Jump to content

List of Graphic Card suggestions


Recommended Posts

Depending on what your budget looks like, the NVidia GTX 260 Core 216 is sitting right on the sweet spot, and it performs very nicely for Black Shark.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the 9800GTX+ can be had with DVI output and that is quite a cheap card, plays Black Shark like a charm.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I would think the GTX260 or the rough equivalent in an ATI, like the 4870, should do fine. It doesn't have to be top-of-the-line, but something pretty beefy nonetheless.

 

I have a single Nvidia 9800 GTX+ that does great with everything I throw at it, but Black Shark is actually one of the few games where I have to back off on some settings (water, in this case). I certainly wouldn't consider anything lower-end than an 8800GT, but my point is you don't have to go crazy with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Safari Ken, the thing with the water in Black Shark is a known issue with the engine. People with top-line 200-series cards also bump that one down.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Safari Ken, the thing with the water in Black Shark is a known issue with the engine. People with top-line 200-series cards also bump that one down.

hmm do you know who?

I have a gtx260 and play maxed settings @1920x1200, forced 16AF, 16AA, supersampling transparency. My fps drops to about 25fps around big pools of water.

 

The gtx2xx series can easily handle max settings. if you have one and you're getting stuttering, I'd look at what else might be the bottleneck in your system. I'm willing to bet it's the cpu and/or XP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall names but I do recall seeing it mentioned in threads where people who recently got a new card wonder why they get shit FPS. The water thing is something that's wonky in the engine so any kind of card is likely to get hit severely by having the water effects on high. A bit like playing in windowed mode will always hit you severely.

 

My 9800GTX+ performs admirably with similar settings to yours (tho lower resolution and 8x not 16x), but having water on high has a definitely noticeable effect. Now of course, a better card will make it more likely that it will still be playable (and it still is when I have it on on my rig) when you have water on high setting, but the completely unscientific consensus impression I have gotten from reading the forums is that the performance hit versus the picture quality gain is just not worth it.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a gtx280 for myself.

But i think even a HD3780/8800GT(renamed to 9600gt) can play this game at maximum graphic settings. But I would prefer a HD4850 because it doesn't cost much more than a 9600gt but has more power.

Watercooled

Core i7 920 @ 4,3 Ghz @1.36Vcore

GTX280- 700/1188

6144 MB DDR3 7-7-7-18 1333Mhz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 9800GTX+ performs admirably with similar settings to yours (tho lower resolution and 8x not 16x), but having water on high has a definitely noticeable effect. Now of course, a better card will make it more likely that it will still be playable (and it still is when I have it on on my rig) when you have water on high setting, but the completely unscientific consensus impression I have gotten from reading the forums is that the performance hit versus the picture quality gain is just not worth it.

 

I agree. I can play with Water on High, but it doesn't really look all that much better, certainly not worth the performance hit. Nothing else in the settings has a whole lot of effect for me, other than the resolution of cockpit displays. I play at 1680x1050, 4xAA, 16xAF.

 

Actually, now that we're talking about it, the only time my frame rate drops noticeably during actual gameplay is when my Shkval is positioned right around the horizon... big hit there, though it's never not playable (at least by my standards).

 

My biggest improvement in fps, not surprisingly, was when I discovered the wonderful Affinity tool that let my quad-core do its job... Gigantic jump in performance at that point! :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still tweaking but turning off hyperthreading yielded a 40% increase in FPS .

 

everything maxed out 16x AA and 16Q AF @ 2560x1024

[sIGPIC]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v108/madmaxx69/LOMAC/Rykesig1.jpg[/sIGPIC]

Savage 77th , http://s77th.com

|Core i7 920|Asus P6T Deluxe V2|GTX 285|9600GT-OC|6G DDR3|Softh on 3x22"CRTs|Tir2|yeahIsaidTir2|X-45|Haf 932|Vista Ultimate 64|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

280GTX all the way :clap:

Antec 900 gaming tower, PSU: Corsair 750W, Q6600, Asus P5K, 8Gig Mushkin, Nvidia eVGA 280 GTX Superclocked 1G DDR3, SSDNOW200 Kingston Drive, TrackIr 3000+Vector, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro joystick, Saitek rudder pedals pro, Sharp 42" inch LCD Aquo. OS: windows 7 64bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9800GTX+ SLI all the way!!!! $135 per card so $270 for 2 (less than a single 280) and its all the bench marks ive seen beats its performance quite a bit!

Core i7-930 (2.8 OC to 3.85), ASUS Rampage II Extreme, XFX Radeon 5870, 6 Gigs MUSHKIN DDR3-1600 6-8-6-24, 128 GB Crucial C300 SSD, 500 GB Western 5400rpm Digital Green Drive,ASUS SATA 3 6gbps card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note - I believe you don't get any advantage from SLI in DCS.

 

Not that you need it anyway since a 9800GTX+ will max everything out even when alone. :P

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9800GTX+ SLI all the way!!!! $135 per card so $270 for 2 (less than a single 280) and its all the bench marks ive seen beats its performance quite a bit!

There are numerous discussions about sli v single card, but that would start a whole new thread.

Not all games support sli, in fact I'd say the majority of games don't support sli. With 1 card, there's less heat/space/power requirements. No microstutter. Plus some of the time you'd have to play around a bit with sli settings to get it working for that particular game.

Also you'd have to get a 9800 card that has 1Gb on it, as sli doesn't mean your card RAM is doubled (nor in fact your processing power). But they are relatively cheap - cheapest 9800GTX 1Gb is $140 on Newegg.

 

But you can get a Gtx 280 for $330 and just plug in and not worry about it. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814143142

 

Why buy older tech if you're going to be paying roughly the same? If you're on a budget, then you can't go wrong with one 9800gtx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall names but I do recall seeing it mentioned in threads where people who recently got a new card wonder why they get shit FPS. The water thing is something that's wonky in the engine so any kind of card is likely to get hit severely by having the water effects on high. A bit like playing in windowed mode will always hit you severely.

 

My 9800GTX+ performs admirably with similar settings to yours (tho lower resolution and 8x not 16x), but having water on high has a definitely noticeable effect. Now of course, a better card will make it more likely that it will still be playable (and it still is when I have it on on my rig) when you have water on high setting, but the completely unscientific consensus impression I have gotten from reading the forums is that the performance hit versus the picture quality gain is just not worth it.

 

I am one of those who has a top of the line system and I cut water down to normal. It is a 50% decrease in frames if I turn water on "high".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any ideas of a graphics card with HDMI out?

 

Any links to any cards that have HDMI out. My current HP Media Center has HDMI out AND DVI ouput on the back of it, but what are the chances that the card that came with my HP Media Center Desktop PC will have what it takes to handle the power needed to run DCS Black Shark?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am one of those who has a top of the line system and I cut water down to normal. It is a 50% decrease in frames if I turn water on "high".

that really is weird. What fps are you getting? Your system should be able to handle max settings and at, at least, 19xx resolution. I bought my new system at the start of this year, so one of the first things I did was crank up all my games to max - haven't needed to turn down anything so far.

 

BS running at 1920x1200 w/ everything on max. 16AF, 16AA, gettings 25-40 fps. Everyone in this thread with a gtx2xx series is running on max, and I recently responded to a guy in another thread that's oc'ed his cpu to the same as you and he's getting over 40fps now at 1920x1200.

 

If you're not getting at least the same minimum fps as me, then something is definitely wrong.

 

ScreenShot_010.jpg


Edited by WynnTTr
adding pics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that it's not playable with water on high, it's just a gigantic boost to performance to turn it down, more so than it is an eye candy boost to keep it maxed. I went from roughly 20fps to 35 or so (of course my fps varies wildly depending on what's in the frame, but those would be the low values), just by turning down that one setting, and I can't really tell a difference in the image quality. Is 20fps playable? I think so. But 35 is much nicer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that it's not playable with water on high, it's just a gigantic boost to performance to turn it down, more so than it is an eye candy boost to keep it maxed. I went from roughly 20fps to 35 or so (of course my fps varies wildly depending on what's in the frame, but those would be the low values), just by turning down that one setting, and I can't really tell a difference in the image quality. Is 20fps playable? I think so. But 35 is much nicer.

Ah I see. 25fps min. is very sufficient for me. I don't notice any difference when it hits 40fps or 25 fps. Gave up fps shooters and counting high framerates a long time ago. It's all smooth to me. But I can see the difference in water.

Guess it all comes down to a matter of personal preference, but you don't need to turn down the water to play, cos it's not a slideshow for you, you just choose to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi:

 

I have 2x7800 gtx cards with a e8400. Would I see a jump in fps going to a mid range ati or nvidia solution. Don't care about sli, but I need to out put to 4 monitors (which I do now). my board takes 3 cards can I keep mine and get another and run BS main screen of the fast card with no penalty-sorry new to this as haven't upgraded in 4 years.

 

Update: the highest card available here is the 9800 gt for approx $240-crazy. would i see a justifiable jump going from a 7800 gtx? my main concern is would i be able to run the 9800 and one 7800 and still get the boost from the 9800 for the main screen, with the 7800 running side screens. dont care about sli, and i run at 1024?

 

update: looks like i will have to go with a 4 dvi output solution from ati

Thanks


Edited by hassata

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...