Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What video card would best match my computer?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2005 5:47:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

I currently have a Nvidia 6600 GT but I have to return it as I am
having some trouble with it. I only have a 2.6ghz Intel Celeron
computer. Before I pick up another 6600 GT, I would like to know if
that card is overkill for my computer. If so, what card would better
match it? I use it mostly for RPGs which is why I am posting here.
This is the only group besides strategic that I read regularly so I
hope you don't mind the question.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2005 10:36:20 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Mike S. wrote:
> I currently have a Nvidia 6600 GT but I have to return it as I am
> having some trouble with it. I only have a 2.6ghz Intel Celeron
> computer. Before I pick up another 6600 GT, I would like to know if
> that card is overkill for my computer. If so, what card would better
> match it? I use it mostly for RPGs which is why I am posting here.
> This is the only group besides strategic that I read regularly so I
> hope you don't mind the question.

Well, I think it's overkill. I have a 5900 (the non-emasculated version
that cost around $500 when it first came out) in my 2.6 (non-Celeron,
though), and that's probably a bit overkill. I was able to run EQ2 decently
enough with it (high detail except in the cities), and WoW and every SP RPG
I put on it at pretty much full detail at 1280x res, including Morrowind. A
card similar to the one I have should be plenty for your machine, IMO.

--
chainbreaker
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2005 11:25:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:36:20 -0400, "chainbreaker" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>Well, I think it's overkill. I have a 5900 (the non-emasculated version
>that cost around $500 when it first came out) in my 2.6 (non-Celeron,
>though), and that's probably a bit overkill. I was able to run EQ2 decently
>enough with it (high detail except in the cities), and WoW and every SP RPG
>I put on it at pretty much full detail at 1280x res, including Morrowind. A
>card similar to the one I have should be plenty for your machine, IMO.

Thank you.
Related resources
August 17, 2005 1:30:16 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

I went from a 6600gt to the 6800gt and didn't notice ANY difference in
the real world except for 1280x1024...


On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:47:32 -0400, Mike S. <mike@nowhere.com> wrote:

>I currently have a Nvidia 6600 GT but I have to return it as I am
>having some trouble with it. I only have a 2.6ghz Intel Celeron
>computer. Before I pick up another 6600 GT, I would like to know if
>that card is overkill for my computer. If so, what card would better
>match it? I use it mostly for RPGs which is why I am posting here.
>This is the only group besides strategic that I read regularly so I
>hope you don't mind the question.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2005 9:20:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:30:16 -0500, Me wrote:

> I went from a 6600gt to the 6800gt and didn't notice ANY difference in
> the real world except for 1280x1024...

With the popularity (and now very affordable price) of 19" LCD displays,
this is an important difference, though. 19" LCD screens have a native
resolution of 1280x1024, and everything else looks noticably worse.

M.
!