GTX 285, Any reason to upgrade?

[4m3rica]

Do any games really need any more power? I run games at 1920x1080 on a 23" LCD monitor.

 

[MetalCraze]

Not unless you want more FPS in Crysis, are playing ArmA2 or going to play ArmA3 with big view distance. There are no other graphics-whore PC exclusives on the horizon and multiplatforms can escape nowhere from their 7 years old hardware.

 

[4m3rica]

What would I want for Arma 3, a Radeon 6950 unlocked to a 6970 or a GTX 570?

 

[AlaCarcuss]

Not unless you want more FPS in Crysis, are playing ArmA2 or going to play ArmA3 with big view distance. There are no other graphics-whore PC exclusives on the horizon and multiplatforms can escape nowhere from their 7 years old hardware.

And Twitcher 2, and BF3 and Batman:AC and Skyrim and.....

We keep hearing this nonsense from you about multi-platform games and you would have a point if they were optimised properly for PC, but they never are. You want all the bells and whistles in these games + full AA/AF you needs more powwaa!!

What would I want for Arma 3, a Radeon 6950 unlocked to a 6970 or a GTX 570?

Yep, the flashed 6950 is easily the best bang for buck at the moment. I have two 2GB models in xfire and together the cost me less than a single GTX 580 whilst beeing almost twice as powerful.

One would do you fine, I need two because I run 3x1080p monitors in eyefinity.

 

[Multiple Sarcasm]

Do any games really need any more power? I run games at 1920x1080 on a 23" LCD monitor.

Seriously? Just play the game you want. If you feel the card struggle to the point of discomfort - weigh the game's importance to you against the cost of upgrade, then decide if you need a more powerful card. Seems like a no-brainer.

 

[MetalCraze]

And Twitcher 2, and BF3 and Batman:AC and Skyrim and.....

All of which have outdated console-grade graphics.

We keep hearing this nonsense from you about multi-platform games and you would have a point if they were optimised properly for PC, but they never are.

If a game made for 7 years old hardware is so unoptimized it runs like shit on GTX285 - it won't run good on GTX999 either. But I've yet to see a console-to-PC port so badly coded that it would eat 285.
GTX285 alone is like 4 times more powerful than 7 years old GPUs of X360

 

[Lesifoere]

And Twitcher 2, and BF3 and Batman:AC and Skyrim and.....

All of which have outdated console-grade graphics.

 

[made]

And Twitcher 2, and BF3 and Batman:AC and Skyrim and.....

All of which have outdated console-grade graphics.

TW2 uses DX9 and is therefore not as advanced as Arma3.

 

[Bruticis]

Clearly, you must at once upgrade as the Skyrim specs have been released:

Recommended PC Specs:
Operating System: Win XP/7
CPU: Quad-Core Intel/AMD CPU
Memory: 4GB RAM, 6GB Hard Drive Space
Sound: DirectX compatible sound card
Video Card: DirectX9 video card with 1GB memory. GTX 260/Radeon 4890 or higher

There you have it, it's a no brainer, Skyrim rules the world!

 

[Multidirectional]

And Twitcher 2, and BF3 and Batman:AC and Skyrim and.....

All of which have outdated console-grade graphics.

TW2 uses DX9 and is therefore not as advanced as Arma3.

But Skyway hates DX 10 and 11, so it must be because TW2 doesn't have hundreds AIs at hundreds square meters hurr durr

 

[Multiple Sarcasm]

Twitcher2's assets appeared to be rather run-of-the-mill, actually. Anything you might've found visually impressive was very much to the designers' credit (which I find far more valuable than any technical advancements brandished in public announcements, tbh).

But that doesn't matter much to the topic, either, since that game ran well even on my HD5770 (approximately, a GTX260 equivalent) with most graphics settings cranked up, apart for Ubersampling and a few that made the visuals aesthetically worse (like DoF, Bloom, etc).

 

[made]

Twitcher2's assets appeared to be rather run-of-the-mill, actually. Anything you might've found visually impressive was very much to the designers' credit (which I find far more valuable than any technical advancements brandished in public announcements, tbh).

But that doesn't matter much to the topic, either, since that game ran well even on my HD5770 (approximately, a GTX260 equivalent) with most graphics settings cranked up, apart for Ubersampling and a few that made the visuals aesthetically worse (like DoF, Bloom, etc).

High resolution textures and detailed models were quite refreshing in light of the usual muddy console ports. I posted some comparison screenshots in the DXHR thread; the difference was staggering.

But yeah, it runs just fine on a mid-range rig.

 

[Xi]

Clearly, you must at once upgrade as the Skyrim specs have been released:

Recommended PC Specs:
Operating System: Win XP/7
CPU: Quad-Core Intel/AMD CPU
Memory: 4GB RAM, 6GB Hard Drive Space
Sound: DirectX compatible sound card
Video Card: DirectX9 video card with 1GB memory. GTX 260/Radeon 4890 or higher

There you have it, it's a no brainer, Skyrim rules the world!

Minimum specs:
Operating System: Win XP/7/Vista (32 or 64 bit)
CPU: Dual Core 2Ghz
Memory: 2GB RAM
Video Card: DirectX9c video card w/ 512MB RAM

Basically, any computer made within the past 4 years, with a low-high, mid-low video card, will play the game.

--------

I don't think it's worth the upgrade just yet. I would wait for another year or two. Wait for the next wave of consoles, then you'll probably need a new one. Unless you need it now - some game simply won't work - you'll always be getting better bang for your buck if you wait.

Plus, the next wave of GPUs and CPUs are looking very promising (bulldozer aside).

 

[Bruticis]

Minimum specs:
a toaster oven from 2005

I fixed it for you.

 

[4m3rica]

If a game made for 7 years old hardware is so unoptimized it runs like shit on GTX285 - it won't run good on GTX999 either. But I've yet to see a console-to-PC port so badly coded that it would eat 285.
GTX285 alone is like 4 times more powerful than 7 years old GPUs of X360

Believe it or not, I found the original Two Worlds unplayable because of how shitty it was ported to the pc.

Edit: And holy shit, only 6gb of hard drive space is required for Skyrim? Smells like DLC in the air.

 

[Reptilian Shapeshifter]

Shitty ports are shitty ports. High-end rigs frequently don't fare much better than the mid-range stuff.

How does your LCD look downscaled to 1280x720? Frankly, there is minimal perceptual difference between 720p and 1080p for movies and games with adequate AA, especially in motion.

I find that there's barely anything worth playing these days, never mind upgrading.

 

[Bruticis]

Edit: And holy shit, only 6gb of hard drive space is required for Skyrim? Smells like DLC in the air.

You should see the minimum specs HDD requirement. Apparently it runs via magic and thus no HDD is required.

 

[MetalCraze]

But Skyway hates DX 10 and 11, so it must be because TW2 doesn't have hundreds AIs at hundreds square meters hurr durr

May I present you my brand new work of art

I call it

DX11 vs. DX9: THE FINAL BATTLE

Let's see what advantages 2011 next gen offers over double-last-gen games:

- Scarce grass
- Low detailed bushes
- Low detailed trees
- Muddy textures
- Low detailed weapon
- 2D hills in the background
- All that with it being a corridor game
- Overexaggerated contrast to hide everything else not named above
- Some finger prints on main character's eyes to hide stuff some more
- Good texture of sky

 

[Multidirectional]

Oh that wasn't really me saying DX after ver. 9 has brought any considerable improvements. I completely agree, games so far look just as good in DX9. Two of the prettiest games I've played, The Witcher 2 and Crysis 1, are completely DX9 after all.

 

[4m3rica]

Honestly, when I finally got a DX10 gpu I had no fucking clue what the difference was. I think they're programming games to run shitty on older graphics cards just to force us to buy new graphics cards.

 

[AlaCarcuss]

And Twitcher 2, and BF3 and Batman:AC and Skyrim and.....

All of which have outdated console-grade graphics.

So you think they look just as good on console?

That's not the point anyway and it's not what the OP asked. He want's to know how they perform on newer hardware and if an upgrade's worthwhile.

We keep hearing this nonsense from you about multi-platform games and you would have a point if they were optimised properly for PC, but they never are.

If a game made for 7 years old hardware is so unoptimized it runs like shit on GTX285 - it won't run good on GTX999 either. But I've yet to see a console-to-PC port so badly coded that it would eat 285.

Your moronity never ceases to amaze. So if I got 20-30FPS in TW2 (which is what I did) maxed out on a GTX285 and 80FPS+ on a HD6970 - that's not an improvement??

GTX285 alone is like 4 times more powerful than 7 years old GPUs of X360

Why the fuck do you keep mentioning consoles! - they've got nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[MetalCraze]

Your moronity never ceases to amaze. So if I got 20-30FPS in TW2 (which is what I did) maxed out on a GTX285 and 80FPS+ on a HD6970 - that's not an improvement??

That's potato coding

But upgrading just for a shitty badly optimized game like TW2 is a waste of money

Besides it doesn't run at 80+ FPS on 6970, it runs at 40-50, no need to overexaggerate.
Congrats on your 30-40% performance improvement in this crap.

Why the fuck do you keep mentioning consoles! - they've got nothing to do with this discussion.

You yourself mention console games like TW2, ask yourself that question