Battlefield 2 Pixel shaders 2.0+ vs 1.3

True, but I'm sure it's closer to 3 than 4. My specific card (NV28 core) is less than 3 years old.

And I agree with ANova.

 

that is the geforce 4800 stuff that came out for agp 8 support. That happened a few months before the 9700pro came out

 

Semi off topic, but who runs that site? Try reading the below without laughing.

edit: Sorry for posting this here, but that site is hilarious;
http://poptech.blogspot.com/2004/12/windows-wish-list.html

 

Then go buy a console.

Are people really that stupid? Why do they hink aged hardware should be able to play the latest-and-greatest games? "Why can't I play BF2 on my Atari 2600?!?!?!?"

 

Bad purchase on your part then, as my 9700Pro card is nearly 3 years old.

 

Games are really a catch 22 anymore. In BF2s case. People bitch that the GFX are not as nice as other games. Well. We need better hardware to run top of the line GFX with up to 64 players banging it out online in massive maps.

Then others bitch that there old very out dated hardware GF3/4 won't run BF2. So what is Dice supposed to do? Support old hardware or get the best GFX that are possible to run with current hardware? Even if they supported the GF3/4. Chances are these people would be running old CPU's maybe, just maybe have 1 gig of memory & most likely not. The game really does require 1.5 gigs if not 2. I know some find that impossible to believe but there sure is 1 hell of a differnece in smooth play for me & many others when going from 1 to 2 gigs of memory.

Personally I think Dice made the right choice.

 

What's so funny? The xbox uses a 733MHz Pentium 3, Geforce 4 and 64 MB DDR ram with the same type of hard drive you find in a PC. It basically is a PC, just slightly modified to cater specifically toward gaming on a set platform. Does that make it a console?

The only people that can be classified as stupid are those who think their money will burn a hole in their pocket if they don't spend it on a new and expensive video card every year. A three year old video card does not constitute old. If Dice added support for the Geforce 4 and even the Geforce 3 line tomorrow I guarantee they would run the game just fine, albeit at low-medium settings. If BF2 supports the 8500 there is no reason at all for it not to support the Geforce 4, since it is a faster card in general. But I guess you're too caught up in the whole console versus PC argument to realize that.

 

you could have gotten a 3 year old card that does play it called the r300 series . You just didn't make an informed choice

 

Well, pardon me, but the 9700 Pro was too expensive for me at the time, and the 9500 Pro and 9700 not available yet. Sure I would have gotten a much better deal if I had waited a few months, but I did make an informed choice, more so than about 98% of people out there.

 

and now here you are complaining even though you had the info at the time .

Look parto f a being a pc gamer is to upgrade. Thats it period . That is the advantage of the pc . If we were stuck with dx 5 cards cause no one wanted to pony up the cash we would never have the graphics we have now .

I'm hoping they speed it up where once the api is 2 years old they make it the standard .

 

I cant believe people are complaining about not being able to play a new game, on a 4 year old card. The GF4's can ply 99% of games, go play one that works. Its not like a GF4 would play BF2 well anyways.

 

its not like the g70 players it well haha . The game is a hog .

 

Actually I found funny how he points out that Xbox runs a proprietary OS and proprietary games. Horror! And Xbox doesn't use a GF4.

 

It sounds like the only reason 8500 is supported is because GFFX needs to run PS1.4 to be playable. They probably didn't plan on 8500 support. 8500's superior feature set finally gave it an advantage I guess.

I'd laugh my ass off if they only supported GFFX 5900 and up on the NV side. You gotta love how developers can't go pure PS2.0 cuz of it.

 

Don't forget farcry and the 1.4 path Even on half life 2 it gets a few extras though its dog slow .

 

No. I'm not caught up in the PC vs Console deal. Part of being a PC gamer is being required to upgrade your system at major inflection points. DX9 being the major one. That occured 3 years ago. Upgrading once every 3 years isn't too much to ask for, is it? If one would have made an educated purchase, they could be playing the game now on a 3 year old card -- the ATI R300 series.

 

There was a huge difference for me going from 1GB to 1.25GB.

There was also an advantage in halo, where you needed at least an 8500 to have graphics at all resembling the original console version.
Too bad none of the 9000 to 9250 cards could run it very well with those features, the refreshes for the 8500 really sucked.

 

Yes, in fact they do. How do I know? Because I have a BFG 7800GTX and it runs the game very well at 1920x1200 with 4xAA/8xAF, everything else on high.

 

I played a lot of Halo on a Sony Vaio V505DX which was a P-M 1.4 with a 32MB 9200SE. 800x600 medium textures was more than playable. And that was just a SE....

 

I played Halo on a PIII 533, 256mb ram, GF2 GTS 32mb (lowest quality) and it ran fine. From my understanding Halo is only a dog in dx9 quality mode (which they - apparently - fixed with HaloCE).