What graphics card should I get?
I want to play stuff like COD 4 and battlefield so if anyone knows any good cards that they use can you let us know
I have a budget of £100 maybe £140
Also I am getting a pci express board so I can have pci express not old agp
BF2 / 2142 doesnt need much. It runs on my £40card.
I reccomend an Nvidia Geforce 8 series - 8600 or better, try and get one with 512mb if you can afford it.
OK
I am getting 2 of the cards so i can have them in SLI mode
If you are thinking of having 2 gfx cards, you could possibly buy the ATi equivalent, then run 2 of them in the CrossFire mode, which i hear is highly recommended.
http://ati.amd.com/products/home-office.html
^ The range of ATi cards, both DX10 and DX9.
ye but i will then have to get a board with an other chipset anyway ATI is rubbish and nvidia is like the best so any good nvidia cards that are really cheap
ATI is fine just so long as you dont want to run linux
and ATI are cheaper than Nvidia
I think i might get the xfx 8800gt i think its called that anyway yea I might get that
ATi and Nvidia are fairly even in price to be honest, but i would go for ATi purely because i have used their products more and i know what the software/hardware can/cant do.
well I dont know im confused lol I am getting a nvdia 680i i think it is and it is a dream MB so I need nvidia really
you can use ATI cards on an nvidia motherboard and vice versa
you just dont get crossfire/sli
well i want sli
SLI isnt that great.
Buying a single decent card , instead of two cheaper cards is better.
Yeah, normally a single better card with more things that come with it is better than two lower cards with less options, trying to be as good as the card with more options.
suppose so cheers for you help
just thought i would add that your better going for a nvida card at the mo, the 8800 chipset runs far better then the ATI's
although this is because ATI havent really released a card to contend with the 8800 chipset.
and it wont be long before nvidia release the geforce 9 cards (still i wouldnt wait arond for them too much)
someone earlier mentioned the 8600GT 512mb which i would agree, if you can stretch it try for a 8800GT 256 or 512 they are using the the new 65nm chip which runs cooler and almost as fast as a 8800GTX 768 and its a lot less money.
if you can obviously a 8800GTX or ultra card is the big boy to get but thats £250+ for a card.
dont get the 8800GTS 640 or 320 as they are not very good for what you pay. again this have been out performed by the 8800GT.
obviously the 8800 chips are DX10 but that is only really worth worrying about if you have vista.
SLI really isnt worth worrying about unless you have the money to get two expensive cards, you'll just clog up your inside of your tower, use more power create more heat and not really benefit from it.
again as someone mentioned earlier getting two cheaper cards for SLI rather than a decent single card is pointless, save your money and stick to a single card.
hope this helps, sorry its a bit late
although this is because ATI havent really released a card to contend with the 8800 chipset.
They have, the new radeon HDs
and yeah a single good card is better than 2 medium cards on sli
cheers for all your help :) anyway i got a cheap card untill i get the money for a dear card
I only run a single X1600XT Radeon, it does the job better than the previous one, so i happy. And i got it at a reasonable price. Bargain.
im getting an 8800GTO soon to replace my x800 pro
They have, the new radeon HDs
and yeah a single good card is better than 2 medium cards on sli
but the new HD isnt really a contender against the 8800 chip,
most test reveal that the HD's just cant keep up with the 8800's especially on higher res
i like my old x800 it runs armed assault about as well as my dads geforce 8400
i like my old x800 it runs armed assault about as well as my dads geforce 8400
yea the 8400 are budget cards of the geforce 8 chip anything under the 8600 GT isnt really worth considering if you want a graphics card for gaming.
the x800 was a good card a friend still has his, although he is looking to upgrade to a 8800 ultra!
i have to ask do you really enjoy ARMA? i tried to get into it but some levels were terrible!
i know its all about realism but when a enemy troop kills you with one shot from 800m away, when your proned on a hill, in the DARK!!! and you have the element of surprise!
whats that all about??!!
i will say some other levels were brilliant, it was just those few stupid ones that ruined it for me
the original flashpoint was like that though, its sypposed to be very difficult
like OFP, the main fun of it is the map editor + mods
i dont like how much system specs it needs though. Flashpoint runs on my machine with ECP and BAS (super mods, make OFP like Arma) and all settings apart from terrain detail to max (terrain detail is on high though) no problem whatsoever but when i play Arma it looks worse than flashpoint (all settings are low, very low or disabled)
the original flashpoint was like that though, its sypposed to be very difficult
like OFP, the main fun of it is the map editor + mods
i dont like how much system specs it needs though. Flashpoint runs on my machine with ECP and BAS (super mods, make OFP like Arma) and all settings apart from terrain detail to max (terrain detail is on high though) no problem whatsoever but when i play Arma it looks worse than flashpoint (all settings are low, very low or disabled)
do you feel they rushed it out? iand that maybe they should of spent more time tweeking it?
if they could of produce something that graphically looked like BF2 and played like it (e.g keyboard and mouse set up) but had the scope of Arma and better adjustable AI (i honestly couldnt tell the difference with very easy compared to very hard when it came to enemy AI shooting me) then i would be a happy man.
i loved OFP! i think it plays better than arma at points.
arma has its moments but sometimes its so annoying it ruins the experience
i honestly couldnt tell the difference with very easy compared to very hard when it came
to enemy AI shooting me
difficulty affects things like 3rd person view, whether your position is shown on the map, whether friendlies are identified etc.....
difficulty affects things like 3rd person view, whether your position is shown on the map, whether friendlies are identified etc.....
true but what i was getting at was that when i played one of the earlier side mission that required the demolition of enemy armour. the mission which you probably know was set at night, now i understand the affects of realism and taking on more then one enemy.
but for example i tested this mission using different techniques and different paths i also tried doing the same thing over several times.
now if this game is realistic, surely in a real life situation if i was proned under a bush, at night with nv goggles from a fair distance with the element of surprise. then realistically i would have a better chance of avoiding being killed by the first enemy shot fired?
although i alerted the enemy of my presence with the first shot i fired, i think its a little fraustrating to say the least that they then become suddenly aware of my exact posistion and are able to eliminate me with the first shot fired from one troop.
i just thought that was a little silly.
i enjoyed other levels (one that envolved blowing up a bridge) which required carefully avoiding enemy armour and troops, ducking inbetween buildings for cover and carefully destroying the armour with RPG's and at the same time avoiding being flanked by troops. that was brilliant!
it just seems as a game to be rushed, unfinished and in consistant with its gameplay.
which is a shame because i really want to love it and enjoy playing it.
there is a bug with smoke + bush cover but there is mods to fix it
We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.