Graphic card question

[save]

I have a 7870 running full HD and have set max object distance and max object detail. Under advanced I have set the LOD one notch to the right giving me full 60fps with most features except shadows and grass on.

Im running an i7 930 @3.60gighz with  no parked CPU's and I'm not currently over-clocking the graphic card.

If I push it one or 2 notches to the left, I'm given a measly 40fps
What graphic card is needed to push full notches to the left with 60fps, given full HD with above mentioned features ?

[The Fugitive]

Check here at Tom's Hardware It lists a 7870 about half way down in the 6214 point range. The higher the number the better the cards performance. A lot of things come into play.

[HL117]

Check here at Tom's Hardware It lists a 7870 about half way down in the 6214 point range. The higher the number the better the cards performance. A lot of things come into play.

Nice link Fugi, what would be the lowest point card that could run AH full out , everything checked.................I realize other PC components come in to play here but lets say are other components are up to snuff.

[The Fugitive]

Nice link Fugi, what would be the lowest point card that could run AH full out , everything checked.................I realize other PC components come in to play here but lets say are other components are up to snuff.

I don't think anyone could run the game flat out. Adding shadow multipliers and anti-alisin multipliers really add up fast and can bog down a system. I run a Nvidia 670 which they rate in the 16000 point range and I can't run it all. I do add a bit of both shadow and anti-alisin but not so much that is slows me down in a big furball.

I guess if you got the top dog in video cards, the newest fastest ram, and a motherboard/cpu combo that was screaming you could get close, but I do like to eat and drink beer. Niether of which I'd be doing if I bought all those goodies 

[HL117]

Thanks for the reply Fugi,

Always thought it would be useful for Hi-Tech to have an equipment list to set the standards by. Like say if your running one screen it would take this video card with this motherboard and this much ram to run all settings on high and achieve a frame rate of 60fps, something to that nature.

Just a thought seems we all are forever asking performance questions and dare say many are probably wasting money on overly costly components or underachieving ones.

[guncrasher]

hl, that is probably because there's difference of opinion on what the standard is.  some guys are ok with playing on a 400 dollar laptop, some others think nothing on spending a couple of thousand on a computer along with another 1 or 2k on a simpit.

I run 3 monitors at 1920x1080 with sli 465 cards using a 2500k cpu.  I play with everything on and shadows at 2048, could bump to 4096 but see no difference, with no em on, and have full 60 fps with dips into the low 50's in heavy furball around a cv.   but some others who have almost the same specs cant get more than 40 because they also use "other" programs that eat up a lot of resources.

but something caught my mind today in fso.  some guys could see dots in the distance where I saw none.  we chased a bunch of p38's and I didnt see them until they came into range at 1.5k

which gives me two options, my hardware isnt as good as I think it is, or my eyesight is not as good as I think it is.

so given that,  how can ah give me a set of specs that will guarantee me seeing those dots now?  would it be a better video card and an appointment with an optometrist?


semp

[BaldEagl]

Thanks for the reply Fugi,

Always thought it would be useful for Hi-Tech to have an equipment list to set the standards by. Like say if your running one screen it would take this video card with this motherboard and this much ram to run all settings on high and achieve a frame rate of 60fps, something to that nature.

Just a thought seems we all are forever asking performance questions and dare say many are probably wasting money on overly costly components or underachieving ones.

The fact is, if you know how to select components to build a well balanced machine (i.e. one with no bottlenecks) then your budget will lead you to your optimum destination.  Once there ugrading a single component will do little good, so multiple components will need to be upgraded at once to gain additional performance.  If you're going to do that then you may as well build another new, balanced machine based on a new budget.

Also, once you're past a certain point, each step up in performance begins to cost exponentially more.  At this point you'll make a decision on whether that little bit extra is worth the expendeture.  This game can look really nice without a huge investment ($700-1000) or it can throw all it has at even the most expensive machines.

Each of us finds the place that fits our budget at a performance level that's acceptable to us.

Finally, when my brother first got his first computer he was miffed that it sometimes had bugs and glitches.  I'd explain to him that literally all computers are custom based on components, software and use with no two exactly the same.  How could HT possibly supply a component list in an infinite universe of possibilities?  It would be an awfully long list and a full time job for someone to try every possible combination of HW and SW.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

hl, that is probably because there's difference of opinion on what the standard is.  some guys are ok with playing on a 400 dollar laptop, some others think nothing on spending a couple of thousand on a computer along with another 1 or 2k on a simpit.

I run 3 monitors at 1920x1080 with sli 465 cards using a 2500k cpu.  I play with everything on and shadows at 2048, could bump to 4096 but see no difference, with no em on, and have full 60 fps with dips into the low 50's in heavy furball around a cv.   but some others who have almost the same specs cant get more than 40 because they also use "other" programs that eat up a lot of resources.

but something caught my mind today in fso.  some guys could see dots in the distance where I saw none.  we chased a bunch of p38's and I didnt see them until they came into range at 1.5k

which gives me two options, my hardware isnt as good as I think it is, or my eyesight is not as good as I think it is.

so given that,  how can ah give me a set of specs that will guarantee me seeing those dots now?  would it be a better video card and an appointment with an optometrist?


semp

I noticed a similar thing with manned gun tracers. When I bought new hardware and notched up the graphics settings (antialias etc) the tracers became very hard to see. Before that I could see the tracers much better, probably same goes for distant dots.

[Bruv119]

newer the PC the more realistic the game gets.   

[MrRiplEy[H]]

newer the PC the more realistic the game gets.   

I wouldn't say that necessarily. A human can see quite long distances in real life, certainly much better than gaming with no icons for example.

[Bizman]

Thanks for the reply Fugi,

Always thought it would be useful for Hi-Tech to have an equipment list to set the standards by. Like say if your running one screen it would take this video card with this motherboard and this much ram to run all settings on high and achieve a frame rate of 60fps, something to that nature.

Just a thought seems we all are forever asking performance questions and dare say many are probably wasting money on overly costly components or underachieving ones.

There's the lists of minimum and recommended requirements published on the main page under Game Info. According to what I've been told since I bought my first PC games almost two decades ago the recommended requirements should be considered as minimum for an enjoyable game experiment in any game. Double that for a long living decent gaming rig. As has been said, the costs will grow exponentially after that point.

[gyrene81]

newer the PC the more realistic the game gets.   

oh rrreeaaally now...

here is a brand new system...

Acer Aspire AX1470-UR26 Desktop PC:

•AMD Quad-Core A6-3620 accelerated processor
2.50GHz

•4GB DDR3 SDRAM system memory (expandable to 16GB)

•500GB SATA hard drive

•16x DVD+/-R/RW SuperMulti drive

•10/100/1000 Gigabit Ethernet

•AMD Radeon HD 6530D Graphics
With HDMI and VGA capabilities

bet my old system runs the game far better than that thing...

[The Fugitive]

Thanks for the reply Fugi,

Always thought it would be useful for Hi-Tech to have an equipment list to set the standards by. Like say if your running one screen it would take this video card with this motherboard and this much ram to run all settings on high and achieve a frame rate of 60fps, something to that nature.

Just a thought seems we all are forever asking performance questions and dare say many are probably wasting money on overly costly components or underachieving ones.

Like everyone else has said there are so many "standards" that it would be impossible to set one as a "go by". I like me some eye candy, but I don't need it. Others have no problem dumbing down the eye candy to keep the game playable with out spending this months food budget. So the "standards" you willing to play the game by are the standards.

If HTC said "THIS" is the computer you need to run flat out, how many people would look at it and say "my computer is no where near that thing, I guess I won't even bother trying it". They would lose a lot of possible customers. The game is very scalable and playable to a lot of computers, but you wouldn't know that unless you tried it.

I noticed a similar thing with manned gun tracers. When I bought new hardware and notched up the graphics settings (antialias etc) the tracers became very hard to see. Before that I could see the tracers much better, probably same goes for distant dots.

I think tuning down some of the eye candy makes these easier to see as well. I can crank my settings up but see very little difference in it but I do lose that "long site" I have when I tone them down a bit. I can see a dot a long way off.

[Pudgie]

The fact is, if you know how to select components to build a well balanced machine (i.e. one with no bottlenecks) then your budget will lead you to your optimum destination.  Once there ugrading a single component will do little good, so multiple components will need to be upgraded at once to gain additional performance.  If you're going to do that then you may as well build another new, balanced machine based on a new budget.

Also, once you're past a certain point, each step up in performance begins to cost exponentially more.  At this point you'll make a decision on whether that little bit extra is worth the expendeture.  This game can look really nice without a huge investment ($700-1000) or it can throw all it has at even the most expensive machines.

Each of us finds the place that fits our budget at a performance level that's acceptable to us.

Finally, when my brother first got his first computer he was miffed that it sometimes had bugs and glitches.  I'd explain to him that literally all computers are custom based on components, software and use with no two exactly the same.  How could HT possibly supply a component list in an infinite universe of possibilities?  It would be an awfully long list and a full time job for someone to try every possible combination of HW and SW.

Amen......................... ............

newer the PC the more realistic the game gets.   

This is also true when it's kept in context...................... ....

I ain't seen NOBODY in this thread buying gear that is older...in evolution of the gear OR capability of the gear...than the gear that you currently possess to GAIN overall system performance. This is a FACT & the game play IS generally improved in smoothness of play (not necessarily in raw speed or FPS..) AS WELL as the immersion factor within the game which IS part & parcel to overall game play. This is the only reason to upgrade a computer concerning AH or any other computer game AS WELL as any other computer application software.

Now when you apply the other context of this statement (what Gyrene is stating)....newer doesn't always mean better in terms of balanced performance IF the newer unit is equipped w/ components that PERFORMANCE-WISE are inferior to an older unit w/ components that are superior performance-wise when being judged on a specific set of guidelines determining what is "superior performance".

It is within this 2nd contextual sphere that is to some degree in denial of the FACT that there are SEVERAL configurations of computers...both older & newer...currently in use that CAN run this game flat out w/ every graphical feature & setting MAXED out & is very playable when ran so....as this game is currently written & configured. I know so cause I own 1 that can do it & I see it doing it every time that I desire to use it as such (which is most of the time BTW...the MAIN reason why I picked the specific components that comprise the box that I have & also WHY I SPENT what I spent to build it). I'm currently looking to upgrade the CPU to take full advantage of PCI-E 3.0 specs & unlocked CPU multipliers (current CPU falls short in these 2 areas....have already flashed my mobo's BIOS in anticipation) & once this is done I have no other reason to upgrade it as long as the GAME SOFTWARE doesn't give me a reason to do so. In today's terms this box of mine is "old tech" on top of it all (Intel X79 platform) from a timeline POV but not necessarily from a tech POV.

The $64 question is......who's trying to prove this to whom & by what "superior performance standards" are acceptable to whom to "validate" this statement?

So in closing I salute BaldEagl's post again as this is the standard that I have always applied to the equipment that I use in playing this game.

 

[Bizman]

I think tuning down some of the eye candy makes these easier to see as well. I can crank my settings up but see very little difference in it but I do lose that "long site" I have when I tone them down a bit. I can see a dot a long way off.

There's a simple explanation to that: Anti-aliasing will blur the edges of any object. If the object is only one pixel small, AA will simply calculate an average of the said pixel and the ones surrounding it. Think about a square divided into nine. The middle square would be the dot, the other eight the surrounding sky. Mixing eight portions of sky blue with one portion of warbird grey (mix all of the camo colours and you'll get grey) and you'd get a slightly greyish blue. Impossible to see the difference in the size of one pixel. The exact method may be more complicated, but the basic idea should be valid.