21 replies to this topic

[x_byakugan_x]

http://www.newegg.co...7-534-_-Product

I know it's about a year old, but my budget is pretty much $150. This is 139 after rebate.

My current PC runs BFBC2 on high most of the time and consists of:
Core2Duo @3.4ghz
4gb ram @800mhz [underclocked for 1:1 ratio]
and a Geforce 9800GT 512mb

This is a big jump from my current card at least right?

[Kazaii]

I want to say yes. I would say yes. Fact is I don't know enough about BF3 yet to tell you for sure.

edit: Perhaps your CPU might hold the 460 back with a slight bottleneck, not sure. Didn't study fermi enough.

Edited by Kazaii, 15 June 2011 - 07:43 PM.

[Andrack]

I'm not sure anyone knows what the real recommended specs for BF3 are. Every time I find some, people say its fake.

What I do know is that they were using gtx560s at E3... well, I guess I don't KNOW that either but that's what I've heard.

[x_byakugan_x]

BF3 looks really good, but I don't see a HUGE jump in how it looks from BFBC2. If anything I'd say they have worked more on resource efficiency for the game?
Good to hear someone guesses yes though . The most I can get to is 3.5ghz but it stops being stable. I will also OC this card with AfterBurner when it comes. I just hope it doesn't sell out or something.. I can afford it 2 weeks from now.

[otaku_4_life]

BF3 looks really good, but I don't see a HUGE jump in how it looks from BFBC2.

ARE YOU ON FUCKING DRUGS LOL

BC2 looks like a cartoon compared to this. BF3 looks to be the new Crysis/Metro 2033 in terms of graphics standards.

Edited by otaku_4_life, 15 June 2011 - 11:17 PM.

[x_byakugan_x]

BF3



BC2



I still don't see a HUGE improvement on graphics, I see some. I also realize those aren't the best BF3 shots.

Edited by x_byakugan_x, 15 June 2011 - 11:36 PM.

[otaku_4_life]

BF3
[img]http://bf3blog.com/w...p1-1080p-02.jpg[/i mg]
[img]http://i.neoseeker.c..._sniper_gdc.jpg[/i mg]

BC2
[img]http://img444.images...00303122513.jpg[ /img]
[img]http://img22.imagesh...00303144311.jpg[/i mg]

I still don't see a HUGE improvement on graphics, I see some. I also realize those aren't the best BF3 shots.

I honestly think you're blind or something, because the difference in those screens is night-and-day.

[x_byakugan_x]

I honestly think you're blind or something, because the difference in those screens is night-and-day.

OH YEA WELL WHATEVER BRO.
What's your opinion on my question, man?

[otaku_4_life]

I'd go with the 560 for like $15 more tbh.
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814130660

[x_byakugan_x]

Didn't even know about the 560. Looking at 460 vs 560 shit now. Looks like the 560 is actually better thus far. Next will be to decide which 1gb 560 to get.

edit:I'm only finding gtx 460 vs gtx 560Ti comparisons.. Don't feel like dishing out money for Ti editions.

Edited by x_byakugan_x, 16 June 2011 - 01:19 AM.

[otaku_4_life]

edit:I'm only finding gtx 460 vs gtx 560Ti comparisons

Well that's interesting, me too...yeah I guess then the 460 is your best option. lol

[x_byakugan_x]

Pretty much one comment about the comparison from looking at 560s on new egg... looking at this card specifically. "super clocked" version of what you showed me.
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814130661



"Other Thoughts: This bad boy is faster than the GTX 460 and is slower than the GTX 560Ti. That is what ALL the respectful review sites are saying. I can say this card flys past the GTX 460 considering I have a GTX 460 in my other system. I just compared them myself "

[teh_HyDr0iD]

Yeah a 560 if you only want 1 card, infact a 560 even if you want to SLI later. I bought my 460s at a really good price 6 months ago so I'm not disappointed and they tear through everything I want to play. Granted I like to run everything I play on low because I mainly play online anyway. In Starcraft 2 on lowest @ 1920x1080 these cards get over 200fps in SLI and BFBC2 I would get 150fps on medium settings (textures high, details high, but effects and shadows on low). But if I run with just 1 it doesn't have quite the same bang. The GTX 460s just scale very well into SLI for their cost.

[Kazaii]

My 6990 is a jet engine, HELL YEAH BABY.

[x_byakugan_x]

Yeah a 560 if you only want 1 card, infact a 560 even if you want to SLI later. I bought my 460s at a really good price 6 months ago so I'm not disappointed and they tear through everything I want to play. Granted I like to run everything I play on low because I mainly play online anyway. In Starcraft 2 on lowest @ 1920x1080 these cards get over 200fps in SLI and BFBC2 I would get 150fps on medium settings (textures high, details high, but effects and shadows on low). But if I run with just 1 it doesn't have quite the same bang. The GTX 460s just scale very well into SLI for their cost.

I find it crazy that you SLI 2 good cards so you can play on the lowest settings.

Ugh now I am on the fence about this again though. 2 threads on OCN say the 560 is worth it only for getting the Ti version... AHH!

Edited by x_byakugan_x, 17 June 2011 - 12:55 AM.

[ThrashTitan]

Is there any reason why you are wanting to stick to nVidia?

[x_byakugan_x]

Maybe I'll get this one... $192 after mail in rebate and instant rebate. A 560Ti.
http://www.newegg.co...2-074-_-Product

No no real reason, got a good ATI to compare it to? I usually like ATI more too.

Edited by x_byakugan_x, 17 June 2011 - 01:27 AM.

[ThrashTitan]

Have a look at the 6950s; my mate recently got the 2GB version, and its running Shogun 2 on max @1680x1050.

[way2lazy2care]

Have a look at the 6950s; my mate recently got the 2GB version, and its running Shogun 2 on max @1680x1050.

VRAM is overrated. Pay more attention to the processor's specs.

VRAM is pretty much an excuse for manufacturers to charge people who like big numbers more money.

[Kazaii]

Especially at 1680x1050 that 2GB won't come in handy. 2560x1600 perhaps or an eyefinity/3D surround setup maybe.