On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:41:39 -0000, "The Dude"
<sdfsdfsdf@asdfsdfsdf.com> wrote:

>>>The minimum requirements on the game's box doesn't make any sense.
>>
>> It's not supposed to, nobody wants a new game that is played
>> at the minimum requirements or it'll look like an old game
>> without the modern eyecandy.
>>
>
>Here's what it says on the game's box:
>
>Min Req:
>
>nVidia 6800 or ATI X1650 or better, shader model 3 required 256MB of graphic
>memory (nVidia 8600 GTS or better, ATI X1900 or better recommended)

>If this is the minimum requirements, then it looks like I can get a fanless
>one with probably better spec??

Minimum requirements typically allow a game to be played at
a low framerate, with eyecandy disabled, on a lower
resolution monitor. Minimum requirements may seem a
reasonable way to gauge whether a video card you already had
is worth trying to play the game, but should not be used as
a gauge of what new card to buy.

You need to consider the resolution you'd end up playing at
(if you have an LCD monitor then it's native resolution),
how much you can accept having the image quality degraded.
In some cases there is a lot of difference between having
the game set to low levels of eyecandy and higher ones. At
lower levels everything can look both blurry (on textures)
and jagged edges on things. Lower levels can cause fewer
special effects, even items being removed from your view
like trees not being seen until you get closer to them then
they pop up out of nowhere.

You should buy a card that has enough performance that you
can expect reasonable use with not only one game today but
for at least a period in the future, perhaps a year or
longer so you're not continually having to buy a new video
card. You can get reasonably performing fanless cards or
buy an aftermarket heatsink for a card that can with a fan,
but generally such a card should have a fan in the system
pointed at it, or one across from it on the case side panel,
or you'll need much stronger case airflow (more noise) from
the existing front and/or rear fans to keep temperatures
down enough to promote long life as well as immediate
stability while gaming.



>
>ATI RADEON X1650 (About £30 / $60)
>


It isn't nearly fast enough for Far Cry 2. Take a look at
the following benchmarks, (and see others yourself with a
web search).

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...hmarks/?page=4

Even with a relatively low 1280x1024 resolution and only 4x
AF (no AA at all), much faster cards barely make the game
playable. IOW, to keep the minimum in-game framerates high
enough to play you will want the average rates as indicated
on benchmarks to be roughly 40FPS at a minimum. Far Cry 2
is a very demanding game and anything less than an ATI 4850
isn't likely to be very good at it. I mention 4850 because
you can sometimes find those with fanless heatsinks like
this one:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814125237