ on a video card. (i'd be getting the 6800 Ultra and soft modding it to a Quadro anyways.. that or the X850 XL). I know the game quality goes up with the more expensive video cards, I know this damn well, I'm just saying marginal quality improvments isn't worth spending a couple hundred dollars for a new video card. Besides, if you're buying AGP, you're wasting your time and money anyways. The graphics engine in Guild Wars is only 'so' advanced. Now.. if NCsoft releases an expansion of this game developed in the Unreal 3 engine they liscenced from Epic..then it would be worth spending the hundreds for a video-card/motherboard upgrade. But honestly, your screenshots don't look all that far greater than mine, not enough to convince me to upgrade.

-delil

Delil Isiorion · May 18, 2005, 12:36 AM // 00:36

And yes, Catlady makes a great point, who cares if you're running 187FPS.. our eye only percieves around 60FPS anyways. My whole point was exactly what Catlady said, a 10% increase in game quality isnt' enough to entice me to spend, literally, hundreds of dollars to upgrade my video equipment. It would be nice, sure, but a game like Guild Wars isn't renderbitched to all hell like HL2 or Doom 3, no matter how high your settings are, you hit the cieling somewhere margainally higher than what i'm seeing, and marginal just isnt' enough.

-delil

Adacia Calla · May 18, 2005, 12:37 AM // 00:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omega_2005

Quite amazing what the ATI Radeon X700/X800/X850 - cards can do. That card (X850Xt) is actually being inbuilt for the XBOX360 as well, so it's a great card for what will be the benchmark for Ultra-real graphics

XBox360 is using the ATI R580 core, not the x850 R420.

goldenr1 · May 18, 2005, 03:30 AM // 03:30

lol, even for a broke college student, not a great attitude for a video major. marginal makes the difference, period (i.e. Dreamworks vs. Pixar). as you said, guild wars isn't demanding, and i only posted GW screens because it is the topic of the forum, and i needed something to tie it with the topic of the post (i could post more H2 but it's irrelivent or however you spell it

. however, games like H2 and Doom3 are demanding, as you also stated, and need a good video card to be run to the fullest (and i only posted 187 fps to prove the card was an incredible card, in addition when you move incredibly fast in any game more than 60fps reduces/eliminates choppy play).

You can't just keep dancing around claiming there is no point, it doesnt make any sense. There is a HUGE point. You get all your 50 bucks worth. what if you could buy a halfassed xbox, that would render all graphics lower quality? sure the box would be cheaper, but the games are still 50 bucks, get my point? some games may render well, most wouldn't, especially as the games progressed. when quality matters, the card matters, the 10% matters. Not having the money to get em is understandable, as i am very fortunate (and have a large bill) to have one myself, but getting to the point of putting others down because you think it's a complete waste of money is just dumb.

this whole post started in good spirits yet now i have to defend myself. never ONCE did i say anyone's card was bad or worthless, yet everyone automatically assumed that if you didn't have my card i considered it crap. if your images look good, then you have a good card, period. this was not meant to compare cards, say how inferior others are or anything like that, it's getting old, and stupid. HOWEVER, there are simple facts that some cards out perform others, and these are FACTS, not to be misinterprited (or spelled correctly for that matter

) as insults or put downs. if another card is better but your happy with yours, instead of saying "well mine is just fine so there is no point, it's a waste of money to upgrade," say "well mine is just fine."

Seems like people didn't really get the post, so lemme try to make it clearer:

If the game looks good, great. If you want it to look good like throughout the post, then consider the images an incentive to get a good video card.

goldenr1 · May 18, 2005, 03:34 AM // 03:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Borealis

I'm completely happy with the money I blew on my x800xt, I won't need to upgrade for quite awhile now. I ran fraps one night while playing and with all eye candy maxed it never dropped below 60.

Obviously resized, but thats what I see in the game. I'm content.

just saw ur post heh, i agree, great card.

Omega_2005 · May 18, 2005, 07:45 AM // 07:45

well, maybe I am a bit wrong with the specs of the card, but bloomin heck! the XBOX360 does look as good as the card(s) shown here!

rev_suicide · May 18, 2005, 11:21 AM // 11:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by zemelett

I have been seriosly considering the 6600GT but I have been reading lots of threads about the problems encountered with this card. Infact that is all there seems to be is negative posts about this card.

Does anyone have this card and is getting good results from it?

Would you still recomend this card even though tons of people are having mega problems with it?

I have this card and have had no problems with it, infact its amazing for the price, just make sure you get a good manufacture. I have a "Gainward" overclocked by the manufacturer, a little more expensive than most but it kick ass!

Also a little strange that people here are saying they have got framerates at more than 60 FPS when DirectX 9 caps your FPS at 60?!??!!! maybe you sould check your FPS reporting software doesn't suck~?

Delil - the human eye works on approximatly 20-23 FPS effectively. It can go faster, but then you cant really give a FPS for the eye as it is a constantly running thing, i.e. it doesn't capture frames, it is a continuos image. But movies are 24 FPS (PAL) and 29 FPS (NTSC) and we see no jerkyness, althought movies are helped in the way they use bluring which requires much less FPS to get a smooth effect. so really an eye doesn't have a FPS.

All i see here is people spouting crap that is just not true, please find out the facts before you claim to know them!

Principa Discordia · May 18, 2005, 02:48 PM // 14:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by rev_suicide

Also a little strange that people here are saying they have got framerates at more than 60 FPS when DirectX 9 caps your FPS at 60?!??!!! maybe you sould check your FPS reporting software doesn't suck~?

You don't need to look farther than the Nzone forums to see that this is a simple bug, and doesn't occur on a massive number of systems.

As for graphics cards, all this £300+ graphics card showboating is honestly pointless. You can run this game in 1600x1200 in maxed detail on a 6600GT and it looks no different from those screenshots, the 6600GT only costs £115 (and that's retail, not OEM). Hell, you can run Half Life 2 on a 6600GT at that resolution with 6xAA and 16xAF, with full shadows and reflections included, at a smooth framerate. I've seen similar performance even on 9800 Pro's, so yeah, pointless really.

rev_suicide · May 18, 2005, 03:00 PM // 15:00

Fully agree!

6600GT runs all games i have (most good and recent ones) at full spec (everything switched on) and it look sweet and FPS is high, and i have an AGP one.

goldenr1 · May 19, 2005, 03:19 AM // 03:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Principa Discordia

You don't need to look farther than the Nzone forums to see that this is a simple bug, and doesn't occur on a massive number of systems.

As for graphics cards, all this £300+ graphics card showboating is honestly pointless. You can run this game in 1600x1200 in maxed detail on a 6600GT and it looks no different from those screenshots, the 6600GT only costs £115 (and that's retail, not OEM). Hell, you can run Half Life 2 on a 6600GT at that resolution with 6xAA and 16xAF, with full shadows and reflections included, at a smooth framerate. I've seen similar performance even on 9800 Pro's, so yeah, pointless really.

Wrong, unless you have several gigs of ram. My pal has been complaining to me about his 6600 and it's shit framerate when playing both H2 and Doom3 at near high settings, doom3 especially, and he even has a gig of ram. Also, if you ever checked specs on that card, u'd know that max was 4xAA and 8xAS. another person saying the EXACT same thing, about it being pointless, without considering things i mentioned above, freaking retards, this thread was ruined by ya, congrats

Omega_2005 · May 19, 2005, 09:24 AM // 09:24

hey don't make this thread get closed because of an opinion!

I mean, my Laptop only has a Mobility Radeon 7000, which is slow as hell and looks awful on the best setting, but it still plays the game nontheless.

I heard that ATI are now doing Radeon (Mobility) X700 soon in the UK, but does anyone know how much one of those will cost?

Principa Discordia · May 19, 2005, 09:34 AM // 09:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldenr1

Wrong, unless you have several gigs of ram. My pal has been complaining to me about his 6600 and it's shit framerate when playing both H2 and Doom3 at near high settings, doom3 especially, and he even has a gig of ram. Also, if you ever checked specs on that card, u'd know that max was 4xAA and 8xAS. another person saying the EXACT same thing, about it being pointless, without considering things i mentioned above, freaking retards, this thread was ruined by ya, congrats

Firstly, I only have 1Gb RAM, and at the moment I'm using cheap DDR333. Secondly, are you talking about the 6600 or the 6600GT? Half Life 2 runs fine in maxed-out resolution and detail for me on my 6600GT, sounds like a problem with your pal's machine. As for antialiasing and anisotropic filtering, this is something that's been bothering me. In some games I can set it to 6x (Far Cry, Half Life 2) and it has the effect, in some games it does not. Anisotropic filtering definitely goes up to 16x, you can see the difference.

Don't assume that just because your friend gets crap performance, that everybody does. Go try out Half Life 2 on a well-maintained machine with a 6600GT and you'd wonder why anyone would buy a 6800GT/Ultra right now.

PS. Please don't call people retards. This is a family-friendly forum and we don't need people using those sorts of derogatory terms. Please find a shred of maturity and use it.

Alathys Tylderaan · May 19, 2005, 06:46 PM // 18:46

Meh, i just bought the Sapphire x800 XT PE anyway, i dont think i'll need to upgrade for while

goldenr1 · May 20, 2005, 06:27 AM // 06:27

you have to set your card to manually override the AA or AS settings the game wants to use, otherwise sometimes they may take no effect (even if they are set in game), some DX9 buggy i think (thought i read that somewhere) and FINE, mentally handicapable, better?

PieXags · May 20, 2005, 08:13 AM // 08:13

Not really, as the comment is still without any backing and entirely unnecessary IMO.

Either way, runs great for me on a Radeon 9800 Pro, everything maxed out except AA right now. I can have it on and get the same performance but I almost don't like it...I enjoy the odd sharpness without it. I only notice a little bit in dark-areas of the game because the lighting is much darker, any areas with a lot of brighter colors/daytime look like they've got AA already to me.