Powerful Graphic Cards on Small Resolutions

F

fahdriyami

n00b
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
31
I just wanted to know if it was worth buying a 4870X2 for playing games like Crysis/Warhead and Flight Simulator X on resolutions of 1024x768 or 1280x1024? or would a 4870 provide enough performance to run things on max on those resolution?
 
a 4870 would be more than enough.

My son plays with a 4850 on a 32" LCDTV @ 1366x768 and can max out everything with no issue. I think with a 4870 you'd be sittin' pretty for a looong time at those resolutions.
 
thanks, so you guys sure I can run crysis and warhead on maximum settings with a 4850 or a 4870?
 
you should be able to, i can run pretty well at all gamer (high) @ 1680x1050 in crysis warhead. w/ a 4850

FSX from what i've heard is mostly cpu bound.
 
thanx dezertrat, u just saved me a lot if money from buying a 4780X2 that I was so close to buying :D
 
I game at 1600x1200 and I would have no problems with getting a 4870 x2. With a more powerful card at a lower resolution, you have much more headroom to really crank up the AA and AF. A lesser card at the same resolution may do just fine with not as much AA or AF, depending on the game. So if you don't care about having tons of AA or AF at that resolution, then the 4850 or 4870 should do just fine, as long as you have a decent cpu that won't hold your card back at a lower resolution.
 
Crysis actually doesn't run perfectly smooth at 1280x1024 and Very High across the board with a 4870. Aside from that anomaly though, you'll be able to run literally everything out there completely maxed out and with AA on a 4870.
 
Well, then i'll probably be going for a 4870 for now, till i replace my nvidia QuadFX motherboard, im a 4x4 FX type of guy, so ill probably change it with a Phenom FX mobo when it comes out. so anyways, thanx everyone for helping me with this..i really appreciate it :D
 
fahdriyami said:
I just wanted to know if it was worth buying a 4870X2 for playing games like Crysis/Warhead and Flight Simulator X on resolutions of 1024x768 or 1280x1024? or would a 4870 provide enough performance to run things on max on those resolution?
Click to expand...
you would be very cpu bound at 1024x768 and also you could likely get lower framerates with a 4870X2 than with a 4870 just due to overhead. at 1024x768 even a 4850 would mainly be a waste without a very good cpu.
 
My CPU's are 2 Athlon 64 FX-74 in a QuadFX setup, im planning on upgrading them later to the Phenom FX's when they come out, for 8 Cores :D
 
But for now, would my QuadFX processors (running at 3.0GHz each) get in the way of my 4870? or a 4870X2?
 
If you want power for the future, go ahead and get the 4870X2. Even the 4850 struggles in some places on 1024x768.
 
fahdriyami said:
But for now, would my QuadFX processors (running at 3.0GHz each) get in the way of my 4870? or a 4870X2?
Click to expand...
well I have no idea how that setup scales in games. a regular single FX 74 would bottleneck the hell out of a 4870x2 and theres no doubt about that.
 
Cerulean said:
If you want power for the future, go ahead and get the 4870X2. Even the 4850 struggles in some places on 1024x768.
Click to expand...
thats so ignorant to spend $500+ to game at 1024x768. a 4870x2 would deliver no more fps in 90% of cases than a 4870 at that res due to overhead and being cpu limited.
 
cannondale06 said:
no its not...and most apps dont take advantage of dual cpus anyway.
Click to expand...

Sorry, i meant the QX6700 and the X6800, here are benchmarks from HardOCP
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIzMyw4LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Oh and BTW, these tests used only ONE Athlon FX-74, i have 2 that are hyperconnected, im getting almost double the performance. Also, my favorite game, Flight Simulator X, with SP2 (Acceleration Pack) is optimized to take advantage of up to 4 physical CPU's...
 
fahdriyami said:
Sorry, i meant the QX6700 and the X6800, here are benchmarks from HardOCP
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIzMyw4LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Oh and BTW, these tests used only ONE Athlon FX-74, i have 2 that are hyperconnected, im getting almost double the performance. Also, my favorite game, Flight Simulator X, with SP2 (Acceleration Pack) is optimized to take advantage of up to 4 physical CPU's...
Click to expand...
The tests used two FX-74s, not just one. As is stated on the test setup page, each system had four physical cores. The simple fact is that your CPUs are completely outclassed by Intel's quad-cores.
fahdriyami said:
um...i did say a Q6800, not the Extreme version of the CPU...
Click to expand...

Doesn't make a difference. The Q6800 and QX6800 both run at the same clock speed.
 
Zero82z said:
The tests used two FX-74s, not just one. As is stated on the test setup page, each system had four physical cores. The simple fact is that your CPUs are completely outclassed by Intel's quad-cores.


Doesn't make a difference. The Q6800 and QX6800 both run at the same clock speed.
Click to expand...
So your saying that 2 FX-74's would bottleneck a 4870X2? and a Q6800 (which performs almost the same as the FX-74's) wouldnt? this debate is about the graphics card, not on the CPU... Oh and i think it does make a difference, a Q6800 doesnt perform like the QX6800 does, otherwise they would sell them for the same price wouldnt they?
 
fahdriyami said:
sorry, i meant the X6800 and QX6800
here are benchmarks from HardOCP http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIzMyw4LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Also, these are tested with ONE FX-74 i think according to the Test Setup http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIzMyw0LCwxNDA=

And i have 2 of them hyperconnected, which in FSX are giving me almost double the performance of 1...
Click to expand...

Like I said, they tested with two FX-74s:
HardOCP article said:
*snip* we now have four cores we can utilize on each system *snip*
Click to expand...

Therefore, the [H] test system was at no disadvantage compared to yours. Their numbers reflect the maximum performance that was possible to get out of that computer.
fahdriyami said:
So your saying that 2 FX-74's would bottleneck a 4870X2? and a Q6800 (which performs almost the same as the FX-74's) wouldnt? this debate is about the graphics card, not on the CPU... Oh and i think it does make a difference, a Q6800 doesnt perform like the QX6800 does, otherwise they would sell them for the same price wouldnt they?
Click to expand...

In FSX, you will be heavily CPU-bottlenecked even with a 4870X2. FSX depends more on the CPU than the video card, and your A64s are quite inferior compared to a Core 2 Quad. And I wouldn't say a Q6800 performs almost the same as two FX-74s considering both the QX6700 and X6800 that [H] tested in that article handily beat out the QuadFX system. A Q6800 or QX6800 would be even faster. Plus, those Core 2 chips are all actually somewhat outdated, and the newer 45nm Core 2 CPUs would be even better.

As for the Q6800 versus the QX6800, they do perform identically. Intel charged more for the X model because it has an unlocked multiplier, which allows for easier overclocking. That's the only difference between the two CPUs.
 
If you're gaming at smaller resolutions (1280x1024 and less) I'd actually recommend a NVIDIA videocard (GTX 260 vanilla if you want over kill, probably the new 128 shader 9800GT would be absolutely perfect). For some reason they deliver higher framerates at lower resolutions.
 
FX-74 = X2 6000+ (3 GHz, 2x1MB L2). So it's about as fast as a 2.0 GHz - 2.5 GHz C2D. Two of those CPUs might be able to compete with the 2.4 GHz Q6600 in some situations but overall the Q6600 would be faster.

The 4870X2 can actually be slower than a single 4870 when running lower resolutions. It's only really worthwhile if you have a 24" or even better, 30" LCD.

Nvidia cards are faster than ATI in Flight Simulator X. This is because FSX is CPU bound even at super high resolutions on cards as slow as the 9600GT, and Nvidia's drivers appear to have less CPU overhead under those circumstances. Also the GTX260/280 are slower than the 9800 and 8800 series from Nvidia, again because of the CPU overhead. If you're playing FSX, you want the highest clocked quad-core CPU you can find, a fast harddrive and tons of RAM. Videocard is a secondary concern for this game.
 
fahdriyami said:
I just wanted to know if it was worth buying a 4870X2 for playing games like Crysis/Warhead and Flight Simulator X on resolutions of 1024x768 or 1280x1024? or would a 4870 provide enough performance to run things on max on those resolution?
Click to expand...

massive over kill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top