Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

3.6ghz E5300 with gts 250?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 12, 2009 4:43:42 AM

Is this a balanced combination? or is there some bottleneck? i game at 1440x900.


p.s./o.t. whats a microcenter? ive been reading in the cpu section and i find posts there that "if you live near a microcenter, get a 1366 platform as it is cheaper there"

More about : 6ghz e5300 gts 250

a b U Graphics card
September 12, 2009 7:26:50 AM

Yes it is a balanced combo for that reso.
m
0
l
September 12, 2009 12:03:15 PM

thanks for the reply. i use a 512mb version of the gts250, and i have an option to trade it for a 1gb version + $10. what you think, trade(and spend a little) or not? What game would take advantage of the 1gb vram in my resolution? GTA4? my processor might be inadequate though..
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
September 12, 2009 12:37:39 PM

Nothing is really going to take advantage of that at your res, maybe GTA 4 and Crysis if you like playing with AA turned up.

Also microcenter is a computer parts chain.
m
0
l
September 12, 2009 12:46:18 PM

whats the optimal level AA? i want the best balance of graphics and performance.

i use 4x msaa in racedriver: grid and nba 2k9.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 12, 2009 12:59:25 PM

there really is no optimal level, it is just whatever you happen to like, though I personally leave it at the lowest so I get a bit of the affect without messing up frames.

The optimal level, I guess you could say, is the highest you can go with not getting lag, but I personally just leave it on low unless I have more then enough power to run it flat out.
m
0
l
September 12, 2009 3:38:34 PM

Can it run crysis? haha!

seriously though, what settings in crysis would you guys recommend me with this hardware and at this resolution?

if there's only 1 to choose, crysis or crysis warhead? what plays better?
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
September 12, 2009 4:40:16 PM

If i had to choose 1 I would say warhead plays better, then that's just personal opinion but for what its worth it just seemed smoother and the game play seemed to flow a bit better for me. It is quite a short game though so you have to keep that in mind as well. I don't know if it is a different length to Crysis but it seemed like it to me.
The games do a pretty decent job of scanning your system and selecting optimal settings for your hardware. What i would do is download Fraps which is a free download that puts a frame counter in teh corner of the screen. Run fraps with the game and let it select the settings and note your FPS. After that i would notch up the AA until the frame rate gets hit. Crysis and Warhead played best for me at around 35 FPS average. You will soon know if your settings are too high as the first big skirmish will slow things right down if you are trying to use too much AA.
I would guess it will set everything at High to start.

Mactronix
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 12, 2009 11:04:17 PM

Warhead does run a LOT smoother and easier while looking just as good if not better. Crysis is a piece of crap when it comes to coding and working correctly so it demands 3x more performance then what it actually delivers. As far as gameplay goes I like Warhead a bit more.

As for your settings on that hardware I think you can do high or maybe even very high with no filtering on Crysis. At that low res monitor it shouldn't be to demanding. I would say High would be the best bet though.
m
0
l
!