I have an i7 920 @ 2.6 GHz (stock speed, no overclocking) with 3GB of RAM (i initially had XP so no use going for 4GB, plus the i7 utilizes triple channel RAM, so i got 3 sticks of 1GB each). As for my graphics card, it's an Ati 4890 1GB.

My most likely upgrade would be to get an extra 3GB of RAM after i test run the sim a few times. However, i would be interested to know how the 4890 compares to some of the newer cards in DX9 and DX10 mode.

I don't plan to set every single thing at maximum and my monitor's native resolution is not huge (i have a 16:10 Dell Ultrasharp 22" IPS panel that runs 1680x1050).

We don't know yet what kind of detail settings the guy in the video runs so it's no use to ask if i'll be able to set the graphics sliders at a comfortable medium level.

However, since we have a lot of hardware savvy people i'd like to ask for a different comparison between the GPUs that would likely be easier to answer. So, if a guy runs a 6850 at a higher resolution like 1080p or 1920x1200 at X detail settings, would i be able to run more or less similar settings at my lower resolution with the 4890?

I could probably estimate this myself if i knew the differences between the 6850 and the 4890 in the amount of video RAM, shader processors and clock speeds they use, but sadly i'm not familiar with the specs for the new DX11 cards.

...


The inflight cockpit sound from 7:01 to 08:13 in this video is a not a live sound.
If you pay more attention, you'll be able to hear a repetitive sound sequence (cycle every 6 seconds) ;) which means that a sound editing process was involved.

Great video anyway ! :grin:

...

It really depends on the game.From the comparisons that I've made,going from 1024x768 to 1920x1200 does not reduce the fps much,maybe 5 fps.Considering that the games I tested ran at an average of 70-90fps, a 5 fps loss is quite minimal.There are other games like Crysis that suffer a lot when crankin up the resolution to the max,like 5-8 fps,while the game only runs at an average of 35-40fps.So relatively the fps loss in Crysis is huge compared to most common games.

+1

Yes, it would have been weird if it was the same hw as the clips from the show as it flows so much better :) I guess we can draw the conclusion from this that the game is not that CPU-limited? It's even a worse CPU than the show, but a much better GPU (and more memory if that has an impact (not that Ilya's comments indicate that)) . In any case this is good news as that is a rather midrange rig these days, and the 2600k rig I will order when Intel gets the P67 fixed will run circles around it :)

damn plebians.

Resolutions make a huge difference - especially with AA, because the higher the res, the higher the AA cost at the same setting, if you go from like 1600x1080->1920x1200 and have 4x AA on its going to probably halve your framerate. Although it depends on many many factors (hardware, software etc), but think of stuff like AF and AA as a multiplier on your resolution.

Flying around at over 1000m you'll be just fine even with most effects cranked up. However, you'll probably find your biggest bottleneck won't be the card but the CPU because if it can't update object positions (like buildings) fast enough it won't matter how good your vidcard is.

I would look at overclocking that i7 of yours, perhaps after the sim has been out for a bit, to see any significant gains. My i5-750 is overclocked from 2.6 to 3.8ghz without any additional cooling and the difference it makes in ArmA2 is major.

Thanks for your input Charvel. My i7 is a C0 stepping CPU however and not the more overclockable D0 revision. Had i bought it a mere couple of weeks later it would probably have been a D0 chip, it's the one time i went out and bought a high end CPU early in its life cycle (had this PC for almost 2 years) and it's biting me in the behind :-P

In any case, i've read some articles and they say it's possible even for C0 CPUs to reach 3.3-3.6 Ghz and anything higher than that is too much watts for the amount of extra power gained (i keep the PC running almost 24/7 so power consumption is an issue to me), so i might try it if i see it's giving me trouble.

Now that i think of it, all of that will also depend on how well CoD will utilise the extra cores and/or hyperthreading. Maybe we can get around a lower clock speed due to the extra cores/threads, who knows.

I'm very surprised that you say my GPU will actually fare better than the rest of the system, but then again the game is DX9/DX10 and the 4890 was one of the last DX10 series cards, so it makes sense somewhat.

Anyway, thanks for the input everyone, it's wait and see from now on :grin:

You already said it."It depends on many factors"Did you really read what I wrote???I ran some tests.You want to argue my results??LOL.You make me laugh.In case you thought I wasnt using AA,the benchmarks I ran were all using 4xAA.Going from no AA to 4Xaa does make a huge difference.

So is my i7 920, which I've had steadily overclocked at 3.8Ghz for the last couple of years, using the Asus P6T Deluxe motherboard, with 6-12 GB of Corsair TR3 1600C8D RAM and a Thermalright Ultra 120 CPU cooler.

This video http://www.hardocp.com/news/2008/11/..._p6t_ram_ocing shows the bios settings required. Jump to 5 mins in to see the settings that need to be changed.

Basically, it's switch the 'AI Overclock Tuner' to 'Manual', disable the 'Intel Speedstep Tech', set the 'DRAM Frequency' to '1523 MHz', the 'CPU Voltage' to '1.35', and the 'DRAM Bus Voltage' to '1.66' and that's it.

Here's some info about power consumption when overclocking - http://www.hardocp.com/article/2008/...locking_power/

From what I can tell, roughly speaking you're looking at about a 20 Watt difference between 2.66GHz and 3.8 GHz at idle, and an 80 Watt difference under full load.

Make of it what you will.