PDA

View Full Version : can we only fully enjoy sh-3 with PIXEL SHADER 3.0??



oscar0072004
02-10-2005, 02:57 AM
it seems to me that this is going the LO-MAC way and that we DO need a state of the art machine to get the cool stuff. after the fact that the demands have gone up to minimal 512 mb ram . there is another little thing here with sh-3 . seems we can only have the fine water effects when our cards support pixel shader 3.0!!! to enjoy full effects of water you will need Nvidia 6600/6800 card because they are the ONLY cards available today using shader 3.0 (PS 3.0) . the question is how many of have this card?? not me i have a ati 9800 with ps 2.0! what can we expect when we have ps 2.0 ??

oscar0072004
02-10-2005, 02:57 AM
it seems to me that this is going the LO-MAC way and that we DO need a state of the art machine to get the cool stuff. after the fact that the demands have gone up to minimal 512 mb ram . there is another little thing here with sh-3 . seems we can only have the fine water effects when our cards support pixel shader 3.0!!! to enjoy full effects of water you will need Nvidia 6600/6800 card because they are the ONLY cards available today using shader 3.0 (PS 3.0) . the question is how many of have this card?? not me i have a ati 9800 with ps 2.0! what can we expect when we have ps 2.0 ??

Tomcat41
02-10-2005, 03:29 AM
i havent read anywhere that the water requires pixel shader 3.0, just pixel shaders and Direct X 9.

so i assume pixel shader 2.0 will be fine as well?!

not sure what version my Radeon 9700 Pro has.

LLv34_Jani
02-10-2005, 03:38 AM
To use the max effect of water i believe PS 3.0 is required.

Lobolopez220
02-10-2005, 04:07 AM
I have to agree with Tomcat here. All I have ever seen are rumours about the PS 3.0 support. If I have missed something though and you guys have confirmation in a preview or somewhere please provide us the link so we can have a look.

Lobo

Drebbel
02-10-2005, 04:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> -Thunak- "(Zambet): Will SH3 run on laptops? im complying with the specifications: P4-2.6Ghz, 512 ram and Geforcefx5300 at 64 Mb
-SH3_Dev_Team- SH3 will run on video cards supporting Vertex Shader 1.1 and Pixel Shader 1.1. If your card supports this standards, it should work.
-SH3_Dev_Team- ;
-SH3_Dev_Team- = <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nero111
02-10-2005, 04:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LLv34_Jani:
To use the max effect of water i believe PS 3.0 is required. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where do you get your info ^^^^

oscar0072004
02-10-2005, 05:42 AM
i got it from a guy called ragtag od over at subsim.

Ragtag
OD



Joined: 10 Jan 2002
Posts: 24

Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:04 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

to enjoy full effects of water you will need Nvidia 6600/6800 card because they are the ONLY cards available today using shader 3.0 (PS 3.0).

System ram has nothing to do with gfx effects in games...that was in the old days. System ram is for caching making loadtimes in game, loading missions etc going faster meaning that having less will make these MUCH slower and you will almost guaranteed get stuttering and slow downs while playing because of the constant loading and caching by the system.

If you want the best effects in this game get a Nvidia 6600GT or 6800GT/Ultra.

U1409
02-10-2005, 05:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by oscar0072004:
it seems to me .... that we DO need a state of the art machine to get the cool stuff. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What is the problem?
Is it not common practice to develop games with each and every technology at your disposal to make them enjoyable even on future machines? Are we now complaining that the graphics are too advanced?

It will run on a minimum specs system, and all the extra bells and whistles obviously comes at a price. Consider it an added bonus if you have the system for it. If you want the best you will need the best. Not much of a surprise, if you ask me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Poacher886a
02-10-2005, 06:04 AM
I agree,i bought and would still buy an 6800 over an equivilent ATI BECAUSE it had pixel shader 3.0.

I would like to see what i have spent my 215 on,if games don't push the boundries and use the latest tech we will never move forward,as it is the games are **** compared to what they could be, because they have to take Min spec into account!.

Something the consoles never have to worry about,but at the end of the day if your serious about your gaming your buy and upgrade when thing's move on.

'Can't afford it? PC's are one of the cheapest interest's to have,if you compare with Motorbikes/cars etc.I probabaly spend a 6800GT every month on beer!!!,and i do not earn much!.

eddie_wood
02-10-2005, 07:32 AM
That doesn't make sense. Somewhere it was stated that the developers use ATI 9800XT's. Wouldn't they use GF 6800's?

Also, this game was ready in August 2004, so unless they have done some major work it would not have had PS3 in it.

Having said that, if there is a definate answer on this I would like to have it. It may mean me upgading my 9800Pro to a 6800GT.

Ed.

DerKomet
02-10-2005, 12:29 PM
stupid complain IMHO, the game was made with enough flexibility to run on medium specs and still look wonderfull, AND, they implemented more advanced optional technology. Imagine this, you get sh3, play it on your computer until u get enough of it. In two years you decide to upgrade, and try sh3 just to benchmark and you are surprised to see that "that old game" looks pretty AWSOME for that year standards.

More technology = More game life span
Just because you don't have PS3 doesnt mean you won't get the wonderfull effects you see on screenies.

Pr0metheus 1962
02-10-2005, 12:55 PM
Simulations always required high end machines to run properly. Sims push the edge of the technological envelope. I'm a little surprised that some people here seem to expect sims to run on medium or low-end machines. If you want a sophisticated game and great graphics you need a computer that can process them.

Nero111
02-10-2005, 01:09 PM
I wasnt complaining, just asked where the info came from.
My machine can more than cope with SH3 in any form.
I will complain if its like Lock-On though LOL,,, where no frikkin machine ran it properly on release hehehe.

U1409
02-10-2005, 01:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by oscar0072004:
... what can we expect when we have ps 2.0 ?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe we should be a bit more fair with the guy.
Who knows what to expect with PS2.0? Well, I personally believe the game to be just as enjoyable with PS2.0, but it depends entirely on your priorities. If graphical splendor is your sole concern, then you should upgrade to enjoy it "fully". But for me, pixelshading is not my reason for buying it - gameplay is. You can always wait and see how it looks and upgrade if it disappoints you.

Nero111
02-10-2005, 01:47 PM
U1409 has got it right.
All ps3 is gonna do is give you a little more eyecandy to drewl over on the water probably. Most of this will only be really noticable if you have a descent monitor to boot that can boast good playable resolutions like 1600x1200.
If you dont have ps3 its by a long shot not the end of the world.
EG IL2 Pacific Fighters supports pixel shader 3. I have seen it on and off and yes it looks neat, but with it off it looks almost as good.
Its purely an eyecandy setting, nothing more.
Dont sweat it if you havent got it.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Leif...
02-10-2005, 01:58 PM
I€m not convinced ps3 will give you anything more than cards with ps2, isn€t it only a rumour that it is supported, or have I missed something?
Sure there are few things that can be done with ps3 that can€t be done with ps2, but I doubt that functionality is needed for the water anyhow.

Leif€¦

julien673
02-10-2005, 02:07 PM
I m happy, i had the Pixel Shader 3 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAHHHHH

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif P-S 2
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gifP-S 1


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Im posseded http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

eddie_wood
02-10-2005, 02:09 PM
I think that the point being made in this thread is that this information is from a guy who knows a guy, who knows a guy, if you see what I mean?

I haven't seen the developers refer to PS3 and I want a link to some official statement. Until then it is pure speculation.

Personally I'm with U1409, I will upgrade to a 6800GT if I need to. I couldn't care less about graphics if the AI is excellent. The AI and gameplay is going to make or break this game for sim'ers.

Ed.

U100
02-10-2005, 03:06 PM
Hello All,
I have read through all the discussions concerning the 'best' graphics card to use to maximize the full effect. However, I am now almost completely confused as to what "THE Requirements' are to FULLY appreciate the game effects. PLEASE provide the best card, specs, etc. I am planning to ensure I have the right specs to enjoy the game I have been waiting for for over a year. THANK YOU ALL!

(I understand it must be WINDOWS XP; everything else is a 'moving target' for me)

eddie_wood
02-10-2005, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by U100:
PLEASE provide the best card, specs, etc. I am planning to ensure I have the right specs to enjoy the game I have been waiting for for over a year. THANK YOU ALL!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm afraid that nobody knows. It was posted that the developers use ATI Radeon 9800XT, but I can't remember where I read it and XT's are quite expensive for some.

It really depends on the full spec of your machine, no point putting a new card in a machine with a 500mhz processor!

If I *had* to purchase a new card *today*, it would be a 256Mb 6800GT. If I was on a tight budget then I would probably get a 6600.

You don't say what you have now. If your machine matches the requirements on the box I would wait until after playing the game before doing anything.

Ed.

U100
02-10-2005, 04:19 PM
Thank you! I was just curious that that card in a 256 vs. the 512 RAM requirement. Will that suffice? Thanx, again.

hauitsme
02-10-2005, 07:54 PM
I haven't seen once, not anywhere, the specs of the machines the DevTeam uses. I have seen the claim of 'someone that knows someone that knew this guys wife' though. As far as I know, the DevTeam NEVER has stated anything.

walsh2509
02-10-2005, 08:40 PM
The only comment I would make on it is , SHIII being a new sim as say Pacific Fighters. I can run PF on my GF4 TI4200 128mb card, P4 2Ghz Igb DDR, but to get the very best water effects/graphics (3.0) and frame rate I'd need a state of the art card.

I can't see SHIII being any different, I will be able to run it.. but not at top spec!


I read a go while back when Pix/Shader 3.0 was about to hit us, not to rush out and buy these new cards as only a few games would be available to use this and it would be a few years before games houses released games that would utilise this function.

U100
02-11-2005, 04:18 AM
You guys are great! Thanx. I'll buy the 6800.

MBeck
02-11-2005, 05:54 AM
PS3 does not intruduce new features. It only optimizes the process.

In other words(eye candy wise) PS2=PS3, so take it easy.

Quote from Seeadler on Subsim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The question is, how much time had the developers for e.g. the water effect. With much programming expenditure (and some brain in your hands ) you gets also great water effects with PixelShader 1.1, an example of this is Virtual Skipper III on a PixelShader 1.x card.

With PS2.x it is substantially more easily to code good water. With PS3.0 no new effects are actually added, but however it is possible to process more instructions in the same time as with 2.0 and this feature placed in the right combination gives visually more effects than with 2.0 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IR0NCR0SS
02-11-2005, 01:25 PM
Pixel Shader 3 does not upgrade the eye candy at all. It allows more instructions to be processed on each pass. PS/VS 2.0 is direct X9 and basically will only render so much per pass. Say it renders the top layer of water on the first pass, then the next layer on the 2nd pass, and then the final layer on the third pass. This takes time, so you loose FPS (frames per second). Then you have a card with PS/VS 2.0+ (ATI Special) It will render the first and second layer and a little of the third on the first pass, and render the rest of the third on the 2nd pass. While PS/VS 3.0 will render all 3 layers in one pass. So it can move onto rendering the boats and everything else faster then say a PS/VS 2.0 card could. (This is just a rough example)

Basically, the only thing that will make a Nvidia 6800 card look better is its in 32Bit while all DX9 ATI cards downgrade 32bit/upgrade 16bit to 24bit. So in theory a Nvidia card will look better. Is it really noticeable? Thats up for debate.

So if you have a x800 card or even a 9x00 card you will have the same image quality as a person thats using PS/VS 3.0, however you wont get the speed of PS/VS 3.0.

mearle
02-11-2005, 02:12 PM
If the game dose turn out to be 1024*768 I dont think p/s 1 to 10 will matter to much

fordfan25
02-11-2005, 06:00 PM
even for the guys who are going to go out and by a 6800 or 6800gt just for ps3.0 dont. i had a 6800gt and in PF switching on water=3 makes such a massive fps hit it is no way worth it. im useing a 6800 now because the gt just did not impress me for a 400$ card. even 6800 ultras dip low often when using ps3.0 in pf. now the water PS 3.0 that thay may have in this game may be alot easyer on current cards but if its anything like it is in PF i just dont think its worth it on current cards. all IMO of course. besides just look at the water in farcry and pirates of the carribean. the water in both those games in PS2.0 looks better than the water in PF running in 3.0

BoneDaddy1844
02-11-2005, 07:30 PM
Got my butt covered with a 6800 GT. Bring on PS 3.0!

Woot! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

U100
02-12-2005, 07:26 AM
Untersee Warriors,
Having read all the posts on this topic now, I am still very confused. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif While I appreciate the analytical comments, PLEASE ADVISE on the BEST card! The pros and cons only confuse the issue. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I ask for 'direct voice' as opposed to 'passive voice" (so to speak).

Thank you again, all!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

IR0NCR0SS
02-12-2005, 12:39 PM
There is no "TOP Card" basically the X800 series and the 6800 Series will run it equally as fast. As for 9700/9800 cards they will run it great too, you just cant have AA and AF on with those cards (more then likely) and still have awesome framerates.

U-551 Kapitan
02-12-2005, 01:03 PM
As for which cards to get, just go for the most expensive one. I'm waiting for some Radeon x800 or whatever, 23 extra than the GeForce 6800.

fordfan25
02-12-2005, 01:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by U100:
Untersee Warriors,
Having read all the posts on this topic now, I am still very confused. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif While I appreciate the analytical comments, PLEASE ADVISE on the BEST card! The pros and cons only confuse the issue. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I ask for 'direct voice' as opposed to 'passive voice" (so to speak).

Thank you again, all!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

leadteck 6800ultra.

IR0NCR0SS
02-13-2005, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
even for the guys who are going to go out and by a 6800 or 6800gt just for ps3.0 dont. i had a 6800gt and in PF switching on water=3 makes such a massive fps hit it is no way worth it. im useing a 6800 now because the gt just did not impress me for a 400$ card. even 6800 ultras dip low often when using ps3.0 in pf. now the water PS 3.0 that thay may have in this game may be alot easyer on current cards but if its anything like it is in PF i just dont think its worth it on current cards. all IMO of course. besides just look at the water in farcry and pirates of the carribean. the water in both those games in PS2.0 looks better than the water in PF running in 3.0 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please, if you dont know what you are talking about, you shouldnt give advice on PS/VS 3.0 or PS/VS 2.0. Enabling PS/VS 3.0 in a game would not slow down performance at all. It would only increase it. Farcry is not PS/VS 2.0 if you have the latest patches your 6800 it will run in PS/VS 3.0. PS/VS does not affect image quality either. Any game runing in PS/VS 3.0 will run faster then a game running in PS/VS 2.0. PF is a poorly coded game most likely. PS/VS 3.0 isnt all about water either.

Also a 6800 is a huge step down from a 6800GT, first of a 6800 only has 12 pipes while a 6800GT has 16, and the clock speeds and Ram Timings are way better on a GT. Best getting a GT and overclocking to a 6800Ultra speed.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mearle:
If the game dose turn out to be 1024*768 I dont think p/s 1 to 10 will matter to much <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are you talking about? Any game should beable to go from 640x480 up to 2048x1536. All depends on your card and your monitor.


For anyone still confused, If you want a card that will run this game at ATLEAST 1024x768 with 2AA and 8AF, with max detail, go a 9600Pro,9700Pro,9800Pro,x800Pro,X800XT, 6600GT,6800,6800GT,6800Ultra. Best bang for your buck would either be the 6800GT or a x800Pro with the GT just being a little faster.

fordfan25
02-13-2005, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IR0NCR0SS:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
even for the guys who are going to go out and by a 6800 or 6800gt just for ps3.0 dont. i had a 6800gt and in PF switching on water=3 makes such a massive fps hit it is no way worth it. im useing a 6800 now because the gt just did not impress me for a 400$ card. even 6800 ultras dip low often when using ps3.0 in pf. now the water PS 3.0 that thay may have in this game may be alot easyer on current cards but if its anything like it is in PF i just dont think its worth it on current cards. all IMO of course. besides just look at the water in farcry and pirates of the carribean. the water in both those games in PS2.0 looks better than the water in PF running in 3.0 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please, if you dont know what you are talking about, you shouldnt give advice on PS/VS 3.0 or PS/VS 2.0. Enabling PS/VS 3.0 in a game would not slow down performance at all. It would only increase it. Farcry is not PS/VS 2.0 if you have the latest patches your 6800 it will run in PS/VS 3.0. PS/VS does not affect image quality either. Any game runing in PS/VS 3.0 will run faster then a game running in PS/VS 2.0. PF is a poorly coded game most likely. PS/VS 3.0 isnt all about water either.

Also a 6800 is a huge step down from a 6800GT, first of a 6800 only has 12 pipes while a 6800GT has 16, and the clock speeds and Ram Timings are way better on a GT. Best getting a GT and overclocking to a 6800Ultra speed.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mearle:
If the game dose turn out to be 1024*768 I dont think p/s 1 to 10 will matter to much <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are you talking about? Any game should beable to go from 640x480 up to 2048x1536. All depends on your card and your monitor.


For anyone still confused, If you want a card that will run this game at ATLEAST 1024x768 with 2AA and 8AF, with max detail, go a 9600Pro,9700Pro,9800Pro,x800Pro,X800XT, 6600GT,6800,6800GT,6800Ultra. Best bang for your buck would either be the 6800GT or a x800Pro with the GT just being a little faster. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i appreciate the advice. the 6800gt is ofcourse a better card but to me just not worth 400+ dollers. the 6800 is not a great buy eather at 300 but i could not find a 6600gt in agp at the time. 100 bucks is alot of mony to me for the deffernce between the two. you are right though i dont understand most of the whole PS3.0 thing. sorry. all i know is useing it in PF and farcry was a letdown. and from what some people seem to be thinking these days is that thay NEED 3.0 for good looking games. wich thay dont. i think that was all i was trying to say.

So yea if you got an extra 100 to 200 bucks to blow on a card then great. but i would not think that if someone already has a fast card now like say a 9800xt or a x800pro that thay should go blow 400 to 500 bucks on a new card just couse it has 3.0 PS. i could be wrong though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

IR0NCR0SS
02-14-2005, 11:56 AM
Yes when you put it that way, no one should be a 6800 JUST for PS/VS 3.0. That goes for any card though you shouldnt buy a card JUST cause it has 256mb Ram, or JUST has PCI-E capabilities etc etc.

V/P shading also has to do with shadows (which cripple a system) so that could be why PF and Farcry run bad for you, PS/VS 3.0 in Farcry is enabled when you turn up the graphic values all the way up. Perhaps your computer cannot handle this? PS/VS 3.0 will improve performance on a computer that can handle it but it wont make a computer that cannot handle it handle it.

BoneDaddy1844
02-15-2005, 09:15 PM
For those who are curious:

The GeForce 6800 is no where near the same card as the 6800 GT (or the Ultra). The 6800 is stripped of many of the features and performance of the GT and Ultra cards.

If you wish to see your video card investment last, you'd be wise to avoid the 6800 and go with a GT. An Ultra wouldn't be a bad choice, but you can easily overclock the GT to reach Ultra speeds and save money while you're doing it.

The 6800 GT is STILL the best bang for the buck you can get.

Cheers!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

s7e6e
02-16-2005, 01:30 AM
The only thing I know for sure, like I said before, the game is tested with a X800 XT, so there is no PS 3.0 on this one. I'm not sure about the PS 3.0 game support, but if it was any, why didn't they test the game with a 6600/6800 card than ?

IR0NCR0SS
02-16-2005, 02:33 PM
Why would they care if the card supported PS/VS3.0? A x800XT will have more raw power than a 6800Ultra. The PS/VS 3.0 isnt going to make it faster then the x800XT. Also, x800XT is using PS/VS 2.0+ which is ATI's little "we dont have PS3 but we gotta do something" and it works. Also this might be a "ATI" game, like Half life 2 is a ATI game, while DOOM3 is a Nvidia game.

adejb1
02-16-2005, 02:48 PM
Might be but I don't think so.
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_silenthunter3_home.html

Poacher886a
02-17-2005, 12:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BoneDaddy1844:
For those who are curious:

The GeForce 6800 is no where near the same card as the 6800 GT (or the Ultra). The 6800 is stripped of many of the features and performance of the GT and Ultra cards.

If you wish to see your video card investment last, you'd be wise to avoid the 6800 and go with a GT. An Ultra wouldn't be a bad choice, but you can easily overclock the GT to reach Ultra speeds and save money while you're doing it.

The 6800 GT is STILL the best bang for the buck you can get.

Cheers!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


How is this so...i have looked at the spec of the the 6800 and the GT and all i see is a bigger memory and core clock,both of which i can clock my Vanilla6800 within a wisker of and 16pipe lines instead of 12,not really a big enough performance deal for an extra 100,especialy when the whole lot will go out the window next year as graphic card technology always does!

sdcruz
02-17-2005, 03:23 AM
Don't worry all you need is a card that is Vertex / Pixel Shader 1.1 supported (G Force 3 + )

From the chat log:

(Zambet): Will SH3 run on laptops? I'm complying with the specifications: P4-2.6Ghz, 512 ram and Geforcefx5300 at 64 Mb.

(SH3_Dev_Team): SH3 will run on video cards supporting Vertex Shader 1.1 and Pixel Shader 1.1. If your card supports these standards, it should work.

http://www.silenthunteriii.com/uk/livechat250105.php

eddie_wood
02-17-2005, 03:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sdcruz:
Don't worry all you need is a card that is Vertex / Pixel Shader 1.1 supported (G Force 3 + )
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to clarify that the subject is "can we only FULLY enjoy....." the OP was asking if a card supporting PS3.0 was required for maximum effects, not minimum requirements of the game.

I'll be trying it on my laptop for a laugh! 32Mb Geforce 420GO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

IR0NCR0SS
02-17-2005, 02:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Poacher886:
How is this so...i have looked at the spec of the the 6800 and the GT and all i see is a bigger memory and core clock,both of which i can clock my Vanilla6800 within a wisker of and 16pipe lines instead of 12,not really a big enough performance deal for an extra 100,especialy when the whole lot will go out the window next year as graphic card technology always does! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well first off between a 6800 to a 6800GT you get higher clocks, 4 more pipes, and tighter timings. No matter the clocks the 4 pipes on the GT will always keep that card faster clock for clock. You can never gain that kind of performance.

Like it was said 1.1 is all that is needed. Most people who are using the 3.0 anyway will have (more then likely) powerful computers as mostly high end cards can run PS/VS 3.0 (or 2.0+)