512mb video card

[TheMan]

Hello everyone , I have met a very interesting player in the game after making a cry for help call out on 200 consisting of "Does anyone have a agp 512 video card so My shots arent in the 6 frames ???." Saying this I got a guy that said he switched to a pci and got a new computer. Also , he seemed to like me and gave me a great price , 50 bucks , and he said he could go lower. I was shocked at this and thanked him. So we started talking and he said he needed fighter training so that I did and we will go from there. I was just wondering now , what my computer will run on frames in a bad area defined: A large airfield with all hangars and ords down with 30 vulching bishops flying around , ground vis on and whirbels all out on the field. I have a AMD athlon computer , single cor with 2.37ghz and 2 gigs of ram , 1.93 but same thing , and finaly a bus drive speed of like 340. Any ideas?

[TheMan]

Anyone Know??

[LYNX]

I woulda thought high 20's fps.

[TheMan]

I woulda thought high 20's fps.

Absolute worst?

[LYNX]

Absolute worst?

yep....  on a clear patch of AH I would expect over 75 fps.  You may have a system which could be over the 100 for fps but if your monitor isn't capable you won't see it. My monitor tops out at 75 so I wouldn't be able to see more even if my system could genorate it.

Anything over 35 fps is good because the human eye can't detect over it.  Lower than 35 fps you may actually see and feel some distortions.

[LYNX]

agp 512 video card

Yer sorry....shoulda mentioned this first.

Lets define something here.  AGP and PCI shouldn't really make a vast difference.  252 and 512 will by double the size.........however.  What is the card ?   If it's really old xyz with 512m it may be like a newer card with just 252.  So whats the card?  Once you know that you can search the write ups.

My 252 Nvid 440 isn't a patch on my Nvid 252 FX6600.  Infact the 440 would be luck to get 29fps at best.  It used to go rubber bullets behind burning bombers at just 9fps.

[WMLute]

yeah, what exact card is it?

I know I went with a 8600GT 256mb card over many 512mb cards in the same price range as the 8600GT blew 'em away.

I would do a few other things 1st tho'.

1. Drop texture size down to 256 or 128 even.  That in and of itself will help you out a ton.  (When you 1st launch AH instead of clicking Online click VIDEO to change texture size)

2. Make sure all the garbage is turned off on your system.  Many ways to do this. FSAutoStart is an excellent program that will shut down services you don't want running to fly AH, launch AH, and when you exit restart said services.

2a. Personally, i'd go to www.blackviper.com and use it as a guide on what services to turn off.  I would prob. also run HiJackThis and shut down all that hidden garbabe you don't want running.  (disclaimer: HiJack this is a powerfull program.  when in doubt on what to turn off google is your friend)

A clean system is a happy system.  I ran a 1.3Ghz system w/ 512mb ram untill recently in AH and had fps in the 30's.  I think I had at the most a dozen processes running on it.

(edit: what is this Rangoon thingy in the lower right and how exactly did it get there?)

[SD67]

3.4 GHz Northwood P4
Asrock  P4VM900
2GB DDR 400MHz RAM
NVIDIA 8600GT 512MB
19" LCD widescreen
In the described situation I can expect to see 59-60 FPS.
Come to think of it, in pretty much any situation I can expect to see 59-60 FPS.

[Fulmar]

A 256mb vs 512mb card isn't always cut and dry looking at those numbers.  Some cards offer faster clock speeds and say ddr3 in a 256mb card which will out perform a slower clock speed 512mb ddr2 card.  You have to look at each model to break it down to say if it will be an upgrade.

Example, a 8800 GTS 640mb is pretty much neck and neck with its sibling a 320mb and only beats it out at high resolutions.  A 8800GT offers only 512mb and handily beats the 8800 GTS 640mb.

[DREDIOCK]

also with that speed and type processor and a 512 card.
If you can get your proccesses down to the high 20's to low 30's
Turn your detail sliders down to about half way for each

That should give you at least 30 FPS under any circumstances.
Even in a GV

Least thats what I got with an Anthlon 3200 running at 2.13 ghz or somewheres there abouts

And thats running the high res pack with all skins downloaded
on a monitor running at a res of 1400X1050

[wetrat]

yep....  on a clear patch of AH I would expect over 75 fps.  You may have a system which could be over the 100 for fps but if your monitor isn't capable you won't see it. My monitor tops out at 75 so I wouldn't be able to see more even if my system could genorate it.

Anything over 35 fps is good because the human eye can't detect over it.  Lower than 35 fps you may actually see and feel some distortions.

This is misleading. The human eye can't see over 35fps, but there is a notable difference between 35 and 75fps in games.

[Fulmar]

This is misleading. The human eye can't see over 35fps, but there is a notable difference between 35 and 75fps in games.

There is no set FPS that the human eye can pick up.  If you wonder why TV and movies look fine at sub 30 FPS and games look bad, that's because TV and movies include motion blur to smooth out between each frame.  On a computer game, you're seeing each frame with no blurring so the human eye can begin the recognize each frame when in the 30-40 range.

[Krusty]

As somebody who's done studying with film, video, and cameras/eyes/etc, I say you can definitely see more than 30 fps. As noted, the (around) 30 fps was developed probably at the turn of the century (the LAST century) and was the minimum point below which human eyes started disconnecting with what they were supposed to see. That's not to say the eyes can't see a difference ABOVE this point. It's just the minimum frames you had to animate per second for folks to really believe what they were seeing was fluid rather than steps/stages.

I think (personally) it had to do more with tweening than with the eye's abilities. That is you can't have a character on one side of the screen jump to the other. You have to show SOME motion, and you need bare minimum number of frames to show that motion inside 1 second. More frames is noticably smoother, but less frames it falls apart.

Folks scrambled to make their quota of frames per week back then so they did the minimum they could get away with.

I can confirm that I notice a VERY big difference between 30 fps and 60 fps on my monitor, and it's not even the best. It almost simulates motion blur because of color bleed

 

[TheMan]

wow guys excellent info. OK im getting a ATI raiden 512. So Im wondering , would that give me a big improvement from my 256 ati raiden integrated piece of garbage>? And someone said earlier about the monitor being an issue. My moniter is maxed out at 75 frame refresh rate. Although , briefly , when i minimize aces high and then come back , frames go up to 250 .. If only it could stay there

[sethipus]

You can't really judge and compare two video cards just by how much video ram they have.  That's like trying to judge two cars based on the capacity of their gas tanks.  You need to know what chip they use, and what generation the chips belong to.  There's tons of benchmarks and other information out there on the web where you can look up and compare video cards with each other.

I believe I had a Geforce 4 with 512mb of RAM on it, but that would get smoked by a lot of later generation cards even if they only had 256 or whatever.