What FPS to expect in popular games with christmas rig?

[stainer711]

This christmas I am going to replace my x1900xt with a hd4850 on a pc with a core 2 duo 2.53 ghz processor and 2 gigs of ram. I'm looking forward to playing Call of Duty: world at War and Fallout 3 at a constant 60 fps on max settings and 1280x1024 resolution. I already know that Crysis won't be running at a steady 60fps on max, but i'm ok with that. If this won't be possible then I think I'm just going to buy an xbox instead. What do you guys think? Will I be able to maintain 60fps steady in most new games on max with the new card?

 

[AP4LIFETN]

at that resolution, most likely yes

 

[alvoss]

Just curious, what is everyone's fascination with getting 60fps? I thought humans were incapable of noticing a difference after about 40fps. For me anything above 20 especially if it isn't a shooter is fine.

 

[saltynay]

Debateable how much the human eye can register I generally hold the view that 40-60 is a good range to be at. The monitor also refreshs at 75fps so you can't go higher then that anyway even though the graphics cards will output past that amount the screen can't do anything about it

 

[dario03]

I don't know about Fallout 3 but COD should. Well maybe not max AA, its been a long time since I played COD4 (same requirement IIRC) and I recall haveing very high settings with a slower 8800gt.

Also why do people always want MAX settings or else? You know lots of computer games will look better than a 360 game without max settings. I can't MAX Crysis but its still the best looking FPS I've played. And my not completely maxed COD4 looked a lot better than my friends Xbox360 COD4.

Plus does anybody know in comparison what settings and frames per second would you need to match a 360???

 

[waytoosmall]

Plus does anybody know in comparison what settings and frames per second would you need to match a 360???

I've seen this question asked a lot and I have never seen anyone answer it. But I can say that I agree with the previous poster in that games look better on PC, even when they are not maxed out. The Xbox 360 is essentially a pc, that can't be upgraded. I have a Ps3 I use as a blue ray player, and I made the mistake of buying GTA 4 to see what the fuss about. I cannot use a gamepad after years of mouse and keyboard, and I could see the graphics stuttering. I made it about 10 minutes then gave the game to my cousin. After you have played PC games for years, consoles are such a step backwards....

 

[Druid]

It does that with oblivion too. It's a good thing that game is too boring for me to waste my time with though, both of them.

 

[asusfreak44]

Its funny how Crysis is used as the benchmark of how badass your videocard is. Who cares... Crysis sucks, and the programmers coded a crappy engine, which is why the game is such a resource hog!

 

[dhgunit]

I can tell a difference between 30-40 FPS to 60 FPS.

 

[dario03]

Its funny how Crysis is used as the benchmark of how badass your videocard is. Who cares... Crysis sucks, and the programmers coded a crappy engine, which is why the game is such a resource hog!

There was only a slight mention of Crysis in this thread... And plenty of people like Crysis (Warhead). I personally thought it was a great game and the multiplayer is great. Plus even if you can't max it, it still looks great. And I don't see how the arguably best looking fps made is coded bad, boo hoo nobody can play it maxed. They made it with future hardware in mind. Sure they could of coded it better but if it was truely crap code then there would be other games that looked better on my mid range system. And there is not...

And using the most demanding game to compare video cards makes perfect sense and has always been done. Doom 3, FarCry, etc, etc.

/RANT