Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The power of the 5970/5870

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 19, 2010 7:54:11 PM

hi,

is it not realistic to think that the 5970 or even in a dual configuration should be able to handle any game with max fps on the highest detail level with aa at the max?

More about : power 5970 5870

March 19, 2010 8:01:00 PM

yeah i would think so, because i can play any game maxed out with full AA and AF with my 5850 @ 950/1250 on my 19" 1280x1024 monitor :) 
m
0
l
March 19, 2010 8:03:30 PM

Pnico- depends on the resolution, but I would think it ought to be able to do most things on a single LCD, start into Eyefinity, it'll stress it a bit more.
m
0
l
Related resources
March 19, 2010 8:04:51 PM

flyin, thats just it, i can max out the res and the details including tessalation and aa and not get a fps hit..im running eyefinity...with 3 24 inch monitors..and 2 5970..
m
0
l
March 19, 2010 8:12:45 PM

yeah- you can probably do that on 3x1920x1200, but who knows- what if you threw it on 3x2560x1600? you might start stressing it. It'll take a lot of pixels and intensive high quality graphics, but at some point it will run out of power:-) (hey- with the new Eyefinity 6 versions of cards- maybe it would stress it with 6x 1920x1200? lol)
m
0
l
March 19, 2010 10:14:40 PM

I have two 5870's and play at 1920x1200, and I can't quite max AA in Crysis (I use x4), and it's still a little boarderline on FPS at times. I also can't quite max WoW. I also cannot max out Dragon Age Origins when using SSAA, but that's not a normal option to the game, but 4x SSAA looks better than normal maxed Dragon Age.

But keep in mind. I don't want to play games below 45 FPS anymore. If it goes below that, I will get motion sickness, and the game feels like it's lagging.
m
0
l
March 19, 2010 10:17:36 PM

Mousemonkey said:
You do realise that you are linking to the OP's own thread don't you?


Oopsy.

Also, i read the IGN rewiew and:

"Graphics
An uneven mixture of inspired and ragged"

7.5/10.
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 1:40:00 AM

builderbobftw said:
Oopsy.

Also, i read the IGN rewiew and:

"Graphics
An uneven mixture of inspired and ragged"

7.5/10.


IGN usually link the same review to all platforms though, so thats probably a Xbox review.
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 1:54:46 PM

It looked like a Dedicated PC review.
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 6:01:09 PM

You guys can talk about lame reviews all day long, until you play it, I don't want to hear another word about the graphics of Metro.

It is by far the best looking game ever to grace the PC.

And yes, of course I have played it.
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 6:16:35 PM

Good call annisman- gotta play before you can decide- reviews always have the authors opinions in there. I haven't played metro2033 so I can't say, but I'd like to give it a try as it sounds good.
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 8:24:27 PM

i was actually planning to buy it, until i read the review. i didn't realize it was so linear, or so short. doesn't quite seem worth the cost.
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 9:40:08 PM

Yeh, I was gonna buy it, but 8 hours? Not worth it.

I'm into Games like COD4 or Oblivion, where there is infinite gameplay.
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 11:06:54 PM

According to Steam I'm already 9.5 Hours in, and the end is nowhere in sight, so again, I wouldn't always go by heresay.

Sounds like they just rushed through it to review it, no ?
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 11:16:32 PM

Yeh, IGN does make some mistakes with play time. I mean it's diffrent per person.

IGN said it would take at least 60 hours to beat GTA IV's storyline, I did it in 17.34 hours.
m
0
l
!