Slashdot Mirror
Budget Graphics Cards Compared
EconolineCrush writes "Tired of reading reviews of high-end graphics cards that cost several hundred dollars or more? The Tech Report has a round-up of three budget cards that cost $80 or less. ATI's Radeon X1300 Pro, NVIDIA's GeForce 7300 GS, and S3's Chrome S27 are compared in an array of gaming, video playback, power consumption, and noise level tests against not only each other, but also a typical integrated graphics solution. As one might expect, the budget cards offer significantly better 3D performance than integrated solutions. What's even more impressive is the fact that even with newer games, the sub-$80 cards still have enough punch to deliver respectable performance."
...or it could be the fact that BF2 is a bloated pile of festering code. I have the game, and my clan has fought on it many a time (I am a gunny sgt). If I can play Doom3/HL2 maxed out on my system and yet have the same BF2 video issues that you seem to, it tells me that it is the game not the card.
That's funny, because I'd say that Battlefield 2 gives me far more visual impact than Half Life 2 / Doom 3 (HL2s scripted little world is laughably simple compared to some of the environments of BF2. D3 scripts it to ensure that you fight maybe one or two enemies, lest it overload the poly count). Both of those games very, very heavily rely upon sticking you in tight little areas, where your view of the world is heavily restricted, limiting the number of polys. Then they feed you enemies in nice controlled bunches, ensuring that the poly count is always limited.
A game like BF2, on the other hand, has unbelievably complex environments (some of the city environments in SF are amazing), coupled with up to 63 other highly defined other people, in up to 63 other military vehicles, along with all of the static vehicles and scenery, all interacting with the environment, with huge vistas, where players are scanning close to a KM away through sniper rifles.
Comparing D3 or HL2 to BF2 is laughable, and it discredits your argument from the outset.
The arm-chair game programmers out there number too many, and their ridiculous analysis of "good" versus "bad" programming provides some good humor. You kids stay with your Virge 3Ds, complaining about the "bloat" of modern games, and I'll happily upgrade to take advantage of some of the amazing new functionality.
BF2 is the worst possible example you could have used. The engine is unstable. The netcode is unstable.
It's one of the most complex visual environments out there, yet even it leaves a tremendous amount that can still be done. We're still at the beginnings of what can visually be done.
Of course given that I'm a fan of the wide-open war genre (e.g. Operation Flashpoint, etc), I do find it humorous when "run down tunnel with gun" sorts pronounce judgement on BF2, expecting framerates similar to what they've seen on "surrounded by a wallpapered cardboard box" games like HL2.
In any case, I play it on 1280x1024 with medium-low settings and a 9800 Pro and it tends to stay above 30FPS, so there may be something going on with your rig (or the game hates nVidia).
The 9800 Pro is a world newer, and more powerful, than some of the other video cards being mentioned. Not to mention that one person's "good gameplay" is another persons nightmare. I can't stand any dips in framerate (such as when an ass throws a smoke grenade, or a heavy battle erupts), yet other people will tolerate a slideshow in those situations, just so long as they can watch their FPS sit at 40 when they're looking at a wall in a hanger.