PDA

View Full Version : Help Eidos out. What video card do you think you'll have?



Nazo
23rd Aug 2003, 19:13
Just as the subject says. Modern games are terribly dependant on the power of your video card. I think it's more important to know how many of their fans need low detail options/etc or want ultra-high details than how many need less complicated scripts. Heck, serious sam 1&2 run smoothly on my Athlon 1800+ (1533MHz!)and that's pretty much known to be the worst on CPU power.

Note, I tried to keep them roughly equivalent, but it's not 100% perfect. And don't be surprised to find the Geforce FX 5200 so low, it is a peice of crap quite frankly. I'm not 100% certain it shouldn't go below the GF3 Ti series.

I don't really know TOO much about the Radeons, so don't know much about any of those that are effectively below or exactly equal the level of a GF4 Ti4200. I learned a decent bit about what's more powerful though due to my hope to upgrade in the not too far future.

Oh, and I'm not trying to say the CPU question is invalid. It too has usefulness, and I intend this one to complement that one though I do admit I consider the video card more important.

sneelock
23rd Aug 2003, 19:35
maybe a little under but still the 5200 has better fsaa and ansitropic filtering.

Nazo
23rd Aug 2003, 19:40
You're right. I forgot about those. Of course, they are useless in a really modern game where you'll have to use the lowest details and everything to get a withstandable FPS. There's no room for FSAA and AF there. It provides nice eye-candy for older games, but in newer games the higher raw power of the GF3 would make it better. So for DX2 purposes, the FX 5200 is lower.

NamelessOne
24th Aug 2003, 05:27
I don't think the Radeon 9700 Pro should be bundled with the Gf 5600, the 9700 a much higher end card. It should be 5800 Ultra/9700 Pro.

dirigimaster
24th Aug 2003, 07:10
Originally posted by NamelessOne
I don't think the Radeon 9700 Pro should be bundled with the Gf 5600, the 9700 a much higher end card. It should be 5800 Ultra/9700 Pro.

Yep 9700 is just under the 9800/5900 in terms of speed and functions.

I love both cards, though I have the 9800 :))

mestcrapphead
24th Aug 2003, 14:44
man i hope that DX2 will work decent with my video card since i just got it new for the DX9 features...
its a geforce fx 5200 128mb

Nazo
24th Aug 2003, 17:40
Originally posted by NamelessOne
I don't think the Radeon 9700 Pro should be bundled with the Gf 5600, the 9700 a much higher end card. It should be 5800 Ultra/9700 Pro.

Maybe you are right, but don't forget that revision 2 of the 5600 ultra is MUCH better than the original. Of course, I do realize that the pro version of the 9700 is one darned good card too, so maybe it should be. I can't change it now though. It only lets a moderator change a poll.

mestcrapphead, I'd be a little worried. My GF4 Ti4200 tends to be a lot slower than I thought it would be even when I bought it. Maybe though if you use low resolution and turn off all the high end stuff like detailed shadows you can pull off some newer things though I certainly would count on Doom3 not working. How does that card perform in Unreal 2, Soldier of Fortune 2, etc? I believe those games would give you a decent idea of the kind of power you will need for a DX2, though it's only a guess I admit. If you don't have those two, look for a demo. Especially SoF2 with a Jungle map would be best. That probably shows about the worst of it with all that very high grass going so far and all. Heck, DX2 might be using the Unreal 2 engine in fact.


Oh, btw. To the person who has >$500 and plans to buy whatever they buy next, buy yourself a R9800 Pro, some heatsinks, etc, then give me the rest so I can upgrade my card!!! Darned rich people )-:

mestcrapphead
24th Aug 2003, 17:53
yep i have Unreal 2 and UT2003 and Splinter Cell, and they run pretty well, averaging 25+ fps on Max detail at 800x600...

oh and i forgot to mention, my geforce fx 5200 is overclocked to 300/410 from 250/332

Nazo
24th Aug 2003, 18:28
Sounds a lot better than I thought. Probably doesn't hurt that it's o/ced I'll bet though. I'd imagine that DX2 would push things even further, but if you can pull that off, then maybe with some low details you can get it to run smoothly enough.

SuzieCroft
24th Aug 2003, 18:35
Geforce 2.

/me shuffles away crying and embaressed

Nazo
24th Aug 2003, 18:39
I had a GF2 GTS for the very longest time. I bought it back when it was the very highest end, before the GF2 Ti and so on. In fact, I only upgraded about the time Morrowind came out (not due to it, it's so inefficient I'll bet that even if you have a Radeon 9800 Pro the FPS will still drop to below 30 on a few occassions.) Anyway, the GF4 Ti4200 is only something like $75 these days. It's at least a start.

Too bad I had to have VIVO and all. I bought this thing when it first came out. It actually cost around $200. I should have bought a Ti4400 and had a little more power to play with. I want more FSAA and AF )-:

AlteredGlyph
25th Aug 2003, 00:19
I have, and will have(probably) A Radeon 8500 Pro 128 MB. It's a good, relatively cheap card, and I think it should hold up until the 2004 games.

cneal
25th Aug 2003, 06:37
Mines an ATI Radeon AGP

Jovena
25th Aug 2003, 07:22
I recently upgraded to a Radeon 9600 pro 128meg.

WinXP Pro
AMD XP-2100
DDR 2100 1 gig
Abit AT7-Max2
Lian-Li PC-60 Alluminum case
Radeon 9600 Pro
SB Live Platinum (Old but works great)
100 gig HD (games) plus smaller 40 gig for apps ;)
Cable (1) Gig connection
And to bring it all together 1 shiny new 17' SyncMaster
Don't you love when a monitor weighs less then a gallong of milk?
Only think I am lacking as far as I can tell is a upgraded CPU and perhaps a soundcard? But think what I have can run most things pretty well as is!

Mr.Kill
26th Aug 2003, 03:12
im going to buy a completly new pc and the best thing is - my dad's gonna pay for it all !!! (im only 15 !)

i dont know how much he will let me spend but im going to choose the parts and he puts the computer together.

which is the best graphics card out at the moment. i dont know if its the geforce fx 5900 256Mb or the ATI radeon 9800 pro 256Mb?

it's been a while since i had a decent pc, ive been playing on my xbox but i want to play deus ex 2, half life 2 and doom 3 and my old 1.2Ghz AMD athlon with 288Mb RAM and a geforce 4 ti4600 (128MB) would not be able to play these games well. i tried the leaked doom 3 alpha and it ran so slow i could make a cup of tea before it releads the pistol !

Mr.Kill
26th Aug 2003, 03:17
Originally posted by mestcrapphead
yep i have Unreal 2 and UT2003 and Splinter Cell, and they run pretty well, averaging 25+ fps on Max detail at 800x600...


i can run ut2003 at 1280x 1024 max details on my 1.2Ghz AMD Athlon, 128MB GeForce4 Ti4600 , 288MB Ram and no slowdown on any of the maps, just runs as smooth as butter and the levels take about 5 secs to load :)

freakzilla11
26th Aug 2003, 04:01
Originally posted by Mr.Kill
im going to buy a completly new pc and the best thing is - my dad's gonna pay for it all !!! (im only 15 !)

i dont know how much he will let me spend but im going to choose the parts and he puts the computer together.

which is the best graphics card out at the moment. i dont know if its the geforce fx 5900 256Mb or the ATI radeon 9800 pro 256Mb?

it's been a while since i had a decent pc, ive been playing on my xbox but i want to play deus ex 2, half life 2 and doom 3 and my old 1.2Ghz AMD athlon with 288Mb RAM and a geforce 4 ti4600 (128MB) would not be able to play these games well. i tried the leaked doom 3 alpha and it ran so slow i could make a cup of tea before it releads the pistol !

The Doom 3 Alpha may not have played well because well... it's Alpha. I wouldn't automatically say that your computer isn't good because you weren't able to play it.

I have a computer that I made myself which is pretty similar to yours, and I'm not at all concerned about not being able to play IW.

AMD Duron 1.3GHz
640MB RAM
GeForce 3 Ti-200 (128MB)

Jovena
26th Aug 2003, 05:02
Originally posted by Mr.Kill
im going to buy a completly new pc and the best thing is - my dad's gonna pay for it all !!! (im only 15 !)

i dont know how much he will let me spend but im going to choose the parts and he puts the computer together.

which is the best graphics card out at the moment. i dont know if its the geforce fx 5900 256Mb or the ATI radeon 9800 pro 256Mb?

it's been a while since i had a decent pc, ive been playing on my xbox but i want to play deus ex 2, half life 2 and doom 3 and my old 1.2Ghz AMD athlon with 288Mb RAM and a geforce 4 ti4600 (128MB) would not be able to play these games well. i tried the leaked doom 3 alpha and it ran so slow i could make a cup of tea before it releads the pistol !

Before you blow your dads cash ;) you may want to check out the reviews on the newer cards. I know I was looking at them on Toms Hardware page and seem to recall they did not warrent the 400-500$ price tag! At least that was the reviews I read there.
Good Luck!

mestcrapphead
26th Aug 2003, 12:11
Originally posted by Mr.Kill
i can run ut2003 at 1280x 1024 max details on my 1.2Ghz AMD Athlon, 128MB GeForce4 Ti4600 , 288MB Ram and no slowdown on any of the maps, just runs as smooth as butter and the levels take about 5 secs to load :)

i haven't tried UT2003 on that resolution but i can run it at 1024x768 pretty well too, i'll have to give that res a try since my pc is P4 2.6 512DDR RAM GeForce FX5200 128MB (and i think the level load times rely on the speed of your hard drive...)

crimson_stallion
26th Aug 2003, 13:00
Originally posted by mestcrapphead
man i hope that DX2 will work decent with my video card since i just got it new for the DX9 features...
its a geforce fx 5200 128mb

I think the 5600 ultra should be put with the 9600 pro in terms of performance equivalence. The ultra rev2 is i think faster, but i think the performance is closer to 9600pro then 9700pro.

mikepayne666
26th Aug 2003, 19:29
i dont see radeon!! readon is way better!!! i got a radeon 9700 pro, it kick ass

Lawnboy360
26th Aug 2003, 23:56
which is the best graphics card out at the moment. i dont know if its the geforce fx 5900 256Mb or the ATI radeon 9800 pro 256Mb?

In most games they're very close. The Doom3 benchmarks which came out in may on various hardware sites showed the 5900 to be quite faster than the 9800 but that could easily have been a driver problem with the 9800 and Doom3, as it only comes out in 2004 anyway, the drivers aren't yet ready...

If I was you I'd try to get a 9700Pro instead, almost as fast and quite cheaper... if you're buying it "now" at least. Getting the very lastest stuff is much more expensive and not much faster.

AlteredGlyph
27th Aug 2003, 00:35
The 9800 is actually more powerful. The 5900 has a small program in the drivers that lowers certain things to increase framerate, etc. Still, the diffrence is pretty small.

mark265
27th Aug 2003, 01:52
Whats up bros im new here...

ok , I need your help here...How well would a ATI radeon 9000 64 MB Do in the Game ? also note that i have a 700 p3 proccessor pretty lousy and old i know But I won't be able to update My Pc for the 6 or so upcoming Months ...oh and i have 256 RAM...will this work it out with DX2 And Unreal T 2003 that i think about getting aswell ?



~later.

DarkPhoenix
27th Aug 2003, 03:07
I'm going to hope my GeForce 4 MX 420 will hold out for DX: IW. If I have to buy a new video card, I will, but I'd really rather not.

Bloodstrike
27th Aug 2003, 11:09
This is my pc at the moment

a Compaq 5831 (I know Compaq s*cks)

-Athlon 500mhz
-128mb
-10GB + 80 GB hd
-Geforce 4 ti 4600
-Soundblaster 128

But I'm surprised, I could still play Return to Castle Wolfenstein.

This is the pc I'm going to buy.

-Athlon XP 3000+
-ASUS A7N8X Deluxe
-Ram 514MB 333mhz
-Zalman Cooler
-SAMSUNG SM-352
-the 80GB hd and the Geforce 4 will be transferred to this pc.

I'm also going to buy a Samsung 172w(idescreen) lcd monitor and Logitech z-680 for watching those dvd movies.

I hope my Geforce 4 ti 4600 will be good for another year or even longer.

mestcrapphead
27th Aug 2003, 14:09
Originally posted by mark265
ok , I need your help here...How well would a ATI radeon 9000 64 MB Do in the Game ? also note that i have a 700 p3 proccessor pretty lousy and old i know But I won't be able to update My Pc for the 6 or so upcoming Months ...oh and i have 256 RAM...will this work it out with DX2 And Unreal T 2003 that i think about getting aswell ?

i seriously doubt that that would even run UT2003 at a decent frame rate, (the minimum specs need a 733mhz), and DX2, Doom 3, Half Life 2, would more than likely definately be no goes unless you upgrade your CPU, another 256MB RAM won't hurt either.

Xenon
27th Aug 2003, 16:18
To DarkPhoenix: DX: IW requires pixel shader support (just to run it). Your current videocard doesn't support it.

To Mr.Kill: 15!=1307674368000. (I know, that's out of topic. And you put a space between the number and exclamation sign. But sill, coudn't resist stating that).

As for me, I have a 128 Mb ti4200 and I don't think I'll upgrade in near future unless large number of games will be released which will require a DirectX 9 compliant videocard. I'm fairly content with my card for now.

agent008
27th Aug 2003, 16:25
hay i used a radeon 32mb sdram pci version on dx and i bet it will run fine with dx 2 but im not using that card any more im gonna use a radeon 9600 non pro

sneelock
27th Aug 2003, 17:50
For DXIW i would recommend a geforce 4 ti or geforce fx 5600 and higher on the nvidia side. on the ati side a Radeon 8500 pro 128mb or 9500 and higher. Personally i have a ti4800(fast ti4600 8x) and for the money and of the ti's are a very good buy. other than that the FX5600ultra is another very good buy. I would stay away from the 256mb cards, the GPU is not adaquet to handle the need for the extra ram.

agent008
27th Aug 2003, 18:00
todays game dont need all that power

Lawnboy360
27th Aug 2003, 23:27
todays game dont need all that power

But tomorrow Doom3, HL2, DX2, STALKER, and many more, will come out.

DarkPhoenix
27th Aug 2003, 23:58
Originally posted by Xenon
To DarkPhoenix: DX: IW requires pixel shader support (just to run it). Your current videocard doesn't support it.



Thanks for the tip. Could you suggest an alternative? I'm a college student, so affordability is a concern :)

Lawnboy360
28th Aug 2003, 00:09
Could you suggest an alternative?

Here's a list of cards with DX8 support :

Any GeForce 3
Any GeForce 4 Ti, none GeForce 4 MX
Any GeForce FX
Any Radeon 8500 and up.

I'd suggest for a low price and good performance:
GeForce 4 Ti s with 128mb
GeForce FX 5600 128mb
Radeon 9500/9600 128mb

DarkPhoenix
28th Aug 2003, 00:12
Many thanks for a prompt reply.

Mr.Kill
28th Aug 2003, 01:31
Originally posted by Xenon
To Mr.Kill: 15!=1307674368000. (I know, that's out of topic. And you put a space between the number and exclamation sign. But sill, coudn't resist stating that).



i dont get that. could u explain it to me please?

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
28th Aug 2003, 07:09
! means the factorial function in mathematics. 15! = 15*14*13*12*11*10*9*8*7*6*5*4*3*2*1

Xenon
28th Aug 2003, 17:31
Well, factorial isn't exactly a function since it only works with natural numbers only.

And a tip to DarkPhoenix: if I were buying a videocard that's supposed to stay on my computer for a relatively long time I'd look for one that supports DX9. I don't think it'll be required for games in the near future but it can give some quite realistic effects (e. g. pixel shader 2) and, in some cases, improved performance with what can be rendered with DX8 but more slowly. And DX9 will surely be supported in games in the future.

agent008
28th Aug 2003, 17:47
what the radeon 9600 is not a low performance card:( dont say that take it back

well microsoft says dx9 will make some old games faster lol sure it will:rolleyes:

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
29th Aug 2003, 08:47
Well, factorial isn't exactly a function since it only works with natural numbers only.

hmmm first it IS a function, defined on naturals number : a function is just a operator linking an object to an other object, wich may be different , may have more dimensions, be of different nature, etc. it doesn't have to be only on numbers, it can be voctors, potatoes, cabbages, etc.

and second factorial is extendable to all numbers with a formula I don't remember at the moment, but it gives a function on Reals, that coincides with factorial on all natural numbers and is continuous on all numbers

Xenon
29th Aug 2003, 15:11
To Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames: Well, there was a definition of function that only worked with continuous areas originally created by Dirichlet but it's currently obsolete. I agree with your definition.

But Gamma function which can be used as an extention of factorial isn't factorial, it's its extension (among other things).

SuzieCroft
29th Aug 2003, 19:40
Actually, that could mean one of two things.

15! = x

Means Factorial 15 is equal to x.

15 != x

Means 15 is not equal to x.

So, using the above information, we can quite confidently say

15 != 15!

[/geekage]

Mr.Kill
30th Aug 2003, 00:19
ok.....

lets just get back to discussing the topic?

!!!!!!! <<--- look at that ! <<--- there is is again? that damn exclamation mark.

mark265
30th Aug 2003, 08:09
Originally posted by mestcrapphead
i seriously doubt that that would even run UT2003 at a decent frame rate, (the minimum specs need a 733mhz), and DX2, Doom 3, Half Life 2, would more than likely definately be no goes unless you upgrade your CPU, another 256MB RAM won't hurt either.

oh ****...just as i expected :(

are you sure? What about if i overclocked my CPU ?? or does the game stricktly requires a p4 not p3 ??

Picasso
30th Aug 2003, 08:36
It's a matter of raw processing power. DX2 will probably be very processor intensive, what with a realistic and detailed physics engine, advanced AI for NPC's, etc. On the upside, your video card passes the minimum requirements.

You'll probably either have to upgrade (and by "upgrade" I mean "get a whole new computer", since likely the only thing you'll reuse is your video card) or get it for the Xbox.

mark265
30th Aug 2003, 09:01
Originally posted by Picasso

You'll probably either have to upgrade (and by "upgrade" I mean "get a whole new computer", since likely the only thing you'll reuse is your video card).

ya...that what pisses me off, if i changed to p4 I'll need to change the main board too..

what about athlon xp's ? do they require a specefic type of main boards too ? I'm not much into that tech stuff.......

TehFreak
30th Aug 2003, 09:10
unsurprisingly, different processor makes require different motherboards.
something like:
athlonxp 2100+ (£50)
asus a7n8x deluxe (£90)
512mb ddr333 ram (£60)
should run dx2 nice and smoothly (i hope) while being fairly cheap. don't what that would cost in america though (the prices i gave are fairly approximate for the uk anyway).

Picasso
30th Aug 2003, 09:38
tehfreak, you just listed my gaming rig perfectly. 2100+, A7N8X Deluxe, and 512MB of PC2700. Add in the Ti4200, and that's exactly it.

Mark: For a gamer on a budget I'd definitely recommend an AthlonXP. From a price/performance standpoint, there's just no contest. You can get a 2500+ for about $85 now (or a 2600+ for $100), which should last you a good long time. A7N8X Deluxes can be had for $70 (which I paid twice that much for back in February, *beats head against wall*, but it's a superb board). All those prices are from Newegg.com.

TehFreak
30th Aug 2003, 09:56
and a damn good (and v. cheap) gaming rig it is too. i just wish i had something more meaty than a radeon 9000pro in there. ah well, time to overclock that monkey
another point, if you're worried about your processor being on the slow side, it may be easier and cheaper to buy a water cooling system (around £80) and overclock, rather than buy a new processor, ram, mobo etc.

mark265
30th Aug 2003, 11:34
Originally posted by Picasso
tehfreak, you just listed my gaming rig perfectly. 2100+, A7N8X Deluxe, and 512MB of PC2700. Add in the Ti4200, and that's exactly it.

Mark: For a gamer on a budget I'd definitely recommend an AthlonXP. From a price/performance standpoint, there's just no contest. You can get a 2500+ for about $85 now (or a 2600+ for $100), which should last you a good long time. A7N8X Deluxes can be had for $70 (which I paid twice that much for back in February, *beats head against wall*, but it's a superb board). All those prices are from Newegg.com.

yes...I think I'll go for the AthlonXP and a MB for it.....Do you guys know any other good online stores that ships internationally ?

TehFreak
30th Aug 2003, 12:27
all my stuff comes froms dabs.com
they're english, but i think they ship internationally

Mr.Kill
31st Aug 2003, 18:56
my dad's buying me a new pc.

the processor is a AMD athlon xp 2800+

i dont know which one is better to buy, a p4 or an athlon xp?

also he is buying a new graphics card. i dont know which one to get as well, the radeon 9800 pro or the grforce fx5900, they both have 256mb memory

i dont really get how the athlon xp's work as well.

Lawnboy360
31st Aug 2003, 20:33
i dont know which one is better to buy, a p4 or an athlon xp?

The lastest P4s with 800mhz FSB are faster than the XP of the same "rating" (A P4 2.4ghz 800FSB is quite faster than a 2400+) but, for the same rating, Athlon XPs are also cheaper, so for the same price you get very similar performance.


also he is buying a new graphics card. i dont know which one to get as well, the radeon 9800 pro or the grforce fx5900, they both have 256mb memory
Their performance is very similar, but the radeon will be faster in HL2, HL2 being very optimized for ATi's stuff.
See : http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11276


i dont really get how the athlon xp's work as well.
What do you mean?

Mr.Kill
31st Aug 2003, 20:57
Originally posted by Lawnboy360
[B]Their performance is very similar, but the radeon will be faster in HL2, HL2 being very optimized for ATi's stuff.
See : http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11276


i dont mind if its optimized for hl2 or not, i just want the better card, for future games as well (ill be playing doom 3 dues ex 2, cs:condition zero and max payne 2, amongst others)

this is what i meant by how the xp processors work:

take the xp 2800+, it runs at 2.08Ghz (or something like that), but its its pentium equivalent speed is 2.8Ghz (i guess thats where the 2800+ comes from). i know its something to do with the quantispeed architecture or something, but it seems wier that it runs 800Mhz faster that it actually does ! (it that all makes sense ?!?!?!?)

Lawnboy360
31st Aug 2003, 21:11
take the xp 2800+, it runs at 2.08Ghz (or something like that), but its its pentium equivalent speed is 2.8Ghz (i guess thats where the 2800+ comes from). i know its something to do with the quantispeed architecture or something, but it seems wier that it runs 800Mhz faster that it actually does ! (it that all makes sense ?!?!?!?)

It doesn't "run 800mhz faster than it actually does". It's just that it gets more work done by mhz than a P4, so an Athlon can get the same work done with less mhz than a P4, and the model rating is trying to show that.

TehFreak
31st Aug 2003, 21:50
athlons can do more instructions per cycle than pentium 4s, so although they run at a lower frequency, they work at the same speed as a pentium 4 of a higher frequency hence the 2800+ system, indicating that that processor is capable of the performance of a pentium 4 2.8ghz (though that's a bit optimistic against the latest set of p4s)

Mr.Kill
1st Sep 2003, 15:45
so its "capable". which means it will only do it sometimes?

Jovena
1st Sep 2003, 20:19
This is a rather old story seems at least for the past few years that the Intel and Amd have had turns at being the kings of the Cpu. I used to like Intel then I tried Amd when the introduced their T-bird chips I was happy with the price and performance
(as well as the ability to oc) so I switched to Amd. Now it seems that Intel may be improving their CPU again and guess what Amd also has a new chip in the works (go figure heh)! I use www.tomshardware.com to check how the latest batches of Intel/Amd chips are fairing. Hate to say it but am not so sure if I will stick to AMD this next major CPU upgrade...have to wait and see. Btw can you OC a P4?

Lawnboy360
1st Sep 2003, 21:20
Btw can you OC a P4?

Only the FSB; there's no way to unlock the multiplier. To overclock a quad-pumped 200mhz bus you'll need high quality memory.

Nazo
2nd Sep 2003, 02:30
Hey, good news. According to someone in the CPU thread, the game will be targeting a PC roughly around the range of a P3 850MHz with a Geforce 3. Of course, once I thought about it, I realized that did make sense. If they intend to make a console version, they will probably want it to work on an XBox, and that thing only has a P3 at either 733 or 750 (can't recall which, but I'm pretty sure 733.) Of course, the XBox is more efficient and customized, so has a bit more power to spare for games, probably making it roughly the equivalent of a 850 and the video card in the thing is definitely a GF3, but a darned good one, making it the equivalent of one of the TIs. Chances are a GFFX 5200 will indeed pull off this game after all with room enough to spare to enjoy the beautiful effects of AF and FSAA. Especially with overclocking thrown in the mix. I'd be a little worried about a GF2 though. Definitely time to be updating that thing. I believe my current card in a non VIVO version is now selling for roughly $75 and that's a GF4. I don't know what GF3 TIs are, but probably they would be cheaper. Not sure which radeon would be at the low end. Afraid I only looked at equivalents or better versus my current card. Maybe the 9200 could do it.

BTW, I SWEAR I once managed to overclock the multiplier on my AMD Athlon 1800+ It happened only once and was gone the moment I shut down, but I swear I did it somehow. And this is without modifying anything. I wouldn't dare try to modify mine because if I messed up I'd pretty much be without a PC. Oh well, guess I'll stick with messing around with the FSB for now. Too bad changing the FSB doesn't seem to change the memory clock on this motherboard )-: (I have the DDR 3200 because I switched with someone else, but this MB can only do 133x2 max, no matter what the FSB is.)

Oh, and btw, the AMD Athlon is really roughly the equivalent of a very fast P3. Intel screwed up something when they made the P4 and really a P3 of the same clock would run faster than a P4. That's why fast P3s were so sought after back then and why all of a sudden AMD was beating the crap out of intel. I think someone said the main problem was that the P4 had to use a pipeline that was just too big. They are starting to fix whatever it was it seems, but who knows.

Picasso
2nd Sep 2003, 03:14
DX2 requires pixel and vertex shaders. I don't mean you must have these or you'll get a crappy framerate, I mean you must have these, period, or the game won't run on your system. At all.

To the best of my knowledge, the following cards have the appropriate shaders:

Nvidia:
Any GeForce3
Any GeForce4 Ti
Any GeForceFX

ATI:
Any Radeon above 8500.

GF2s and GF4 MX's don't have the required shaders and won't be able to run the game. If you have one of them, you'll need to upgrade before playing DX2.

Mr.Kill
2nd Sep 2003, 14:06
Originally posted by TehFreak
athlons can do more instructions per cycle than pentium 4s, so although they run at a lower frequency, they work at the same speed as a pentium 4 of a higher frequency hence the 2800+ system, indicating that that processor is capable of the performance of a pentium 4 2.8ghz (though that's a bit optimistic against the latest set of p4s)

does that mean, if i buy a athlon xp 2800+, it would be like buying a p4 2.8Ghz ?

The_Guided
2nd Sep 2003, 14:51
Mark265, isn't a 9000pro equiv to a GeForce 440? (i had a 420) if it is then the card will just about cross the line of acceptability if the graphics were set to low. Now you see i had an AMD 1700 or 2000 (can't remember which) at the time and it only just managed then. With a 700mhz machine i doubt it very much if you'll get enjoyment with that rig on UT2003 and definately not Deus Ex: Invisible War or any other new game for that matter

mark265
2nd Sep 2003, 15:52
Originally posted by The_Guided
Mark265, isn't a 9000pro equiv to a GeForce 440?


what ! who told you this? as far as i know its equal in performence to the gf3 ti500 (the 64mb one) ....

btw...its only radeon 9000 non-pro.



With a 700mhz machine i doubt it very much if you'll get enjoyment with that rig on UT2003 and definately not Deus Ex: Invisible War or any other new game for that matter

I know :(..I'll see if i will be able to get a xp 2500+ ..or maybe i could just consider overclocking...although i have absolutely no idea about this....



later.

Frost Giant
3rd Sep 2003, 17:36
Originally posted by Lawnboy360
But tomorrow Doom3, HL2, DX2, STALKER, and many more, will come out.

My thoughs exactly.

Nazo
3rd Sep 2003, 23:26
Originally posted by Mr.Kill
does that mean, if i buy a athlon xp 2800+, it would be like buying a p4 2.8Ghz ?

That's the general idea. It's not entirely that simple though. Basically, Intel has been having troubles making their Pentium 4 processors as powerful at the same clock speeds as the Pentium 3 or AMD's cpus. So, an AMD cpu running at 1533MHz (the AMD Athlon 1800+ cpu -- which is what I currently have) can easily outperform a Pentium 4 running at the same speed since the Pentium 4 does less operations per tick of the clock. However, it's not always that simple. For example, if you look at the what cpu do you have thread, you'll see people talking about a 2.4GHz P4 that has a 4x200MHz (800) FSB on the motherboard which, with good memory, is supposed to be able to outperform a NForce2 2800+ Anyway, in practice, USUALLY an AMD cpu will easily outperform a Pentium 4 at the same clock speed easily. In fact, I think I recall that in the benchmark, my AMD Athlon 1800+ was able to outperform a Pentium 4 2GHz!

Anyway, this shows the problem we've been running into lately. Everyone wants a nice standard number to compare the CPUs with. Intel wants everyone to look at the clock speed since they are finding it so easy to make their cpus run at higher clock rates than AMD, and this is why AMD was forced to come up with their new annoying system where they say the CPU is a higher number than it's actual clock speed (like my 1800+ being actually 1533MHz.) Basically, I suggest you look at benchmarks (try www.hardocp.com for a start) to decide what CPU and/or motherboard you will buy when you plan to buy one.

Anyway, it's probably a good thing to require pixel shaders. This means they will surely have some nice effects in there. Oh, and btw, for those who don't know, the Geforce 4 MX series is based on the Geforce 2 core, which is why they don't have some of the newer things like pixel shaders. So if you buy a Geforce 4 MX, you are buying a very powerful Geforce 2 with good cooling.



EDIT: Oh yeah, and for those interested in overclocking, watch out, they've made it a lot harder these days. Most of the CPUs now have the multiplier locked in. It's possible to bypass the multiplier lock, but it involves a soldering iron, a steady hand, and a LOT of bravery to take such a risk with so much money IMO. You CAN do a little overclocking by setting your motherboard's FSB higher and, since the multiplier is fixed, the CPU will be running faster, but, you can't change the FSB as much as you could have changed the CPU. I have to overclock mine from 133MHz to 145MHz, which pushes my CPU up from 1533MHz to about 1667MHz, making my bios think I have a AMD Athlon 2000+ d-: If I could also set the CPU multiplier higher, I could do a lot more (provided it was cooled well enough of course.) I can't afford to risk ruining my CPU by removing the multiplier lock though. Probably you should only unlock it if either you have good experience with messing around with chips or if you have the money to buy a faster CPU anyway but don't want to spend it unless you have to.


Video cards are a lot easier to overclock though. Using just the factory crappy heatsink+fan (albiet with a bit of help from arctic silver II) and no heatsinks added to the ramchips, I've been able to overclock my GPU and VRAM well above the defaults. ATI is making some of their cards locked, but it's possible to bypass that by flashing with the appropriate bios flash. (I believe it's usually by flashing the pro bios onto the non-pro, but I'm not 100% sure.)

jungernaut
4th Sep 2003, 11:31
factorial is more like an operation and 15! = x is simply defining x in an equation. a function would be more like y = x!, with your dependent variable y and the independent variable, plus that "one and only one x value for every y value" part of the definition and the other stuff i should mention. I don't feel like looking it up as it is bedtime and then some. In this case 15 was the x and 15! was the y.



If you like factorial and those kind of things, look up the golden ratio and its relation to the fibonacci sequence.

Sorry i know this is a reply to the middle of the thread put at the end of it.

sneelock
4th Sep 2003, 22:11
one of your best options for a system is this,

msi 856pe neo-2
p4 2.6ghz 800mhz fsb
kingston hyperx ram ddr 500 two modules

over clock the cpu to 250mhz clock speed(1000mhz fsb) it will handle it easily with no extra cooling

with the ram at 500mhz you will have a very nice system running at 3.25ghz

the biggest thing when building a system is to have synchronis ram and cpu clocks, so if you have a athlon with 333fsb than use 333mhz ram, same thing with p4

the neo is very easy to overclock

but this system may be cost prohibitive in that case stick with a 2500+ barton core athlon and 333mhz ram and a asus a7n8x motherboard

The Corinthian
5th Sep 2003, 01:40
Wooo! just gonna buy the next big thing to come out, like I always do :) It seems not a lot of other people will be doing the same, but one must try hard to stay on top...

Mr.Kill
5th Sep 2003, 10:00
Originally posted by The Corinthian
Wooo! just gonna buy the next big thing to come out, like I always do :) It seems not a lot of other people will be doing the same, but one must try hard to stay on top...

i try and stay on top. but only on top of my friends and right now my new pc will be better than what any of my friends have yay !

also, by some miracle by dad is actually upgrading to broadband. ive been begging for broadband ever since i knew about it and now hes finally getting it ! now i can have the ultimate gaming experiance on my amd athlon xp 2800+, 512mb RAM, 256Mb GeForce FX 5900 Ultra.

TehFreak
5th Sep 2003, 17:47
Originally posted by Mr.Kill
does that mean, if i buy a athlon xp 2800+, it would be like buying a p4 2.8Ghz ? kinda (depends on what type of p4 it is [A/B?] and motherboard/ram etc.) but basically a 2800+ will make games all smooth and sweet for a couple of years yet, and it'll cost one hell of a lot less than a p4 2.8ghz

Lawnboy360
5th Sep 2003, 23:13
Yeah but those 800fsb P4s are quite faster than Athlons of equivalent rating.

TehFreak
6th Sep 2003, 12:12
like i said: "kinda"

Nazo
6th Sep 2003, 15:55
I want to know why none of the MB manufacturers have made a MB for an AMD chip that can do the multipliers and all to give you 800MHz FSB... Why do only Intel people get that. Anyway, I definitely have to say that if it relies on getting such a fast FSB and all to make it faster then AMD, then it doesn't really count. Truly it's more the MB and RAM that's making it faster. Maybe that next thing to come out will be a combination with AMD that gives you 800MHz FSB.

BTW, broadband is worth it beyond description. Heck, I would have GLADLY taken one of those ultra-high latency satellite connections just to have broadband even... Being on dialup for so long was absolutely killing me. Actually, even ISDN is good enough for me, I just had to get off of that god awful dialup with the disconnects at random but relatively short intervals and speeds that are refusing to go above 3.2KB/s for no apparent reason, etc. (56K should be able to consistantly download at > 5KB/s. In fact, when I first got on the ISP I was on at the time, I was able to consistantly download 5.6KB/s and even once downloaded a MPEG at > 15KB/s somehow -- even though that defies physics) d-: BTW, for the normal pricerange, see if you have a QUALITY DSL service in your area. If you don't then don't bother, but, a good quality DSL service like mine is slightly cheaper for much more speed than cable at the same speed -- at least, in my area. Not only that, but, if you are using analog cable, then my company at least would require you to buy their digital setup so that you'd be paying an extra $20 a month. Of course, if the ISP limits you to less than the actual speed and/or gives you unacceptable monthly caps, it can actually become worse than using the low end cable even.

My DSL is officially 1.5Mbps down/256Kbs up. In reality it can download roughly 1.2Mbps and upload roughly 200Kbps. The very best cable, which just a few dollars per month higher than the same in DSL here + the extra $20 for the digital service (which ended up costing us considerably more than $20 even) was 1.5 down / 128 up and considering how much static I can get on my TV, I have a feeling that their broadband probably would not be using it's full abilities at all so would probably be even slower than my current DSL. I have no monthly caps at all and download more in each month than I ever did on dialup -- and I was on dialup for something like 6 years d-:

Mr.Kill
6th Sep 2003, 16:03
right here's the specs for my new pc:

AMD Athlon XP 2800+
512MB DDR RAM
80GB 7200rpm hard drive
256MB GeForce FX5200
16x DVD drive
32BIT 4.1 Sound on board
2 speakers with subwoofer
Windows XP
17" monitor

how will this run games like half life 2 deus ex 2 and doom 3?

Lawnboy360
6th Sep 2003, 16:45
256MB GeForce FX5200

Does this thing even exist? Even the 5600 is too slow to take advantage of 256mb, and the 5200 is way slower.

If you really meant "5200", then I suggest you get at least a FX5600 or a Radeon9500/9600 instead, even if you have to downgrade to a 2500+.

Mr.Kill
6th Sep 2003, 16:54
well my dad just came home and he said this pc will be delivered on the 19th.

he then showed me the specs.

he said it has 256mb, thats for sure coz he promised that but i dont know about the 5200. he definetly sed 5200 tho

but look at this:

http://www.ajump.com/ajump/product.asp?dept%5Fid=2745&pf%5Fid=7050030&sku=99%2D99%2D99%2D99%2D99%2D7050030

its the geforce fx 5200 with 256mb memory. is it real?

sneelock
6th Sep 2003, 17:12
it may be possible its not a major brand name so they dont have to follow the rules.

but it is very stupid, just another scam to get your money. even when the two big cards(fx5900 and 9800pro) use it they slow down in games because th res is set so high.

Lawnboy360
6th Sep 2003, 17:14
If they're selling it I guess it's real. :)

Good thing is, with a fast CPU and a not so fast GPU, it'll be easy to upgrade only the GPU when it gets too slow, without having to change the motherboard like if you had a slow CPU and fast GPU.

Mr.Kill
6th Sep 2003, 17:18
Originally posted by Lawnboy360
If they're selling it I guess it's real. :)

Good thing is, with a fast CPU and a not so fast GPU, it'll be easy to upgrade only the GPU when it gets too slow, without having to change the motherboard like if you had a slow CPU and fast GPU.

i have a fast cpu right? so im just gonna need to upgrade my gp in the future right?

my motherboard can take up to an athlon xp 3000+

sneelock
6th Sep 2003, 17:23
i am the purchasing manager for the company i work for and i have never heard of that card before. there is 5600 with 256mbs of ram but not a 5200. but if they are selling it it must be real. i think it will be a bad buy though.

Lawnboy360
6th Sep 2003, 21:43
I just looked on pricewatch.com and there's plenty of them (around $100).

A 5200 core with 256mb = :rolleyes:

Mr.Kill
7th Sep 2003, 12:28
ill just have 2 wait and see then !

but i will still be able to play games like half life 2 deus ex 2 and doom 3 on high settings right?

TehFreak
7th Sep 2003, 15:06
it'll run on 700mhz and a geforce 3, i'm sure it will look nice and shiny with what you're getting

Mr.Kill
7th Sep 2003, 15:12
yay im so happy

by the way just thought id mention this but i was looking at the minimum specs for max payne 2 on the official website and it says it will run on a 32mb tnt 2 !

but it also requires a really fast processor tho at least 1ghz, 1.2ghz recommended

Frost Giant
7th Sep 2003, 17:58
Originally posted by Mr.Kill
right here's the specs for my new pc:

AMD Athlon XP 2800+
512MB DDR RAM
80GB 7200rpm hard drive
256MB GeForce FX5200
16x DVD drive
32BIT 4.1 Sound on board
2 speakers with subwoofer
Windows XP
17" monitor

how will this run games like half life 2 deus ex 2 and doom 3?

I think your new computer should handle all the games quite well Mr. Kill. I believe so because the game makers are not willing to make a game that only a selected few will be able to play. Ion Storm is now proving my point with the decision to make the game able to run at 30fps on a pentium III 800 MHz computer (supposedly). Check in these forums if you wish, someone posted a link to the article in which the info is provided. So relax, you'll be just fine.:D

Trollslayer
7th Sep 2003, 19:28
Well my specs will be as follows:

AMD Athlon XP 2200+
512MB DDR RAM
40GB HD
128 Meg ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
52-42-52 CDROM R/W/RW speeds
Soundblaster Live 5.1
4 speakers with subwoofer
Windows XP
19" monitor

Frost Giant
7th Sep 2003, 23:59
You shouldn't have any problems either Trollslayer. You should be good for a while to come. By the way your speakers must sound awsome! I have a subwoofer with two micro satellite speakers and a sound blaster card and the sound is rich, powerful, and realistic.:cool:

Trollslayer
8th Sep 2003, 01:57
Yeah thanks for the thumbs up :) I do get some very good sound placement. The other day i finally got to play Mafia (one of the best games i ever played), and the sound was great. The sound of the vintage cars' engines, the retro music, the conversations, the weather effects... groovy :D

<{}>tyghk
11th Sep 2003, 01:54
the thing with the unreal 2 engine, when turned down to 16 bit it works infinitely better on older videocards. i can play unreal 2 at a buttery smooth 30-40 fps on my p4 1.3 ghz 256 rdram 32 mb non-ddr geforce 2 mx 400 with 16 bit graohics and all other options turned to a medium setting. with 32 bit graohics the fps drops to 5. since deus ex 2 doesnt look much better than unreal 2, i'd expect to work similarly though there is that fancy ass havok physics engine..

Lawnboy360
11th Sep 2003, 12:20
Half-Life 2 benchmarks :

http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/video_cards/ati_vs_nvidia/dx9_desktop/HL2_benchmarks/001.htm

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTE5

Lawnboy360
11th Sep 2003, 23:29
I'll sum it up for you :

-Half-Life 2 is pretty much the first game to really support DirectX9 features(support, but not require). (People on this board often mistake DX:IW as requiring a DX9 card but it requires DX8).

-A public benchmark will be available on September 30th so you'll be able to know how your computer will perform in HL2.

-ATi's cards are MUCH faster in HL2 then nVidia's cards when set at the highest detail level, using DX9 features.

-Some may think that this difference is due to the "deal" between ATi and Valve, but Gabe Newell says it's the other way around.

-In fact, because the GeForceFX line's DX9 performance is so poor, Gabe Newell thinks most developers will consider those cards as DX8! Valve spent five times as much time on GeForceFX specific optimizations vs. generic DX9 coding and they are still slower; they think most developers won't want to waste that much money.

Here's the benchmark (on a 2.8ghz P4)
http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1063263488s0MUgBR2lv_2_1.gif

As you can see, ATi's Radeon 9600Pro gets a nice 48 average framerate, while nVidia's equivalent 5600 Ultra, gets a terrible 13 FPS! Remember that this is only average, so in game it would often be under 13 FPS ! :eek:

Bottom line : nVidia is doomed ;)

Lawnboy360
11th Sep 2003, 23:39
This is getting even worse :)

According to nVidia, the performance will get much better when using their new Detonator 50 drivers. Basically they are saying :
http://myweb.cableone.net/jrose/Jeremy/HL2.jpg
They sent the beta version of the det.50 to analysts in hope that they would use it to benchmark HL2..

But...:

"As you can tell from looking at the list in the slide above, Newell was concerned particularly with some of the techniques NVIDIA has used in recent driver releases, although he didn't exempt other graphics hardware makers from his complaints. He said they had seen cases where fog was completely removed from a level in one of Valve's games, by the graphics driver software, in order to improve performance. I asked him to clarify which game, and he said it was Half-Life 2. Apparently, this activity has gone on while the game is still in development. He also mentioned that he's seen drivers detect screen capture attempts and output higher quality data than what's actually shown in-game."

And Gabe Newell asked analysts NOT to use the Det.50 to benchmark HL2 when it is made available to them...

:eek:

God From Machine
12th Sep 2003, 14:03
Well i'm glad i've got my good old 9800pro, desinged right here at home in canada, Go ATI.

Although from the perspective of business this is not gonna go over too well. Nvidia is gonna loose a fortune with this one. It was bad enough for them when HL2 chose to package their game with ati's cards but this? Everyone and their mother is gonna want hl2, and everyone is gonna want it on max settings. It is gona be the biggest retail seller of the year for sure, prolly gonna push for best seller of all time. I mean it is so hyped and huge that everyone will own it and if all those people descide to go ati to play it, ouch!

Oh well it is just some competition we'll see what happens. Nvidia has to keep up with ati or the prices of cards are gonna shoot for the stars, again.

sneelock
12th Sep 2003, 18:12
nvidia does very well in other benchmarks, so i have faith that the cards will work well by the time the game comes out. i should support ati but i have never had good luck with them and have always been dissapointed in their preformance.

Dancimanci
12th Sep 2003, 18:29
When IW will be available we'll all have at least an fx5900 for about 5 dollars :)

Sorry that's not funny,but the hell when can we play already?

Picasso
12th Sep 2003, 19:06
Originally posted by Warren Spector: (http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4854)

making immersive simulations takes time!

Sadokitty
14th Sep 2003, 14:20
I have a TNT 2... rawr :rolleyes:

bleh no deus ex 2 for me :(

Frost Giant
15th Sep 2003, 12:47
Originally posted by Sadokitty
I have a TNT 2... rawr :rolleyes:

bleh no deus ex 2 for me :(

It pains me to see a follow gamer in peril. Check out www.newegg.com they should have good video cards at affordable prices. Good Luck!:)

Dancimanci
15th Sep 2003, 17:09
Hi Warren!

I just want to say that the game look awesome in the intro,but the weapon do look very futuristic.
Can you do something about it.THE MOB WANT REALISM!!!!

With respect(I loved Dx!!!!!) : Daniel

Lawnboy360
16th Sep 2003, 00:48
Hi Warren!
[...]

1-You may have mistaken this message board for an email.

2-This board is divided in threads. This one is about video cards. Your post is not about video cards.

God From Machine
16th Sep 2003, 23:34
Well i know those last couple of posts made me laugh, anyone else?

Anyway ATI all the way!!


To those of you whe only have tnt 2's or other not so good cards, dont worry. The low end radeons or gforces will run the games and if you look around for th ebest prices you can get a card that would suit your needs for not much money at all. With the amount games have been goingup in price lately a cheep card would be about the same as the game itself, hahaha. But i know that eidos and ion storm are not microsoft so it should not be that bad

JC's Double
17th Sep 2003, 08:55
I know a lot about Computers If you want the best resaults For any game go in to the settings for the screen and change the res. on the screen to 1024X768 pixles:eek: :eek: :eek: :) :D :cool: :cool:

AlteredGlyph
17th Sep 2003, 20:44
JC's double, you spelt pixels wrong. And actually, for best results, you wnat 1600x1200. For best performance/framerate tradeoff, you want 800x600.

Lawnboy360
18th Sep 2003, 01:33
Well, the highest available resolution will look best, and the lowest will be the fastest. I'm really a genius you see.

AlteredGlyph
18th Sep 2003, 21:42
Yes, Lawnboy, I must bow to your Genius!! It's kinda obvious, but who wants to play on 640x480?

Lawnboy360
18th Sep 2003, 23:30
Of course you'll want to play the highest playable framerate; if you're playing at 640x480 it's because 800x600 is not very playable, and in that case a playable 640x480 is better than a not-playable 800x600.

AlteredGlyph
19th Sep 2003, 00:17
Quite true! I bow once more to your genius.;)

Montial
22nd Sep 2003, 00:00
GeForce 4 MX440 SE

Picasso
22nd Sep 2003, 07:08
Originally posted by Montial
GeForce 4 MX440 SE

Just in case you didn't know, this card won't run the game. DX2 requires pixel and vertex shaders, which the GF4MX's just don't have.

Orinoco
22nd Sep 2003, 16:14
Actually I have a GeForce 4 Ti4800SE which is a Ti4600 with 8xAGP, but I voted in the Ti4600 category.

Montial
22nd Sep 2003, 22:26
Originally posted by Picasso
Just in case you didn't know, this card won't run the game. DX2 requires pixel and vertex shaders, which the GF4MX's just don't have.

It gets the job done. And it should run it, just not well. Softare mode usually compensates for these problems. (I hope :))

Picasso
22nd Sep 2003, 22:31
Chris Carollo (http://www.ionstorm.com/forum/viewthread.asp?forum=AMB_AP619612110&id=17473):


You'll need pixel and vertex shader 1.1 support in hardware. Which means GF3-class and up.

Note that a GF4mx is typically WORSE from a feature point-of-view than a GF3. Thank you nvidia marketing.

Sorry.

daedalus_48
23rd Sep 2003, 03:06
i don't think all new coming games need top performance video cards to run. actually i think only gf 3 (top model) can serve me well until next year christmas. however, i've to endure with slow frame rate and have to turn some features off.

i think a well-programmed game won't use much resource. as you can see from many games that came from consoles, they spend machine's resource more than it should be and the graphic doesn't come out good. eg, compare metal gear 2 with splinter's cell, mg2 needs much more resources than sc but take a look at the graphic the sc's is better while using lower resource.

and i hope that eidos programmers won't programme dx2 to run only on top performance video card.

sorry for my bad english...:(

Montial
23rd Sep 2003, 08:07
You'll need pixel and vertex shader 1.1 support in hardware. Which means GF3-class and up.

Note that a GF4mx is typically WORSE from a feature point-of-view than a GF3. Thank you nvidia marketing.


I think you misunderstand his post.

Which means GF3-class and up. GF4 is above GF3 class, (note the four).


Note that a GF4mx is typically WORSE from a feature point-of-view than a GF3. Dosen't mean it wont run the game. It just won't perform as well. (and it probably WILL perform as well as the GF3)

Xenon
23rd Sep 2003, 13:42
I heard somewhere that GF4 MX don't support DX8. That means they won't run DX2.

Catman
23rd Sep 2003, 16:03
The GF4 MX has drivers which are compatible with DX9, which suggests it might be able to run DX:IW.

Just for laughs, I'm going to give that a try when the game comes out (though I have a G3 card I can pull from another machine if need be).

God damn Terrorists
23rd Sep 2003, 19:56
Ahh,vid cards,a lovely subject.
Well,dont know about you guys,but my GeForce 4600ti has been
the greatest card I have purchased.I have boosted the mem core
and the mother core speed,along with all the updated drivers.but honestly,the key in my opinion has to be the DetonatorXP drivers I have been running.For instance,I can run Unreal2 at 1600x1200
rez along with 32 bit lighting and all texture detail enabled,and she screams.No lag or choppy.nothin.splinter cell also plays great.
But what game had really surprised me was "Chaser" for the character animations,that is the only thing that really slows me down,however this game did not.Doom 3 will be a test though.
I look forward to the release of DX2,and Halo.But back to the subject at hand,I would put my 4600 up to a challange against
anyother card,pound per pound the performance gain of a 5200 etc,honestly isent worth it.Word of advice,just keep it updated
and she will keep on proforming.(unless you got an ol 3DFX Voodoo,if so,my god take pitty on you.):) Op system: Athlon,1200
mhz(1.2ghz)1gig mem ddr2700 mem stick.

Catman
23rd Sep 2003, 20:19
I have a 3DFX Voodoo. I use it for my second monitor. :D

swatleader
23rd Sep 2003, 22:32
my current pc is just plain awsome, it runs any game i own perfectly even the most demanding games for example the game mafia, it used to slow my old 1.4 ghz amd with just a geforce 2 down to where it did not run to good without skipping a bit but now it runs fine with my new pc. the specs are as follows:

geforce fx 5200 ultra
512 mb ddr ram
sound blaster audigy
amd xp 2200+
some type of mother board but it sure is good as heck especally with 8x agp.(the rest is not very important.)

of course i will have the whole pc upgraded again soon even though this pc is less than a year old i still like to keep up to date, i especally am getting probably one of the new 64 bit amd processors that just dominate the pentium chips :).

Picasso
23rd Sep 2003, 22:58
I think you misunderstand his post.

Read the entire thread that I linked. In context:


The people over at TTLG are wondering what the system requirements will be for Thief 3.

From what I've been told, the dynamic lighting requires pixel and vertex shaders, and the lighting is required since it's so important to the gameplay.

Now, GF2's and the MX's of the GF3 and GF4 series don't HAVE pixel and vertex shaders, so the minimum requirement for DX2 and T3 is a GF3 Ti, correct?

Can a dev confirm this?

The reply:


Consider it confirmed. You'll need pixel and vertex shader 1.1 support in hardware. Which means GF3-class and up.

Note that a GF4mx is typically WORSE from a feature point-of-view than a GF3. Thank you nvidia marketing.

I was slightly incorrect in my original post, since the GF3 series isn't borken up into Ti and MX classes. Rather, all GF3s have the appropriate shaders, so any GF3 will be capable of running the game.

The GF4MX is basically a sped-up GF2 (which doesn't have the shaders required). Like Chris said, thank you Nvidia marketing.

Anyway, almost any technology site will tell you that GF4 MX's simply don't have hardware the pixel and vertex shaders (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22geforce4+mx%22+shader&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&lr=lang_en&sa=X&oi=lrtip8) that DX2 requires.

Lawnboy360
23rd Sep 2003, 23:38
Picasso,

I think you(and me, and many others) may as well give up on those video cards topics. You can post day and night about how DXIW requires DX8 which is GeForce3 and up except GF4 MX, and Radeon 8500 and up, you'll keep seeing many posts everyday about how DXIW requires DX9, or that the GF4 MX will run it, etc. They will find out soon enough when they'll buy the game and be unable to run it.

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
24th Sep 2003, 07:39
or be able to run it (who knows...)

NamelessOne
24th Sep 2003, 09:00
Originally posted by Montial
I think you misunderstand his post.
GF4 is above GF3 class, (note the four).


A Geforce4 MX is not a Geforce 4 TI.

They have different cores. The Geforce 4 TI is the core made after the Geforce 3's. The Geforce 4 MX has a modified Geforce 2 core.
Its not just a clock speed difference or anything minor like that. The entire chip is different. The Geforce 4 MX DOES NOT have Pixel shaders.

Just because it has a bigger number, does not make it a better card.

Geforce 4 TI > Geforce 3 (All) > Geforce 4MX

God damned marketing.

sneelock
27th Sep 2003, 17:33
I think that possibly people cant understand that a 64mb card will not run the game, when the most demanding games today only require 32mb geforce 2's.

onto the other thing i thought id bring up.

non ultra geforce fx's really suck!! as i just found out from a personal expirence.

you would be better off buying Geforce 4 Ti or a Radeon 9600pro

im starting to really hate graphics card manufacturers:mad:

Picasso
27th Sep 2003, 19:58
I think that possibly people cant understand that a 64mb card will not run the game

There's been nothing to suggest that a 64MB card won't run the game. It's just that a card without the appropriate hardware features won't run the game.

James Warren
27th Sep 2003, 20:15
catman{
The GF4 MX has drivers which are compatible with DX9, which suggests it might be able to run DX:IW.
}

Here, download this and experiment with it:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030918/aquamark-02.html

Lawnboy360
27th Sep 2003, 22:54
Too bad it's not as simple as

3.0ghz > 2.4ghz
512mb > 256mb
80gb > 60gb

not that I have a problem with this myself, as I'm a "computer enthusiast" you could say...

the real problem is that because good videocards are very expensive, and that the "normal person" doesn't know that "Intel Xtreme integrated gfx" is not nearly as good as "Radeon 9800 Pro", big computers manufacturers include powerful CPUs, plenty of memory, huge HDDs, and totally outdated video cards. And then you have mr. casual gamer who doesn't understand why his brand new computer can't run a game properly. Next time, he buys a console.

Frost Giant
28th Sep 2003, 02:49
Originally posted by Lawnboy360
Too bad it's not as simple as

3.0ghz > 2.4ghz
512mb > 256mb
80gb > 60gb

not that I have a problem with this myself, as I'm a "computer enthusiast" you could say...

the real problem is that because good videocards are very expensive, and that the "normal person" doesn't know that "Intel Xtreme integrated gfx" is not nearly as good as "Radeon 9800 Pro", big computers manufacturers include powerful CPUs, plenty of memory, huge HDDs, and totally outdated video cards. And then you have mr. casual gamer who doesn't understand why his brand new computer can't run a game properly. Next time, he buys a console.

Lawnboy360
My thoughs exactly. You are very wise:D

grayfox148
2nd Oct 2003, 23:34
Originally posted by Lawnboy360
In most games they're very close. The Doom3 benchmarks which came out in may on various hardware sites showed the 5900 to be quite faster than the 9800 but that could easily have been a driver problem with the 9800 and Doom3, as it only comes out in 2004 anyway, the drivers aren't yet ready...

If I was you I'd try to get a 9700Pro instead, almost as fast and quite cheaper... if you're buying it "now" at least. Getting the very lastest stuff is much more expensive and not much faster.
yah it was a driver prob wait atleast 4months b4 ati releses a decent driver

grayfox148
2nd Oct 2003, 23:41
Originally posted by mark265
oh ****...just as i expected :(

are you sure? What about if i overclocked my CPU ?? or does the game stricktly requires a p4 not p3 ??
I have a p4 2.4B gb of ram 512 and radeon 8500LE and even im upgradeing i know i will be able to run it but i want a better comp im getting a 3.0C 1gb of ram abit motherboard 4got model and Saphires ATI Radeon 9800 and i only 15

Amazon Warrior
5th Oct 2003, 00:34
I've been reading this thread with interest, since I've only just upgraded my system with games such as hl2 and dx:iw in mind. My old system specs were:

AMD Duron 750MHz on an elitegroups k7s5a mb
128mb SDRAM
GF2 MMX 400
4.1 creative sound blaster
80gb 7200rpm western digtial caviare hdd
16x DVD
2 speakers and a subwoofer

and I've rechipped to an AMD XP 2000+, with 512MB DDR and a GF FX 5200

and this is unlikely to change until around this time next year, at which point I hope to be a professional person with stupid amounts of money, and will be able to build myself a top-of-the-line pc. I'm not planning to o/c it at the moment, because if I do, and it goes wrong, I won't have a computer to play games, I mean, do my university work on!

Incidentally, the main reason I went with the gf instead of an ati was the fact that I had an ati rage fury maxx which worked fine on my first mb (dunno what it was), but refused to work with the k7s5a, despite everyting I tried, and caused me to develop something of an ati allergy. I've since heard that one of the main reasons that hl2's release date was pushed back was because of the problems encountered with the geforce cards, particularly the FX5200. <sigh! sob!>

Lawnboy360
5th Oct 2003, 00:41
I've since heard that one of the main reasons that hl2's release date was pushed back was because of the problems encountered with the geforce cards, particularly the FX5200.

HL2's performance with GeForce FXs using DX9 features is bad, but it's because of the card, not the game. Carmack confirmed that DX9 features are much slower on nVidia than ATi in Doom3 too. For DX8 it would be ok...if you had a 5900. Don't expect too much from a 5200.

HL2 with DX9

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1063263488s0MUgBR2lv_2_1.gif

Because they have a lot of time and money on their hands valve created a custom "DX8.5" for nVidia cards, and it increases performance for the 5900, but it doesn't make much difference for the 5200.

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1063263488s0MUgBR2lv_3_2.gif



HL2 is delayed because of the leaked source code and worries about Steam being able to handle HL2's launch. (Steam = delivers game through internet connection).

Frost Giant
6th Oct 2003, 19:57
It's times like this that make me happy to be an ATI Radeon 9600 Pro person thingy.:D LOL

(May Catman's wrath shower down upon those who even think about flaming me!!!:mad: But for those who enbrace my words, may Catman's blessings be with you for all time.:D LOL)

By the way, this code leak does not please me.:mad:

Amazon Warrior, I know you are probably not bursting at the seams with extra money to get a better Nvidia card, but it seems to me that you will not receive very good performance out of your 5200 (ultra?). You could consider buying a 5600 or 5600 ultra from www.newegg.com they sell video cards quite reasonably there. Good luck and tell me how it goes because I know that a few precious additional fps can make a defference in how enjoyable a game is. Believe me I KNOW, I had a 733MHz celeron before I upgraded.;)

Links to cards: (This should help somewhat, as you can see they are not as expensive as some other places)

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduct.asp?DEPA=0&submit=Go&description=Nvidia&searchdepa=0&page=5

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduct.asp?DEPA=0&submit=Go&description=Nvidia&searchdepa=0&page=6

Lawnboy360
6th Oct 2003, 22:57
If he actually buys a new video card he should go with a Radeon, not a GeForce FX.

NamelessOne
6th Oct 2003, 23:43
Don't buy an FX card. If you really really want an nVidia card (why?), save your money and buy a Geforce 4 Ti (not MX) and wait for the next line of cards to come out. Hopefully, they won't suck.

But the smartest buy right now is an ATI Radeon 9600Pro (or 9600XT)

Amazon Warrior
7th Oct 2003, 00:21
*sigh!* I know this now...:mad:

Thing is, I've only just bought this wretched card, and the whole student situation means that I wasn't planning to do anything further to my machine for the moment. A mate of mine was asking me about my nVidia card today, and I suggested that he try ATI instead. If I suddenly find that I have some spare cash *laughs hollowly*, I might do something about it. Otherwise, I shall make the best of a bad job, and I won't enjoy it. Apart from anything else, this is my final year, so if I want pots of money to throw at a brand new system in the future, I'd better pass major exams now. (Disappointingly, they have no exams on the best way to defeat Bob Page or get out of buildings full of heavily armed troops!)

(Since I'm doing Chemistry, it may be that I'll end up designing those disposable lockpicks that everyones so annoyed about! My personal suggestion would be some kind of memory-form material- it changes shape to fit the lock, then reforms to its previous state. Possibly this could only occur a certain number of times before the build-up of lattice defects in the material's substrate would cause it to break down. Plus, the money from selling replacements would keep me in a manner to which I would like to become accustomed. You see, its all part of a conspiracy for me to make insane amounts of cash...:D )

Frost Giant
7th Oct 2003, 04:06
Originally posted by NamelessOne
Don't buy an FX card. If you really really want an nVidia card (why?), save your money and buy a Geforce 4 Ti (not MX) and wait for the next line of cards to come out. Hopefully, they won't suck.

But the smartest buy right now is an ATI Radeon 9600Pro (or 9600XT)

Yes, I would have also recomended a Radeon as I am a Radeon man myself. However I was keeping in mind that Amazon Warrior said that His/Her motherboard is incompatible with the one He/She had, so to be safe I sugested the NVIDIA card with great sorrow due to the fact that the NVIDIA card works according to Amazon Warrior. Forgive me my Radeon brethren.:cool:

NamelessOne
7th Oct 2003, 07:16
Originally posted by Frost Giant
Forgive me my Radeon brethren.:cool:

You are forgiven, Brother. :cool:

This non-Radeon heathen, on the other hand....:mad:

:D

NamelessOne
7th Oct 2003, 07:20
Originally posted by Amazon Warrior
*sigh!* I know this now...:mad:

Thing is, I've only just bought this wretched card, and the whole student situation means that I wasn't planning to do anything further to my machine for the moment. A mate of mine was asking me about my nVidia card today, and I suggested that he try ATI instead. If I suddenly find that I have some spare cash *laughs hollowly*, I might do something about it. Otherwise, I shall make the best of a bad job, and I won't enjoy it. Apart from anything else, this is my final year, so if I want pots of money to throw at a brand new system in the future, I'd better pass major exams now. (Disappointingly, they have no exams on the best way to defeat Bob Page or get out of buildings full of heavily armed troops!)

Still 2 years to go for me before I complete my degree and (try) to get a good job. Fortunately, I have a fairly good machine and it should (hopefully) last me till then.

Amazon Warrior
7th Oct 2003, 22:52
I appreciated the feedback and advice, anyway. If the nvidia really does prove to be shocking, I'll consider maybe giving a radeon a whirl in the New Year. After all, you never know 'til you try, and quite possibly my previous ATI arguement may have been due to the particular breed of card it was (it was a Rage Fury Maxx, btw. Nice enough, when it behaved. Currently to be found powering my mum's attempts at word processing and spreadsheets).

Believe me, if they're as good as everyone seems to be implying, I'll happily and with glad heart join the elite brotherhood of the radeon. Heathen, indeed! Its just that I can't quite justify a new graphics card when the 'shine' *ahem!* on this one's barely worn off. Even to myself, and I'm pretty damn persuasive at times.

Basically, I should have done my homework properly, and then I might not have been as easily taken in by nvidia's random labelling of its various tiers. Oh well...

And if anyone knows someone in the market for a slightly used, second-hand GF FX 5200, one careful owner, only used it for going to the shops once a week, honest guv, just look at the engine on it! Barely done any distance at all! *adjusts camel-hair coat, jabs cheap cigar in air, grins toothily, puts overly familiar arm round unsuspecting buyers shoulders* I may be open to offers soon. Come with me into the office, and we'll just sort out the paperwork... (This is only half a joke...):rolleyes:

Lawnboy360
7th Oct 2003, 23:24
(This is only half a joke...)

Tell us about the other half ...

Amazon Warrior
9th Oct 2003, 20:50
Tell us about the other half ...
That would be when I persude someone to actually BUY the bloody thing!

vick1000
10th Oct 2003, 16:34
Originally posted by NamelessOne
Don't buy an FX card. If you really really want an nVidia card (why?), save your money and buy a Geforce 4 Ti (not MX) and wait for the next line of cards to come out. Hopefully, they won't suck.

But the smartest buy right now is an ATI Radeon 9600Pro (or 9600XT)

Or the 9700 non pro,if you can find one,although I just saw a
9800 non pro for $249.00 US at Curcuit City,thats a great
deal,it was even Built by ATi.

DrARF
14th Oct 2003, 17:10
Only if you can find the 9600XT. THey aren't going to be available for at least 4 weeks and the quantity that will be available looks to be small. At any rate the newest offerings for Nvidia and ATI don't look like they will be released until late Q1 or early Q2 of next year. Just an FYI

oherror
17th Oct 2003, 23:47
Originally posted by mestcrapphead
man i hope that DX2 will work decent with my video card since i just got it new for the DX9 features...
its a geforce fx 5200 128mb

sorry to say even if its over clocked my old geforce 3 out performed in in 3dmark 2003, also if the fx 5200 runs halo crappy then i'd be a little worried if it will run DX2 crappy too.

video cards that work well in halo and max payne 2 (max payne runs on the half life 2 engine) running at max res.

All high end GeForce 3's or comparable Radeons - strange huh
All GeForce 4's but not the MX's (could run MX's but at lower res) or comparable radeon
All high end FX cards worked great. Unfortunately when i test the FX 5200 Ultra it "ran" the game, but "ran" the game Choppy and slow, with a very low frame rate. Even when I over clocked. High end radeon users i did not have the funds to test them, but my best bet is they will do fine.

All tests were done on 2 computers that had...

AMD XP 2700 rated at 2.2
1024 MB of DDR 2700 RAM
Motherboard with 8x compliant AGP slot

hope this helps when you are thinking about you video card and if it will work.

Lawnboy360
18th Oct 2003, 14:25
Splinter Cell has real-time lighting, like DXIW.

In Splinter Cell, at 1024x768, no AA/AF, the GeForce FX 5200 gets 14.4 frame per-second.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDkwLDU=

Victor_chl
21st Oct 2003, 08:08
I have a GeForce FX 5900 128MB running on a 4X mobo, do you think that might downgrade the performances in DX:IW because the card is not performing on an AGP 8X setup?

My PC specs:
P4B 2.4Ghz
512MB DDR RAM
GeForce FX 5900 128MB
SB Live! SE 5.1
100GB

Lawnboy360
21st Oct 2003, 19:06
I don't think so; the difference (performance) between AGP4x and 8x is very small.

McStrav
24th Oct 2003, 03:03
Here's my current specs

Pentium 4 2.4ghz 400mhz FSB
ASUS P4P800 Mobo
80gb SATA Drive
512mb PC 3200 RAM
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb AGP 8x
On Board Sound

One question I have though is if I'll be able to play DX:IW at 1024x768 with all the bells and whistles turned on and still get a good framerate

God From Machine
24th Oct 2003, 03:10
McStrav you should have no problem playing the game at great frame rates with all the settings at or very close to max. That should be well above any reccomended specs they give but don't quote me on that, noone will know for sure until the game comes out.

If they are aiming for playable frame rates on a 800mhz p3 with a geforce 3 you should have no problem whatsoever. The only thing that will not be able to be turned on it eax or any advanced sound features, you will need a sound card (audigy series probabbly) for any of those.

DarkMatter
25th Oct 2003, 18:34
Hey everyone, Im getting a new computer...It will be pretty good, I just need to know if this will run.
Windows2000
Processor:3.2 ghz Pentium4
Memory:1204 RAM
9600 XT Graphics Card

Im guessing it will....

AlteredGlyph
25th Oct 2003, 18:42
It'll run. If my 2.6 ghz with a radeon 8500 can run it(wich it can) that very nice system can run it. It'd be nice if people would stop posting their system specs and asking if it'll run DX2 though. Just read the threads and compare your system to the other ones that can run it.

DarkMatter
25th Oct 2003, 18:54
ok thanx a lot..

Lawnboy360
25th Oct 2003, 20:37
DarkMatter ...

1-512mb is enough, 1024mb doesn't make much difference if any.

2-By getting a 3.0ghz instead of a 3.2ghz, you'd lose very little performance, and you'd save quite a lot of money you could spend on a better video card, for example.

3-Why would you install Win2000 on it? Get XP if you can, or install win98. 2000 isn't meant for gaming, or even for home use really, it's more for enterprises.

AlteredGlyph
25th Oct 2003, 21:20
Windows 2000 is actually the most stable of all windows OS. I use it, and I can play pretty much any game I want. Get win2k, not XP or 98, which is really buggy.

Lawnboy360
25th Oct 2003, 21:25
It is more stable, and that's why XP is based on 2000's kernel, but some games are not compatible with it.

NamelessOne
25th Oct 2003, 22:25
Originally posted by AlteredGlyph
Windows 2000 is actually the most stable of all windows OS. I use it, and I can play pretty much any game I want. Get win2k, not XP or 98, which is really buggy.

I use XP, and its very stable. Why do you consider it buggy? I've had it for over a year and its as bugfree as any OS I've used.

I recommend it over 98 or 2000.

DarkMatter
26th Oct 2003, 02:35
Everything on my windows 2000 works PERFECTLY... Completely better than the 98 and XT. It works every game. And Im not exactly buying a 3.2 , Im getting a 2.8 and overclocking it.

Freddo
26th Oct 2003, 05:10
Originally posted by Lawnboy360
It is more stable, and that's why XP is based on 2000's kernel, but some games are not compatible with it.

If XP can run it, then 2000 can. Of course, since XP was released afterwards, it ships with a newer version of "Windows Application Compatibility Toolkit" so for some games to work under 2000 one have to download the latest version from www.microsoft.com. Not that I care, since I don't have any software that needs it, and I have plenty of games. Of my 100 (or so) Windows games, there are 2 games that I can start in Windows 98, but not in Windows 2000. I haven't been able to start them on my friends XP computer either.

2000 and XP is pretty much the same thing. XP have a new GUI and some new functions I would not use anyway :) But other than that, it's the same core and so on. 2000 = NT 5.0. XP = NT 5.1.

I know I'm happy with 2000 anyway :D With a dual-boot with 98 :) XP is good too. ME should be avoided ;)

Pequachino
26th Oct 2003, 07:21
i just got my alienware area 51 so ill have an NVidia Geforce FX 5900 Ultra 256 meg card, 2 gigs of ram, and a 3.2 ghz processor, oh yea im prepared to fight the FUTURE WAR ON TERROR WAGING THIS WAR THE WAY I CHOOSE!{sarcasm intended i hate those taglines}

Lawnboy360
26th Oct 2003, 15:01
2 gigs of ram?! :eek: :confused:
And why get a GeForceFX5900? The Radeon9800 dominates it in any game that has the slightest hints of DirectX9 features.

Benchmarks :
GeForceFX5950 vs GeForceFX5900 vs Radeon9800XT

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1066711166u8aBFzNVW7_3_2.gif

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1066711166u8aBFzNVW7_4_2.gif

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1066711166u8aBFzNVW7_6_1.gif

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1066711166u8aBFzNVW7_7_13.gif

And the only one in which the GeForceFXs win:

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1066711166u8aBFzNVW7_7_4.gif

Pequachino
27th Oct 2003, 00:49
why? cuz i already have that graphics card and im not really worried by benchmarks cuz its not like its a bad graphics card, so what if its second best?

Lawnboy360
27th Oct 2003, 02:37
Because for the same price, it's 75fps vs 50fps in Max Payne 2, 45fps vs 30fps in Halo, 55fps vs 35fps in XIII, and so on. Definitely a noticeable difference.

God From Machine
27th Oct 2003, 04:06
Hey lawnboy, you7 always seem to be up on the benchmarks, and i'm lazy and don't really feel like looking myself. Wondering if you know of the top of your head what kind of performance increase there is over the 9800 pr and the xt, i know the specs difference but have no idea what difference it makes in games. i currently own a 9800pro 128 just wondering what i'm missing out on. but i'm not one of those peopple who has to have the best, at least i hope i'm not cause that is a lot of money :)

i'll stick with my oc'd p4 2.8->3.2 and my mere 128mb vid card. When i got my comp i decided to double the system ram to 1gig rather than go with the 256 vid card as i didn't see it making much of a difference compared to the ram, an i could only afford to do one:( but we shall see i guess

The Grimpond
27th Oct 2003, 06:16
nvidia card... the one thats attached to the xbox

Lawnboy360
27th Oct 2003, 13:27
what kind of performance increase there is over the 9800 pr and the xt

With a P4C 3.0ghz with 2x512mb:

In UT2003, it goes from a 1% increase with no AA/AF (anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering, first one makes makes diagonal lines smoother and second one makes textures viewed at an angle sharper) to a 25% increase with 6xAA/8xAF

In Splinter Cell it's a 5 to 10% increase (depending on the level which is used for benchmarking), and 10 to 15% in Flight Sim 2004

So in general, it's around 10%, so it's not worth it if you already have a 9800 Pro. It also comes with a coupon to get HL2 for free, BTW.


nvidia card... the one thats attached to the xbox

The GPU of the XBox isn't the same as any card released for the PC. It's faster than a GeForce3 but slower than a GeForce4

REMF
28th Oct 2003, 13:50
GF3 currently, which much as i would like to replace is likely to remain before the new year.

REMF

Esquire
28th Oct 2003, 17:18
ok, hope no1 laffs at me for saying this, but i have a GeForce2mx

Frost Giant
29th Oct 2003, 22:16
Why would I be as heartless as to laugh at a fellow gamer in peril? Check out www.Newegg.com they have video cards for a reasonable price.

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
30th Oct 2003, 08:53
Originally posted by Esquire
ok, hope no1 laffs at me for saying this, but i have a GeForce2mx

well I would have laughed at you, but after checking my computer, I think I have a GeForce4MX, so you could laugh at me too (I was thinking of changing it anyway)

sneelock
30th Oct 2003, 19:02
By the Way the new nvidia cards are out, http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031023/index.html they say that the fx 5950 still lags behind the 9800xt. also that the fx 5700 is on par with the 9600 xt, much improved over the 5600.

also the ati may be cheating portion is very interesting. as for me i will continue to sell the 9600's probably just the pros.

Lawnboy360
30th Oct 2003, 22:29
also the ati may be cheating portion is very interesting. as for me i will continue to sell the 9600's probably just the pros.

Read:
(hardocp.com)

ATI Responds to Cheating:
At the recent editor's day held by NVIDIA, they informed the media of instances of where ATI was "cheating" in two games and a benchmark based on a game engine. Here is what ATI has to say.

==============================================
We would like to respond to the recent allegations of benchmark cheating levied against ATI.

We take these allegations very seriously and are distressed by the implication that we are cheating our customers. At ATI we have taken a strong stance against application specific optimizations in benchmarks. Further, we never force optimizations that deliver lower image quality than the game developer has intended.

Three applications have been specifically questioned: UT2003, Halo and AquaMark3.

UT2003: We are working with Epic, to address a bug that has a slight impact on the image quality in the game and benchmark in certain situations. This is a known issue that has been recognized by both ATI and Epic as a bug. ATI is not cheating in any way in this application.

Halo: Although allegations of cheating have been made, no one has been able to find any example of decreased image quality in the game. In fact, many examples have been documented on the web where ATI cards and drivers are rendering a superior image to competing products. Again, ATI is not cheating in any way in this application.

AquaMark3: We are currently investigating our rendering in AquaMark3. We have identified that we are rendering an image that is slightly different than the reference rasterizer, but at this point in time we are unable to identify why that is. We believe that this does not have any impact on our performance. Our investigation will continue to identify the cause and resolve it as soon as possible. One point to note is that we render the same image using our latest driver (CATALYST 3.8) as we do with a driver that pre-dates the release of Aquamark3 by almost six months (CATALYST 3.2). Also, in all of our dealings with the developer of Aquamark3, at no point have they advised us that they are unsatisfied with the images that we are rendering. We do not have any application specific optimizations in our driver and we are not cheating in this application.

If you have further questions about the way RADEON graphics cards render in these application we encourage you to contact the game's developers directly.

We are disappointed that certain media outlets chose to perpetuate the allegations, made originally by a competitor, in their articles without an understanding of what was happening and without contacting us for comment.

We are committed to delivering the best gaming experience possible, without sacrificing image quality for increased performance in benchmarks.
==============================================

If you go back and look at our recent GeForceFX 5950Ultra Preview, you will notice that we covered the two games that are actually referred to above, as for the benchmark put out by the NVIDIA "TWIWMTBP" Partner, we find little reason to evaluate that as we do not use it and you can not play it. After evaluating multiple screenshots of each game and hours of ingame evaluation we saw no difference in UT2K3 that were worth mentioning. We did find that ATI had a better overall image quality in Halo. So if ATI is cheating in Halo, NVIDIA is just doing a bad job rendering the scene. You take your pick of which you would rather have.

NVIDIA has been caught red handed this year cheating. They have admitted this to me in private meetings. Before they stand in front of us and accuse their competition, they owe you and me a public apology. This is not the first time we have said this. Quite frankly, I have seen NVIDIA do some pretty questionable things in the past but this all takes the cake on the hypocrisy-meter.

It is pretty sad when the only way to advance your product is to tear down your competition's. NVIDIA's product is sub-standard when compared to ATI's in the DX9 gaming arena. We know, ATI knows it, and NVIDIA damn sure knows it. NVIDIA needs to concentrate their resources on making a product better than the competition's instead of spreading what we see as FUD to the press who will inevitably regurgitate it to you guys.

Tinuz
1st Nov 2003, 23:11
Well, it seems that most people have decent systems. Though i dont agree with the topic starter on his proc, it is way better than most pentium 4's considering raw power ( I believe the 1800 is correct ). But i dont think DX2 will need very high processing/GPU powers, seen the screenies.

I have i GF4 TI4200, and it runs most games fine ( UT2003 with everything maxed gives me 50 to 70 frames on a AMD Athlon XP 1800+, with 512 MB DDRram) OK, so i cant run DX9 effects, well, looking at the screenies DX2 doesn't use them. ( Or makes crappy use of it. )

Well, it seems the graphics wont be the main point of this game, but ( hopefully ) the excellent solid gameplay.

Lawnboy360
2nd Nov 2003, 00:17
Well, it seems the graphics wont be the main point of this game, but ( hopefully ) the excellent solid gameplay.

Exactly. :)

REMF
2nd Nov 2003, 15:19
Originally posted by REMF
GF3 currently, which much as i would like to replace is likely to remain before the new year.

REMF

looks like i'll have a 5900 when DX2 comes out.

REMF

Freddo
9th Nov 2003, 20:00
Who is "ghostbumping" this thread? Like posting in it to bump it up, and then deletes his own post? Isn't that kind pointless to do?

I'm tired of seeing this moving up, looking for new posts, only to discover that there are nothing new in it at all.

Lawnboy360
9th Nov 2003, 22:28
Who is "ghostbumping" this thread? Like posting in it to bump it up, and then deletes his own post? Isn't that kind pointless to do?

This is caused by people voting in the poll (without posting). AFAIK you can't delete a post in this forum.

KTgrim
10th Nov 2003, 00:50
I will have a radeon 9700 TX.Im not buying a new card until they come out with something with new features not just speedier versions of what we have now.

ThorsHamburger
10th Nov 2003, 05:54
I have a pretty red and black one that my father bought me that says 9700 professional. I know it will be nice to play this game on, becasue when my father shows me the pictures of the ladies he gets off the internet they look really nice. My father told me not to tell anyone about the pictures but the computer isnt real my brother says so Im not really telling anyone.

Freddo
10th Nov 2003, 06:40
Originally posted by Lawnboy360
This is caused by people voting in the poll (without posting). AFAIK you can't delete a post in this forum. Ah :) My mistake. :)
Ghostbumping was fairly common on another forum I visit. It ended up with the moderators locking those threads :D :p