What card can maxout crysis 2 dx11 high res texture at full hd ?

[bystander]

how about 2 of HD 6850 for $310 or 2 of gtx 460 for $300 .. nvidia has physics nice

PhysX is what you mean. They both can perform physics with the right engine. PhysX is a special physics engine made by Nvidia, which both can use in most cases, as most games that use PhysX, use it on the CPU. However, there are 20ish games (probably growing closer to 25 by now) that can benefit from GPU accelerated physX. These games do better with the Nvidia cards. Crysis and Crysis 2 do not use PhysX.

 

[hameem 1]

the human eye can only see 30 fps 40 maximum any thing higher "will make the game run faster as celpas said" (like when reload you weapon) and as DICE interactive studio confirmed that the console version of BF3 will run at 30 fps, that should be enough for as to relays that 30 fps is what should we seek, and any thing more will be unnecessary or like a preparation for tougher games that coming up.. but that's just my opinion.

 

[hameem 1]

Read through this for insight about how sensitive the human eye is. http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

As for simulator sickness: http://www.siggraph.org/education/materials/HyperVis/virtual.env/percept.iss/simulate.htm
For me, this simulator sickness occurs most severely when I have FPS below 40 in a first person or over the shoulder view. I'm not 100% sure if it's the actual FPS, or if it's the delay in responsiveness that causes it. Maybe both. Lower FPS also comes with lower responsiveness in a game.

To see if you can see a difference at 30 FPS and 120 FPS, you can attempt playing a game like Crysis at high FPS, and try spinning around fast. You'll notice it becomes very choppy if motion blur is turned off. If you lower the settings so you gain 60+ FPS and do the same, it becomes smoother. With 120hz monitor, it's much smoother yet.

Human can only see 30 fps 35 maximum and as "celpas" has said that more fps than 40 will only make the game run faster than normal like when reload the weapon, and as DICE interactive studio has confirmed that the console version of BF3 will run at 30 FPS , that should be enough for as to relays that 30-40 is all what should we seek and any thing more will be unnecessary or a preparation for up coming tougher games.
but that just my opinion .. what you think ?

 

[bystander]

You obviously did not read my link on the subject.

 

[hameem 1]

PhysX is what you mean. They both can perform physics with the right engine. PhysX is a special physics engine made by Nvidia, which both can use in most cases, as most games that use PhysX, use it on the CPU. However, there are 20ish games (probably growing closer to 25 by now) that can benefit from GPU accelerated physX. These games do better with the Nvidia cards. Crysis and Crysis 2 do not use PhysX.

So what you are saying is that we can enable the physix future in the game setting like mafia II with an AMD graphic card ?? i thought that only nvidia card can do that and not all the nvidia's cards

 

[Mousemonkey]

Human can only see 30 fps 35 maximum and as "celpas" has said that more fps than 40 will only make the game run faster than normal like when reload the weapon, and as DICE interactive studio has confirmed that the console version of BF3 will run at 30 FPS , that should be enough for as to relays that 30-40 is all what should we seek and any thing more will be unnecessary or a preparation for up coming tougher games.
but that just my opinion .. what you think ?

I think you are wrong, I can see more than 35 fps. Perhaps I'm just a more advanced being than you are! :lol:

 

[bystander]

The human eye does not see FPS. It senses change. The human eye, in the right conditions can notice change at 1/1000th of a second (1000 FPS), and in other circumstances, it cannot hardly tell the difference between 2 FPS.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

 

[bystander]

So what you are saying is that i we can enable the physix future in the game setting like mafia II with an AMD graphic card ?? i thought that only nvidia card can do that

Mafia II falls under the category of those 20-25 games I mentioned. It can be turned on without an Nvidia card, but the results will be bad.

 

[wolfram23]

Eyes do not have "refresh rates" so you can't really put a framerate on what the eye can see. It doesn't work like a monitor.

Without motion blur built in, you need a pretty high refresh rate to see it smoothly. With motion blur, you can get away with less. That's why film is fine at 24fps, the film itself includes the blur.

Anyway read bystander's link. Like it says, you could see a flash of light that lasts only 1/220th of a second - that's 220FPS.

 

[hameem 1]

I think you are wrong, I can see more than 35 fps. Perhaps I'm just a more advanced being than you are! :lol:

i think that i thought so because i didn't tried to play games on a high fps 🙁

 

[hameem 1]

motion blur is like the response time in a monitor .. right ?
cuz you can't see a clear moving subject if you response time is 10ms
and you can see a clear image with 2ms without ghosting right ??
am so confused

 

[bystander]

motion blur is like the response time in a monitor .. right ?
cuz you can't see a clear moving subject if you response time is 10ms
and you can see a clear image with 2ms without ghosting right ??
am so confused

No, motion blur is caused by leaving the shutter of a camera open long enough to capture a more than an instantaneous picture per frame. It will instead gather a blurred image as things more from one point to another.

It's similar to those pictures were you see a highway with streaks of light due to the picture leaving the shutter open long enough that it's as if you took 100 pictures in a few seconds, and put them all together to make one blurred image.

 

[hameem 1]

ok .. am thinking about getting acer G235HQ@24 inch monitor with 120hz 5ms response time.. to be able to Experience what ya all taking about with 120hz.
any recommendations about what graphic card to get (gtx 460-6850-6790-550ti)~$150
and play MW3 and BF3 and dirt3 and others .

 

[bystander]

ok .. am thinking about getting acer G235HQ@24 inch monitor with 120hz 5ms response time.. to be able to Experience what ya all taking about with 120hz.
any recommendations about what graphic card to get (gtx 460-6850-6790-550ti)~$150
and play MW3 and BF3 and dirt3 and others .

I was going to say that the response time does not seem correct for a 120hz monitor. You listed it wrong, it's actually 2ms.

Check out this review and make sure it sounds like what you want: http://www.hitechreview.com/it-products/monitors/acer-gd235hz/21785/

I personally like 3D gaming a lot. Having over 120hz for normal gaming won't always be as apparent as you might be hoping, but if you are in 1st person and turn a lot, it is noticeably better if you have the hardware to generate near 120 FPS. I also have noticed that when I have brightness at 25% (when not in 3D, you don't need a much brightness), my older monitor looks old and dingy and not as crisp.

 

[alextheawesome]

ok .. am thinking about getting acer G235HQ@24 inch monitor with 120hz 5ms response time.. to be able to Experience what ya all taking about with 120hz.
any recommendations about what graphic card to get (gtx 460-6850-6790-550ti)~$150
and play MW3 and BF3 and dirt3 and others .

You're not going to get anything out of the 120hz with a sub-par graphics card.

 

[wolfram23]

On one hand, 120hz is great and allows 3D vision. On the other hand, it's expensive and you'll need to get a midrange card that won't max out games at 120fps. So, you'll sacrifice graphic quality to gain smoother gameplay. The question to you is whether that's worthwhile? IMO, I'd rather 60fps maxed out than 120fps on medium. But then, I'd probably rather play in 3D than anything else lol. I think that's going to be my next upgrade when the new gen of cards comes out.

 

[hameem 1]

Acer G245HQ is the cheapest 24 inch monitor i can find for $170 and its nvidia 3d vesion ready with impressive design, but no one has answer me (gtx 460 or hd 6850 or 550 ti or hd 6790) and why ?? so i can enhance it with another one like it in the future when i have the money so i can enjoy the 120 fps yaeh

 

[bystander]

Definitely go Nvidia for 3D vision. AMD's version maxes out at 720p and it doesn't have as good of software support.

But as people above have mentioned, to see an improvement with a 120hz monitor, you need to have over 60 FPS in the games you play and you see more improvement as you get near 120 FPS. To play in 3D requires your card to generate twice as many frames to see the same FPS as you do in 2D.

That means you will need a lot of graphical horsepower, more than any of those cards, unless you turn down the graphics settings quite a bit.

 

[hameem 1]

Definitely go Nvidia for 3D vision. AMD's version maxes out at 720p and it doesn't have as good of software support.

But as people above have mentioned, to see an improvement with a 120hz monitor, you need to have over 60 FPS in the games you play and you see more improvement as you get near 120 FPS. To play in 3D requires your card to generate twice as many frames to see the same FPS as you do in 2D.

That means you will need a lot of graphical horsepower, more than any of those cards, unless you turn down the graphics settings quite a bit.

so.. what card to chose because am not really into the 3d games .. actually i don't like 3d games ..so idont care if the card is nvidia or amd just locking for the best "FPD~frame per dollar"
and yeah .. if you got any recommendations for a better monitor that doesn't support 3d vision for 170 or LESS that will be great to any way 🙁

 

[wolfram23]

For what you listed the 6850 and 550Ti are probably the best choices, but I'd really suggest going with at least a 6870, 560, or 560 Ti for 1080p and crossfire/SLI another one later.

 

[bystander]

I'd suggest not getting the monitor, but instead investing in the graphical horsepower first. The 120hz monitor won't really give you much benefit except with a powerful system, but power graphics cards will give you a benefit now, at least when playing high end games.

 

[hameem 1]

i have LG 17 inch monitor @ 75hz .. and i hate playing at low res .. so am going to change it any recommendations.. $170 full HD monitor ?? better than the acer
g245HQ without 3D support ???

 

[bystander]

i have LG 17 inch monitor @ 75hz .. and i hate playing at low res .. so am going to change it any recommendations.. $170 full HD monitor ?? better than the acer
g245HQ without 3D support ???

Ah, ok, in that case then if you do want to eventually start using 3D in the next year or 2, or want to use the 120hz in the near future, then it would make sense to go ahead and get the 3D monitor you listed before or one similar. While you won't be able to fully take advantage of it, it can be seen as an investment for the future. If you get a cheap monitor now, you may want to replace it in a year or 2.

 

[hameem 1]

you seem didn't got what i said before ..
the cheapest 24 inch monitor i found is the aser G245HQ for $170
but it has the 3D future that i don't want because i don't like 3D games and am not planing to play them in the future.
so am asking if any one suggest a monitor with the same price and size.

 

[wolfram23]

I find it hard to believe you found a 3D, 24.5" 120hz monitor for only $170! That's either a crazy good deal or a piece of *** monitor lol. The cheapest one at my local computer store is $320 🙁