eternityglacier wrote:
RBRat3 wrote:
Radeon HD 6950 or as I like to call it "Back fat betty"
Now THAT'S something like what I want to get later on, but for now, I'll stick with the GT610. It runs better than my integrated graphics at least. I can even run fullscreen 3D games at around max resolution with near max graphics settings with only some spike lags, rather than requiring to be in OpenGL (in this game) or DirectX 8 (games like TF2) at lowest graphics settings possible, and STILL have major FPS lag.
Integrated graphics is bad, but you have a LOOOOONG way to go before you can even grasp what a horrid comparison the 610 is to that 6950.
And with the exception of Valve, the only games you may actually be running maxed out on that card would have to be at least 5 years old. In fact, it's not really "max resolution" because that would have to be 1080p, so your card can't even handle the modern Valve games on "max". Like, I don't want to get you sad or anything, but a 610 is nearly at
the bottom of the ladder, with the only things slower than it being older iterations of x10's, AMD's budget counterparts, and iGPUs. Heck, the shiny new HD Graphics 4000 is probably better than your card by now. Your GPU isn't even using the latest Kepler architecture, it's just a rebranded 520.
The 6950 (stock) is 14 and a half times as powerful as your card. The more recent nVIDIA 680 is almost 20 times as powerful as your card. Hell, even the graphics card that I have in my
laptop right now (GT 540M) is almost twice as fast as the graphics card that you have.
So does that give you an idea of the whole scale of everything? Please, to avoid making yourself look like an idiot next time, don't go making GPU threads when the brand spanking new GPU you just got is a bottom-tier, budget card. Or if you did all of this thinking your card is freaking fantastic... and you still think it is after reading this, then I'm sorry but you are a moron.