Remember back when there was just one powerhouse Nvidia 6700 or something similar? Just one single beast on the market that could carry games for ten years straight, making a few ATI cards look like absolute jokes by comparison. Simple. Now? There are 2,000 different damn cards out there and you can't tell one from the other. For heaven's sake, don't start defending capitalism to me; graphics didn't evolve just so we could be forced to hunt for $667 cards just to meet minimum specs. You'll probably all jump down my throat like usual, but as this other gamer mentioned, there are still plenty of beautiful classics left to play. Personally, I'm an old-school FPS guy. I haven't even touched System Shock 2 or Requiem yet, and I’d love to tear through some Blood titles too. I just finished setting up Reckoning Evil and Ground Zero for Quake II. There is so much good material out there, dammit, rather than me dropping a thousand bucks just to be disappointed by modern attempts at imitating those classics. No thanks. I certainly don't need American imperialism and their wars and occupations delivered via "hyper-realistic" graphics, by the way. Honestly, when I saw that weird hand-waving animation in Doom, it actually made me nauseous. And I bet Crysis 3 is something else entirely, especially since you can find it at the local Best Buy for $25 here in . ps. I was reading some legend who reviews stuff over at PC Gamer—he says all these new games are total garbage, so he said that he's going to reinstall F.E.A.R. because there's absolutely nothing worth playing these days.
I’ve got the processor sorted out, but my power supply is sitting at 550 W, and honestly, brothers, these modern games are just too demanding. I can't help but wonder if developers are intentionally optimizing things this way just to force us all into buying a new graphics card. It feels like they could easily run everything on older hardware; take >, for example. They slapped that > requirement on it, even though it probably could have run beautifully on version 10. They should have offered it as an alternative setting, much like how some other titles actually do. Simply put, the graphics in these new releases don't look like they truly require such an insane configuration. Just look at something like Doom—it's pretty much the baseline standard.
I have been running an Nvidia 9800 GT for what feels like an eternity now, but I am finally itching to play the new Doom and Crysis 3. The problem is, I am completely stuck because of DirectX 11 requirements. What kind of suitable card could I possibly cram into my old desktop bucket? It’s currently rocking an Intel Core 2 Duo at 3.00 GHz with 4 GB of RAM. Please help—I desperately want to get into these games, but this ancient graphics card is holding me hostage. To be honest, I am feeling a bit lost; there are just way too many cards flooding the market these days. Many thanks,
If I’m looking to build a rig specifically to run GTA 5 and The Witcher 3, honestly, I might be better off just keeping my money in my pocket. It feels like a total waste. Just give me one solid recommendation for a GPU that won't require me to drop $1,000 out of nowhere. Look, I’m writing this with a completely level head—I'm not even worked up about it—but xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ...if you want that kind of performance, you can certainly finance it yourselves!
Chris Robinson25 said:It’s high time you upgraded to a new rig. 😉
But absolutely not—I am still running modern titles with my /+GT 9800/ setup, excluding absolute garbage like The Witcher 3, though I can actually handle Crysis 3 thanks to that DX patch they released. Honestly, your parents must be made of money, and you lot are acting like spoiled brats being handed massive sums of cash just to buy fancy graphics cards. Are you people even living in America? What kind of income levels are we talking about here? A "new computer"? Please. Why don't one of you self-proclaimed geniuses name two reasonable games that my current machine couldn't push through? It’s an old beast, sure, but it works, dammit! This isn't the 2000-2005 era when hardware specs were doubling every six months...
You all are absolutely losing it with those price points... please, get a grip and just give me one solid recommendation for a GPU under $100 that won't leave me stranded when I try to play new releases. It doesn't have to run everything on ultra settings, obviously,
Here is what else is sitting in my rig:
an Intel Core Duo at 3.0GHz 4 GB of RAM and a 550W power supply
Larry Ortiz5 said:Jesse Brown90, I see you're just messing with us at this point. 😬 Every other month you come back here asking the exact same question; we give you a solid GPU recommendation, and then you loop right back to square one. Honestly, if you're actually enjoying this endless cycle of frustration, just stick with your current setup and call it a day. Or better yet, go watch a trailer for Crysis 3—maybe there’s some magical loophole where you don't even need a DirectX 11 card to run the game.
Look, you’re looking at a relic from 2008 here. It runs just about everything except Crysis 3, simply because of that ridiculous DirectX 11 requirement. Honestly, I figured that given the state of the GPU market during that specific era—where we saw a massive shift across several hardware generations —I could probably snag something slightly better than my current setup for next to nothing. I was hunting for an Nvidia GeForce 9800 gt for pennies, thinking maybe I could find something from 2010 or 2011 where the prices have absolutely cratered. For what it's worth, this Nvidia piece of kit is actually decent, but god almighty, the fan noise is unbearable; once you shut down the PC, you can still hear the hum ringing in your ears..
Processor : Intel dual Core E5700 3.00 Memory : 2048MB(Speed 800)?😲 Mother Board : Gigabyte Technology Co. Windows Version : Microsoft Windows Vista Installation Date : 2012-02-09 Monitor : Generic PnP Monitor Video Adapter : Nvidia GeForce 9800 gt Mouse : Logitech USB WheelMouse Keyboard Keyboard : Standard PS/2 Keyboard Disk Drive : WDC WD6400AAKS-00A7B2 ATA Device(596GB, IDE) DVD/CD-ROM Drive : HL-DT-ST DVD-RAM GH22NS30 ATA Device
I honestly can't wrap my head around why the system is reporting only 2048MB of memory when I clearly have 4 gigabytes installed.;(/glary utulities inf/😲
I’m trying to get Crysis 3 up and running, but I’ve hit a brick wall because of some DirectX 11 issue, and frankly, I’m at a loss here. Why on earth isn't there a patch released to address this? My current Radeon card is supposed to support DirectX 11, if I recall correctly, so I don't understand the bottleneck. Why do these manufacturers insist on churning out such mediocre hardware instead of designing cards that can actually chew through modern titles at lower resolutions, much like how things used to be back in the day? Games aren't even advancing in complexity at nearly the same rate they demand more power, yet it feels like these manufacturers are practically in a race to see who can release the most obsolete piece of silicon first.
Hey, Benjamin King2, give me your honest take on this one: -Sapphire ATI Radeon™ HD 5450, Look, I’m not some hardcore enthusiast trying to crank every setting to ultra; I usually just stick to 1200x700. For my purposes, it’s perfectly fine to squeeze a little life out of games running at those lower resolutions.
I honestly find it hard to wrap my head around it—that 9800 from the rig I picked up way back in 2008 is still out here kicking butt and making modern hardware look bad. It’s almost insulting, really. If memory serves me right, that old 6600 card held its own just as long as a minimum spec requirement for countless new titles. Anyway, thanks for the advice; trying to navigate all these specs feels like being lost in a dense forest without a compass. It used to be simple: you had a couple of mid-range and low-end options, maybe a few high-end ones if you were feeling flush, and that was the end of it. Now? It’s just an absolute jungle of confusing nonsense.
I honestly can’t wrap my head around this logic, nor can I seem to follow the thread here. My intention was simply to pick up a dedicated GPU for DirectX 1 support, assuming that such an upgrade would absolutely demolish these older cards in every conceivable metric. Are you suggesting that the old GT 2x, 4x, or 5x series actually outperforms newer hardware across the board? It defies all common sense. If that's the case, I might as well just stick with my 9800; Crysis is clearly out of the question unless some miracle DX10 patch magically appears out of thin air.
So, what is your professional assessment of this particular option?
MSI Video Card Radeon HD 6570 GDDR3 1GB/128bit, 650MHz/1334MHz, PCI-E 2.1 x16, HDMI, DVI, Dual
Andrew Fox74 said:First, you were hunting for a card more powerful than yours to handle $167, then suddenly you start acting like a tough guy claiming your current setup can run anything you throw at it. I honestly don't see the logic here. Either commit to buying the upgrade or just stick with what you've got. Grow up, kid.
Listen, you absolute clown, you clearly need a crash course in basic reading comprehension and logic. I was originally setting aside some cash for the Skyrim HD texture pack, but once I realized how much of a resource hog that would be, I decided to pivot my budget toward the Shark instead. You're being ridiculous.