Which video card - confused...

[Yellow14150]

Please let me know how that 7970 runs the game. I have a 6850 in about the same computer as you, but my framerates not always to great, about 35 with grass, trees/forests, and shadows off, landscape to medium. Anyone else run the 6850? It's great when I'm over 2km, I get 60 fps then. I've already overclocked too. Thanks.

[tools4fools]

With the 7950 3GB I get about 60, low over the water or coast, 10-20 planes. No probs at all so far.
Mind you, that's out of the box, no patches at all, didn't go down that road yet due to slow internet...
+++++

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by tools4fools

With the 7950 3GB I get about 60, low over the water or coast, 10-20 planes. No probs at all so far.
Mind you, that's out of the box, no patches at all, didn't go down that road yet due to slow internet...
+++++

Nice! congrats!

Please, if you ever have some free time, post your screen resolution and graphic details settings (grass, shadows etc etc - usually a screenshot of the CoD Video page is the easiest).

And the most important: tell us what is the max VRAM usage you have experienced while playing (the highest we have heard of was 2,4Gb VRAM while flying over London).

~S~

[Stublerone]

I am using a watercooled Asus HD 7970 @ 1,3 Ghz/1675 MHz Ram and I currently reach up to 2,7 GB of vram usage in some benchmark tracks.

In CoD, you can see, that the bigger memory is an advantage over the 680, and as far as I get the news from luthier right, I do not see any memory reduction in the performance patch, which some of the guys stiyll think.
As far as I remember right, he told us something about multicore cpu usage (thread using) and afterwards something about longer loading times, cause they will load more map details just at the beginning. This will be in general the normal ram, but it perhaps also takes some advantages of the graphics ram ( we dont know).

So, if we will have a decrease of RAM usage? - We don't know!
If we will have an even bigger advantage on performance with more vram? - We don't know!

Normally I am a Nvidia fanboy, but for my current games, I see no advantage or better say some disadvantages with the new nvidia 680!!! Sure, that a 4 GB version of the 680 could be an alternative, it will ne just too expensive and do not solve the problem for higher resolutions.

So, I just can recommend the ATI's this time, if you are driving higher resolutions than 2560 x 2440 or even eyefinity setups.
But if you really can wait and money is no problem, the next kepler will blow ati away so far. But ati will also introduce an answer. But personally I think, that this years crown of graphics cards is already reseved for nvidia,. Just to make it clear: NOT for the 680 (although i was really stunned, that the smaller kepler reaches that class).

Looking forward to your comments.

[tools4fools]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

Nice! congrats!

Please, if you ever have some free time, post your screen resolution and graphic details settings (grass, shadows etc etc - usually a screenshot of the CoD Video page is the easiest).

And the most important: tell us what is the max VRAM usage you have experienced while playing (the highest we have heard of was 2,4Gb VRAM while flying over London).

~S~

Res is 1920x1080, graphic details are maxed out I think.
How can I see the usage of the VRAM? Somewhere on that Catalyst Control Center?

Will get the screenies in about two weeks, off to Laos tomorrow for a while...

[Stublerone]

Just my setup info for resolution: I am running a 24" 120Hz monitor currently, but I hope to switch to 3 x 27" setup (preferrably with a higher resolution, than 1080p on the single monitor.

[335th_GRAthos]

Safe trip!

~S~