I recently upgraded my monitor to a 24" running at 1900/1200. My CPU is a Core2 DUO E6850. Mobo supports PCI-E 1.0 (no SLI), but I understand that the 2.0 cards are backwards compatible. Would it be worth it to upgrade my graphics card (8800GT) to something a little faster for the new COD game? If so, can anyone recommend a good bang for the buck card? Thanks in advance.
I just looked up the min system reguirements and they are listed as a 6600gt or a 1600xt. That's pretty low, but they are no doubt basing it on a lower res than you will be gaming at. You "might" be fine, but I guess you will still have to turn down some of the effects to run at native res. My recommendation to you is twofold. First, you could wait until after you play the game and decide on upgrading then. Second, as far as upgrades and bang for the buck goes, the HD 4850 is supposed to be great for it's price. Depending on your budget, you could go higher but my understanding is the 4850 is a crazy deal. That pains me to say, I perefer NVidia personally.
from:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-card,2464.html
For the extra money I would opt for the 4890 or gtx260, that are listed in that article at $155. The only problem with the 4850 they recommend for you is the 512mb memory size. Your resolution will benefit in some games by jumping up to 1gb (or 896 that the 260 supports). However, if you are only considering a new card for this game the 512 version of 4850 will probably be great. For future games it may be a bit weak for your res. Hope this helps.
from:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-card,2464.html
For the extra money I would opt for the 4890 or gtx260, that are listed in that article at $155. The only problem with the 4850 they recommend for you is the 512mb memory size. Your resolution will benefit in some games by jumping up to 1gb (or 896 that the 260 supports). However, if you are only considering a new card for this game the 512 version of 4850 will probably be great. For future games it may be a bit weak for your res. Hope this helps.
I personally don't think I would recommend the 5xxx series to anyone that isn't planning on picking up a DX11 title right now. It's my understanding they are slower than their comparable and less expensive 4xxx series counterparts (in dx10&9 titles obviously). Although there is no comparable parts to the high end cards. So, a larger budget could get a nod for those parts, but I'd wait (for now at least) on the 5xxx series.
The power supply will almost undoubtedly would support the 4850 as it (I believe) only needs one 6-pin connector. Which, I also belive what the 8800gt needs. The 4890 and 260 both need two 6-pin connectors and may need too much power for his rig depending on his psu.
The power supply will almost undoubtedly would support the 4850 as it (I believe) only needs one 6-pin connector. Which, I also belive what the 8800gt needs. The 4890 and 260 both need two 6-pin connectors and may need too much power for his rig depending on his psu.
I would look over that article, that budget opens up a nice set of cards. Although, in this economic climate, I would be looking at the bargains. You shouldn't have too much problem with just about any card powerwise. That's a quality psu, even if you don't have enough 6-pins, you can always use the molex adapters. As far as the 5xxx series here's what that article had to say.
As a sidenote, the 4870 1gb and 260 were at $155, not the 4890. It's listed at $190. I would probably opt for the 260/4870 and save the $100 left in your budget for a future upgrade.
As a sidenote, the 4870 1gb and 260 were at $155, not the 4890. It's listed at $190. I would probably opt for the 260/4870 and save the $100 left in your budget for a future upgrade.
I think on second thought, I'm going to take back my indifference to the 5770. The article leaves out two big benefits. Heat and power consumption. The 5xxx series have a REALLY low idle power state and are even better under load. A fair tradeoff to "slightly" less performance.
impaledmango
Distinguished
- Aug 30, 2009
- 539
- 0
- 19,010
Why would you buy it for pc. DEDICATED SERVERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Like a previous comment said, just buy bad company 2 when it comes at. MW2 is a big slap on the face for PC gamers.
lilotimz
Distinguished
- Aug 31, 2009
- 875
- 0
- 19,160
Considering all CoDMW2 is a port from consoles, offcorse it has low requirements
18 Player max
Hosted of your OWN computer using RTS system
aka if one person has a crap computer, whole game lags
most likely a capped fps
no console
no dedicated server
no lean
If you buy it, itll lag either way online but if ur looking for single player... $60 in this economy is a bit too pricey eh?
Me myself? I had it preordered, cancelled it. Got all my friends to not buy Console + PC version of it? How? I showed em the style of us pc enthusiast and our computers and our type of gaming and they loved it to death.
Thats my rant, but I'd say ATM if you still want it
grab an ATI 4850/70 or an GTX 260 for cheap. Both will be quite an upgrade but easy on ur wallet (and can play any game on high settings atm) and you can just replace it later on when DX11 is matured (itll last a year on high settings then medium)
18 Player max
Hosted of your OWN computer using RTS system
aka if one person has a crap computer, whole game lags
most likely a capped fps
no console
no dedicated server
no lean
If you buy it, itll lag either way online but if ur looking for single player... $60 in this economy is a bit too pricey eh?
Me myself? I had it preordered, cancelled it. Got all my friends to not buy Console + PC version of it? How? I showed em the style of us pc enthusiast and our computers and our type of gaming and they loved it to death.
Thats my rant, but I'd say ATM if you still want it
grab an ATI 4850/70 or an GTX 260 for cheap. Both will be quite an upgrade but easy on ur wallet (and can play any game on high settings atm) and you can just replace it later on when DX11 is matured (itll last a year on high settings then medium)
Lets stay on topic here guys.....OP asked for help not for a "flame the new game" post............. 
With the current system and monitor you have my choice would be the HD5770 from ATI or if you want to stick with Nvidia a GTX275.
The 275 will be a little stronger but also costs more and has no DX 11 support. If you run Windows 7 that is something to consider.
Either card fits in your price range and with a small overclock ( 3 to 3.2ghz ) your Core2Duo 6850 will be fine. Both also will be fine with PCI Express 1.0 and the power supply you have.
My preference is EVGA for Nvidia cards and Sapphire for ATI. Im sure others would argure that but I have had nothing but good experiences with both brands.
With the current system and monitor you have my choice would be the HD5770 from ATI or if you want to stick with Nvidia a GTX275.
The 275 will be a little stronger but also costs more and has no DX 11 support. If you run Windows 7 that is something to consider.
Either card fits in your price range and with a small overclock ( 3 to 3.2ghz ) your Core2Duo 6850 will be fine. Both also will be fine with PCI Express 1.0 and the power supply you have.
My preference is EVGA for Nvidia cards and Sapphire for ATI. Im sure others would argure that but I have had nothing but good experiences with both brands.
impaledmango
Distinguished
- Aug 30, 2009
- 539
- 0
- 19,010
A 8800gt is probably good enough anyways, I could play CoD 4 & 5 perfectly with my 8800gt with everything on max and CoD 6 probably isnt even using Dx10, so you should be fine.
If you must upgrade, just buy a 5770 for the sake that it has dx11, and you wont have to upgrafr again in a year.
If you must upgrade, just buy a 5770 for the sake that it has dx11, and you wont have to upgrafr again in a year.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question r9 390 a good budget option since rx 580s are overpriced?
- Started by jordanbuilds1
- Replies: 3
-
News Windows 11 will reportedly display a watermark if your PC does not support AI requirements- Started by Admin
- Replies: 7
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram