Require video card for World of Warcraft at 120fps.

[Miren]

Fundamentally, I think about use 1920x1080 120 Hz display. To think that I would have covered it at 120fps possible, Ultra detail, but do not need any AA. I am planning a new building with an Intel CPU of 2500K. Openness a slight toward the green team, and I am also playing civilization 5. But I guess I'm not sure how the CPU bounce the game is, Tom’s was a piece of comparative tasting a while ago, but that was before the bridge of sand left. I was thinking about a 560 or 570, but very difficult to estimate the amount of video card you need no exaggeration. Please suggest me the proper video card for this.

[CACTUS101]

You will not obtain 120 fps in WoW out of any present CPU, the game is too challenging for that. Civilization 5 has the same problem too. These two games, in particular CPU is limited to high frame rates. The factor that predisposes Civilization 5 is not massive, given the advantage of crossfire HD6900 series to series GTX5 SLI, I'd say go with something like two HD6950s in the crossfire. For details an ultra high speed, will have to go two, even at 1920x1200

[xanix]

World of Warcraft is more CPU based as compared to GPU. While you have a graphics card of the entire range of a GTX 460 or ATI 5850 should get more than 60 to 200 frames per second depending on where you are. In crowded cities, as fast as the CPU, the more you will observe. Sandy Bridge overclocked certainly gets over 60 fps on high settings. I'm running an 870@3.72GHz i7 and fluctuate around 60 to 120 fps in org when there are plenty of people in the area. When outside the major, and I get everyplace from 100 to 250 fps. Sandy Bridge should get more fps than can be achieved, provided that OC.

[Miren]

Thanks for your advice; I think I'll stick with the range of 200 to $ 250 for the range of video cards that light. I was really feeling a little silly pairing a GPU with better known Sandy Bridge, but it look likes that for games that I play makes sense. My present system is AMD Phenom 8800 and X3@3.2 II, and a monitor is 180p 60Hz. My perception is not so great, and honestly, frequently do not notice AA at all. But again, not as if I had a video card that can handle AA in modern games is, so maybe I'll give it another chance after the upgrade. Quake 3 playing gravely for about 6 years and I am one of the monsters who swears he can tell the difference between 60 fps and 120, (heck can tell the difference between 100fps and 120)

[OS-X-10+]

I am having 20/15 vision now, when I play many time ago, before that my vision was 20/10 and then could not and cannot now inform the dissimilarity among 100 and 120 fps, I can start a bit of a difference, between 60 and like 200, but I have to look really and would not see when playing a game. A tip of my science teacher did was put a small label with some writing on it, a baseball, and throws my past. As he pulled so that the label was facing me, I could read. I heard about a pro baseball player who had 20/10 and could see the stitches turn into a ball thrown at him, but had to be much work to do, or was better than 20/10 vision

[MaCiNToSHeR]

That’s awesome, so you be supposed to have been a fighter pilot. Mine is like 20 / 40 after correction. I will say it was the most specific to the game I'm playing, if you are flying at 2,500 companies and in CPMA and have to film 90 degrees for a rail shot a guy down a hallway in a split second the "softness" that you get far above the ground frame rate is quite noticeable. Since they do not really play fps games, maybe I should forget about the 120 Hz display.