andy
I was looking at the EVGA - GeForce GT 610 2GB DDR3 PCI Express 2.0 Graphics Card on bestbuy.com and i noticed it was on sale. I was wondering if it can be used for arma II on my desktop and everything on my desktop succeeds except my video card so that why i was wondering. Can you help me?
Answer
No.
The GeForce GT 610 is very slow. It's just a renamed GT 520... so under either name it's just a $50 entry-level card that's intended for everyday work and watching movies, not high-end gaming. Putting 2GB of VRAM on that card is pointless, it can't handle any resolutions where you'd use that much memory.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/20/nvidia-outs-budget-geforce-gt-610-gt-620-and-gt-630-no-kepler/
For Arma II you'll want at least a $80 card like a Radeon HD 6670 to play smoothly on medium settings. If your budget is really tight, get a Radeon HD 6570... it's almost the same price as the GT 610/GT 520 but twice as fast! It's the best cheap card.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161397
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127611
For high settings you'll want at least a GeForce GTX 550 Ti. Although Arma II runs better with AMD cards, so the $95 Radeon HD 7750 offers more value/dollar. And the Radeon HD 7770 is MUCH better for just $5 more than a GTX 550 Ti.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127577
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102969
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202011
Performance comparison- remember the GT 610 is just a relabeled GT 520:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GT_520/7.html
Arma II:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/02/15/amd-radeon-hd-7750-1gb-review/3
No.
The GeForce GT 610 is very slow. It's just a renamed GT 520... so under either name it's just a $50 entry-level card that's intended for everyday work and watching movies, not high-end gaming. Putting 2GB of VRAM on that card is pointless, it can't handle any resolutions where you'd use that much memory.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/20/nvidia-outs-budget-geforce-gt-610-gt-620-and-gt-630-no-kepler/
For Arma II you'll want at least a $80 card like a Radeon HD 6670 to play smoothly on medium settings. If your budget is really tight, get a Radeon HD 6570... it's almost the same price as the GT 610/GT 520 but twice as fast! It's the best cheap card.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161397
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127611
For high settings you'll want at least a GeForce GTX 550 Ti. Although Arma II runs better with AMD cards, so the $95 Radeon HD 7750 offers more value/dollar. And the Radeon HD 7770 is MUCH better for just $5 more than a GTX 550 Ti.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127577
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102969
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202011
Performance comparison- remember the GT 610 is just a relabeled GT 520:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GT_520/7.html
Arma II:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/02/15/amd-radeon-hd-7750-1gb-review/3
most accurate gps watch?
rick
i need a gps watch that can measure distance and instantaneous pace very accurately. i have been looking at the Nike+ and the garmin 610, and even just the iPhone Nike app, but they all have mixed reviews. p.s. The running wil be don completely on the road, with not really any trees and no bridges.
Answer
The reason you are going to get mixed reviews is because that is as far as GPS technology has advanced, you won't get instantaneous pace or distance. To get instantaneous pace or distance the watch would have to be connected directly to the satellite. As things stand now and intermittent signal is sent out which can be impacted by weather, other signals or structures and objects between the watch and the satellite. The only difference between watches if there is one (I haven't researched it) is how often the signal is sent out. I can't imagine one watch having any great advantage over another because the same technology is available to all manufacturers.
The reason you are going to get mixed reviews is because that is as far as GPS technology has advanced, you won't get instantaneous pace or distance. To get instantaneous pace or distance the watch would have to be connected directly to the satellite. As things stand now and intermittent signal is sent out which can be impacted by weather, other signals or structures and objects between the watch and the satellite. The only difference between watches if there is one (I haven't researched it) is how often the signal is sent out. I can't imagine one watch having any great advantage over another because the same technology is available to all manufacturers.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment