1. osu! forums
  2. Other
  3. General Discussion
show more
posted
why do you all have these mlg gpu's
posted

Emaal wrote:

why do you all have these mlg gpu's
Because spending money on sensible things is too mainstream.
posted
you have a point
posted

IppE wrote:

Zertap wrote:

Well I use it to run third (and maybe 4th) monitor on it. (It doesn't need any more power than to run them in 2d mode at 60hz)
5/5 copypaste of what I said to you on irc :3
well, why not, that's what it needs to do so why does it matter if u said it?and ofc I am dumb with these so I just played safe :3
posted
Radeon 6850
posted
Radeon 7970 main rig, 5870 for storage/pc for people to use when they come over.
posted

IppE wrote:

Emaal wrote:

why do you all have these mlg gpu's
Because spending money on sensible things is too mainstream.
How on earth could you call a GPU not sensible D:
posted
IppE is noob.

radeon 6870 btw
posted
Sorry for the late responses :|

Kazuo wrote:

i dont even have one
Sorry to hear that.

Card N'FoRcE wrote:

NVidia Riva TNT2 M64, 32MB

Ok, that was ten years ago, i'm using an overclocked Gigabyte GTX560 right now. Still, that TNT2 was an amazing card.

Why would you even buy a GT610? I'm kinda curious about how much it costed you and what card you were using before.

I'm serious, low end graphics cards aren't really worth even the 30/40$ you spend for them.
Anything to get away from having a bad integrated graphics card (it was a GeForce 6150SE, very bad for gaming and even osu)

Mr Color wrote:

Intel HD Graphics 4000.

Shouldn't this be in General Discussion? Threads of "post your x" generally hang there. Not that I'm complaining, but hey, it just crossed my mind.
I don't actually know.

EDIT: Okay I see. If a mod reads this, please move this thread to GD please?

Wojjan wrote:

eternityglacier wrote:

So, On-Topic, what graphics card do YOU use?
hehe. he.

Yeah this should go there.
See above.

Zertap wrote:

nVidia GTX 580 by ASUS (Direct CU ll)
Also getting GT 610.
Why!? may you ask :D
Well I use it to run third (and maybe 4th) monitor on it. (It doesn't need any more power than to run them in 2d mode at 60hz)
/) Brohoof for matching graphics cards :)

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.
posted

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.
posted
Geforce gtx 460 ._.
posted

Kamixdesu wrote:

Geforce gtx 460 ._.
da bes
posted
Bah for fun heres pretty much one the last best cards for the AGP bus thats in another machine, Radeon HD 3850

posted
Speccy inc.

Monitor res is kinda smallish, but I'm too used to it. :<
posted

-Laputa- wrote:

I use 2 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690s.
fps? i just want to know what fps u get with a 690 .-.
posted

spammeracc wrote:

-Laputa- wrote:

I use 2 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690s.
fps? i just want to know what fps u get with a 690 .-.
Depends the application you're running, really.
This graph gives you an idea of how it can work.

On games like Borderlands 2 and such, I get over 80 fps. Games like WoW I would get around 60, cause it seems to cap there. (Not sure if you can set some sort of limit on fps for that game)
On Skyrim, I get over 120 fps. So, the 690 is really a work of art.
posted
My laptop:


Yay, 2 GPUs with crossfire~
posted
Radeon 6950. The card is dying though so I'm probably gonna get a 7XXX series soon.
posted
gimme a second
posted

Kitsunemimi wrote:

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.
No I understand that my card is not the best in the world. I was just stating that it is better than my integrated graphics, which by the way is from around when Vista was released (2006). And at the time I got the new card I didn't have the money for a 680. :?

And I have a comparison of features of a 6150SE (integrated graphics) and the GT 610:

GeForce 6150SE + nForce 430
Launch: June 2006
Memory: 256 MB
Core clock: 425 MHz
Memory clock: 400-800 MHZ
Bandwidth (GB/s): 3.2-16.0 GB/s
Bus type: DDR2


GeForce GT 610
Launch: May 15, 2012
Memory: 1 GB
Core clock: 810 MHz
Memory clock: 1800 MHz
Bandwidth (GB/s): 14.4 GB/s (I didnt check the actual bandwidth of my integrated graphics, so I can't tell if there was an improvement in bandwidth or not.)
Bus type: DDR3
show more
Please sign in to reply.