List of Graphics Cards Compatible with Ultra Mode
By
Angelxman81,
Posted on: 2011-02-02 22:05 in ALL ACCESS Gameplay Technical Issues Bugs
What is your requirement for "will run Ultra Mode Graphics"?
Before I upgraded, I was using a 9600GT, and it worked just fine with all Ultra Mode options on low (but at 10-20fps at 1680x1050 res). That may not necessarily be ideal for most people (hence my upgrade), but it did still run.
I ran ultra mode with a Core 2 Duo E6600 and a 5670 card at 1920x1200. It was able to run Ultra Mode a minimal settings.
Now with a 5770 that Core 2 Duo E6600 runs Ultra Mode well at mid level settings.
Your core 2 must have something wrong with it. 
You sure its not a P4 with a core 2 badge.
H: Blaster 50, Defender 50, Tank 50, Scrapper 50, Controller 50, PB 50, WS 50
V: Brute 50, Corruptor 50, MM 50, Dominator 50, Stalker 50, AW 50, AS 50
Top 4: Controller, Brute, Scrapper, Corruptor
Bottom 4: (Peacebringer) way below everything else, Mastermind, Dominator, Blaster
CoH in WQHD
I run Ultra mode with Corel duo 8400 DDR2 and Ati 4650 1GB Sapphire with all Ultra mode features maxed, except ambient occlusion that is off.
Quote:
Defined as an average of ~25+ frames per second, the point at which the human eye can generally be fooled into thinking it is seeing motion.| What is your requirement for "will run Ultra Mode Graphics"? |
Ultimate graphical fidelity choice is up to the user. Some might like to trade off frames per second for more detail. Others may not.
Quote:
| I run Ultra mode with Corel duo 8400 DDR2 and Ati 4650 1GB Sapphire with all Ultra mode features maxed, except ambient occlusion that is off. |
Quote:
| I ran ultra mode with a Core 2 Duo E6600 and a 5670 card at 1920x1200. It was able to run Ultra Mode a minimal settings. |
The Core 2 Duo E6600 is a 2.4ghz chip, so you had about a ~200mhz base real clock speed advantage, as well as an extra 2mb of cache, both which would have helped tip that architecture over the breaking point.
Also, it's probably very likely you had a 1gb memory configuration for graphics on the 5670, which would have helped overall performance.
Yes, the 5670 was the 1gb version. I was rather surprised it had GDDR5 memory. Even so, I would recommend not sticking the 5670 card on the acceptable list.
5770 runs the game fairly smoothly on the E6600 but the 5750 would have noticeable lag spikes on the same setup with lower settings.
You could also include 8800/9800 GT for Ultra Mode as well.
H: Blaster 50, Defender 50, Tank 50, Scrapper 50, Controller 50, PB 50, WS 50
V: Brute 50, Corruptor 50, MM 50, Dominator 50, Stalker 50, AW 50, AS 50
Top 4: Controller, Brute, Scrapper, Corruptor
Bottom 4: (Peacebringer) way below everything else, Mastermind, Dominator, Blaster
CoH in WQHD
Quote:
Surprisingly, I thought I already had them in there, but you're right, I don't.
|
Originally Posted by newchemicals
Yes, the 5670 was the 1gb version. I was rather surprised it had GDDR5 memory. Even so, I would recommend not sticking the 5670 card on the acceptable list.
5770 runs the game fairly smoothly on the E6600 but the 5750 would have noticeable lag spikes on the same setup with lower settings. You could also include 8800/9800 GT for Ultra Mode as well. |
Would like to point out that for some if not all GTS250's that they are actually rebadged 9800GT's IIRC as in that they share all the same graphics core (G92b), and as such will suffer the same problems as a "lower" but equivelent core.
Quote:
not... quite true.|
Originally Posted by Gangrel_EU
Would like to point out that for some if not all GTS250's that they are actually rebadged 9800GT's IIRC as in that they share all the same graphics core (G92b), and as such will suffer the same problems as a "lower" but equivelent core.
|
It was a rebadge on the 9800 GTX+, which was a die-shrunk version of the 9800 GTX: 65nm process to 55nm.
The 9800 GTX+ was introduced in June 2008, which was the same month the GTX 260 and the GTX 280 were introduced. The GTS 250 rebadge wasn't until March 2009.
Nvidia rebadged the 9800 GTX+ for... several reasons.
- The chips cost less to make than GTX 200 series chips
- Nvidia had loads of 9800 GTX+ chips sitting around in warehouses
- AMD's price / performance placing was forcing Nvidia to sell chips to vendors for up to $50 less than Nvidia's actual cost
*edit* numbnut and misthought something
Well might as well post this as i have thought about stuff...
Between the 2 cards (8800GT and GTS250) I can say that performance wise its more down to RAM, than actual core performance
(Also werent some 9800's rebadged 8800 chipsets?)
Yes. It went from 8800GTS 512KB to 9800GTX to GTS 250 (with a clock speed bump). Also 8800GT became the 9800GT.
That's OK though. From what I hear the ATI HD 57xx will become the AMD HD 67xx.
Father Xmas - Level 50 Ice/Ice Tanker - Victory
$725 and $1350 parts lists --- My guide to computer components
Tempus unum hominem manet
iirc most of the 9800 series had a couple of tweaks for one specific motherboard but were otherwise identical to the 8800 series. Not sure if the naming convention changed though.
Mind of Gaia lvl 50 Defiant's first Mind/Storm 'troller.
Deadly Doc 50 Dark/Dark Corr
and lots more on Pinnacle,Union and Defiant
Quote:
Pretty much correct. AMD's original plan was to not even bother having a 6700 series to help separate the add-in cards from the upcoming Bulldozer / Fusion processors. I think the only reason AMD finally did a 67xx release was to appease vendors who weren't happy with trying to explain to consumers that no, that 5770 was indeed the card just below the 6850. Given that OEM link, you'll probably actually have difficulty finding a 67xx branded card on the store shelfs. The series is supposed to be an OEM part only, but I don't think that will stop vendors like Asus from producing add-in cards. Granted, I have yet to see any 67xx branded cards in retail channels. |
Originally Posted by Father Xmas
Yes. It went from 8800GTS 512KB to 9800GTX to GTS 250 (with a clock speed bump). Also 8800GT became the 9800GT.
That's OK though. From what I hear the ATI HD 57xx will become the AMD HD 67xx. |
If you ask official marketing sources, you'll probably be told that Juniper has been massaged to support the following OpenGL extensions: GL_ARB_cl_event; GL_ARB_debug_output; GL_ARB_robustness; GL_ARB_shader_stencil_export; GLX_ARB_create_context_robustness; WGL_ARB_create_context_robustness
Technically, both true and not true. Support for these extensions was already in the Evergreen hardware family... but since OpenGL 4.1 was finalized about 9 months after the 5770 family hit the market, I don't think those cards were ever submitted for OpenGL 4.1 certification. The 67xx cards, as well as the 68xx and 69xx cards have been certified.
Curious as to what you're are basing compatablility on?
I have a GTX 295 and I am plagued with crashes since Issue 19. At this point, I've tried everything and simply consider the card incompatible with CoX. It runs the game well with all settings turned on, but randomly experiences Open GL errors that crash the game. The only solution presented thus far is a major driver rollback that runs CoH poorly, not the mention the other games I play.
I've essentially given up on CoX teaming until I get around to purchasing a new card. IMHO, 200 series cards are simply not compatible with changes to CoX graphics.
SI Radio has many DJs and listeners whom hold City of Heroes close to their hearts. We will be supporting many efforts to keep CoH ALIVE!!
Quote:
Good question.|
Originally Posted by Desmodos
Curious as to what you're are basing compatablility on?
|
My compatibility is:
- Windows NT5
- Windows NT6
- Linux / Cedega / GametreeLinux
Quote:
|
I have a GTX 295 and I am plagued with crashes since Issue 19. At this point, I've tried everything and simply consider the card incompatible with CoX. It runs the game well with all settings turned on, but randomly experiences Open GL errors that crash the game. The only solution presented thus far is a major driver rollback that runs CoH poorly, not the mention the other games I play. I've essentially given up on CoX teaming until I get around to purchasing a new card. IMHO, 200 series cards are simply not compatible with changes to CoX graphics. |
One of the problems you likely are having "now" is that Nvidia has only recently enabled SLI for OpenGL 3.x targets, which now means that your specific card is using BOTH of the GTX 275 cores, rather than just one of the GTX 275 cores.
This is why performance drops when you go back to a previous driver: that extra GPU core stops working.
It's probably also why you are having crashes: Nvidia has been trying to pull back from supporting OpenGL and it doesn't get near the testing / QA that it did 2 or 3 years ago.
Unfortunately, I was able to replicate OpenGL crashes with my SLI GTS 250 rig before I packed up and moved down to Florida. The quick solution for me is to break the SLI mode before running City of Heroes.
You may, or may not, have that option with a GTX 295. The options to only run one GTX 275 core at a time may or may not be presented in your Nvidia control panel.
If you can disable SLI, that should keep the game from crashing, but as noted, you'll be back to the performance of older drivers before SLI was enabled.
Quote:
The problem actually began before I enabled SLI. I was using older drivers that did not use SLI for COX. I upgraded to those drivers in an effort to correct the problem. Performance improved considerably, crashes continued. The only thing that stops the crashes is rolling back to 197 drivers, which are not good for the GTX 295.|
Originally Posted by je_saist
If you can disable SLI, that should keep the game from crashing, but as noted, you'll be back to the performance of older drivers before SLI was enabled.
|
Additionally, many that reported the problem were not using GTX 295 cards.
There have been numerous threads in the CoH forums about this. The only two solutions I have seen have been rolling back to 197 drivers or the purchase of new card 400 series or newer. 197 drivers pose many problems for GTX 295, so I'm stuck with purchasing a new card (ok I would have done that anyways).
EDIT:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by je_saist
|
SI Radio has many DJs and listeners whom hold City of Heroes close to their hearts. We will be supporting many efforts to keep CoH ALIVE!!
Quote:
Don't really know what to tell you then. You may just be stuck with what you have.|
Originally Posted by Desmodos
The problem actually began before I enabled SLI. I was using older drivers that did not use SLI for COX. I upgraded to those drivers in an effort to correct the problem. Performance improved considerably, crashes continued. The only thing that stops the crashes is rolling back to 197 drivers, which are not good for the GTX 295.
Additionally, many that reported the problem were not using GTX 295 cards. There have been numerous threads in the CoH forums about this. The only two solutions I have seen have been rolling back to 197 drivers or the purchase of new card 400 series or newer. 197 drivers pose many problems for GTX 295, so I'm stuck with purchasing a new card (ok I would have done that anyways). |
Quote:
| This may be a contributing factor, not sure. Not sure how many players would be running those OSs. My problems started while I was running Vista. I upgraded to Win7, hoping to address the issue, but no luck. |
Windows NT6 IS Windows Vista and Windows 7
Windows Vista and Windows 7 are the same damn operating system. There is no kernel difference. There is no DirectX difference. Even the Driver Model API has been updated to be the same on both.
The only difference, and I mean the ONLY difference is that Windows Vista ships with the WinSXS files to run applications only compatible with NT5. This is one of the reasons Windows Vista installs are horribly bloated.
Windows 7 does not include these WinSXS files, but makes NT5 compability available through a virtualized NT5 Install. Knocking out the file bloat is why Windows 7 has a smaller install footprint than Vista.
Quote:
Again, I ask, what are you basing compatibly on? How long did you play with each card? Did you team? Run a SF/TF?|
Originally Posted by je_saist
Don't really know what to tell you then. You may just be stuck with what you have.
|
The cards can run the game, and run it well for hours at a time. Still what I consider 'compatible.'
Quote:
|
... Windows NT6 IS Windows Vista and Windows 7 Windows Vista and Windows 7 are the same damn operating system. There is no kernel difference. There is no DirectX difference. Even the Dirver Model API has been updated to be the same on both. |
SI Radio has many DJs and listeners whom hold City of Heroes close to their hearts. We will be supporting many efforts to keep CoH ALIVE!!
Well i can confirm that the GTS250 card is compatible with CoX... and has been for at least the past year. I know this because it was the card i had for the past year or so fueling my "current" PC (its now sitting in my back up machine).
One thing that *seriously* annoyed me at one point with huge FPS drops (and also lag as well) was when i was running Microsoft Security Essentials. In the end it took some forum browsing, but managed to solve the issue and play nice and smooth with the GTS250 (solution: exclude the CoX folder from MSE scanning it)
Quote:
When did you switch? When Ultra Mode was introduced, with Issue 18, I had no problems whatsoever. The 'compatablity' fell apart with Issue 19.
|
Originally Posted by Gangrel_EU
Well i can confirm that the GTS250 card is compatible with CoX... and has been for at least the past year. I know this because it was the card i had for the past year or so fueling my "current" PC (its now sitting in my back up machine).
|
SI Radio has many DJs and listeners whom hold City of Heroes close to their hearts. We will be supporting many efforts to keep CoH ALIVE!!
Was wondering if anyone out there had tried out the ASUS Ares, to see what kind of performance it allows COH. Anyone?
"Iron defenses and a crappy attitude do not, a tanker, make."
Proud Leader and founder of The Gangbusters Super Group and The Madhouse Villain Group: Ask me about becoming a member!
Quote:
Not for me... i switched just after christmas (it was a christmas present for me) and i was playing pretty much every day.
|
Originally Posted by Desmodos
When did you switch? When Ultra Mode was introduced, with Issue 18, I had no problems whatsoever. The 'compatablity' fell apart with Issue 19.
|
Quote:
I'm not familiar with the Asus Ares. I just looked it up in Google and it looks like a Dual 5870.|
Originally Posted by Flarecrow
Was wondering if anyone out there had tried out the ASUS Ares, to see what kind of performance it allows COH. Anyone?
|
As AMD isn't supporting OpenGL 3.x Crossfire yet, you'd only get the performance of a single 5870 GPU with 2gb of video memory.
That's still more than enough to drive everything that makes a difference in the game (ambient occlusion aside)
My GTX 260 runs the game just fine with no crashes. Now the GTX 295 has complaints about it and I don't recall anyone saying they had the card working with no issues.
I think the problem may be limited to GTX 295 cards.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Desmodos
Curious as to what you're are basing compatablility on?
I've essentially given up on CoX teaming until I get around to purchasing a new card. IMHO, 200 series cards are simply not compatible with changes to CoX graphics. |
H: Blaster 50, Defender 50, Tank 50, Scrapper 50, Controller 50, PB 50, WS 50
V: Brute 50, Corruptor 50, MM 50, Dominator 50, Stalker 50, AW 50, AS 50
Top 4: Controller, Brute, Scrapper, Corruptor
Bottom 4: (Peacebringer) way below everything else, Mastermind, Dominator, Blaster
CoH in WQHD
Lets see if I can get Mod05 to sticky this... from here: http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showp...7&postcount=11
This is a listing of all of the graphics cards currently known to be capable of driving Ultra Mode level graphics in City of Heroes with a resolution of 1680*1050.
My initial comparison processor was a 3ghz Socket AM2 A64 6000. I'll go ahead and say straight out that the Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.2ghz I had on hand was NOT capable of driving this resolution with the cards I had on hand.
If you need an explanation of just what Ultra Mode Graphics Are, please see this thread: http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=219534
The starting point for running Ultra Mode Options in Low are the AMD RadeonHD 4850 and Nvidia Geforce GTS 250. These have the respective theoretical throughput rates of
- 10,000 MegaPixel / 25,000 Megatexel
- 11,808 MegaPixel / 47,232 Megatexel
For the AMD architecture then, cards that will run Ultra Mode Graphics Options include:**I've never actually seen a 4730 for sale. On paper it has the shader and texture power to execute the OpenGL 3.0 calls in the 1280*720 resolution range.
***As far as I am aware the 4770 was only sold with a 512mb memory configuration. The card also had a 128-bit memory bus. While it's not far off from the 4850 in terms of theoretical power, the memory configuration places this cards target resolution more for 1280*720
#Crossfire is not yet supported for OpenGL 3.x or higher rendering targets.
For the Nvidia architecture these include:
*the Geforce 8800 series has the shader and texture power to execute Ultra Mode Code, but memory counts of 256mb and 512mb of local video memory really cuts into the ability of the cards to render Ultra Mode in high resolutions
^The 8800 GT and 9800 GT are the entry level models. They both did have a 1gb model made, but I think practical performance is going to place these cards closer to the 1280*720 resolution mark for reliable performance.
##SLI for OpenGL 3.x and higher targets is operational as of recent Nvidia driver updates
The list of mobile cards that can render in ultra mode is significant shorter:
#Crossfire is not yet supported for OpenGL 3.x or higher rendering targets.
As a note since a couple of Quadro's are in the last mobile list: Workstation Graphics Cards may not execute the game properly.