Would someone please tell me their opinion of the 8600gt graphics card. I would like to update from my on board graphics of 6150 nforce 430 (HP a6200n, 3 gigs ram). I however do not want to spend a lot of money.
I could get a 8600gt for about 50-60 dollars with a mail in rebate and would like some opinions as well as a suggested brand. It seems eVGA is supposed to be good. According to what I read this card would be good. As it is I may just wait it out until D3 is released or closer to when it is released. The demo (when it comes out) will also be a huge decider for me whether I will upgrade. Maybe cards will be cheaper by then also?
Thanks.
The 8600 is probably adequate, however for optimal gaming, one would find it to be sorely lacking in every area.
Perhaps one such as yourself might consider the accumulation of monetary assets such that the affordability of powerful video cards pose no troublesome conundrum? Should the credibility of the supposed release date in a timeframe of no more than two years be palatable, one should find it exceedingly effortless to reserve a small amount for upgrading purposes. Let us consider your situation. $60 is unfortunately merely adequate for video cards in the computing world. One would consider $200 to be perfectly suited for the purpose, allowing oneself a level of gameplay surpassing that of sufficient, from a tremendous range of titles. Let us consider the mathematics involved:
($200-$60) / 24 months = ~$6 per month
Thus, one such as yourself, would be required to save $6 every month, or 20 cents per day, over the course of two years for one to afford a powerful video card beyond the one selected. The question thus, is does one find such a reasonable solution to ones issue?
The 8600 is probably adequate, however for optimal gaming, one would find it to be sorely lacking in every area.
Perhaps one such as yourself might consider the accumulation of monetary assets such that the affordability of powerful video cards pose no troublesome conundrum? Should the credibility of the supposed release date in a timeframe of no more than two years be palatable, one should find it exceedingly effortless to reserve a small amount for upgrading purposes. Let us consider your situation. $60 is unfortunately merely adequate for video cards in the computing world. One would consider $200 to be perfectly suited for the purpose, allowing oneself a level of gameplay surpassing that of sufficient, from a tremendous range of titles. Let us consider the mathematics involved:
($200-$60) / 24 months = ~$6 per month
Thus, one such as yourself, would be required to save $6 every month, or 20 cents per day, over the course of two years for one to afford a powerful video card beyond the one selected. The question thus, is does one find such a reasonable solution to ones issue?
I am going to school full time, not working at all, so do not have an income(besides financial aid, which I try not to spend on anything besides school). But intend to be working after this semester. Even though it will be easy to save up enough money until the release to buy a better GPU I would rather spend less and save the rest of the money I would have spent. My computer only cost about 400 with the three year warranty I paid for, and a graphics card costing half as much as an entire computer OS included just does not seem logical to me.
In short I see spending hundreds of dollars on a GPU wasteful, and at best would get a 8800GT which costs a little over 100.
Thanks for the response, but forget I asked. I am worrying about getting a new card far too early and should be much more worried about other things. I will worry about upgradnig at a later date, and hope I will show enough control to not use the labor day sale as an excuse to by a card.
Thanks for the advice though, it helped out in the sense that it reminded me that I don't need to worry about D3 for a while and to wait a while longer to upgrade. I don't play first person shooters or RTS's so I am not worried about not being able to play newer games up until the release. I somehow only really like Action-RPG's like Diablo on PC, and games like secret of mana and other RPG's on the snes, my newest console is an N64 and PS1. Basically I am not worried about being able to play the newest most popular games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"This is the triumph of man:
Where there is truth, he must find.
Where there is destruction, he must rebuild.
Where there is love, he must protect."
World's Fair Exhibit
"God gave us memories, that in life's garden we may have June roses in December."
I'm waiting till the 8800 GT series comes down in price... by the time D3 releases there may be something even better out there (price vs performance wise). If D3 is the only game on your PC list, don't upgrade until its at least near a open beta... imo.
i cant update my graphics card...lol i run a macbook 13.3 inch laptop...lol but what i am doing to up my preformance with this game graphically is get a 32 or 37 inch tv for chriistmas and get the mini dvi-dvi converter then buy the dvi-hdmi converter plug them in and put it into the tv and make sure i have a 1080p tv and set it all to the right settings get a nice mouse and keyboard and wa la perfect qmuality sound and graphs without changing a thing...
btw what does imo mean i know off topic but i wus juss wonderin
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
i cant update my graphics card...lol i run a macbook 13.3 inch laptop...lol but what i am doing to up my preformance with this game graphically is get a 32 or 37 inch tv for chriistmas and get the mini dvi-dvi converter then buy the dvi-hdmi converter plug them in and put it into the tv and make sure i have a 1080p tv and set it all to the right settings get a nice mouse and keyboard and wa la perfect qmuality sound and graphs without changing a thing...
Allow an individual such as myself to be a bearer of abysmal news friend. Whilst an admirable goal on one hand, the purchase and subsequent utilization of the HDTV display will serve little to enhance the performance of the game and the graphics. Your MacBook comes packaged with an integrated Intel GMA X3100 video chip, insufficient even for the low resolution LCD the laptop comes with should one consider antiquated DirectX based games. Indeed, attempting to run at full HD resolutions for those games would cripple framerates to such a degree that even substandard gameplay becomes non-existent, nevermind 'perfect' for modern games such as Diablo3.
Thus, should one be serious about gaming on such displays, one might consider investing in something more profound.
btw what does imo mean i know off topic but i wus juss wonderin
D3 is a piece of cake for this generation of graphics cards.
The 4850 will no doubt run D3 @ 1920x1200 with some AA, ~45fps, I'm quite sure it will.
Remember that not only ATi will bundle games for Blizzard, but Blizzard will optimize games for ATi. Most of the benchmarks we see, including Crylol are optimized for nVidia gfx cards.
But who buys a gfx card just for one game?
My advice: 4850 if you run games at less than 1440x900, 4870 1600x1200/1400x900, 4870x2 for 1920x1200 and above. That should last at least 2 years before you start compensating graphics for the sake of performance.
As for the bundled games, it's more likely going to be WC3 and WoW trial, I haven't seen any less-than-3-years-old games bundled with graphics cards.
45 average fps. With a low of 25? I want a low of 60.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
omg you diminished my hopes of a nice 32 WD on my screen this sucksss assssssss bro wow i cant believe this so i spent a month looking at reasonable hdtvs for nothing great oh well im still getting one and doing that so it will upgrade the colors to a more vivd colorful experience ....lol this is gay it will still work out for my xbox 360
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
ATI's graphics cards are proven to work better with games of tomorrow, but recently nVidia has been severely dominating the market until ATI's 4xxx series, which were the petter price to performance cards until nVidia responded by cutting their prices down almost by half.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
With Half-Life 2, nVidia complained to Valve that their older graphics cards were working slower with Half-Life 2 even though it was optimized for nVidia's cards, and Valve responded by saying that they simply could not do what nVidia was asking for.
Also, the 4xxx series are running slower than the 280 in Crysis, but in a new game like Call of Juarez, the ATI cards run 20fps faster.
There you have old, and recent proof.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
You sure your upper limit is 61 fps? It's just that you feel comfortable at that number.
Psychological mumbo-jumbo. Popular belief. Don't believe the gamer's output on some of the sites: " I have to have a stable 60 frames all the time or I lose. " So in time people started to connect and mix the gamer's choice with maximum human capability. When people ask if they are getting an appropriate frame rate on their games, usually guys on sites tell them that if they're getting at least 60 then there's nothing more they could ask. There is also lag and lack of accesible memory which is another point I don't want to go into as puritans attack everything they don't agree with.
I use Fraps sometimes. Don't know how much of an accurate program it is, but I often shut it down and try to guess how many frames I'm getting at a given time. I usually am very off, differing from tens up to twenties sometimes (not very often though). But on the other hand I can always tell if I am seeing a faster gameplay after I am seeing a slower one. I immediately look at fraps and the difference is sometimes from upper 60s to the 80s. maybe if I tried this on a faster PC I'd have better results. That's breaching the 60fps theory. You just have to know what you're lookinbg for. Not being concentrated enough or too little will never show you results. I usually experience this when I'm playing fast paced games and *in the zone* when I notice a sudden boom in speed.
Point: sometimes take your own input instead of what some people say. I have no problems playing with 16 fps gaming. I was used to this on my old computers. But of course I notice a difference for the better with a higher frame rate.
I remembered another example: My brother bought a 16.2 mil. color capable LCD (says so on the cardboard - a place one should never look for real facts) and he claimed it had as good or better color reproduction to him than the 4 times more expensive CRT I bought for 3dsmax modelling back in 2004.
After I tried them both I could see an obvious difference in favor of my ol' monitor. Especially while looking at skin tones.
So I asked him if he could see a difference between them side by side. He said: your's is darker....I asked him to look more closely to try and see a difference between them side by side looking at the same color textures and he could not.
Later that day he said that someone told him that it was practically immposible that a human eye could not notice the difference between 16.2 and 16.7 mil colors much less a greater diapason. After that I asked him to look at them again.
*I can't believe I didn't notice that before*.
Power of suggestion
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from "KonataX" »
lol it can still easily be a ranger since who said you cant shoot arrows at melee distance xD
Quote from "Archie" »
The Barbarian is from Arreat, a very cold snowy mountain top, but they are much tougher than normal humans, so they don't need warmth.
Quote from "Archie" »
Where are Barbarians originally from? Sumeria, or more specifically Mesopotamia, AKA Europe. Think the Alps and the Pyrenees
I have a crap graphics card, and when I turn on HDR in CSS, I lose about 20 frames, from about 50. I could see the difference between 50 and 30, but I can't really get up to 60. 50 is fine for me, but 30 FPS seems choppy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
You sure your upper limit is 61 fps? It's just that you feel comfortable at that number.
Psychological mumbo-jumbo. Popular belief. Don't believe the gamer's output on some of the sites: " I have to have a stable 60 frames all the time or I lose. " So in time people started to connect and mix the gamer's choice with maximum human capability. When people ask if they are getting an appropriate frame rate on their games, usually guys on sites tell them that if they're getting at least 60 then there's nothing more they could ask. There is also lag and lack of accesible memory which is another point I don't want to go into as puritans attack everything they don't agree with.
I use Fraps sometimes. Don't know how much of an accurate program it is, but I often shut it down and try to guess how many frames I'm getting at a given time. I usually am very off, differing from tens up to twenties sometimes (not very often though). But on the other hand I can always tell if I am seeing a faster gameplay after I am seeing a slower one. I immediately look at fraps and the difference is sometimes from upper 60s to the 80s. Maybe if I tried this on a faster PC that could max it out more I'd have better results. That's breaching the 60fps theory. You just have to know what you're looking for. Not being concentrated enough or too little will never show you results. I usually experience this when I'm playing fast paced games and *in the zone* when I notice a sudden boom in speed.
Point: sometimes take your own input instead of what some people say. I have no problems playing with 16 fps gaming. I was used to this on my old computers. But of course I notice a difference for the better with a higher frame rate.
I remembered another example: My brother bought a 16.2 mil. color capable LCD (says so on the cardboard - a place one should never look for real facts) and he claimed it had as good or better color reproduction to him than the 4 times more expensive CRT I bought for 3dsmax modelling back in 2004.
After I tried them both I could see an obvious difference in favor of my ol' monitor. Especially while looking at skin tones.
So I asked him if he could see a difference between them side by side. He said: your's is darker....I asked him to look more closely to try and see a difference between them side by side looking at the same color textures and he could not.
Later that day he said that someone told him that it was practically immposible that a human eye could not notice the difference between 16.2 and 16.7 mil colors much less a greater diapazon. After that I asked him to look at them again.
*I can't believe I didn't notice that before*.
Power of suggestion. Same goes with "some" audiophiles claiming that something sounds better to them when they've actually been listening to the same thing. I pulled a trick like this when a friend came over on Saturday. He had bought some expensive HK receiver. I played my JBL's twice on an old Technics amplifier, and he swore that *his Harman* sounded better .
But there are experienced people that can tell a difference between different hardware used with ease. Still that doesn't mean that you'll tell a difference between 60 and a 100 frames, but it doesn't say the opposite either.
However it is safe to say that almost everyone will notice a difference from 25 to 60. And of course it's safe to say that it will be more pleasurable in the process. And afetr all - it's for the kick of it that we play games for, right?
Still, that doesn't mean it not enjoyable to play with low fps. Especially when you've paid four times less than what you would have for the other/faster option.
EDIT: 30 frames is perfectly alright for me. If I'm playing on-line for results then I just lower graphics quality to a minimum. That's because then even a split second will aid. But for single player I want to see some eye-candy and I max out the graphics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from "KonataX" »
lol it can still easily be a ranger since who said you cant shoot arrows at melee distance xD
Quote from "Archie" »
The Barbarian is from Arreat, a very cold snowy mountain top, but they are much tougher than normal humans, so they don't need warmth.
Quote from "Archie" »
Where are Barbarians originally from? Sumeria, or more specifically Mesopotamia, AKA Europe. Think the Alps and the Pyrenees
Yes, I enjoy having 60+ FPS because it works well for me in a psychological manner, even if there is no difference. It doesn't matter if I'm misinformed, but I play games at 30 FPS all the time, I never said I would accept any less than 60, but like you said, it's a preference.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
Milane, pustio sam mu istu 24btnu/192khznu traku dva puta jednopodrugo na isto technics pojacalo i na isti Sony cd player. Nisam uopste pustio taj HK saraund resiver.
Dali je bio vise naculen drugi put neznam:D ali nije ni bitno jer poentu je bio da covek katkad slusa ono sto zeli da cuje i da gleda ono sto zeli da vidi. Nisam rekao da nema vidljiva razlika izmedju stereo na obe. Mesas mogucnost i sposobnost.
Pozdrav
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from "KonataX" »
lol it can still easily be a ranger since who said you cant shoot arrows at melee distance xD
Quote from "Archie" »
The Barbarian is from Arreat, a very cold snowy mountain top, but they are much tougher than normal humans, so they don't need warmth.
Quote from "Archie" »
Where are Barbarians originally from? Sumeria, or more specifically Mesopotamia, AKA Europe. Think the Alps and the Pyrenees
Epic quotes... all of them
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Perhaps one such as yourself might consider the accumulation of monetary assets such that the affordability of powerful video cards pose no troublesome conundrum? Should the credibility of the supposed release date in a timeframe of no more than two years be palatable, one should find it exceedingly effortless to reserve a small amount for upgrading purposes. Let us consider your situation. $60 is unfortunately merely adequate for video cards in the computing world. One would consider $200 to be perfectly suited for the purpose, allowing oneself a level of gameplay surpassing that of sufficient, from a tremendous range of titles. Let us consider the mathematics involved:
($200-$60) / 24 months = ~$6 per month
Thus, one such as yourself, would be required to save $6 every month, or 20 cents per day, over the course of two years for one to afford a powerful video card beyond the one selected. The question thus, is does one find such a reasonable solution to ones issue?
I am going to school full time, not working at all, so do not have an income(besides financial aid, which I try not to spend on anything besides school). But intend to be working after this semester. Even though it will be easy to save up enough money until the release to buy a better GPU I would rather spend less and save the rest of the money I would have spent. My computer only cost about 400 with the three year warranty I paid for, and a graphics card costing half as much as an entire computer OS included just does not seem logical to me.
In short I see spending hundreds of dollars on a GPU wasteful, and at best would get a 8800GT which costs a little over 100.
Thanks for the response, but forget I asked. I am worrying about getting a new card far too early and should be much more worried about other things. I will worry about upgradnig at a later date, and hope I will show enough control to not use the labor day sale as an excuse to by a card.
Thanks for the advice though, it helped out in the sense that it reminded me that I don't need to worry about D3 for a while and to wait a while longer to upgrade. I don't play first person shooters or RTS's so I am not worried about not being able to play newer games up until the release. I somehow only really like Action-RPG's like Diablo on PC, and games like secret of mana and other RPG's on the snes, my newest console is an N64 and PS1. Basically I am not worried about being able to play the newest most popular games.
Where there is truth, he must find.
Where there is destruction, he must rebuild.
Where there is love, he must protect."
World's Fair Exhibit
"God gave us memories, that in life's garden we may have June roses in December."
John Barrie
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
Hungry? Why Wait? Grab a Barbarian!
No PCIe pin needed!
But I may just do a complete rebuild, if finances allow, once the release date is a little closer and we know more about system reqs.
btw what does imo mean i know off topic but i wus juss wonderin
Thus, should one be serious about gaming on such displays, one might consider investing in something more profound.
"IMO" is an abbreviation of "in my opinion".
45 average fps. With a low of 25? I want a low of 60.
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
?
Then what is it really?
I can see a difference between 45 and 60.
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
Also, the 4xxx series are running slower than the 280 in Crysis, but in a new game like Call of Juarez, the ATI cards run 20fps faster.
There you have old, and recent proof.
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
Psychological mumbo-jumbo. Popular belief. Don't believe the gamer's output on some of the sites: " I have to have a stable 60 frames all the time or I lose. " So in time people started to connect and mix the gamer's choice with maximum human capability. When people ask if they are getting an appropriate frame rate on their games, usually guys on sites tell them that if they're getting at least 60 then there's nothing more they could ask. There is also lag and lack of accesible memory which is another point I don't want to go into as puritans attack everything they don't agree with.
I use Fraps sometimes. Don't know how much of an accurate program it is, but I often shut it down and try to guess how many frames I'm getting at a given time. I usually am very off, differing from tens up to twenties sometimes (not very often though). But on the other hand I can always tell if I am seeing a faster gameplay after I am seeing a slower one. I immediately look at fraps and the difference is sometimes from upper 60s to the 80s. maybe if I tried this on a faster PC I'd have better results. That's breaching the 60fps theory. You just have to know what you're lookinbg for. Not being concentrated enough or too little will never show you results. I usually experience this when I'm playing fast paced games and *in the zone* when I notice a sudden boom in speed.
Point: sometimes take your own input instead of what some people say. I have no problems playing with 16 fps gaming. I was used to this on my old computers. But of course I notice a difference for the better with a higher frame rate.
I remembered another example: My brother bought a 16.2 mil. color capable LCD (says so on the cardboard - a place one should never look for real facts) and he claimed it had as good or better color reproduction to him than the 4 times more expensive CRT I bought for 3dsmax modelling back in 2004.
After I tried them both I could see an obvious difference in favor of my ol' monitor. Especially while looking at skin tones.
So I asked him if he could see a difference between them side by side. He said: your's is darker....I asked him to look more closely to try and see a difference between them side by side looking at the same color textures and he could not.
Later that day he said that someone told him that it was practically immposible that a human eye could not notice the difference between 16.2 and 16.7 mil colors much less a greater diapason. After that I asked him to look at them again.
*I can't believe I didn't notice that before*.
Power of suggestion
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
Psychological mumbo-jumbo. Popular belief. Don't believe the gamer's output on some of the sites: " I have to have a stable 60 frames all the time or I lose. " So in time people started to connect and mix the gamer's choice with maximum human capability. When people ask if they are getting an appropriate frame rate on their games, usually guys on sites tell them that if they're getting at least 60 then there's nothing more they could ask. There is also lag and lack of accesible memory which is another point I don't want to go into as puritans attack everything they don't agree with.
I use Fraps sometimes. Don't know how much of an accurate program it is, but I often shut it down and try to guess how many frames I'm getting at a given time. I usually am very off, differing from tens up to twenties sometimes (not very often though). But on the other hand I can always tell if I am seeing a faster gameplay after I am seeing a slower one. I immediately look at fraps and the difference is sometimes from upper 60s to the 80s. Maybe if I tried this on a faster PC that could max it out more I'd have better results. That's breaching the 60fps theory. You just have to know what you're looking for. Not being concentrated enough or too little will never show you results. I usually experience this when I'm playing fast paced games and *in the zone* when I notice a sudden boom in speed.
Point: sometimes take your own input instead of what some people say. I have no problems playing with 16 fps gaming. I was used to this on my old computers. But of course I notice a difference for the better with a higher frame rate.
I remembered another example: My brother bought a 16.2 mil. color capable LCD (says so on the cardboard - a place one should never look for real facts) and he claimed it had as good or better color reproduction to him than the 4 times more expensive CRT I bought for 3dsmax modelling back in 2004.
After I tried them both I could see an obvious difference in favor of my ol' monitor. Especially while looking at skin tones.
So I asked him if he could see a difference between them side by side. He said: your's is darker....I asked him to look more closely to try and see a difference between them side by side looking at the same color textures and he could not.
Later that day he said that someone told him that it was practically immposible that a human eye could not notice the difference between 16.2 and 16.7 mil colors much less a greater diapazon. After that I asked him to look at them again.
*I can't believe I didn't notice that before*.
Power of suggestion. Same goes with "some" audiophiles claiming that something sounds better to them when they've actually been listening to the same thing. I pulled a trick like this when a friend came over on Saturday. He had bought some expensive HK receiver. I played my JBL's twice on an old Technics amplifier, and he swore that *his Harman* sounded better .
But there are experienced people that can tell a difference between different hardware used with ease. Still that doesn't mean that you'll tell a difference between 60 and a 100 frames, but it doesn't say the opposite either.
However it is safe to say that almost everyone will notice a difference from 25 to 60. And of course it's safe to say that it will be more pleasurable in the process. And afetr all - it's for the kick of it that we play games for, right?
Still, that doesn't mean it not enjoyable to play with low fps. Especially when you've paid four times less than what you would have for the other/faster option.
EDIT: 30 frames is perfectly alright for me. If I'm playing on-line for results then I just lower graphics quality to a minimum. That's because then even a split second will aid. But for single player I want to see some eye-candy and I max out the graphics.
Yes, I enjoy having 60+ FPS because it works well for me in a psychological manner, even if there is no difference. It doesn't matter if I'm misinformed, but I play games at 30 FPS all the time, I never said I would accept any less than 60, but like you said, it's a preference.
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
Dali je bio vise naculen drugi put neznam:D ali nije ni bitno jer poentu je bio da covek katkad slusa ono sto zeli da cuje i da gleda ono sto zeli da vidi. Nisam rekao da nema vidljiva razlika izmedju stereo na obe. Mesas mogucnost i sposobnost.
Pozdrav