Anyone know the performance of a 7600GT?

My cousin's giving me one, anyone have an idea on how it performs in CS:S, L4D, or Tf2? (Or EMP?).

 

Well enough. :p

 

All I want is to play in Direct-X 9, even on all low settings.

Alright, how about this.

How does it compare against a Radeon x700?

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=7600+gt+performance+review

In other words, its enough to run any source engine based game at reasonably high settings. Stop attention whoring with pointless threads.

 

you can play directx 9 all low settings on a 5500fx

 

direct x 7 mat_picmip 10

do eet

 

I'm looking for performance in terms of more recent games; none of the reviews I look at have L4D, Tf2, CS:S, and certainly not Empires.

Also, I've made two threads within the past few months. A black hole thread, which in that context we know is already pointless, and this thread, the point of which is explained above.

 

6800GT == 7600GT == 8600GT (I've had the latter.)

If you like the resolutions 1024x768 or 1280x1024 then it should do you fine on all High settings for any Source game. You might even fit in 4x antialiasing. Higher resolutions are less likely to be successful.

 

It sucks, grow some balls.

 

Thanks! I'm on a 19'' inch monitor, and I have no trouble fitting using 10x7.6 or 12x10.
Anti-aliasing isn't a big deal. Apparently it's used for larger monitors, because as you stretch out the picture of the game more and more, the edges become less defined.

Go buy me a card. I've been looking for a job for awhile, but in the state of Ohio, you have to be 16 to legally get a job. I might get an HD4670 this Christmas or my birthday, possibly an HD5650.

 

No, smaller monitors need it more actually. Less pixels means more jaggies, in not-very technical terms. A higher resolution means a higher pixel pitch (pixel density) and thus jaggies are harder to see.

 

Oh! I see. I read it from somewhere else, about...nevermind, I'll take your word for it.

But anyways, I really don't need graphical "lipstick" applied to every pixel. Remember, I'm coming from DX7, so things can only go up, hm?

 

my first graphical card was a voodoo 2

i generally never use AA more then the lowest form, it does far too little for the cost

 

2xAA does help some.

And if we want to brag about first videocards, my first was a CGA card....as part of my 286. Yeah for hardware from the mid to late 80s.

 

Sheesh, mine was an nvidia fx5200. Seems like a monster compared to those, hm?

 

Cookies to anyone that has seen this irl.

 

i wasn't talking about bragging, more like i have never used intense AA since that video card

and with the lowest form i mean like 1X or 2X depending on the choices

 

It goes 2x, 4x (if you have ati, 6x) 8x, 16x, 32x -etc. 1x would would be no AA at all, the number refers to how large it renders the screen above the actual display output resolution (if your resolution is 400x400 and you have 2x, it renders twice the screen res.)