Which graphics card is better
Maple story Forums : Maple Story Tech Help & Patches : Talk about problems with Maple Story and Patches Thread starter
 I'm getting this on a mac and I was wondering, if I use the emulator would the quality of the windows portion be any lower than that of the Leopard. I posted here because I am sick and tired of the choppy and laggy graphics and I was getting new mac pro anyways. Click here if you think this post is particularly interesting or helpful.
Replies
Yes. Of course
freddyfish: Yes. Of course ? Depends what you use the graphics cards for, if its just for maple its overkill either one of them so i would go with the cheapest option
P.S i have the ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB x2 running in crossfire HD4870 > GT120 (rebranded 9500GT, if I'm not mistaken)
Next time, post this in the Non-MS Tech. Edit: vRAM doesn't matter that much, as the only reason you would need more if you are going to play the game at a very high resolution. Worry more about the performance actual GPU. oh sorry I didn't know. Mods please move the post. I'll also be playing counter strike, so would the extra MB on the nvidia make it better?
Jazzman180: oh sorry I didn't know. Mods please move the post. I'll also be playing counter strike, so would the extra MB on the nvidia make it better? For CS, you could do that with the GT120. Any other games (name the most intensive games you got)? And no, you wouldn't noticed any difference between the two, whether it's 512MB or 1GB. Unless you need it when you are playing the game at high resolution. Edit: Anyways, if you are playing more intensive games or planning to, I would get the 4870. If it's just CS, just get the GT120. if I play cs and maple in high resolution can I stick with the ATI? or would the x2 nvidia be better, and if it is aren't the graphics choppy, other wise I can stick with normal resolution
I am a fanboy supporting the green camp and have been since I learnt what a video card actually did. However I'm not blinded by green in comparisons that have statistics backing them up. In this case the ATI 4870 is indeed as some have already pointed out > than the GT 120 in this comparison. In saying that I don't have any stat's to back up my hypothesis however I had a feeling as though it was a re-naming of a previous card possibly the 9500 GT as qwan456 has pointed out.
One of the reasons that ATI stops/stopped me in my tracks is the driver support (or at least it used to). To this day Catalyst drivers are nearing the gap between Nvidia's seemingly fast paced optimsed drivers that they frequently bring out. It used to take ATI a lot longer to get thier stuff together when it came to graphic card drivers however as I said it has almost become a level playing field in this respect when comparing the Green and the Red camps. /rambling Edit: For future reference generally speaking you run into far less trouble if you just stick to a single card (GPU) solution as opposed to two cards in SLi or CrossfireX. Less driver support needed and no microstuttering noticed (generally for 'X2' cards althought it can affect cards manually put into Sli or CrossfireX since they are essentially the same thing). Edit:Edit: It depends on which Counter Strike game you are playing as the earlier versions require some what less computing power (now days) to maintain an aesthetically pleasing visual appearance. Counter Strike Source, the most recent game in the Counter Strike franchise (or in the Steam family) would require more graphics processing power than Counter Strike 1.6/ condition Zero but not by much. On a GTX 260 (the Non Mobile edition = For A PC not a Laptop) I am getting approximately 300 Frames per second at 1920x1200 on a 26" screen (I know it's not the 'Legit' for a 'Real Gamer' but hey I love it =P) with everything maxed. It dips as low as 150 FPS however about 70% of the time it maintains 300 FPS. SO what this essentially means is if you are running CS:S at a lower resolution with the same processing power (I think the 4870 is almost equal to a GTX 260 - 216 core) in power. So you should be getting very similar FPS which I get. It also comes down to your processor, ram, hdd speed, mobo connections and all that jazz however getting to the point again (for the 3rd time) it will be about that FPS possibly a tad less if your other laptop components are running at slower speeds / aren't as good. ATI HD4870 > Nvidia GT 120 (1). ATI HD4870 is way better than the Nvidia GT 120 in every way. If you want to save up money I think the Nvidia GT 120 is better to go with BUT I recommend getting the HD4870 because you can trust it more just because of more power in the card itself. For editting the nvidia GT 120 is fine but it's able to lag a bit so just get the HD4870
Conclusion: ATI HD4870 is the one to get! thanks for the response but will the windows portion be any slower than the snow leopard part on the mac pro if using boot camp?
Why would you want a mac if you want to play games. For the 2k+ your spending on aesthetics I could build a way better gaming rig. The 120 looks like an 8600 to me, 4870 is better.
dalerules91: I am a fanboy supporting the green camp and have been since I learnt what a video card actually did. However I'm not blinded by green in comparisons that have statistics backing them up. In this case the ATI 4870 is indeed as some have already pointed out > than the GT 120 in this comparison. In saying that I don't have any stat's to back up my hypothesis however I had a feeling as though it was a re-naming of a previous card possibly the 9500 GT as qwan456 has pointed out. One of the reasons that ATI stops/stopped me in my tracks is the driver support (or at least it used to). To this day Catalyst drivers are nearing the gap between Nvidia's seemingly fast paced optimsed drivers that they frequently bring out. It used to take ATI a lot longer to get thier stuff together when it came to graphic card drivers however as I said it has almost become a level playing field in this respect when comparing the Green and the Red camps. /rambling Edit: For future reference generally speaking you run into far less trouble if you just stick to a single card (GPU) solution as opposed to two cards in SLi or CrossfireX. Less driver support needed and no microstuttering noticed (generally for 'X2' cards althought it can affect cards manually put into Sli or CrossfireX since they are essentially the same thing). Edit:Edit: It depends on which Counter Strike game you are playing as the earlier versions require some what less computing power (now days) to maintain an aesthetically pleasing visual appearance. Counter Strike Source, the most recent game in the Counter Strike franchise (or in the Steam family) would require more graphics processing power than Counter Strike 1.6/ condition Zero but not by much. On a GTX 260 (the Non Mobile edition = For A PC not a Laptop) I am getting approximately 300 Frames per second at 1920x1200 on a 26" screen (I know it's not the 'Legit' for a 'Real Gamer' but hey I love it =P) with everything maxed. It dips as low as 150 FPS however about 70% of the time it maintains 300 FPS. SO what this essentially means is if you are running CS:S at a lower resolution with the same processing power (I think the 4870 is almost equal to a GTX 260 - 216 core) in power. So you should be getting very similar FPS which I get. It also comes down to your processor, ram, hdd speed, mobo connections and all that jazz however getting to the point again (for the 3rd time) it will be about that FPS possibly a tad less if your other laptop components are running at slower speeds / aren't as good. ATI HD4870 > Nvidia GT 120 (1). Edit:Edit:Edit Also really quickly before I go to bed lol... the drivers are more mature for the 4870 so therefore you should get optimum performance out of the 4870 and it will be very well updated for all the current games out there, as apposed to the GT 120 which hasn't been out for as long (I'm pretty sure it hasn't anyway). I'm not a heavy gamer, i'm getting a mac because I only have to worry about 50 viruses instead of 2 000 000. I'm only using the windows portion for gaming and other components so I won't get a virus on the windows portion.
Jazzman180: I'm not a heavy gamer, i'm getting a mac because I only have to worry about 50 viruses instead of 2 000 000. I'm only using the windows portion for gaming and other components so I won't get a virus on the windows portion. LOL. Ive used Windows for close to a decade. I have 4 computers running Windows based OSs in my house, and in the past 3 years, I have never gotten any kind of virus. Before that, I downloaded something questionable, which was my fault. Point is, if youre smart and understand whats good and whats bad, understand the concept of "reading before you sign", then Windows is fine, and you will have pretty much 0 issues. But if you want to waste your money and buy a overpriced Mac, pay some more money to get Windows and have buyers remorse in the future like many Mac users, then by all means, go ahead and throw your money away. Register / login
|
^
BasilMarket.com is not an official site, nor is it affiliated with Nexon.
BasilMarket is Copyright 2004-2009 BasilMarket.com. All rights reserved.
Use of any BasilMarket.com content without permission is strictly forbidden.
Contact | Privacy Policy
BasilMarket is Copyright 2004-2009 BasilMarket.com. All rights reserved.
Use of any BasilMarket.com content without permission is strictly forbidden.
Contact | Privacy Policy
