881 réponses à ce sujet

[TKavatar]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

TKavatar wrote...

Will this work? I think my video card's the limiting factor...

CPU: Intel Core i5 650 @ 3.20 GHz
RAM: 4GB DDR3
Video: ATI Radeon HD 5570 1 GB (DirectX 11 enabled, btw)

You're above the minimum (which is Dx9, SM-3) by a good margin, but you don't have close to the power for the "Very High" settings that use Dx11 functions. 

So basically I can use High settings on DX11 right?

[Gorath Alpha]

I would say that you should be able to do that in some, perhaps even most, parts of the game, at medium resolutions, but not as a blanket answer for all of the game, no. It is only a Budget Level graphics card, not yet a Mainline Gaming Level card.

[basdoorn]

TKavatar wrote...
Video: ATI Radeon HD 5570 1 GB (DirectX 11 enabled, btw)

So basically I can use High settings on DX11 right?

Try DirectX 11 mode when you have a GTX 460 or HD 5850 like Bioware mentioned. These are several levels of performance above your card, support for DirectX 11 or no. You will in practice be limited to running DirectX 9 mode as you would need to make horrible image quality tradeoffs in DirectX 11 mode. For acceptable framerates in DirectX 9 mode you will still need to settle for medium or high graphics, depending on how you personally value framerates. For reference please see:

http://www.tomshardw...igins,2238.html

Where your card comes in at about 27-28 fps at 1680x1050, 4xAA, medium AF at very high quality, DirectX 9 in Dragon Age : Origins. At 1920x1200 you will need to turn AA off completely and settle for low AF to keep up very high quality in Dragon Age : Origins, with average framerates of about 33-34. The gain in resolution will not negate the loss in AA and AF however, so total image quality will be lower. Dragon Age 2 is more demanding of your computer, and 30 fps average is not really enjoyable for most players, so you will probably want to reduce image quality (high), AA level, AF level and maybe even drop image quality 2 steps (medium) for a smooth running Dragon Age 2 game.
--- edit: damn typo's ---

Modifié par basdoorn, 01 mars 2011 - 05:10 .

[TKavatar]

basdoorn wrote...

TKavatar wrote...
Video: ATI Radeon HD 5570 1 GB (DirectX 11 enabled, btw)

So basically I can use High settings on DX11 right?

Try DirectX 11 mode when you have a GTX 460 or HD 5850 like Bioware mentioned. These are several levels of performance above your card, support for DirectX 11 or no. You will in practice be limited to running DirectX 9 mode as you would need to make horrible image quality tradeoffs in DirectX 11 mode. For acceptable framerates in DirectX mode you will still need to settle for medium or high graphics, depending on how you personally value framerates. For reference please see:

http://www.tomshardw...igins,2238.html

Where your card comes in at about 27-28 fps at 1680x1050, 4xAA, medium AF at very high quality, DirectX 9 in Dragon Age : Origins. At 1920x1200 you will need to turn AF off completely and settle for low AF to keep up very high quality in Dragon Age : Origins, with average framerates of about 33-34. The gain in resolution will not negate the loss in AA and AF however, so total image quality will be lower. Dragon Age 2 is more demanding of your computer, and 30 fps average is not really enjoyable for most players, so you will probably want to reduce image quality (high), AA level, AF level and maybe even drop image quality 2 steps (medium) for a smooth running Dragon Age 2 game.

Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification.

[Lord_Saulot]

TKavatar wrote...

Gorath Alpha wrote...

TKavatar wrote...

Will this work? I think my video card's the limiting factor...

CPU: Intel Core i5 650 @ 3.20 GHz
RAM: 4GB DDR3
Video: ATI Radeon HD 5570 1 GB (DirectX 11 enabled, btw)

You're above the minimum (which is Dx9, SM-3) by a good margin, but you don't have close to the power for the "Very High" settings that use Dx11 functions. 

So basically I can use High settings on DX11 right?

It depends on what resolution you plan on playing at.  Really, that should be part of the specs provided.

Modifié par Lord_Saulot, 01 mars 2011 - 06:31 .

[Schurschli]

basdoorn wrote...

The FX 1700 (not M) is about 20-40% slower than a standard 8600 GT, both are based on the same architecture. The minimum specified by Bioware is the 7900 GS, which has about 1.5-3 times more power than your card. I expect the game will start as you are not violating any technical requirements such as supported DirectX version, shader model, or memory amount (you do have 256MB or more graphics memory right?), but the main question is will it really run or will it turn slide-show/purple screen/angry on you. The FX-1700 card is below the DA:2 minimum as far as video processing power (memory bandwidth, pixel/texture fill rate) is concerned, that much is certain.

FX-1700 vs 8600 GT
http://www.gpureview...1=558&card2=513

FX-1700 vs 7900 GS 
http://www.gpureview...1=558&card2=443

Ah well, too bad. Thanks a lot for your input then! Guess you saved me a lot of frustration in the long run

[Harcken]

Should an AMD Radeon 6870 with a beastly processor be able to play Dragon Age II, Skyrim, and The Witcher II at max settings? I'm already shelling out $1100 for a new computer, but I suck with hardware. Any PC junkies know? The cpu is a quad core AMD Phenom II 965, around 3.3 ghz and I'd like to play in 1920 x 1080 resolution at max settings.

Modifié par Harcken, 02 mars 2011 - 05:07 .

[Gorath Alpha]

You "probably" will have that freedom. The HD 6870 is pretty close overall to the recommended graphics card.

I see, looking at this in the daylight, that I was too far away from transparent when I replied.  The fact is, if you are familiar with the old nVIDIA and Radeon naming schemes, you may have felt (whoever all is reading this) that the 6870 had to be "at least" as fast as the HD 5870.  But AMD decided to play games, the way nVIDIA too often does, with the consumers' heads.  The HD 6850 and HD 6870 should have been named "6790" and "6840", instead, to reflect where they fit into the rankings with relation to the HD 5n00 generation's cards. 

www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php

http://www.gpureview...1=635&card2=614

It's possible that when there's a lot happening on screen, you may see a very slight slowdown from the minor deviation off the HD 5850 (the HD 6870 is closely related to the HD 5830, which is slightly less powerful, also, than its sibling).

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 02 mars 2011 - 01:26 .

[aphelion002]

The HD 6870 is about 90% the performance of the HD5870, and a little faster all round than the HD 5850. I don't know about max settings, but you are above the recommended specs:

http://www.anandtech...duct/295?vs=290

Modifié par aphelion002, 03 mars 2011 - 05:09 .

[Gorath Alpha]

OK, it was late, I was very sleepy just then, misread it entirely backwards somehow.  Geez!  Real sorry. 

www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php

www.anandtech.com/show/3987/amds-radeon-6870-6850-renewing-competition-in-the-midrange-market

I just thought that you were probably thinking of the HD 6970 instead:

http://www.anandtech...-radeon-hd-6950

www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php

GPU Review has the preliminary specifications for the HD 6990 available . .

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 03 mars 2011 - 01:52 .

[aphelion002]

Erm no, I said the 6870 is about 90% the performance of 5870, ergo its a weaker card by about 10%. Nothing you showed me contradicts that.

[basdoorn]

aphelion002 wrote...
Erm no, I said the 6870 is about 90% the performance of 5870, ergo its a weaker card by about 10%. Nothing you showed me contradicts that.

Mass Effect 2 1920x1200 Max quality + 4xAA as a benchmark should be comparable in the relative sense to DA2 I expect. Numbers below are average frames per second.

HD 6970 - 84.7 (116%)
HD 6950 - 78.5 (107%)
HD 5870 - 73.1 (100%)
HD 6870 - 64.9 (89%)
HD 5850 - 61.9 (85%)
HD 6850 - 59.2 (81%)
HD 5770 - 44.3 (61%)

The 90% figure for the 6870 relative to the 5870 seems solid to me, the 6950 and 6970 are also not that much faster than the 5870, at least not in Mass Effect 2. Other games show similar scores however, in some cases the 5870 will be marginally faster than the 6950, but the other cards seem to be in the same performance order for almost any game out there.

Modifié par basdoorn, 03 mars 2011 - 01:01 .

[Trigger-happy Dark Eco Freak]

Hi, my computer has an intel i5 750 quad core cpu @2.67Hz, 4GB ram,a nvidia geforce gt 320 and 64-bit windows 7. I like to run my games at 1920x1080, how do you think it will run? My main concern is the gt 320, i've heard good and bad things about it. Thanks in advance:)

[TKavatar]

Lord_Saulot wrote...

TKavatar wrote...

Gorath Alpha wrote...

TKavatar wrote...

Will this work? I think my video card's the limiting factor...

CPU: Intel Core i5 650 @ 3.20 GHz
RAM: 4GB DDR3
Video: ATI Radeon HD 5570 1 GB (DirectX 11 enabled, btw)

You're above the minimum (which is Dx9, SM-3) by a good margin, but you don't have close to the power for the "Very High" settings that use Dx11 functions. 

So basically I can use High settings on DX11 right?

It depends on what resolution you plan on playing at.  Really, that should be part of the specs provided.

A high resolution, close to the 1680 x 1080 (dunno if correct) range?

Played the demo with High settings, it was a little slow  (mid 20's in battles) but that wouldn't be a fair choice as the DX settings weren't fully implemented...

[Aravius]

aphelion002 wrote...

The HD 6870 is about 90% the performance of the HD5870, and a little faster all round than the HD 5850. I don't know about max settings, but you are above the recommended specs:

http://www.anandtech...duct/295?vs=290

Great link. I think my 5870s in CF will do just fine.

[DMZ_Destroyer]

Nice DX11 my PC gonna run this game maxed out going to be a good game

[basdoorn]

Trigger-happy Dark Eco Freak wrote...

Hi, my computer has an intel i5 750 quad core cpu @2.67Hz, 4GB ram,a nvidia geforce gt 320 and 64-bit windows 7. I like to run my games at 1920x1080, how do you think it will run? My main concern is the gt 320, i've heard good and bad things about it. Thanks in advance:)

Please don't take this the wrong way, but what good have you heard about the gt 320, that is is faster than the gt 220 or gt 210 and does not use a whole lot more power? In reality, this is not a real gaming card unfortunately. As it is an OEM card there are no real comparisons for it, but I have found one link that might allow you to place your video card roughly in the video card spectrum.

http://www.videocard...=GeForce GT 320

It seems you will be around the Nvidia 7900gtx and AMD x800xt (pe) performance levels. For reference, these cards are 5 years old and still have more memory bandwidth than your card. I looked them up at gpureview for your convenience.

http://www.gpureview...d1=383&card2=39

I suggest you get a video card like the GTX 460/560 or AMD 6850/6870 if you can spare about $ 150. If money is not your friend, you can try and pick up an AMD 58xx/57xx/48xx or NVidia 28x/27x/26x card instead that does fit your budget. You will get a whole lot more fun out of PC gaming that way, especially as your CPU is quite nice and you have sufficient RAM as well. Note that the older models I mentioned, save for the 58xx series, will (likely) not run DirectX 11 mode for you with very high graphic quality.

Modifié par basdoorn, 03 mars 2011 - 08:10 .

[JusticarDoom]

at times like this i love my alienware..

[Trigger-happy Dark Eco Freak]

basdoorn wrote...

Trigger-happy Dark Eco Freak wrote...

Hi, my computer has an intel i5 750 quad core cpu @2.67Hz, 4GB ram,a nvidia geforce gt 320 and 64-bit windows 7. I like to run my games at 1920x1080, how do you think it will run? My main concern is the gt 320, i've heard good and bad things about it. Thanks in advance:)

Please don't take this the wrong way, but what good have you heard about the gt 320, that is is faster than the gt 220 or gt 210 and does not use a whole lot more power? In reality, this is not a real gaming card unfortunately. As it is an OEM card there are no real comparisons for it, but I have found one link that might allow you to place your video card roughly in the video card spectrum.

http://www.videocard...=GeForce GT 320

It seems you will be around the Nvidia 7900gtx and AMD x800xt (pe) performance levels. For reference, these cards are 5 years old and still have more memory bandwidth than your card. I looked them up at gpureview for your convenience.

http://www.gpureview...d1=383&card2=39

I suggest you get a video card like the GTX 460/560 or AMD 6850/6870 if you can spare about $ 150. If money is not your friend, you can try and pick up an AMD 58xx/57xx/48xx or NVidia 28x/27x/26x card instead that does fit your budget. You will get a whole lot more fun out of PC gaming that way, especially as your CPU is quite nice and you have sufficient RAM as well. Note that the older models I mentioned, save for the 58xx series, will (likely) not run DirectX 11 mode for you with very high graphic quality.

Alrighty then, time to upgrade to a HD6850! Thanks a lot for the advice. Just to confirm, will my gt 320 be fine for now? I don't mind playing with low settings until I get a new card. Thanks again:)

[Gorath Alpha]

The GT 220 barely beat the minimum, so my estimation is that the 320 won't be any worse.

http://www.gpureview...1=617&card2=443

[basdoorn]

Trigger-happy Dark Eco Freak wrote...
Alrighty then, time to upgrade to a HD6850! Thanks a lot for the advice. Just to confirm, will my gt 320 be fine for now? I don't mind playing with low settings until I get a new card. Thanks again:)

Sounds good and you are welcome. Whether the GeForce GT 320 will run even at low settings I am unsure. The general performance level is there to run on low quality, but you are still really low on memory bandwidth compared to the 7900GS which is the official minimum card. The Radeon HD 2600 pro mentioned as the other official minimum card has even lower bandwidth, but Gorath posted some concern over if it would really be a practical minimum card. Stay away from AF or AA in any case, as such enhancements cost a lot of memory bandwidth. Given that Bioware lists the Radeon HD 2600 pro as minimum requirement, I would expect you to be able to get through the game at least, but probably the difference with the 6850 will be like night and day. If your card has 256MB or more dedicated video memory it does not violate any hard technical requirements the game might have, which is the only thing that could really prevent you from playing anyway. Have you tried the demo and did it work for you, as I think it performs the same video card check as the final game?

[Daimyo_Shi]

I can't wait until Intel is finished with replacing their bad motherboards. I will be able to build my system to beat these values.

[Deventh]

I got recommended specs and the demo i had to play on medium wazzup with that ?:/

[The_11thDoctor]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Martanek wrote...

7Gb on HDD? Well, the game must be even shorter than I thought. Considering the VO, the game's length will probably not exceed 30-35 hrs on average. Anyway, it is another proof of the masseffectization process being in effect entirely. How sad.

Oh for the sake of bacon. It is this sort of doom and gloom naysaying that depresses the heck out of me. "Oh, I don't really understand how things work in the industry, but 7GB is less than previous, so it must be bad."

I shall try to explain in 3 main points why Dragon Age II is 7 GB.

1 - We used a different compression scheme in DA II than DAO (something called "ogg" I am told).
2 - 2 less fully VOed langauages
3 - Optimized mesh data, physics and lighting (which I am told reduces the footprint of environments by close to 75%)

I know some will still doom and gloom, but the game is 7GB because we are better at making games. So, now that you have some reasons why the game is 7GB I hope this will calm some of you down.

Sleeping better now! THx for the info~!

[Gorath Alpha]

Deventh wrote...

I got recommended specs and the demo i had to play on medium wazzup with that ?:/

You are off-topic in here.  Demo Problems go in the Demo Tech Forum.