List of graphic cards supported - Page 4

Regnum_Online · 12-06-2011, 11:32 PM

My Geforce GT430 1gb runs the game anywhere from 30-60 fps maxed at 1600x900, but drops lower sometimes when there's a zerg nearby. Still works perfect.

As far as the 315 goes, I'd say you'd be hardpressed to max this game out at playable framerates, atleast at my resolution. It's a little worse than my card it seems, so I'd expect 25-50 fps while grinding, and much less in the warzone. What resolution will you be playing at?

_Emin_ · 12-07-2011, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04523698

Hello
I'll buy a PC with Nividia graphic card geforce 315 M, I was wondering if it's good to play in regnum maximum requirements?
thanks to all who would respond

Nvidia GeForce 315 here,

I play shader 4.0 everything maxed out, no shadows and terrain details, around 50-60 fps with 1600x900

Regnum_Online · 12-07-2011, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Emin_

Nvidia GeForce 315 here,

I play shader 4.0 everything maxed out, no shadows and terrain details, around 50-60 fps with 1600x900

Do terrain details really give you that big of an fps boost? I might have to try it. I know shadows are killer though.

edit: Just started playing skyrim, and I'm getting more fps there than in regnum

Narzoul · 12-07-2011, 10:00 AM

So is it 315 or 315M now? They're completely different cards, first one's for desktop PCs, second one is for notebooks and is certainly slower. If it's a notebook, it may not run at playable framerates with maxed out settings but I predict it should still be playable at lower settings. I have a notebook with a Radeon Mobility HD5470 and Regnum is playable on it. I can't exactly find a lot of benchmark data about the 315M.

There are some comparisons here, but it's mostly just speculation for this card (no numbers in the boxes): http://www.notebookcheck.net/Compute...s.13849.0.html

_Emin_ · 12-07-2011, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnum_Online

Do terrain details really give you that big of an fps boost? I might have to try it. I know shadows are killer though.

edit: Just started playing skyrim, and I'm getting more fps there than in regnum

I don't use terrain details because it's annoying

Quincebo · 12-09-2011, 11:08 AM

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 1024MB
i have 500fps not in war
200-300fps in war
Shader 4.0 max settings

NotScias · 12-09-2011, 04:18 PM

ATI HD 4670 512MB here. 1152x864.
Shaders 4.0. Terrain details, shadows and trails disabled.
Under Linux :
50-70 FPS when idle.
25-40 FPS when warring.
Windows :
Add 15-20 more FPS...

The options that eat the most FPS for me are clearly antialias and terrain details.

Psynocide · 12-09-2011, 11:10 PM

Benchmarking graphics cards has changed in recent years especially when it comes to game performance.
As games become more shading intensive, a good GPU for gaming has become prodigiously based on their shader clock as opposed to their pixel fill rate as was prior to this change.

For example, comparing two similarly priced recent graphics cards from the Radeon and nVidia range.

(Both 2GB models)

Manufacturer: AMD
Series: Radeon HD 6k
GPU: Cayman
Release Date: 2010-12-14
Interface: PCI-E 2.0 x16
Core Clock: 800 MHz
Shader Clock: 800 MHz
Memory Clock: 2500 MHz (5000 DDR)
Memory Bandwidth: 160 GB/sec
FLOPS: 2252.8 GFLOPS
Pixel Fill Rate: 25600 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate: 70400 MTexels/sec

Manufacturer: nVidia
Series: GeForce GTX 500
GPU: GF114
Release Date: 2011-01-25
Interface: PCI-E 2.0 x16
Core Clock: 822 MHz
Shader Clock: 1644 MHz
Memory Clock: 2004 MHz (4008 DDR)
Memory Bandwidth: 128.256 GB/sec
FLOPS: 1262.592 GFLOPS
Pixel Fill Rate: 26304 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate: 52608 MTexels/sec

As is clear above, the Radeon 6950 tops the GTX 560 Ti in almost everything but shader clock, in which the GTX 560 Ti has more than double.
You only need adequate amounts of the other statistics for gaming, these days the shading is what really counts.

If you want to compare graphics cards yourself, here's a link.

http://www.gpureview.com/

12-09-2011, 11:08 AM	#36
Quincebo Baron Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands Posts: 626	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 1024MB i have 500fps not in war 200-300fps in war Shader 4.0 max settings __________________ http://syrtishorus.pixforum.net/ Syrtis trade/fan forum

12-09-2011, 04:18 PM	#37
NotScias Baron Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: /dev/null Posts: 766	ATI HD 4670 512MB here. 1152x864. Shaders 4.0. Terrain details, shadows and trails disabled. Under Linux : 50-70 FPS when idle. 25-40 FPS when warring. Windows : Add 15-20 more FPS... The options that eat the most FPS for me are clearly antialias and terrain details. __________________ 天 The other realm awaits... Now playing much better games

12-09-2011, 11:10 PM	#38
Psynocide Master Join Date: May 2007 Location: Here & There Posts: 439	Benchmarking graphics cards has changed in recent years especially when it comes to game performance. As games become more shading intensive, a good GPU for gaming has become prodigiously based on their shader clock as opposed to their pixel fill rate as was prior to this change. For example, comparing two similarly priced recent graphics cards from the Radeon and nVidia range. (Both 2GB models) Manufacturer: AMD Series: Radeon HD 6k GPU: Cayman Release Date: 2010-12-14 Interface: PCI-E 2.0 x16 Core Clock: 800 MHz Shader Clock: 800 MHz Memory Clock: 2500 MHz (5000 DDR) Memory Bandwidth: 160 GB/sec FLOPS: 2252.8 GFLOPS Pixel Fill Rate: 25600 MPixels/sec Texture Fill Rate: 70400 MTexels/sec Manufacturer: nVidia Series: GeForce GTX 500 GPU: GF114 Release Date: 2011-01-25 Interface: PCI-E 2.0 x16 Core Clock: 822 MHz Shader Clock: 1644 MHz Memory Clock: 2004 MHz (4008 DDR) Memory Bandwidth: 128.256 GB/sec FLOPS: 1262.592 GFLOPS Pixel Fill Rate: 26304 MPixels/sec Texture Fill Rate: 52608 MTexels/sec As is clear above, the Radeon 6950 tops the GTX 560 Ti in almost everything but shader clock, in which the GTX 560 Ti has more than double. You only need adequate amounts of the other statistics for gaming, these days the shading is what really counts. If you want to compare graphics cards yourself, here's a link. http://www.gpureview.com/ __________________ *Psy* Dizzy thumbs, itchy fingers Last edited by isaacrulzrs2; 12-10-2011 at 12:16 AM.

12-06-2011, 11:32 PM	#31
Regnum_Online Initiate Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Okinawa, Japan Posts: 171	My Geforce GT430 1gb runs the game anywhere from 30-60 fps maxed at 1600x900, but drops lower sometimes when there's a zerg nearby. Still works perfect. As far as the 315 goes, I'd say you'd be hardpressed to max this game out at playable framerates, atleast at my resolution. It's a little worse than my card it seems, so I'd expect 25-50 fps while grinding, and much less in the warzone. What resolution will you be playing at?

12-07-2011, 10:00 AM	#34
Narzoul Apprentice Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 88	So is it 315 or 315M now? They're completely different cards, first one's for desktop PCs, second one is for notebooks and is certainly slower. If it's a notebook, it may not run at playable framerates with maxed out settings but I predict it should still be playable at lower settings. I have a notebook with a Radeon Mobility HD5470 and Regnum is playable on it. I can't exactly find a lot of benchmark data about the 315M. There are some comparisons here, but it's mostly just speculation for this card (no numbers in the boxes): http://www.notebookcheck.net/Compute...s.13849.0.html