7970 - Overkill for 1600x900 resolution?

[ekuest]

i think hes saying bf3 is a fps, not mmo. i guess somewhere in this thread someone implied otherwise. dont care enough to read back through and see.

and yeah i think a 7970 is overkill OP. sure you can possibly make an argument that if you put everything to the absolute max in the absolute most demanding games on a 120hz monitor then i maybe, but its definitely not necessary. and if you think about it with your brainhole, using a $500 gpu to run games on a $75 monitor is DUMB. way dumb. i game on my 30" 2560/1600 screen with my 5870 and its plenty acceptable. you can always upgrade if you have the money and want an excuse to upgrade, but that card for that monitor is just completely ridiculous.

 

[Xinmosni]

I agree about what you said, and a $100 5770 (or modern equivalent) is MORE THAN fine for smaller-than-1080p resolutions. It's what I just upgraded from.

However, you'll also notice that in games like Crysis 2, you may have to run at low settings in order to do multiplayer. But when I tried that, I was on a Q6600 + 5770 playing the Crysis 2 Demo. I haven't bothered trying out things on this 7970, because I'm waiting for the 27" before I play pretty games.

 

[crawlgsx]

My FPS after changing that ONE setting? 140-200FPS, and I'm sorry but I really can't tell the fucking difference between the two at this resolution. In fact, I can't tell the difference between anything except non-AA and moderate AA, and most of the people saying otherwise are full of BS. I would LOVE to see a blind test given to gamers, asking them to describe whether a game is running in "ULTRA" or "SECOND HIGHEST" quality settings. They will not know the difference unless running at extreme resolutions (bigger than 1600p).

In short, just because you can doesn't mean you should. There are a BUNCH of morons running Ultra on BF3 when it in fact doesn't look noticeably different than the second-highest settings and gives them extreme performance hits. If you're actually into playing the game and not in it for ePeen factor, then performance will be important to you, especially when you record your matches and need very high FPS for a professional-looking slow-mo scene.

If you can't tell the difference between HIGH and ULTRA in BF3 you need to have your eyes checked or get a better monitor. It is one thing to suggest you cant see the difference beween 2x and 4x AA, or low and HIGH post AA, or maybe even the difference between Terrain high and ultra, but to say you can't see a difference between HIGH and Ultra presets is just straight up complete crap.

I run at "only" 1080p and I can see the difference just changing textures ALONE from high to ultra, very easily. It looks WAY better. add 4xaa and it looks down right gorgeous.

If you can't see the difference, well your lucky, but I sure can.

That said I agree that performance is the most important factor, hence why I have to keep AA off, I can't stand it when I hit high smoke/explosions/large scenery areas and get dips in to the 40's, even if it is only occasional/certain maps.