Yep.

Awesome avatar btw.

Thanks, I stole it from someone in the BioWare Social Network

If you want a real benchmark of your system capabilities, go play Crysis Warhead.

For the rest, depending of the resolution you want to play it, I'd consider buying a new card. I have a 9600GT, and while it does an honorable job with Crysis (1) at 1280x800@Max Settings (for such an aged card), it's FPS were still...a big jagging. And I have in mind that it definitely won't happen with Skyrim

Lol nice.

Too many good games coming out this year! >.<

Finally I can put my PC to the test though. Games have been taking far too long to catch up to technology.

I have a feeling The Witcher 2 and Battlefield 3 will be the most intensive games in terms of graphics.

If you're getting a new computer for Skyrim I highly advise waiting until at least October! November even if you have the time to put one together or research that close to release!

There are three major reasons:
1.) nVidia is currently priced more than AMD for the same performance (I think?). Prices may change by November as they compete. The 250ish 560 Ti is equivalent to a 200ish AMD card.
2.) AMD's Bulldozer architecture, with the code name Zambezi CPUs, is launching in June. This is supposed to compete with the i7, depending on its price and real performance it may drastically alter the current CPU prices.
3.) If you buy AMD you should wait for socket AM3+ even if you're not getting a Zambezi CPU since you'll be able to upgrade in the future and AM3+ motherboards support older AM3 CPUs.

Yes. Unless of course Skyrim turns out to be a processor hog like Aliens vs. Predators, but I doubt that will happen.



Bwahaha, even BF3 won't put a dent in my computers graphics memory. It shall bow before my mighty overkill machine.

As I said last night, my computer doesn't have a replaceable GPU. So the fact I could get a better card for $70 doesn't really help.

The whole console-port-multiplatform-crossover thing the last few years has meant that I've been able to keep playing many of the modern games without needing to upgrade, but min requirements are starting to creep up, so yeah - I'm slightly concerned that I might need a full computer upgrade. Which, given the current economy, may or may not be trivial.

(For the record, I'm running an ATI HD2600XT/256mb.... on http://www.overclock.net/graphics-cards-general/502403-graphics-card-ranking-5th-time-last.html ranked list of GPUs, the 8800GT/9800 is at #60. My card is at #125. Whee! )

No, because of a compatibility issue when running in SLI mode.

but would a 450 be able to max the game with a decently new computer?

Can anyone recommend me a good, cheap PCI-e graphics card that can replace my super crappy, old nvidia geforce 7600? Lol. I don't want anything amazing, I just want a card that can run Oblivion and WoW on max settings with good fps. Thanks

Do you have a laptop with the ATI chip soldered onto the motherboard? If not, forgive me for asking, but why is the GPU not replacable? Is the card bolted to the PCI-e slot or something?

GTX 460 768mb, totally. If you really fish around, you can get one for under 100 pounds. Don't spent more than 120 on it unless your getting the 1GB model.

That is what graphics settings are for. Assuming there are no basic incompatibilities (No support for shader architecture or DX version), anyway. Why should we wait so that you can still max out games?

There are some features like the higher levels of anti-aliasing that will waste a lot of power. I think it depends on the resolution too. The 450 might not be able to max it, but it would blow the consoles completely out of the water. The 450 is a bit more powerful than the 9800 GTX. The PS3 uses a 7900ish GPU.

If they spend any time at all on optimizing the game for PC then you should be able to play the game on medium/high settings at a decent resolution even with a cheap card that is a few years old. The game runs on a Xbox after all.