Picking a video card for GW:EN - Guild Wars Guru archive powered by Guild Wars Legacy

JAK3US

Academy Page

Join Date: Apr 2007

19 Jul 2007 at 01:33 - 1

I need the cheapest video card that will get me through GW:EN at max settings and good FPS at 1440x900 + 4xAA. I was thinking about 7600 GT
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130062

Will it get the job done? I'm trying to stay away from DX10 as long as I don't need it (GW2

).

I can spare as much as $100, so this 7900 GS would be acceptable if the 7600 GT can't cope.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130056

One more thing.... I can't really find a good ATX12v 2.01 PSU for under 40 bucks, so any help would be appreciated.

scrinner

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Jan 2006

19 Jul 2007 at 01:37 - 2

The video card should be fine. Though you Might have to downgrade your settings to 2xAA but it should be fine running 4x. The Requirements for Gwen Shouldn't be that much higher then the current requirements.

JAK3US

Academy Page

Join Date: Apr 2007

19 Jul 2007 at 01:59 - 3

What kind of FPS should I expect? because If the extra $30 for the 7900 means that I'll get a noticeably smoother & more stable gameplay, I wouldn't say no to it.

Fr_3_aK

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Dec 2005

Australia

19 Jul 2007 at 14:02 - 4

After just "upgrading" make sure it's an upgrade. All i got from my "upgrade" was better Visual settings (textures, AA, post-process effects and DX9 graphics). FPS stayed the same, or got worst if i cranked the graphics to max and GVGd.

Hold off buying a new card until it'll do what you want it to do. And imo "good FPS" is about 60

The minimum for "good" would be 30

Tachyon

Forge Runner

Join Date: Nov 2005

Stoke, England

The Godless [GOD]

W/

19 Jul 2007 at 17:27 - 5

I'm running the 512MB 7900GS clocked to (600/1500) because I can't be bothered to build an entirely new DX10 based system yet. As a stop gap card it simply can't be beaten for price vs. performance. I can run Guild Wars at 1680x1050 with everything maxed, and max AF & AA, and get back way over a constant 100fps.

Depending on the rest of your system you should get back at least 60fps which is very playable.

One Echo

Pre-Searing Cadet

Join Date: Dec 2006

Mo/Me

19 Jul 2007 at 17:48 - 6

I'm using a 7600GT and it works perfectly with max settings at around 1280x1024 resolution.

Loviatar

Underworld Spelunker

Join Date: Feb 2005

19 Jul 2007 at 18:00 - 7

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAK3US

One more thing.... I can't really find a good ATX12v 2.01 PSU for under 40 bucks, so any help would be appreciated.

if you cheap out on the power supply you deserve any and all stability/blue screens/etc problems you get

Zodiak

Jungle Guide

Join Date: May 2005

Gatineau, Qc, Canada

Kiss of Anguish [KISS]

P/W

19 Jul 2007 at 18:08 - 8

I have to agree on this. Your Motherboard and Power Supply are the two most important things you should NOT cheap out on. Anything other then these two pieces of hardware you can cheap out on because they are easily upgradable and less limiting.

The reason behind getting a high quality PSU is that there is a garanty on it and one with weight behind it. Not only that but it means that it is Certified not to crap out on you and take out one of more pieces of hardware out with it.

Stick with Premium makers like Ultra, Thermaltake, Antec and Zalman (there are other quality ones i forgot)

Unfortunatly, chances are you will not find a suitable PSU for the 40$ that your looking for

Malice Black

Site Legend

Join Date: Oct 2005

19 Jul 2007 at 18:10 - 9

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

if you cheap out on the power supply you deserve any and all stability/blue screens/etc problems you get

Such elegence in your posts lol as always though a very valid point.

$40 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817148027

$80 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817171014

RJ Fighter

Pre-Searing Cadet

Join Date: Jul 2006

Pennsylvania, USA.

Clan Fate [FATE]

W/Mo

19 Jul 2007 at 18:10 - 10

A GeForce 8600 or 7600 GT would do the job nicely. I would choose the 8600, personally, because it had support for DirectX 10. I myself, use an ATI chipset, but that was before I figured out Nvidia was better

.

Zodiak

Jungle Guide

Join Date: May 2005

Gatineau, Qc, Canada

Kiss of Anguish [KISS]

P/W

19 Jul 2007 at 18:17 - 11

Quote:

Originally Posted by RJ Fighter

A GeForce 8600 or 7600 GT would do the job nicely. I would choose the 8600, personally, because it had support for DirectX 10. I myself, use an ATI chipset, but that was before I figured out Nvidia was better

.

You saw the light my friend

lol j/k

But really, ATI seems to be the underdog for some time now. Every attempt they have had at beating or even Matching Nvidia's high end card market have seem futile. (I read alot of reviews) It seems unfortunate but true, ATI just hasnt been able to match Nvidia for some time now.

I liked ATI and Nvidia but I've been playing ball with Nvidia for a long time now, proud owner of two EVGA 8800 Ultra 768mb Video cards that I put in SLI mode. EVGA pushes the envelope when it comes to producing Nvidia video cards and every review I read picks them above others.

EVGA does cost a little bit more, but its very well invested. They make the finest premium products

Brother Andicus

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: May 2005

Scotland

The Illuminati

19 Jul 2007 at 18:35 - 12

How about this one?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130085

7900GS will probably give you a few frames per second more, but this saves you a few $$ and gives you dx10 compatability should you want it in the future.

Malice Black

Site Legend

Join Date: Oct 2005

19 Jul 2007 at 18:49 - 13

I would go down the DX10 route as well. The 8600 does offer slightly lower graphics (very marginal in term of real game play) but as stated above DX10 is the future.

JAK3US

Academy Page

Join Date: Apr 2007

19 Jul 2007 at 20:08 - 14

Thanks for all of your input, but I'd just like to say that this upgrade I am making is only for the next year or so. Once DX10 comes out in full force, the geforce 8 series will be old news. That's why I'm need to buy the cheapest video card that will run the game well; I'm thinking of making a new computer from scratch sometime later next year. DX10 is something I don't want to sacrifice performance for, price wise.

That being said, I don't plan on ever doing anything bigger than guild wars on this computer, so I'm trying to save as much money as I can. However, if sub-$50 PSUs are really as bad as you guys say they are, I might have to stick to my geforce 6100 till next year

BTW, my PSU right now is so crappy that they had to import it from Taiwan, and it ran my computer for about 1/2 a year without me ever turning it off.

Is the apevia PSU mentioned any good? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817148027
I tried checking the website, but they didn't have the dimensions for it. do u guys think its 150x140x86?

Current PSU http://www.youngyear.com/store/produ...products_id/28
First on the list.

Zodiak

Jungle Guide

Join Date: May 2005

Gatineau, Qc, Canada

Kiss of Anguish [KISS]

P/W

19 Jul 2007 at 20:15 - 15

Power supplies, as motherboards do, follow a form factor. You are most likely looking for an ATX power supply.

Unless you own either a shuttle case or a non standard Case/Motherboard.

ATX power supplies mostly follow the same dimensions.

JAK3US

Academy Page

Join Date: Apr 2007

19 Jul 2007 at 20:29 - 16

I was looking at some Rosewill PSU's earlier on this week and it said the dimensions were 140x150x86, making it completely useless to me... must have been a typo.

Brother Andicus

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: May 2005

Scotland

The Illuminati

19 Jul 2007 at 22:15 - 17

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAK3US

Thanks for all of your input, but I'd just like to say that this upgrade I am making is only for the next year or so. Once DX10 comes out in full force, the geforce 8 series will be old news. That's why I'm need to buy the cheapest video card that will run the game well; I'm thinking of making a new computer from scratch sometime later next year. DX10 is something I don't want to sacrifice performance for, price wise.

If thats all you want, i'd go for the 7600GT, it will do the job just fine, is cheaper than the other options, and is the least power hungry.

JAK3US

Academy Page

Join Date: Apr 2007

19 Jul 2007 at 23:02 - 18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Andicus

If thats all you want, i'd go for the 7600GT, it will do the job just fine, is cheaper than the other options, and is the least power hungry.

It will get me at least 40+ fps right?

I don't want to ever drop under 20 fps again *shudders*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azagoth

I'm running the 512MB 7900GS clocked to (600/1500) because I can't be bothered to build an entirely new DX10 based system yet. As a stop gap card it simply can't be beaten for price vs. performance. I can run Guild Wars at 1680x1050 with everything maxed, and max AF & AA, and get back way over a constant 100fps.

Depending on the rest of your system you should get back at least 60fps which is very playable.

7900GS is very tempting... even if I only plan on getting a 256 MB and no OC.
What I'm mainly worried about now is the performance difference between 7600gt and the 7900gs.

Tachyon

Forge Runner

Join Date: Nov 2005

Stoke, England

The Godless [GOD]

W/

19 Jul 2007 at 23:51 - 19

The 7900GS will be the best performer when compared to the 7600GT. It beats the 7600GT in every statistic, including the all important memory interface whare it has 256bit vs. the 128bit on the 7600GT.

JAK3US

Academy Page

Join Date: Apr 2007

19 Jul 2007 at 23:56 - 20

decision finally made

Kyuuba

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Dec 2006

MAGE Elites

Rt/P

20 Jul 2007 at 02:40 - 21

For $50 PSU look Rosewill http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817182016
or the FSP Group
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817104935
have fun

Surena

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Mar 2007

N/Me

20 Jul 2007 at 08:18 - 22

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrinner

The Requirements for Gwen Shouldn't be that much higher then the current requirements.

They actually are for they're going to exhaust their graphics engine more than ever. It's supposed to be the most beautiful part of GW.

acidic

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Sep 2005

20 Jul 2007 at 08:57 - 23

a 7600gt would be fine. I currently run a x800xl which is tad worse than the 7600 and it runs that resolution fine at 50-60fps most of the places, only place it suffers is at the ring of fire. 7900gs would give you an even better boost, but make sure all your other system parts are not bottlenecking first, a well rounded machine is better than one that have a premium engine but crappy tires.

I don't think its a good idea at all to get a mid or low end card just so that its dx10 proof. Anandtech recently did an analysis on current dx10 playbility on these cards and the results were terrible. So I would suggest getting a mid-upper end dx9 card as a stop gap until more dx10 games are out.
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3029&p=3

Dex

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Dec 2005

Chicago, IL

Black Belt Jones

R/Me

21 Jul 2007 at 00:20 - 24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zodiak

You saw the light my friend

lol j/k

But really, ATI seems to be the underdog for some time now. Every attempt they have had at beating or even Matching Nvidia's high end card market have seem futile. (I read alot of reviews) It seems unfortunate but true, ATI just hasnt been able to match Nvidia for some time now.

I liked ATI and Nvidia but I've been playing ball with Nvidia for a long time now, proud owner of two EVGA 8800 Ultra 768mb Video cards that I put in SLI mode. EVGA pushes the envelope when it comes to producing Nvidia video cards and every review I read picks them above others.

EVGA does cost a little bit more, but its very well invested. They make the finest premium products

Depends on what you mean by "some time". The 7XXX series of nVidia cards, while getting good framerates in most games, were all-in-all far inferior to the ATI x19XX series. nVidia managed to top the FPS charts using driver tweaks (eventually), but the 7XXX still couldn't match the x19XX in power and features. Heck the 7XXX series isn't even a full SM3.0 implementation. Since the 8800's were released is the first time in a while that ATI has been behind nVidia, and even then the 8800's have yet to display true FP16 blends (like real HDR) with MSAA at the same time, which is something ATI has been able to do for some time now. Not only that, but the 7XXX series has pitiful pixel shader power compared to the x19XX's, which really shows in games like Oblivion (which nVidia finally driver-tweaked to playability) and Call of Juarez. ATI was running those games great from the get-go because they didn't have to rely on driver tweaks to get speed....they had enough pixel-shader muscle to run them well.

Framerates are great, but ATI has been stomping nVidia in image quality, shader features, and pixel shader power for a while. Yes, the 8800's are great GPUs, but it's only since the GTS's have gone way down in price that I would have recommended one over a x1950xt. Anyway, I'm not brand-loyal (in fact, the way it's looking now my next GPU will probably be nVidia). I just wanted to put a reality-check on your comments about nVidia. Sorry to go off-topic.

BTW - 2 8800's in SLI? What resolution are you running to actually utilize that? Just isn't necessary unless you have a gigantic monitor IMHO...

ChrisCo

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Feb 2006

[ToR]

W/

21 Jul 2007 at 00:48 - 25

i have a 7600gt oc running everything maxed 1280x1024 and i prob get a average of 40 fps some places are better than others. max ever was 126fps in doa .... now i cant say anything about gwen cause havent played it =( but for everything i have seen its perfectly fine.

but having had both ati and nvidia i personally like the ati's better(^^ IMO)

hope that helped =)

Zodiak

Jungle Guide

Join Date: May 2005

Gatineau, Qc, Canada

Kiss of Anguish [KISS]

P/W

21 Jul 2007 at 01:36 - 26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dex

BTW - 2 8800's in SLI? What resolution are you running to actually utilize that? Just isn't necessary unless you have a gigantic monitor IMHO...

LG 22" 2000:1 5MS Widescreen LCD
1680x1050
SLI 64xS Anti-Aliasing
16x Anisotropic Filtering
AFR Rendering

I have two words for you sir....

COOKIE PUCKER!

Dex

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Dec 2005

Chicago, IL

Black Belt Jones

R/Me

21 Jul 2007 at 05:04 - 27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zodiak

LG 22" 2000:1 5MS Widescreen LCD
1680x1050
SLI 64xS Anti-Aliasing
16x Anisotropic Filtering
AFR Rendering

I have two words for you sir....

COOKIE PUCKER!

K......matter of opinion I guess. I run a 24" 2407wfp at 1920x1200 with just 4xAA and never get below 60fps with vsync on and the visuals are perfect......any better than that isn't all that useful. Not trying to argue with you, but for my dollar SLI just isn't worth my time. I'm not telling you what to think, though, so no need to get defensive.

I'm not the only tech enthusiast that has owned SLI setups in the past that shares my opinion, BTW. It is my OPINION, however, so spend your money where you wish. I care not.

lordpwn

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Mar 2007

R/

21 Jul 2007 at 11:16 - 28

Just don't get a cheap power supply - the really cheap ones often have a very short lifetime if your hardware actually stresses the PSU to anywhere near its maximum capacity, and even at low load any slightly unstable voltages will make the whole system unreliable.

Some of the really bad ones have been known to blow instantly in stress tests.

JAK3US

Academy Page

Join Date: Apr 2007

22 Jul 2007 at 20:55 - 29

I ended up getting an evga 7600gt and the APEVIA PSU on the other page.
Still hasn't come in yet, can't wait

.

Crossing my fingers and hoping that the PSU will at least last me a year.

Do you think turning AA down to x2 will give me a good FPS boost? At high resolutions, the differences are hard to tell in most places.

moriz

??ber t??k-n??sh'??n

Join Date: Jan 2006

Canada

R/

23 Jul 2007 at 08:53 - 30

my friends Radeon 9800PRO agp can run GW with everything turned up to max at around 60fps. you don't really need to go overboard with the graphics card at all with GW.

btw, the rest of his system is:

intel pentium 4 2.8ghz
1 gb ddr3200 ram
19" Dell LCD monitor, running at 1280x1034 (or something close to that, can't remember)

as for whether turning down AA will effect performance, it really depends on the rest of your system and bottlenecking.

take my friend's computer for example. the greatest bottleneck is his CPU. he can turn everything down, turn everything up, change resolutions, and there will be very little difference in fps, simply because the greatest limitation on his computer is his CPU, and the CPU does not matter in AA and texture quality (at least not much).

for your system, i believe lowering the AA will make a difference, since no matter what, your graphics card will be the greatest bottleneck.

JAK3US

Academy Page

Join Date: Apr 2007

23 Jul 2007 at 23:38 - 31

The 7600gt will bottleneck the AMD x2 4200? I thought i was pretty much well balanced.

moriz

??ber t??k-n??sh'??n

Join Date: Jan 2006

Canada

R/

23 Jul 2007 at 23:58 - 32

they are well balanced. however, it's most likely that the card will create the bottleneck since much of antialiasing and screen resolution depends on it.

Dex

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Dec 2005

Chicago, IL

Black Belt Jones

R/Me

24 Jul 2007 at 03:57 - 33

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAK3US

The 7600gt will bottleneck the AMD x2 4200? I thought i was pretty much well balanced.

Well, most systems have a "bottleneck" somewhere...all that means is that one component in your system is a limiting factor, which is almost always going to be true. The X2 4200+ can certainly back a more powerful GPU than a 7600gt (I have a system with an X2 4200+ and an x1950xtx and the video card is still the limiting factor in most games), but that doesn't mean it demands it. I would worry more about the CPU holding back the video card than the other way around. Most modern games are running at the limits of the GPU for most people. There are a few games out there that really hammer your CPU, but not many.

JAK3US

Academy Page

Join Date: Apr 2007

24 Jul 2007 at 04:04 - 34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dex

Well, most systems have a "bottleneck" somewhere...all that means is that one component in your system is a limiting factor, which is almost always going to be true. The X2 4200+ can certainly back a more powerful GPU than a 7600gt (I have a system with an X2 4200+ and an x1950xtx and the video card is still the limiting factor in most games), but that doesn't mean it demands it. I would worry more about the CPU holding back the video card than the other way around. Most modern games are running at the limits of the GPU for most people. There are a few games out there that really hammer your CPU, but not many.

I get you guys now

.

So Guild wars is more intensive on the video card than on the cpu, so the graphics card will be bottlenecking the cpu. And to think that I almost spent $200 dollars on a newer cpu