Which is better BANG FOR THE BUCK?
Tags:
-
Graphics Cards
- World Of Warcraft
-
Radeon
-
Graphics
- Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
ForzaItalia4
April 11, 2006 11:32:22 PM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...
OR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...
I understand the radeon supports up to 2.0 shader things or w/e and the 7600 since its new supports up to 3.0, but i also know the radeon = 256 memory bus and the 7600 is 128. the radeon has 16 pipelines but lower clocks than the 7600, i just cant decide which to pick. please help, which is better for the price? ill be playing wow, cs:s, cod2, dnd online, fear, q4, vanguard saga of heroes, along these lines. thanks
OR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...
I understand the radeon supports up to 2.0 shader things or w/e and the 7600 since its new supports up to 3.0, but i also know the radeon = 256 memory bus and the 7600 is 128. the radeon has 16 pipelines but lower clocks than the 7600, i just cant decide which to pick. please help, which is better for the price? ill be playing wow, cs:s, cod2, dnd online, fear, q4, vanguard saga of heroes, along these lines. thanks
More about : bang buck
ForzaItalia4
April 12, 2006 12:38:02 AM
Related resources
- Which is better for budget/bang for buck. - Forum
- Compare these builds. Which is better bang for buck? - Forum
- EVGA, MSI, Asus Geforce 760 GTX. Which is better Bang for buck? - Forum
- Which SSD is better, bang for buck? - Forum
- AMD/Gigabyte vs. Intel/Asus combo - which is better bang for the buck? - Forum
Aids
April 12, 2006 2:24:33 AM
GeneticWeapon
April 12, 2006 2:43:52 AM
I would not be stuck with a card that only supports sm2.0....period, I dont care what the clock speed/fillrate advantage is with owning it.
I wouldnt want to have a game of the year title like Oblivion come along, and know that my graphics hardware only supports games coded in 2002 :roll:
Graphics manufacturers are being held back by lackies still holding on to the AGP interface some say, but I see it much worse for the game designers, who have to write multiple lines of code around ancient hardware, that doesnt support the new features everyone should have(who is a gamer :roll: )
So which is worse?......gamers unwilling to give up their AGP based systems?......or gamers still stuck on hardware that doesnt support the latest features?
If the GeForce4 MX card has a story to tell(as far as hindering game developement in it's day) then I'm seeing deja vu all over again :roll:
Touche' :wink:
I wouldnt want to have a game of the year title like Oblivion come along, and know that my graphics hardware only supports games coded in 2002 :roll:
Graphics manufacturers are being held back by lackies still holding on to the AGP interface some say, but I see it much worse for the game designers, who have to write multiple lines of code around ancient hardware, that doesnt support the new features everyone should have(who is a gamer :roll: )
So which is worse?......gamers unwilling to give up their AGP based systems?......or gamers still stuck on hardware that doesnt support the latest features?
If the GeForce4 MX card has a story to tell(as far as hindering game developement in it's day) then I'm seeing deja vu all over again :roll:
Touche' :wink:
940Socket2me
April 12, 2006 2:56:57 AM
Quote:
Graphics manufacturers are being held back by lackies still holding on to the AGP interface some say, but I see it much worse for the game designers, who have to write multiple lines of code around ancient hardware, that doesnt support the new features everyone should have(who is a gamer :roll: )
Could be worse they didn't have to support PS1.4 unlike BF2, so just SM2.0 and SM3.0 and Bethesda said the SM2.0 fallback was a breeze to code due to the similarities.
Quote:
So which is worse?......gamers unwilling to give up their AGP based systems?......or gamers still stuck on hardware that doesnt support the latest features?Both in different ways and for different reasons. The developers don't care about the former just the latter, and the individuals simply want the best bang/buck.
Quote:
If the GeForce4 MX card has a story to tell(as far as hindering game developement in it's day) then I'm seeing deja vu all over again :roll: Not quite there yet. The FX would be more of the MX experience since even using the SM2.0 path in Oblivion is unplayable on those cards. But with there being so many SM2.0 and SM2.0B cards out there, they're unlikely to follow the MX's fate until next year at the earliest IMO.
No developer would cut off so many potential buyers by switching to just SM2.0 regardless of the saving in development time. Only once there's a big shift away from those cards will it matter, and that hasn't fully happened yet.
Quote:
Touche' :wink:Quoi? :tongue:
GeneticWeapon
April 12, 2006 3:12:03 AM
raven_87
April 12, 2006 4:01:15 AM
Related resources
- 8800gt vs 8800gts (g92) better bang for the buck? Which Forum
- SolvedNvidia Geforce GTX 770 versus 780- better bang for your buck? Forum
- Solvedwhich pc gives more bang for my buck Forum
- 4690-k or 5820k? better bang for the buck Forum
- SolvedWhat is better for gaming and is best bang for your buck AMD or intel Forum
- SolvedWhich build for gaming/recording on a budget would you choose? Bang for buck! Forum
- Solved7950 vs 7870 ghz better bang for the buck Forum
- what would be my better bang for my buck gpu amd Forum
- SolvedIvy Bridge, better bang for the buck? Forum
- SolvedWhich one is the best bang for the buck?? Forum
- Solved7870 or 7950 Boost? Better bang for buck? Forum
- SolvedLow budget build. AMD vs Intel. Which has the most bang for the buck? Forum
- Nvidia Geforce GTX 770 versus 780- better bang for your buck? Forum
- SolvedWhich GPU gives you the best bang for the buck? Forum
- SolvedWhich motherboard+cpu is bang for its buck Forum
- More resources
Read discussions in other Graphics & Displays categories
!