AMD A8-3870k APU benchmarked, with and without 6670 dual graphics. - Page 15

At 1280X1024 you'd be smiling from ear to hear, small monitor aside.

1280x1024 is such a low resolution, even 720P looks 20 times better, and don't even get me started on 1080P...

Yep, you're right they do. However, this system would perform much better, to the point where you could max games out, or get very close. So, for people who don't have a monster monitor, or if such monitors where still available, it'd work out nicely.

Yea, my main issue with that resolution TBH is the 4:3 aspect ratio. I've grown used to 16:9 now

I'm saying I'm playing 2v2 with a 200/200 battle and I'm getting zero slowdown with custom graphics settings. I bumped textures up to ultra, turned terrain up to ultra, turned reflections on, put post-processing at medium, set physics to ultra, and model quality to high (top setting). It's only shaders & the associated settings that absolutely destroys the HD2000. As a result, shaders, lighting, shadows, and effects are set to lowest because in that respect the HD 2000 just can't cut it.

I'm not saying HD 2000 is anywhere near as good as an APU's graphics. An APU should be able to set pretty much every SC2 graphics setting to ultra. But like I said, SC2 can be run on a gpu drawn on a napkin if you don't want to max graphics settings. And if you want to max them, it requires 6670, maybe 6770 -equivalent graphics. It's a CPU-limited game, and can only use 2 cores. Hence the g850, a relatively fast pure dual core, is uniquely suited to it. One would expect even before benchmarking that I'd get better fps than you in late-game scenarios. And I do. It's just the nature of the processors. Of course a game like BF3 wouldn't be playable at any settings on my computer.

Some games just require different hardware than others. SC2, in general, doesn't give a crap what GPU you have, it only cares about the CPU. Similarly, a intel HD 2000 unique heaven benchmark would be moronic. You can just google search the result and see that is vastly inferior to the AMD integrated graphics. But that means precisely nothing for a game like SC2.

i enjoyed 1280x1024... specially in multi Monitor situations which now a days you can get a good 1280x1024 Monitor for around $70 and have a multi monitor solution for around $200-$250. and also to it's not really Low resolution it's within the medium just the aspect ratio makes it appear low. 1366x768 tho can be consider low resolution i have all 2 resolutions on 2 monitors i use even got a 1600x1200 res monitor of course i don't use them all at the same time but i do alot of testing now and then to see what my gains and losses are at those three resolutions which the 1366x768 netting me higher then 1280x1024 by a small margain while the 1600x1200 nets me most lost which is fine for me..
Edited by JunkoXan - 7/5/12 at 9:27am

1600x900 is pretty good not much from my 1440x900 i agree good visuals indeed .

as high as you can with playable frames on compact maps where firefights are at their best and maybe a play through on the most demanding biggest map to get a idea of the medium ^-^ atleast that's what i'd like to see


the OP could maybe be a tad cleaner for those who have difficulty ^-^

An I7-3930 with dual 680's would perform better. So there.