Star wars the force unleashed GPUs

apull

Distinguished
Nov 2, 2009
5
0
18,510
Ok, so you very well may know that Star Wars: The Force Unleashed for PC can now be pre-ordered (comes out tomorrow) and I'm dying to play.

Unfortunately, my 8600GTS is below minimum system requirements (8800)! (I know, crazy!)

So, I need to upgrade. They recommend a 4870 or 9800GT, but I wonder if a 4850 might not get the job done credibly--after all, it's better than the 9800GT.

I have a crossfire Mobo, so here's the question:

1) does anyone know if I put say a 4850 in if I can also use my 8600GTS for Physx?

2) does anyone have any doubts that a 4850 will play StarCraft 2 quite nicely? I don't want to be upgrading again in 2 months. why can't blizzard just post some friggin system requirements?! at least "suggestions" to get us a ballpark idea. i don't want to be playing this game in 1024x768 with no AA because i foolishly spent my upgrade budget early to play the force unleashed.

3) does anyone know where i can get a 4850 or 4870 cheap? looking back through some old slickdeals posts I saw a 4870 once went for about $73, and i would have definitely jumped on that had i known!

I'd prefer to go ATI b/c my mobo is xFire, and i can use triple monitors by using my onboard graphics if i stick an ATI card in there. also, i can't really justify spending more than $100 on a graphics card at this point, so don't start telling me how great the HD 5000 series is.
 
Solution
The 4850/70 are pretty good cards, though you probably want to get the 4870 for higher resolutions (1920). Unfortunately though, I imagine the prices on the 4800s will stay steady or go up until the new cards are out in larger amounts.
Your best bet is to save up. New games are going to be coming out, and those games just might end up using direct-X11. You'll feel sorry when you realize you have to upgrade again because you wanted a card now (hey, isn't this what you're trying to avoid? :lol:)

As for the PhysX, I believe that is only possible with Windows 7, using some sort of hacked driver (because nVidia sht themselves in the foot by making PhysX not work when an ATI card was present).
 

apull

Distinguished
Nov 2, 2009
5
0
18,510
gah! i'm not too worried about dx-11 for a few reasons:

1) you still don't even need dx-10 for anything.
2) i'm not a huge gamer as it is, but will want something for christmas break this year
3) regardless of how long i save, i still can't justify spending money on cutting-edge stuff when yesterday's goods get to be cheap--and it will be a long time before the dx11 cards get to that place.

thanks for the tip on physx though, i'm running windows 7 and will look into the hacked driver stuff.
 

RealityRush

Distinguished
Oct 14, 2009
484
0
18,790


o_O

Woa woa woa dude

1) PhysX, in my humble opinion, is not a good reason to buy a certain card. The tech itself isn't that amazing and you are just supporting nVidia's physics tech tyrany. PhsyX will be old hat in a year or two, don't make that the reason to buy a card.

2) DX11 on the other hand, can be a good reason in the next couple months when the nVidia Fermi cards come out. There's ALREADY games with DX11, and a ton of great titles are following soon, including AvP3. If AvP3 isn't a good enough reason for you, you're a lost cause :p

So here's my advice. Wait until February 2010, the GT300's will be out likely by then, at which point ATI will drop the prices on their cards. So at that time, you can, for a relatively cheap price, grab an ATI 5800 series card with DX11 support, or buy (what seems like it will be the performance king WITH DX11 support) a GT300 series card for more money and be futureproofed for a while (unless something crazy happens with technology that requires a drastic change).


EDIT: I reread your post and realized you didn't want to buy a card for PhysX, but just wanted to use your current nVidia card for it in conjunction with an ATI card..... still not worth the hassle of hacking it.... PhysX will always be a waste of time.
 

apull

Distinguished
Nov 2, 2009
5
0
18,510
@RealityRush -- you entirely missed reading MY needs and jumped to what you'd be looking for.

I'm not a hardcore gamer--I don't have the time nor patience for it. I'm married, I have a job, I'm a full-time grad student, and I'm doing a part-time internship this year. christmas break will be BEFORE february, and thus to enjoy a game or two over that time period requires i buy before the GT300 series hits.

However, I want a card that will play The Force Unleashed and StarCraft 2 well--I'm not trying to stay ahead of any curve here, I just don't want to get hosed by buying just barely too little of a card. i spent $49 after rebate on an 8600 GTS a year and a half ago, and it's kept me relatively happy--i wouldn't even be looking at upgrading until the release of SC2 except that TFU won't play on my card.

TFU apparently is capped at 30fps (lame console port), so I want something that will do that 30fps, considering an 8800 is the minimum specs for the game, and a 4870 is recommended.

No one knows what the heck SC2 is really going to leverage. You may be able to "run it" on low spec'd machines, but i don't want that crap: i want to set 'er to 1920x1080 with at least most of the eye candy on. conjectures?
 


You get what you pay for. If you want games to run good on high resolutions with good detail, you save up your money to get a decent card, not an out-of-tech card..
 

apull

Distinguished
Nov 2, 2009
5
0
18,510
well, if you consider they've been working on starcraft 2 for over 2.5 years, the 4850 would be futuristic tech, right? :-D

let's see--buy and play 2 games on a $300 card = ~$190/game.

buy and play 2 games on a $75 dollar card = $80/game.

furthermore, my CPU is only a 7850 Kuma, meaning it's likely going to be the bottleneck. suddenly, spending an extra $100 or more on a gfx card is costing me a CPU upgrade as well.

but i digress. can you read this part here again: "I'm not a hardcore gamer." i don't need the HIGHEST settings, i just don't want to be stuck in 1280x1024. if i wanted to know what is the best card to buy "period" was, I would have asked for it.

literally, i will have time to probably play 3 games in the next year. if a 4850 is sufficient, i can save a lot of money. in a year, if it's insufficient, and if i'm still gaming, i can buy the 5800 series for a heck of a lot cheaper, or crossFire in another 4850, which will be dirt cheap by then--no, it won't have dx11, but i'm still waiting for that dx10 revolution to happen.

every time i read someone ask "what's the best card for me to buy" i see the same answers "well, what's your budget?" so...i provide a budget, and everyone tells me to spend three times that. what gives? budget = "I can't/won't spend more!"
 


You just don't get it, do you?

I'm telling you we can not deliver the performance you expect within your budget! You might end up regretting your purchase.
 
The 4850/70 are pretty good cards, though you probably want to get the 4870 for higher resolutions (1920). Unfortunately though, I imagine the prices on the 4800s will stay steady or go up until the new cards are out in larger amounts.
 
Solution

If a 4850 is limit that your budget can/will stretch to then just get one and be done, there is no use fretting over whether it will be good enough in a years time or not or whether it will play certain games at certain settings or not.
 


That's a good point. If you know what your budget is, and you know what the best card for the budget is, then why do you ask? If you're so adamant about it, then stop.
 

1ce

Distinguished
May 29, 2009
85
0
18,630
What you might be able to do is look up some game benchmarks once the game is actually released. Then you will have a much better idea of whether it will run to your expectations. Depending on the popularity of the game, a benchmark may not happen for the 4850...but if it's coming out tomorrow you might as well wait a couple days and google for a benchmark.

Other than that, I have to agree with mousemonkey. Either buy the best card you can get now in your budget, or if you're more comfortable waiting until some system requirements for SC2 are released then don't buy a card now.
 

apull

Distinguished
Nov 2, 2009
5
0
18,510


thanks guys, esp ext64.

the answer "a 4850 probably won't handle 1920 on SC2" (while not what i'd LIKE to hear) is the type of answer i was looking for.

in reading a bit more on the 5700 series, they don't seem too appealing at their price points (eyefinity looks cool, but i don't need 6 monitors). guess i'll have to wait for the 5800 series to ramp up production and availability and see what 4800 series prices look like in early/mid december as companies get desperate for more q4 sales in a soft retail environment.
 
Well, it is a really hard call until the game is tested on the card, and if it is capped at 30FPS, then even less card is required. However, although I think the 4850 was a great card back when it was released (obviously as I have two) I think now the minimum you would want to get is a 4870, and obviously the 5000 line would be nice, though as with all new tech, if you remove its new features (DX11, etc.) it is not that great compared to the best of last gen for the price. So, to sum it all up, the best case is that you can find someone playing the game on one of the cards of interest and see how it runs for them. If you can't find that once it is released, I'd say get a 4870 or better, as that is still a very solid card in even the most demanding games.