Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What RELEASED games actually need an awesome graphics card?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 24, 2007 1:40:30 AM

Just throwing this out there. Keep the flames cordial.

I recently assembled a gaming library of about 40 games. I picked games that got above 80% on gamespot in the last 3 years, and sounded like game I might want to play.

So, out of the last 3 years : what games even need an 8800 GTS on my system? I have a 1920x1080 HDTV, and prefer frame rates over 40 with everything but AA turned on.

Well, I found a few.

Neverwinter Nights 2. A so-so game. Dynamic shadows need an 8800.
STALKER with dynamic lighting - looks terrible with or without dynamic lighting. Pretty good game, though.
Marvel : Ultimate Alliance - a button mashing console game. Yawn. Runs at 60FPS w/o dynamic lighting.

Oblivion - ok, give you this one. An awesome game, with nuclear graphics. Actually, I hate it because the "can do anything" game system tends to make for a pretty weak challenge. I'm bored out of my mind whenever I fire up Oblivion, just can't muster it up to do sidequests. Anyhow, to look as good as it can it does need an 8800.

Flight Simulator X- thanks to shitty programming, to do even simple graphics it needs an 8800.

And....umm.....welll.....let's see....

The point is, you pay $300-$400 for the priviledge of playing Oblivion or Flight Simulator X. If you don't like those games that much, or might play Oblivion with less foliage on an odd Sunday, you don't need an 8800 with existing games.

Moreover, in my opinion these games do not offer the pinnacle of PC gaming gameplay. Right now, in my opinion, Battlefield 2/2142 is the most exciting (IF you are on a private server) and deep action game, while World of Warcraft offers to best social gameplay.

Both peg 60 FPS throughout on my inferior card.

As for UPCOMING games, the only one talked about here is Crysis. This game MIGHT be incredible...but then again, with the incredible complexity of graphics and physics, it could easily fall apart and be unplayable even with the right DX 10 card.
April 24, 2007 1:43:53 AM

Quote:
Just throwing this out there. Keep the flames cordial.

I recently assembled a gaming library of about 40 games. I picked games that got above 80% on gamespot in the last 3 years, and sounded like game I might want to play.

So, out of the last 3 years : what games even need an 8800 GTS on my system? I have a 1920x1080 HDTV, and prefer frame rates over 40 with everything but AA turned on.

Well, I found a few.

Neverwinter Nights 2. A so-so game. Dynamic shadows need an 8800.
STALKER with dynamic lighting - looks terrible with or without dynamic lighting. Pretty good game, though.
Marvel : Ultimate Alliance - a button mashing console game. Yawn. Runs at 60FPS w/o dynamic lighting.

Oblivion - ok, give you this one. An awesome game, with nuclear graphics. Actually, I hate it because the "can do anything" game system tends to make for a pretty weak challenge. I'm bored out of my mind whenever I fire up Oblivion, just can't muster it up to do sidequests. Anyhow, to look as good as it can it does need an 8800.

Flight Simulator X- thanks to shitty programming, to do even simple graphics it needs an 8800.

And....umm.....welll.....let's see....

The point is, you pay $300-$400 for the priviledge of playing Oblivion or Flight Simulator X. If you don't like those games that much, or might play Oblivion with less foliage on an odd Sunday, you don't need one with existing games.

Moreover, in my opinion these games do not offer the pinnacle of PC gaming gameplay. Right now, in my opinion, Battlefield 2/2142 is the most exciting (IF you are on a private server) and deep action game, while World of Warcraft offers to best social gameplay.

Both peg 60 FPS throughout on my inferior card.



Crysis :D  !
April 24, 2007 1:46:04 AM

I have a strong feeling Crysis will not hold up well on a 8800GTS. 1280x1024, and expect very low eye candy.

My two cents.
Related resources
April 24, 2007 1:47:17 AM

hands down today the best card for the money is the 8800 GTS overclocked with 640mb ram - $380-$420
April 24, 2007 1:50:16 AM

320mb is the best. 640 is only better if your playing 1600x1200 or better, and you still get the same quality as the 320mb version.
April 24, 2007 1:55:32 AM

You are missing the point. What EXISTING games need a $300-$400 graphics card?
April 24, 2007 2:24:10 AM

Quake wars, Supreme commander, Battlefield 2,Command and conquer 3,FEAR,Need for speed underground,Company of heroes, Call Of Duty 2, Half-life 2 ............


rarr
April 24, 2007 2:24:59 AM

sigh...

FEAR, CoH, Supreme Commander, Medieval 2 Total War, Splinter Cell Double Agent, C&C3...

they may not NEED an 8800gts or gtx 100%, but they play better with one.

and there are plenty of games on the way, like Bioshock, Crysis, Hellgate London, Age of Conan and others that are bound to do a good job pushing those cards to the limit.

of course you dont NEED one, but its not like having one is pointless if you like to game.

buuuuuut: looking at your desired resolution there, you probably want an 8800gtx.
April 24, 2007 2:34:14 AM

Quote:
sigh...

FEAR, CoH, Supreme Commander, Medieval 2 Total War, Splinter Cell Double Agent, C&C3...

they may not NEED an 8800gts or gtx 100%, but they play better with one.

and there are plenty of games on the way, like Bioshock, Crysis, Hellgate London, Age of Conan and others that are bound to do a good job pushing those cards to the limit.

of course you dont NEED one, but its not like having one is pointless if you like to game.




i love u :D 

but really, i forgot about those
April 24, 2007 2:57:37 AM

Pong - deffinately pong.
April 24, 2007 3:08:16 AM

Quote:
Quake wars, Supreme commander, Battlefield 2,Command and conquer 3,FEAR,Need for speed underground,Company of heroes, Call Of Duty 2, Half-life 2 ............


rarr


What r u talking about? I can play most of those games at moderately high settings on my 7600 GT. An $80 card. Especially BF2 and C&C3 I can turn all the way up and still get >40 FPS which is the max my eyes can see lol.

Speaking of FSX, I can play it pretty high too just fine...maybe I have a 8800 disguised as a 7600?
April 24, 2007 3:14:08 AM

could you please clarify what your definition of lower end card is?

I'm using sapphire x1600pro 512mb pci-e.

I dont know if I should bother spending money on some of these games if the card can't handle them.
April 24, 2007 3:14:51 AM

Oblivion, turn up all the settings and all the detail at 25x16.
Your 7600 GT will choke.

Fear, turn on soft shadows and all the settings and all the detail at 25x16.
Your 7600 GT will choke.
April 24, 2007 3:24:32 AM

I play Company of Heroes, Supreme Commander, and C&C3 with max eye candy with a 7900GT at 1280x1024. FEAR and Medieval II are almost maxed out, too. I could even run Oblivion at pretty high specs. There may only be 5 games out that actually need an 8800 series card to run at max settings. But that's not the point of those cards, anyway. The point is to be able to run DX10 games when they eventually come out. Until I see an actual Direct X 10 game, I'll stick with my 7900GT. I don't need max eye candy, I just need my games to look decent while I'm playing 'em.
April 24, 2007 3:30:05 AM

I can name a bunch:
Oblivion
Need for speed: carbon
Supreme commander
Titan Quest (great game btw)
Tomb Raider legend (8800 GTX is a must with this)
Stalker

Future games:
Crysis (obviously)
That new system shock game, i forget what it's called
Unreal tournement 3
April 24, 2007 3:37:23 AM

Quote:
Oblivion, turn up all the settings and all the detail at 25x16.
Your 7600 GT will choke.

Fear, turn on soft shadows and all the settings and all the detail at 25x16.
Your 7600 GT will choke.


Sorry I meant at 1280 by 1024. I thought that was what we were talking about...
April 24, 2007 3:45:08 AM

Quote:
Quake wars, Supreme commander, Battlefield 2,Command and conquer 3,FEAR,Need for speed underground,Company of heroes, Call Of Duty 2, Half-life 2 ............


rarr


What r u talking about? I can play most of those games at moderately high settings on my 7600 GT. An $80 card. Especially BF2 and C&C3 I can turn all the way up and still get >40 FPS which is the max my eyes can see lol.

Speaking of FSX, I can play it pretty high too just fine...maybe I have a 8800 disguised as a 7600?


im looking for 100 fps in games :D 


40-50 aint good enough for competitive gameplay


:D 
:D 
:D 
April 24, 2007 3:50:35 AM

Quote:
Oblivion, turn up all the settings and all the detail at 25x16.
Your 7600 GT will choke.

Fear, turn on soft shadows and all the settings and all the detail at 25x16.
Your 7600 GT will choke.


Sorry I meant at 1280 by 1024. I thought that was what we were talking about...
Oblivion doesn't need 25x16 to choke "lesser" cards, 16x12 or 1680x1050 widescreen will choke them quite nicely, and even high settings on 12x10 is brutal to my 7800GS, which is about equal performance to the 7600GT.

BTW, how many people here actually have a monitor that can display 25x16 (certainly not me)? I would assume anybody with a high $$$ item like that is likely running SLI'd GTXs because they can.

Actually, the resolution in the OP was 1080p (1920x1080):

Quote:
So, out of the last 3 years : what games even need an 8800 GTS on my system? I have a 1920x1080 HDTV, and prefer frame rates over 40 with everything but AA turned on.
April 24, 2007 3:56:46 AM

sarcasm no


FPS does matter to those who like to play games 4 more then just fun

everyone has there opinion ( respect )


but 4 me 100fps is ideal for my type of gameplay
April 24, 2007 4:03:35 AM

As I game on a Dell 24", at 1920x1200, the following games need the 8800 GTX NOW-

Oblivion
Flight Sim X
Company of Heroes
Rainbow Six Vegas
FEAR
Stalker

Titan Quest likes it a lot as well, but not quite to the degree the others do.

Amazing what that card can do. Having said that, if you game on 1280x1024, the 7900 series or the 1900 series will get almost all the eye candy on the above, except Oblivion and Flight Sim X.
April 24, 2007 4:27:41 AM

Quote:

Oblivion doesn't need 25x16 to choke "lesser" cards, 16x12 or 1680x1050 widescreen will choke them quite nicely, and even high settings on 12x10 is brutal to my 7800GS, which is about equal performance to the 7600GT.

BTW, how many people here actually have a monitor that can display 25x16 (certainly not me)? I would assume anybody with a high $$$ item like that is likely running SLI'd GTXs because they can.

Actually, the resolution in the OP was 1080p (1920x1080):


Good point.(the 1080p thing)

My post was merely intended to satisfy the OP with examples of currently released games which choke video cards at higher settings.
April 24, 2007 4:28:41 AM

I am playing FreeCell, Minesweeper and Spider Solitaire very well on the Nvidia 64mb graphics card that is installed on my 5 year old Dell.
April 24, 2007 4:46:43 AM

Habeed, I see your point. The number of games that need a 8800 GTS is relatively small, but some of those games -- Company of Heroes, Oblivion, FEAR, Half-Life 2 etc. -- are the best PC games around. Technically speaking, they may not need an 8800 to function, but the play is far superior with a more powerful graphics card. I play my share of older, less intensive games on weaker hardware -- hell, I still play StarCraft on a Mac. However, I imagine I'll have a hard time playing Crysis, Bioshock, Quake Wars, Alan Wake and Jericho on a system that can't truly handle the graphics.
April 24, 2007 4:49:42 AM

Quote:

Oblivion doesn't need 25x16 to choke "lesser" cards, 16x12 or 1680x1050 widescreen will choke them quite nicely, and even high settings on 12x10 is brutal to my 7800GS, which is about equal performance to the 7600GT.

BTW, how many people here actually have a monitor that can display 25x16 (certainly not me)? I would assume anybody with a high $$$ item like that is likely running SLI'd GTXs because they can.

Actually, the resolution in the OP was 1080p (1920x1080):


Good point.(the 1080p thing)

My post was merely intended to satisfy the OP with examples of currently released games which choke video cards at higher settings.
Yeah I don't disagree - 1920x1080 also requires a potent card, I'm not even sure a single 8800GTX would be terribly fast in Oblivion at 1920x1080.
April 24, 2007 4:54:20 AM

I personally think any EXISTING game will run well AT 1920x1080 on the X1950XT/XTX
Oblivion, Fear, Ghost Recon, etc.
Also helps to have a C2D and enough RAM
a c 355 U Graphics card
April 24, 2007 5:29:22 AM

Quote:
I am playing FreeCell, Minesweeper and Spider Solitaire very well on the Nvidia 64mb graphics card that is installed on my 5 year old Dell.


Not everyone is a hardcore gamer like you.
April 24, 2007 5:44:47 AM

Quote:
I am playing FreeCell, Minesweeper and Spider Solitaire very well on the Nvidia 64mb graphics card that is installed on my 5 year old Dell.


Not everyone is a hardcore gamer like you.

So you don't lag when you hit a mine? :o 
April 24, 2007 6:04:12 AM

If your spending US$400 on a GFX card, your not just buying your card for existing games, your buying it for games to come. Your not going to buy a new card that will just suffice for current games every time a new game is released are you?
April 24, 2007 8:20:30 AM

Quote:


What r u talking about? I can play most of those games at moderately high settings on my 7600 GT. An $80 card. Especially BF2 and C&C3 I can turn all the way up and still get >40 FPS which is the max my eyes can see lol.



actually, your eyes can see a difference up to 80 fps. Higher than that and you wont really notice any change per say..but its there.

The reason someone said they liked 100 fps is because when you play online games like FEAR, the single player game play can be less "crowded" compared with the multiplayer game. So the higher your fps, the better your gonna be able to play on multiplayer.
April 24, 2007 9:03:55 AM

Well if you can just boot the game on a real old card then thats all you "need" if slideshows is your requirement for playing a game.
The more eyecandy you want the better the gfx card you need, i mean some people with sli'd gtx's get grey hairs if they drop below 60fps minimum.
And more is always better, after that its up to the eye of the beholder i guess.

In some games i bet there are some people who don't wanna fall below 10fps for not only 1-2 second of hours of gameplay.
The vast majority though doesn't play with max eyecandy we have always compromised to just be able to play the games, some people don't want (or need) to compromise.

And don't worry new software will always bring currrent hardware to its knees eventually.
April 24, 2007 9:14:01 AM

Quote:
As I game on a Dell 24", at 1920x1200, the following games need the 8800 GTX NOW-
Titan Quest likes it a lot as well, but not quite to the degree the others do.
.


I just ordered my dell2407 yesterday ,
how do you find it? any tips i should know about setting it up?
Im only using a 6800 gt at the moment, but ill be getting the r600 when it comes out. :?
April 24, 2007 9:25:56 AM

Quote:
You are missing the point. What EXISTING games need a $300-$400 graphics card?

Hmmm...
Star Craft, Red Alert1, Need For Speed 2 SE, Resident Evil 1, Alone in The Dark, Doom2, ...
Hehe...Just kidding! :tongue:
Well, a Great Graphic card needed if someone wants to play these games with all eye-candy & at high resolution (1280x1024 & above)...
Test Drive Unlimited(a 8800GTS is a minimum for 1280x1024+4xAA+HDR)
Supreme Commander(Well, according to the web sites, Anything less than a 7900Series card & AMD X2 3800+ will show single digit frame rates :roll: )
Command & Conquer 3(a 7900GTX/X1900series card will fine for 1280x1024 & 4xAA 8) )
S.T.A.L.K.E.R(Works fine with any 7900/X1900 series cards 8) )
Oblivion(X1900/8800 series cards are recommended for this game)
F.E.A.R(a 7800GT & above would be fine to enjoy this game at 1024x768 8) )
Need For Speed Carbon(Runs best on ATI card (Specially X1800/X1900card)but that doesn't affect the 7900/8800Series owner 8) )

So, i say anyone with a 7900GTX/X1900/8800Series card can play all of the new games well at least at 1280x1024. :wink:
PS : sorry for my poor English :tongue: [/b]
April 24, 2007 9:45:08 AM

I don't game a huge amount (too little time), but I enjoy HL2 and lots of mods of it as well. My games rig was at one time based on a P4 1800 (OC to 2.4) with a 512mb and a 9700pro128mb and later a P4HT3.0 with 1gb and 9600pro256mb. Both those machines still play HL2 at 1024x768 and the latter one at 1280x1024 with sufficient eye candy to enjoy the games.

Gameplay is king.

If you are stopping to watch the clouds and smell the flowers someone is going to sneak up behind you and rip your head off.

Q
April 24, 2007 9:55:43 AM

testdrive runs fine too with that settings on my x1900xt(x)
it even runs great at good settings on my 3800+ (single) and x800gto2 (at x850xt)!

alan wake and crysis are supposed to run great on a x1900 card since it was devved on it (they say). except ofcourse for the dx10 functions that were added later but according to the dx9c screens and movies of crysis and alan wake we won`t miss a lot.......... games coming next year will justify (for me) a dx10 card i think.

for eyecandy even 320mb can be to low so my opinion is when you buy a gts then buy a 640mb or wait a little until prices drop. for me it`s the same as running a dual core with 512mb ram..... sure it`s a good card for the price but i think it will stumble with new games.
April 24, 2007 9:56:41 AM

Quote:
Quake wars, Supreme commander, Battlefield 2,Command and conquer 3,FEAR,Need for speed underground,Company of heroes, Call Of Duty 2, Half-life 2 ............


rarr


What r u talking about? I can play most of those games at moderately high settings on my 7600 GT. An $80 card. Especially BF2 and C&C3 I can turn all the way up and still get >40 FPS which is the max my eyes can see lol.

Speaking of FSX, I can play it pretty high too just fine...maybe I have a 8800 disguised as a 7600?

I call BS. I got a 7600gt as well. try putting supcom on max gfx.... think i see about 10fps...
C&C3 cant max gfx either.
BF2...doesnt count as much...the engine is nice.
Try run oblivion on max on res 1024....lag?
April 24, 2007 10:22:39 AM

Well the flames are certainly licking at your boots now eh?

I have an X1800XT and it still plays most games at 1280x1024 at very high settings - even with 4xAA and 8XAF.

But if you run at high resolutions, even a 8800GTX won't be enough to run every game at the highest settings.

The End.
April 24, 2007 10:52:13 AM

I'm currently playing C&C3, settings to High, 1920x1200 => Dell 2405 running a X800 XT.

It plays fine for me but I'm sure others would prefer higher FPS than I get.
April 24, 2007 10:59:38 AM

Doesnt that model have bandding problems or not so much, after reading a few reviews i want the 2407 Ao4 model, might as well get the latest one.
April 24, 2007 11:14:32 AM

Vanguard SOH
April 24, 2007 11:49:27 AM

Quote:
I have a strong feeling Crysis will not hold up well on a 8800GTS. 1280x1024, and expect very low eye candy.

My two cents.


I have a 6600 and can play stalker at 1024x768 quite well. Its an ok game to spend an hour or so on! :lol: 
April 24, 2007 12:00:56 PM

Quote:
testdrive runs fine too with that settings on my x1900xt(x)
it even runs great at good settings on my 3800+ (single) and x800gto2 (at x850xt)!

My previews card was a MSI X1900XTX (with the current system) & i got some great FPS at 1024x768+4xAA+HDR & Max in-game details.But if i used 1280x1024 my FPS dropped to 25~30FPS.With my current setup i can play fine at 1280x1024 & even 1600x1200.
It's impressive if you can play it at 1280x1024+4xAA+HDR with a X1900XT(X) & have +40FPS. :twisted:
It's a racing game and i need more than 40FPS to enjoy the game!
April 24, 2007 12:07:20 PM

Well my current rig is a dismal 9800pro 512 ddr1 ram and amd 3000 1.8gh and it ran oblivion... it was a pathetic 480*600 with everything turned off.. and i still completed the story line and quests (it was a good game less eye candy)
im building a new rig in the next month or so and will be installing oblivion again and enjoying it propperly this time... (i guessing it will be a great game with eye candy) if i had the money i would have baught a worthy graphics card the first time
long story short games are better when ya can run them they way the developers intended them to be played

i recently got stalker... to my utter shock my sys couldnt run it even with everything turned off 8O so its upgrade time and theres no point in me going dx9 as i probably wont upgrade for another 4 years or so future proof as much as possible and enjoy max setting while ya can :twisted:
April 24, 2007 12:55:30 PM

Quote:
I personally think any EXISTING game will run well AT 1920x1080 on the X1950XT/XTX
Oblivion, Fear, Ghost Recon, etc.
Also helps to have a C2D and enough RAM
Yeah, if you drop the image quality quite a bit.
April 24, 2007 1:23:38 PM

ever since a driver release or the patch , oblivion has been running much better on geforce cards. Now my 7900gto and x2 perform very well with all the eye candy @ 12x10
April 24, 2007 1:26:51 PM

Quote:
Just throwing this out there. Keep the flames cordial.

I recently assembled a gaming library of about 40 games. I picked games that got above 80% on gamespot in the last 3 years, and sounded like game I might want to play.

So, out of the last 3 years : what games even need an 8800 GTS on my system? I have a 1920x1080 HDTV, and prefer frame rates over 40 with everything but AA turned on.

Well, I found a few.

Neverwinter Nights 2. A so-so game. Dynamic shadows need an 8800.
STALKER with dynamic lighting - looks terrible with or without dynamic lighting. Pretty good game, though.
Marvel : Ultimate Alliance - a button mashing console game. Yawn. Runs at 60FPS w/o dynamic lighting.

Oblivion - ok, give you this one. An awesome game, with nuclear graphics. Actually, I hate it because the "can do anything" game system tends to make for a pretty weak challenge. I'm bored out of my mind whenever I fire up Oblivion, just can't muster it up to do sidequests. Anyhow, to look as good as it can it does need an 8800.

Flight Simulator X- thanks to shitty programming, to do even simple graphics it needs an 8800.

And....umm.....welll.....let's see....

The point is, you pay $300-$400 for the priviledge of playing Oblivion or Flight Simulator X. If you don't like those games that much, or might play Oblivion with less foliage on an odd Sunday, you don't need an 8800 with existing games.

Moreover, in my opinion these games do not offer the pinnacle of PC gaming gameplay. Right now, in my opinion, Battlefield 2/2142 is the most exciting (IF you are on a private server) and deep action game, while World of Warcraft offers to best social gameplay.

Both peg 60 FPS throughout on my inferior card.

As for UPCOMING games, the only one talked about here is Crysis. This game MIGHT be incredible...but then again, with the incredible complexity of graphics and physics, it could easily fall apart and be unplayable even with the right DX 10 card.


Don't need a BMW (or insert favorite luxury card here) but I'd love to have one. Love to have a C2D Quad and a pair of 8800gtx's too. Who wouldn't?
Need and prettiness are all relative (usually to money.) But if I just gave you the above system, would you say you don't find any benefit? Honestly?
April 24, 2007 1:29:23 PM

Quote:
testdrive runs fine too with that settings on my x1900xt(x)
it even runs great at good settings on my 3800+ (single) and x800gto2 (at x850xt)!

My previews card was a MSI X1900XTX (with the current system) & i got some great FPS at 1024x768+4xAA+HDR & Max in-game details.But if i used 1280x1024 my FPS dropped to 25~30FPS.With my current setup i can play fine at 1280x1024 & even 1600x1200.
It's impressive if you can play it at 1280x1024+4xAA+HDR with a X1900XT(X) & have +40FPS. :twisted:
It's a racing game and i need more than 40FPS to enjoy the game!

i never said 40+ frames, just said it plays well and it does at those settings. sorry to break it to you, but a c2d paired with a x1900xt 512 @ xtx isn`t much slower than your setup. ofcourse your card is faster but unfortunately your system is not :roll:

just tested it for ya: at 1280 4xaa and hdr it get`s to 36 fps average (never under 30) with car and without car on the screen (just the gauges) it gets to about 40 on average 8)

not bad huh? :wink:

with your card i would get 50+ but that doesn`t justify the purchase (with current prices) i think.
April 24, 2007 2:06:45 PM

I don't know what you are all smoking. My X1900 XTX handles ALL of those games at 1680x1050 at 50+ fps at max detail with 4x AA 16x AF (Dynamic Shadows/Lighting too if applicable)

With the exception of Oblivion, which is usually 30-35 frames outside and Supreme Commander which starts at about 60+ fps, and towards the end of the game with everyone with 500+ units it slows down to about 25-30, but still completely playable, especially for an RTS.

And Half Life 2? Half Life 2 has been playable at 1280x1024+ for years with a Radeon 9000+ at moderate to high detail. That's the beauty of a well designed engine. Unlike all of these rushed engines nowadays.
April 24, 2007 2:09:00 PM

It depends on what monitor is used(size, resolution). I have a 20" CRT, EN7800GTX @1024x768. It plays all DX9 games smooth with settings almost maxed in oblivion.
April 24, 2007 2:54:16 PM

I've been using that card for about 3 years and haven't noticed anything wrong. I did read about trilinear flitering and banding on my card (Digit-life.com) from back in the day, but to be honest I haven't noticed anything similar to that in my experience. To be fair, with the advance in GFX technology I thought this card would have been well dated at this stage, but I can do practically everything with it :D 

I'll need to get a new card towards the end of the year though as I don't think it's got much fight left for what I wanna use it for.
April 24, 2007 3:18:10 PM

Perhaps the point of a high-end graphics card is High res, AA/AF...
!