This is in your budget range and will run the game just fine 7850 comes with 2 free game downloads. $160 after rebate. Up to you to make sure it will fit you will need about 10" of room after you plug the power connector in the card. http://us.ncix.com/products/?usaffiliateid=1000031504&sku=77602&vpn=FX-785A-CNL4&manufacture=XFX&promoid=1334 Good quality PSU made by Seasonic. $63 http://us.ncix.com/products/?usaffi...5&vpn=P1550SXXB9&manufacture=XFX&promoid=1257 And for everbody else the 7870XT is right now the best bang for the buck at $240 it performs very close to the 7950.
This game really looks bad without the PhysX GPU particles in it. If he's making a decision to buy a card for this(or other GPU PhysX enabled games) he should really go with the 650Ti BOOST, 660, or 660Ti.
I know it's been a few days, but I'm really having a hard time deciding. Do I go with the 660ti or would the 670 be worth it? Also, what do you think about getting an SSD?
660Ti is EXACTLY the same number of cores/GFLOPS as a 670. The difference is the memory bandwidth, and this is only really necessary if you're going to have a resolution greater than 1920x1080. Otherwise, the 660Ti is fine and you'll be wasting $100 getting a 670. SSD's only give you higher data I/O. They won't help you get better frame rates or anything. Loading times will be reduced. It's only worth it if you already have everything else you need taken care of. SSD's are good for people who need to move a lot of data back and forth, and typically in games your HDD's aren't as important as your RAM, GPU and CPU. Basically, it'd be a waste of money, unless you get a small, high quality SSD(eMLC or SLC) for Intel Smart Response caching. That basically gives you the speed of an SSD with the capacity of a normal HDD. Otherwise, spend your money on more important stuff.
i agree with this post, the physx in this game makes the game that more enjoyable(got to love eye candy). well going to say go with the nvidia gpu's and not amd.....
No - No - No. Stop buying into marketing bull. A true SSD will still run much faster and have a better overall performance rate than any of the hybrid solutions.
DONT! Buy a GTX 6XX Version! Pls, just don't. If you prefer NVidia try to get a GTX 580 or 560ti, if you want to save money. Otherwise the best option you have is the HD 7870xt Boost from AMD/Sapphire. It's basically a 7950 for 200€ (Not sure about dollars xD) With this setup you can easily run Ultra, even without OC.
That's a ridiculous thing to say. If you can find a 560Ti or a 570, they're roughly HALF the performance of a 660 or 660Ti and they consume more power. They were good cards, but the GK104 is better in just about every way. The GK104 doesn't have the double precision of a GF110, but you don't need that for games.
Well no - You'll still feel the lower bandwidth at HD resolutions. There's a reason why the 7870 is being suggested so often as a better alternative to the 660TI. I have a 660Ti, and I run everything on maximum at 1920x1080. I feel PhysX, 144GB/s and 2.46 TFLOPS. The reason the AMD cards are so often suggested, is that they're cheaper. They don't support PhysX at all, and they tend to consume more power than Nvidia, and Crossfire doesn't work AT ALL. I don't know why people recommend them at all. Which incidentally can get you better and more fluid frame rate, because your computer no longer stutters as much with the constant "pauses" while it caches new data. I really doubt that you're going to be able to saturate a SATA 3 bus at 6Gb/s playing PS2. You'll load into maps faster though. No - No - No. Stop buying into marketing bull. A true SSD will still run much faster and have a better overall performance rate than any of the hybrid solutions. You can go buy an SSD with a terrible controller that will burn itself out as it runs slowly. You need to do careful research into what controller the SSD uses, how reliable the NAND flash is, and decide if you need SLC, MLC or eMLC. Interestingly, the most advanced current storage solutions use a mix of PCI-E SSD's for accelerating high I/O data specifically, while the rest is stored on HDD arrays.
Stopped reading right there - Are we doing "IT for beginners here" or do you have some need to state blindingly obvious facts? And as for saturating the SATA buses - we're talking response time here, not maximum speed...
+1 BlackDove. OP, Personaly i'd go with the GTX 660Ti if you can afford it, the offerings from MSi and others with the twin cooling fans are more than good enough for todays games, as has been said before a GTX660Ti OC will match a GTX670 but cost you £100 less. Frankly by time a game comes along that makes that card feel slow and inferior, the GTX 7 series will have launched making your GTX670 obsolete, so until then, save yourself some cash and go for the 650Ti Boost, 660 or the 660 Ti OC (budget dependant) Yes AMD have some reasonable offerings in the graphics card market, but if you're looking at THIS game as your target for your experience, from what i've seen you will only regret not getting the 660Ti OC if you pass over for a 7870. With regards to the SSD question, i have a fairly simple set up, with Win7 and PS2 loading off my 120GB Corsair Force GT and my other less important things like MS Office and World of Warcraft loading off my HDD. The 1TB HDD is partitioned, so this is also where music and photos are resident. It doesn't increase the FPS directly, but it does mean less data hold up on map loads and respawns, although i suspect they are relativly minor gains when compared to what can be had from RAM and CPU performance upgrades. So to sumerise, i would say you will probably kick yourself if you don't get the GTX660 Ti OC (providing you can afford it) but that you will still see a huge increase irrespective of which card you eventualy settle on. SSD is a "nice to have" rather than a "must have", and resolving your graphics card choice will reap you far greater dividends than an SSD will. However do carry out some research for the possible future purchase if you have an interest.
I think you may be confusing PhysX with physics. Two VERY different things. One is physics calculations for 3d rendered objects which all graphics cards are capable of, the other (the mispelt one) is a trademarked, partical based, graphical eye candy which is unique to Nvidia graphics cards.
Apparently we are doing something for beginners here. You make claims you don't back up, like why would you recommend an AMD card over an Nvidia for PS2? They don't support GPU PhysX, they consume more power, their divers prevent their GPU's from performing well and Crossfire performs WORSE than a single AMD GPU. You apparently know nothing about SSD's or how to pick one out. You never said anything about seek times. You said "constant pauses as it caches new data". Well, that sounds like you're describing IOPS, not seek time right there. Perhaps you should stop being so ignorant and go read something instead of stopping on the fourth sentence.
I'm sorry (no not really), but that's where you are wrong. While Physics ≠ PhysX in the typical sense (meaning that most developers solely use PhysX for eye candy) it is in fact a fully fledged physics engine. The reason why you almost exclusively see it for EyeCandy is that using PhysX for all of your physics will eat up a lot of processor power (in this day and age of multi core processors, that is less of an issue though). There ARE games that use it as a true physics engine and not just for eye candy. Bridge-It comes to mind - as well as Planetside. Yes, the game uses PhysX for all of its physics calculations - no it is not an nVidia only thing (although it runs a hell of a lot faster using nVidia GPU's CUDA cores because it wasn't designed with CPU in mind). That includes vehicle debris as well as bullet trajectories - no one can turn this off. It is mandatory to ensure everyone experiences the same battlefield. The eye candy however is fully optional (and technically only available to nVidia cards with CUDA support)
Pot calling the kettle black. So? PhysX is (surprisingly) not the only physics engine out there - OpenCL based systems spring to mind (and hey - they're not locked to a single developer either. Win win!) And since when was having a CUDA GPU (otherwise known as "PhysX nVidia card") mandatory for having a great experience? It is pretty - sure. When it works (Last I checked it still caused constant crashes for players) [Citation Needed] as they say - but I'll save you the trouble and invalidate your baseless claim entirely. 1. Are people still using the "Wah wah their drivers are poor" fallacy? This is a decade old thing that apparantly people can't shake off. They are just as good as nVidia these days - moreso I'd argue with nVidia's constant "UP TO 30% PERFORMANCE INCREASE IN __TITLEHERE__" beta versions. 2. So X-Fire performs worse than nVidia (or a single AMD card) in an nVIDIA funded/partnered game title? I am horrified, shocked, gobsmacked (et cetera). Do I have to remind you that Planetside 2 is but one title of many that will undoubtedly inhabit your typical "gaming PC" over its lifetime? A "Free 2 Play" one at that. There is nothing wrong with making an informed decision with a specific title in mind - but blindly ignoring any other title and the ramifications of choosing one brand over the other is downright silly. You're adorable - you really are. Lead by example as they say, lead by example...[/quote]
[/quote] A lot address, but anyway. Ok, I know OpenCL exists. This game doesn't use OpenCL, it uses PhysX. We are on a support forum for THIS GAME, and people want recommendations for a GPU for THIS GAME. Why recommend them AMD when they won't get any of the effects, and will have to settle for 2D sprite rocks and explosions? Secondly, I've been running PhysX successfully with no crashes for a while now. They seem to have fixed that just fine. Haven't you noticed? Oh wait, you are defending your purchase of a garbage AMD card here. I forgot. Ok, that power consumption chart has ONE AMD card that's comparable to the 660Ti: the 7950. For some reason it's also got a 670 and some low end AMD cards that obviously should consume less power. If you look at the TDP for the cards, you can see that, for cards that actually compare to one another, AMD typically consumes more than Nvidia. For example, the 250W 7970 consumes 25% more power than a 680, and that's also the same amount of power that a Titan consumes. Here, do the comparisons for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Islands_(GPU_family) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_600_Series 1. Their drivers are objectively poor. Here's a nice article that compares them. Might want to read. http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/year-GeForce-drivers-reviewed 2. No, I mean Crossfire AT ALL, IN VIRTUALLY EVERY GAME DOESN'T WORK. AMD fanboys are really upset, I'm sure, but even AMD has admitted that it doesn't work. There are articles on tons of review sites now about how AMD doesn't do proper frame metering and how Crossfire just drops frames, displays runts and Fraps doesn't detect it. Oh and don't say "turn on Vsync" because that doesn't even fix it. http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...ils-Capture-based-Graphics-Performance-Testin Might want to read that and watch the videos in the links at the top about all the different cards, and how Crossfire is broken. I know you'll make some irrational defense for your irrational purchase, but whatever. I totally agree: don't buy a GPU for a single game... except Nvidia plays the rest of the games fine, and after those articles describing AMD's issues, you should be able to realize that... Oh wait you're a fanboy. I'm adorable? Thanks. But you're describing IOPS, not seek time, based on what you said. You also didn't bother to specify SLC, MLC or eMLC for your SSD recommendation, which controller(it's obvious you don't know what SSD controllers do) you should get. I do my research BEFORE I buy. That's why I'm not defending an irrational purchase with irrational fallacies like you are. AMD makes cheaper GPU's. That's all they got going for them, basically.
Yes - And you continue to be. Can't even be bothered wasting any more time with you. It's obvious that you are in fact the fanboy here, doing your very best to provide counterarguments (with poorly researched and written articles at that) to prove that nVidia is king... Myeah.
Well, that's typical of a fanboy. Claim that the other person's research and data are false, and say "I'm not going to bother reading anything that contradicts my biased fanboy point of view, because it's a waste of time". Hopefully, the person deciding to buy a new GPU will bother to read the articles. I can't believe you just called PCPer's articles poorly written. The GPU charts on Wikipedia must suck because they show that AMD consumes more power. I guess you don't want to read that Crossfire is a scam either. Wouldn't want to read that. Especially since AMD has admitted that it's broken. I guess you don't want to look at graphs that show that Crossfire is broken. Or that AMD's drivers suck. Wouldn't want to look at that chart. You can't argue with the charts and data can you? Especially if you don't even know what they mean. Please explain to me all about SSD's now, since you clearly know so much about them.
