• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

BFBC2: considering upgrading

I find my 192sp GTX 260 to run BC2 just fine with everything on high at 1920x1200 with AA, HBAO and VSYNC off. This is in multiplayer. Your CPU is what you need to replace. I have a Q9650 at 4.2ghz, and this game heats my CPU up like its running Prime95.
 
What do you avg/min for frames w/ that setup? I couldn't ever get my Q9550 past 3.6 Ghz.
 
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
33929, 536725, 31, 106, 63.215

Valapariso, mainly near the lighthouse, 16v16, Rush.

Bare in mind that getting killed and having to wait to respawn is artificially inflating the max and average a bit.


[WindowSettings]
Width=1920
Height=1200
Fullscreen=true
RefreshRate=59.950001
VSync=false
[Sound]
Quality=medium
VoipEnable=true
SpeakerCount=0
[Graphics]
Effects=high
Soldiers=high
Vehicles=high
Overgrowth=high
Undergrowth=high
StaticObjects=high
Terrain=high
Shadows=high
Bloom=true
HSAO=false
MSAA=2
Water=high
MainQuality=custom
Texture=high
DxVersion=auto
Aniso=4
Detail=high
RenderAheadLimit=2
Fov=55
 
Looks to be a little better than I was doing. Do you guys all play w/ 55 FOV? Try changing it to 75 and give your head a break. :D
 
There's no way my 260 is going to hold up to new games in the coming years, so it's getting replaced anyway. Since the 460/470 (still not sure) seems much more capable and quite future proofed since it SLIs well, I'm going to get one of those now. For a 70-100 dollar upgrade it's hard to pass up, especially since I will be getting it anyway at some point. This is in full recognition that my CPU is going to be bottlenecking me, but if the 460 can make the game more playable until Sandy Bridge arrives I'll be a happy camper.
 
gmreplay said:
I'm really enjoying BFBC2, but my system is having a difficult time keeping up on high settings. Where will I get the best bang for my buck in regards to upgrading? I'm considering a total system upgrade, but I intend to wait for Intel's Sandy Bridge to drop before I do that.

I'm currently considering replacing my graphics card with a GTX 460. Would this put me in a good position to keep current by doing 460 SLI when I do a full upgrade sometime next year?

My current system specs:
E8400 OC'd to 3.6GHz
4gb ram
EVGA GTX 260 core 216
Click to expand...

The game needs a Quad core no doubt about that. When I palying on my Q9650, most of my cores were maxed out on a GTX 280. I just upgraded my entire system for the i7 980X. There was an improvement over the Q9650 (also the HD 5970 did help a bit ;) ).

I had only one issue when BFBC2 first came out and it was the loading bug for ATI videocards. The issue has been fixed and the game runs great for me in crossfire. I assume it would run great with SLI also.
 
My phenom 2 x4 810 (quad core at 2.6ghz) with 4GB of ram and a gts250 get me a smooth game on medium settings. 2x AA, 4x AF. I'm not sure of the exact fps, but I've never felt the need to check it. I do get some weird black screens from time to time though.

Edit:
This is at 1920x1200 btw
 
Last edited:
Superhuman said:
You play with 55 FOV?!?!?!
Click to expand...

What is wrong with my FOV?:cool: I am quite good at killing people in this game and can see targets from afar. Should I change it? My resolution is 2560x1600. I forgot to add that my GTX260 cards are heavily overclocked to 675/1375 (shaders).
 
Last edited:
A larger FOV makes things less jarring. Less fishbowly. Try putting 75(100) in there and see how you feel.
 
gmreplay said:
You guys raise a lot of good points. Now I'm worried about not getting my money's worth by mixing the E8400 with a 460. What kind of a jump in FPS should I be expecting?

I play at 1680x1050, so I'm not taxing the card too hard in that department.

I'm surprised to hear that the 460 might not be a big jump over the 260. The tomshardware review of the 460 (along with everything else I've seen) seem to show it being a very capable card. Anyone else have some thoughts on this?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-460-gf104-fermi,2684-11.html
Click to expand...
I play at that res (1680*1050) with an E8600 (dual core) @ 4.0ghz, 4gb ram, and a GTX285 and it's super smooth with everything maxed out. Plays sooo much better than COD Black ops (which I kick myself for buying). GTX285 is extremely close if not better than the 460 in BFBC
 
Using a E8400 @ 4.3 GHZ and a 4870x2 @ stock I have no problems playing BC2 @ 1920x1200/1080 with max settings (8XAA/16AF) minus HBAO (since the IQ is palty) and finding the game playable between 40-XXX FPS depending on action on 32 player servers.

I have no idea what the game is like on a quadcore CPU however it certainly isn't required if you have a good overclock on a dual core at least for non eyefinity resolutions.
 
I was in the same boat as you. Please read the below post, I tested out each card myself rather then looking at benchmarks online that were ran with newer i7 and new 1366 mobo's, my benchs are the same results as what you are going to get and differ alot from whats online :p...

I had a E8500 @ 3.8ghz and a gtx260. My cpu usage was at 100% when in game.

I replaced my E8500 with a Q9650 and OC'd it to 3.8ghz on a XFX 780i board with 4gb of ram. You can do the same with a Q9550 @ 3.6ghz or Q9450 @ 3.4ghz, these are all easy achievable OC's and can be done with stock heatsinks.

With just the CPU upgrade I gained about 8-10fps and CPU usage is 80-85% on all 4 cores now.

I then purchased (6) different video cards at fry's electronics over a 2 month period and returned them all after I was done running my own benchmarks on them.

I tested out the following cards...

gtx470
(2) gtx460 SLI 768mb
ati 5870
ati 5970
ati 6950
gtx570

I ran each card for 2 weeks and ran in game benchmarks and 3dmarks...

The 5870 was by far the best card out there and gave me the best average fps out of all the video cards I tested in BC2, It even performed better then the 5970 that I had clocked at 850mhz (stock 5870 speeds). With the 5870 and Q9650 I gained 35-45fps over my old E8500 and gtx260 @ 1600x1200 DX10 highest settings, HBAO off. If your on a budget and get get both a new Q9xxx and 5870, get the 5870 1st, then when you get some more money pick up the Q9xxx CPU.

Even the best Core 2 Quad's bottleneck's the new high-end cards on the market.

Get the Gigabyte 5870 on newegg that comes with a free 1TB drive for only $250 and OC it to 900/1250...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125326&cm_re=5870-_-14-125-326-_-Product

gb5870.jpg


If you guys have any other questions please ask, I have many fraps benchmarks and screenshots of FPS results for BC2 and BlackOps at home.
 
Last edited:
Its all relative and you have to find someone who shares your definition of smooth. For some of us its 60 avg while others prefer 60 min.

Went to a mini LAN last week and while playing Alien Swarm a friends fps dove. Its the syntek residential level where some configs can't do medium or high shaders. After adjusting that, I suggested eliminating AA and vsync to smooth it out. To which he replied, "Oh its smooth now." Under 30 and that looked smooth to him, slideshow to me.

So I guess a quads not required for some of you guys. But of you get a chance to game at a LAN, check out all the other players. Its interesting to see just how different the framerates are. Watching a bud play bc2 on a 4.5 i7 with a pair of 285's showed me what it takes to achieve that coveted "never under 60" target.

Edit: That's some excellent advice shiz. Ill be passing it along to a friend who's looking at Fermi but riding a 3 core Phenom. I'd be very interested in seeing an [H]article that might reveal just why exactly Fermi doesn't get along with a C2Q. Bad drivers? Conspiracy? Forward looking card that'll outperform 58xx in future games?
 
Last edited:
Jodiuh said:
Its all relative and you have to find someone who shares your definition of smooth. For some of us its 60 avg while others prefer 60 min.

Went to a mini LAN last week and while playing Alien Swarm a friends fps dove. Its the syntek residential level where some configs can't do medium or high shaders. After adjusting that, I suggested eliminating AA and vsync to smooth it out. To which he replied, "Oh its smooth now." Under 30 and that looked smooth to him, slideshow to me.

So I guess a quads not required for some of you guys. But of you get a chance to game at a LAN, check out all the other players. Its interesting to see just how different the framerates are. Watching a bud play bc2 on a 4.5 i7 with a pair of 285's showed me what it takes to achieve that coveted "never under 60" target.
Click to expand...
You know how I am with smoothness Jodiuh, remember when you lifted up my 90lb CRT at the Intel Lancamp LAN party lol... the 170hz refresh rage of my CRT's are amazing for ultra smooth gameplay and well worth the weight and heat these giant CRT produce... In BC2 I'm running 1600x1200 @ 85hz and it looks super smooth with the 5870 @ 925/1300 and Q9650 @ 3.8ghz. FPS never dips below 70fps, it's awesome. In vietnam I average 85-150fps in DX10 mode.
 
I do my very best to forget the f500 vs 2007wfp side by side. And...you're not helping. Had a chance to try out the Xai too. Loved the sensor, hated the shape. Who has a middle hand? I'm all right baby...yeeahha.
 
§·H·ï·Z·N·ï·L·T·ï;1036625577 said:
I was in the same boat as you. Please read the below post, I tested out each card myself rather then looking at benchmarks online that were ran with newer i7 and new 1366 mobo's, my benchs are the same results as what you are going to get and differ alot from whats online :p...

I had a E8500 @ 3.8ghz and a gtx260. My cpu usage was at 100% when in game.

I replaced my E8500 with a Q9650 and OC'd it to 3.8ghz on a XFX 780i board with 4gb of ram. You can do the same with a Q9550 @ 3.6ghz or Q9450 @ 3.4ghz, these are all easy achievable OC's and can be done with stock heatsinks.

With just the CPU upgrade I gained about 8-10fps and CPU usage is 80-85% on all 4 cores now.

I then purchased (6) different video cards at fry's electronics over a 2 month period and returned them all after I was done running my own benchmarks on them.

I tested out the following cards...

gtx470
(2) gtx460 SLI 768mb
ati 5870
ati 5970
ati 6950
gtx570

I ran each card for 2 weeks and ran in game benchmarks and 3dmarks...

The 5870 was by far the best card out there and gave me the best average fps out of all the video cards I tested in BC2, It even performed better then the 5970 that I had clocked at 850mhz (stock 5870 speeds). With the 5870 and Q9650 I gained 35-45fps over my old E8500 and gtx260 @ 1600x1200 DX10 highest settings, HBAO off. If your on a budget and get get both a new Q9xxx and 5870, get the 5870 1st, then when you get some more money pick up the Q9xxx CPU.

Even the best Core 2 Quad's bottleneck's the new high-end cards on the market.

Get the Gigabyte 5870 on newegg that comes with a free 1TB drive for only $250 and OC it to 900/1250...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125326&cm_re=5870-_-14-125-326-_-Product

gb5870.jpg


If you guys have any other questions please ask, I have many fraps benchmarks and screenshots of FPS results for BC2 and BlackOps at home.
Click to expand...


wow, did AMD marketing just join?
 
§·H·ï·Z·N·ï·L·T·ï;1036625577 said:
I was in the same boat as you. Please read the below post, I tested out each card myself rather then looking at benchmarks online that were ran with newer i7 and new 1366 mobo's, my benchs are the same results as what you are going to get and differ alot from whats online :p...

I had a E8500 @ 3.8ghz and a gtx260. My cpu usage was at 100% when in game.

I replaced my E8500 with a Q9650 and OC'd it to 3.8ghz on a XFX 780i board with 4gb of ram. You can do the same with a Q9550 @ 3.6ghz or Q9450 @ 3.4ghz, these are all easy achievable OC's and can be done with stock heatsinks.

With just the CPU upgrade I gained about 8-10fps and CPU usage is 80-85% on all 4 cores now.

I then purchased (6) different video cards at fry's electronics over a 2 month period and returned them all after I was done running my own benchmarks on them.

I tested out the following cards...

gtx470
(2) gtx460 SLI 768mb
ati 5870
ati 5970
ati 6950
gtx570

I ran each card for 2 weeks and ran in game benchmarks and 3dmarks...

The 5870 was by far the best card out there and gave me the best average fps out of all the video cards I tested in BC2, It even performed better then the 5970 that I had clocked at 850mhz (stock 5870 speeds). With the 5870 and Q9650 I gained 35-45fps over my old E8500 and gtx260 @ 1600x1200 DX10 highest settings, HBAO off. If your on a budget and get get both a new Q9xxx and 5870, get the 5870 1st, then when you get some more money pick up the Q9xxx CPU.

Even the best Core 2 Quad's bottleneck's the new high-end cards on the market.

Get the Gigabyte 5870 on newegg that comes with a free 1TB drive for only $250 and OC it to 900/1250...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125326&cm_re=5870-_-14-125-326-_-Product

gb5870.jpg


If you guys have any other questions please ask, I have many fraps benchmarks and screenshots of FPS results for BC2 and BlackOps at home.
Click to expand...

nobody_here said:
wow, did AMD marketing just join?
Click to expand...
lol, not a "fanboy" or whatever the you guys call it nowadays. I actualy wanted the gtx570 to do better when I tested it out, but the 5870 had better performance in BC2 and BlackOps. The Asus 570 is an awesome card though, I had the core 100% stable at 905mhz, stock is 742mhz!

I'm just stating the truth for my rig and my buddies rig which are pretty much identical and displayed the same results as my Q9650, 4gb DDR2, XFX 780i setup...

His setup is...
Q9450 @ 3.5ghz, 4gb DDR2 and a EVGA 750i FTW.

We have both of our computers side by side so it's very easy to see the differences between the cards while in game.

The truth is that in a Core 2 Quad setup the 5870 has the best performance in BC2 and Blackops while gaming at 1600x1200 highest settings 8xAA, 16xAF. I spent 2 months testing out the gtx470, (2) gtx460 SLI 768mb, ati 5870, ati 5970, ati 6950, gtx570 and spent 3-4 hours a day gaming on them.

I speak the truth from 1st hand experience from running comparison tests on 2 different machines.

5870 FTW in BC2 and BlackOps.
 
Last edited:
I have 6850 CF with i7 920, and I get well over 60fps in BFBC2. 1920x1200. All high
However I do recommend GTX460 1GB SLI over 6850, only because 6850's drivers sucks.
 
Really? I just updated htpc and I'm very pleased with the new panel. Although for the life of me, I cannot figure out why the 3D and video sections require 18 mwheels to navigate. :/

Be interested to see 5870 vs 470 on an i5/7 quad in this game.

Edit: while I'm ranting, what's so difficult about snipping out the relevant quote? Did I really need to read his atigasm 3 times? Friggin red texts trying to leap out of this samoled and burn my face off.
 
nissanztt90 said:
Yeah...cause pushing previous gen hardware is a good marketing tactic.
Click to expand...

i was commenting on the post, the style of it, the enlarged text and in your face pictures...you know....the way marketing typically works, by being all in your face hey look at me!!
 
Kind of like the way a well informed helpful individual who knows his stuff would post?
 
Last edited:
Jodiuh said:
Kind of like the way a well informed helpful individual who knows his shit would post?
Click to expand...

No, not at all. If the information was so valuable it would not need to be inflated with extra large text, various fonts, or images. Facts are facts. No need to put up a neon sign....if its the truth.....
 
It is a little jarring, haha.

Sapphire's got a 5870 for $230AR somewhere. $200AR Galaxy GTX 470 GC's out there too.
 
Sooo many options out there right now. Egg's got 6870 for $200...finally.
 
nobody_here said:
No, not at all. If the information was so valuable it would not need to be inflated with extra large text, various fonts, or images. Facts are facts. No need to put up a neon sign....if its the truth.....
Click to expand...

Now your trying to attack the credibility of the info because it appears to be marketing to you? Please. Presenting relevant information and highlighting the key facts doesnt change the value of the info...putting up a "neon sign" doesnt automatically make facts false or info less valueable.
 
I'm in the same boat as OP. Same 260 currently, and also find that BC2 does not run too good.. (also at 19x12 res).

At the moment I'm trying to decide whether the 6870 will do the job, or whether to spring for a 6950, almost $100 more. In benchmarks they are fairly close, and I'm not sure the 2GB on the 6950 is much point with only 1x24" monitor..

I might wait till we hear more about a GTX 560 and see if that drops some prices, but if that's a month or more off that will be a bit of a wait.
 
ObiDamnKenobi said:
I'm in the same boat as OP. Same 260 currently, and also find that BC2 does not run too good.. (also at 19x12 res).

At the moment I'm trying to decide whether the 6870 will do the job, or whether to spring for a 6950, almost $100 more. In benchmarks they are fairly close, and I'm not sure the 2GB on the 6950 is much point with only 1x24" monitor..

I might wait till we hear more about a GTX 560 and see if that drops some prices, but if that's a month or more off that will be a bit of a wait.
Click to expand...

Get the 5870 over the 6870 since both can be had for pretty much the same price and the 5870 will beat it in single-GPU performance (not sure about the 5870 Crossfire scaling in this game) in most games, including Bad Company 2.
 
exlink said:
Get the 5870 over the 6870 since both can be had for pretty much the same price and the 5870 will beat it in single-GPU performance (not sure about the 5870 Crossfire scaling in this game) in most games, including Bad Company 2.
Click to expand...

hmm, that's a good point. Just on newegg there are several 5870s for $250 after MIR, and see the 6870 for around $230, so pretty much a toss up at that point. The 6950 is still at least $50 more.

Usually a bit weary of buying "old tech", since I upgrade very rarely though. But I'm not sure there are that many great advances I'd be missing out on.. From the Anand test the 5870 is about 5-10 db louder than the other 2 cards, but that's pretty much it. Will have to think about this one a bit more, thanks! :p
 
ObiDamnKenobi said:
I'm in the same boat as OP. Same 260 currently, and also find that BC2 does not run too good.. (also at 19x12 res).

At the moment I'm trying to decide whether the 6870 will do the job, or whether to spring for a 6950, almost $100 more. In benchmarks they are fairly close, and I'm not sure the 2GB on the 6950 is much point with only 1x24" monitor..

I might wait till we hear more about a GTX 560 and see if that drops some prices, but if that's a month or more off that will be a bit of a wait.
Click to expand...

Why aren't you considering a 460? Any particular reason? I'm pretty sure I'll go with a 460 at this point, but that's not set in stone. Edit: just did some more research and I'm now tempted to wait for the 560.

I'm definitely not going to upgrade my E8400 to a Q9650, that sounds like a textbook example of a poor upgrade. It's already outdated and I'm going to be upgrading my mobo within the year anyway.

Has anyone on an E8400 or similar chip just changed out their graphics card? What kind of difference did it make? KayossZero says the game is playable on his E8400, but he's getting an insane 4.3 GHz out of his chip. Mine won't stay stable over 3.6 within safe voltages, and that's with an AC Freezer 7 Pro.
 
Last edited:
gmreplay said:
Why aren't you considering a 460? Any particular reason? I'm pretty sure I'll go with a 460 at this point, but that's not set in stone. Edit: just did some more research and I'm now tempted to wait for the 560.

I'm definitely not going to upgrade my E8400 to a Q9650, that sounds like a textbook example of a poor upgrade. It's already outdated and I'm going to be upgrading my mobo within the year anyway.

Has anyone on an E8400 or similar chip just changed out their graphics card? What kind of difference did it make? KayossZero says the game is playable on his E8400, but he's getting an insane 4.3 GHz out of his chip. Mine won't stay stable over 3.6 within safe voltages, and that's with an AC Freezer 7 Pro.
Click to expand...

The 460 looks like a great option at that price point, but like I said I don't much like upgrading so I'll spring for a slightly more powerful card now, $250-300 probably. Looking at benchmarks for BC2 I think the increased FPS from the 460 to 6950 (or 6870 even) is worth it. But that's entirely personal of course! The 5870 looks like an awesome deal at $250 with FPS similar to, or better than, 6950 but I might be too tempted by the new and shiny factor..

Yeah, I also think waiting for the 560 is smart (hear rumors of Jan 25th?), just to see how it shakes things up. Annoying that I just got BC2 and it really won't play well until then, but not like I don't have a backlog anyway:p
 
ObiDamnKenobi said:
The 460 looks like a great option at that price point, but like I said I don't much like upgrading so I'll spring for a slightly more powerful card now, $250-300 probably. Looking at benchmarks for BC2 I think the increased FPS from the 460 to 6950 (or 6870 even) is worth it. But that's entirely personal of course! The 5870 looks like an awesome deal at $250 with FPS similar to, or better than, 6950 but I might be too tempted by the new and shiny factor..

Yeah, I also think waiting for the 560 is smart (hear rumors of Jan 25th?), just to see how it shakes things up. Annoying that I just got BC2 and it really won't play well until then, but not like I don't have a backlog anyway:p
Click to expand...

Where are you getting your benchmarks from and how to the test setup machines used in those benchmarks compare to your rig?

Remember the benchmarks done on almost all websites are done with i7-920/X58 test systems, if your running a Core 2 Quad setup your results will be much different.

For example, I tested out BC2 using a Asus GTX570(OC'd it to 905/1125) and ran multiple BC2 benchmarks tests in (2) different Core 2 Quad machines with fresh win7 installs, then I ran the same exact benchmarks on the 5870 (OC'd to 925/1250)...

The 5870 was had a better min fps and max fps. Overall the OC'd 5870 on average was 8% faster then the gtx570 at +170mhz over stock clock speed.

On newegg the 5870 is $250 and you get a free 1TB HD.

The 6950 was terrible compared to the 5870, 15fps less then the 5870 @ 1600x1200 resolution.. I never tested any higher of a rez, so not sure how the results would be on using a 24" LCD at a higher resolution, but the people doing the benchmarks using their i7-920^ rigs seem to yield really good results at higher resolutions.

Don't think that you are going to get the same results as below, unless your system setup is similar to the i7-920/i7-980 test setup machines they use for the benchmarks below, my results were completely different in (2) different Core 2 Quad systems.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6970-radeon-hd-6950-cayman,2818-12.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/349-amd-radeon-6950/page11.html
 
Last edited:
nissanztt90 said:
Now your trying to attack the credibility of the info because it appears to be marketing to you? Please. Presenting relevant information and highlighting the key facts doesnt change the value of the info...putting up a "neon sign" doesnt automatically make facts false or info less valueable.
Click to expand...

attack....i never attacked anything bro, read the posts....i simply commented on the advertising style of the guys post.....nobody else feels the need to paste pictures and enlarge text and whatnot.....i find it annoying and distracting and rather...ahem...cheap...
 
§·H·ï·Z·N·ï·L·T·ï;1036628719 said:
Where are you getting your benchmarks from and how to the test setup machines used in those benchmarks compare to your rig?

Remember the benchmarks done on almost all websites are done with i7-920/X58 test systems, if your running a Core 2 Quad setup your results will be much different.

For example, I tested out BC2 using a Asus GTX570(OC'd it to 905/1125) and ran multiple BC2 benchmarks tests in (2) different Core 2 Quad machines with fresh win7 installs, then I ran the same exact benchmarks on the 5870 (OC'd to 925/1250)...

The 5870 was had a better min fps and max fps. Overall the OC'd 5870 on average was 8% faster then the gtx570 at +170mhz over stock clock speed.

On newegg the 5870 is $250 and you get a free 1TB HD.

The 6950 was terrible compared to the 5870, 15fps less then the 5870 @ 1600x1200 resolution.. I never tested any higher of a rez, so not sure how the results would be on using a 24" LCD at a higher resolution, but the people doing the benchmarks using their i7-920^ rigs seem to yield really good results at higher resolutions.

Don't think that you are going to get the same results as below, unless your system setup is similar to the i7-920/i7-980 test setup machines they use for the benchmarks below, my results were completely different in (2) different Core 2 Quad systems.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6970-radeon-hd-6950-cayman,2818-12.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/349-amd-radeon-6950/page11.html
Click to expand...

thanks for the info man! Very interesting hearing results from your test as well. Based on your comment further up I did find that $250 deal for a 5870 with a HDD earlier which is a pretty smoking deal! I haven't rule it out yet.

I didn't provide my specs, since I kinda threadjacked this from the OP:p We are coming from the same GPU, but I am actually running a i7 920 @ 3.4, so I'm usually pretty darn close to the test systems (also at 19x12 rez). In those benchmarks the 6950 and 5870 seem to give practically even FPS in all the games I care about. So it's all down to whether the an extra $50+ is worth it for latest-greatest.. (right now I'm thinking it is:))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top