Originally Posted by Kramy
This is slightly off-topic; when building my computer, I chose 1280x1024 and 1440x900 monitors. Why? Because I knew next-gen games would be super demanding, and I can't afford $500 videocards every 6 months.
So I got a cheap 7900GS, which can play most
current games at the above resolutions, w/ 4xAA, at over 20fps. If I need higher FPS in a game, I just drop the AA and it runs great.
Same here... I used to have a 20 widescreen but the hit for oblivion was a bit too much at the time when I had a 7900gt. I currently have a standard 19 and I am considering going widescreen, but I probably will end up going with a 19 since the performance hit isn't worth it. On the other hand the 20 has a smaller pixel pitch making AA almost pointless, so that can make up for the performance loss. I am kind of an eye-candy type though, I wouldn't have forked the cash for this fancy gaming system just to get xbox360 like graphics with no AA
I am thinking (hoping) that I will be able to max Crysis on my current rig. If not it looks like I am going to be one sad (and broke) panda.
Originally Posted by honmon
I am so freaking tired of hearing the ATI and Nvidia fanboys go back and forth about which card is better, you're destroying a great forum. I've read OCN for 3 years now and this is my first post, which sadly I am using to address this issue because it has become so annoying.
Now if possible lets go back to discussing how it is rumored that Crysis is out of alpha. I'm stoked, I think this game will as good or better than Far Cry was in its day.
edit: Haha wow! Hardcore lurker. Good post though... that's how I feel. I was defending the 2900 and I still was getting called a fanboy in some of the R600 threads and look at the card in my sig \\/\\/\\/
I really don't understand this intense urge that some people feel to justify the validity of their own purchases by trying to boast superiority over strangers on the internet.