PDA

View Full Version : Tech Info Read (for Radeon 7500 Users Aslo)



marlon4242
22nd Nov 2003, 05:43
Teh issues

Hi

well here are some really bad things, ATi users that have below 7500 OR have no vortex/pixal shudders, will not be able to run the game, we got scewed, 1.1 they are talking about was installed on radeon 8500 and higher, i know this because some programs do tests on cards, 3dmark and the program will tell you that it is not installed, so what do do, you will have to get a newer card BUT BEFORE YOU DO READ, READ the post or you will be screwed again my next post BUYING ATI TO PLAY THIS GAME, since i always been with ati.

some might think that its the game,its not those who tried to install silent hill 3 demo and tried to run the game found the same message so its not us, face it tech is going up and so new cards with new programs are coming out, please most of you didn't think that the cards you had would stay good forever, 8.1 was hot for a LONG while on cards, but now they are moving into the 9.0b (and it will stay that way for few years 5+ says microsoft)

deus ex 2, is one of the first games to use the full use of pixal shudders and so on other then SILENT HILL 3, then half life 2, doom 3 will 2, so its not just this one game, its just a change in the times, picture trying to play a commador 64 game on your pc doesn't work same thing, DOS was hot in the early days, DX 7 was ok, then came 8.1 FOR a long time and now 9 because you cannot run the game BECAUSE DEUS EX 2 uses half life 2 source engine,and half life 2 uses shudders for there "nice textures" that is why.

im sorry to say that i will have to say goodbye to my radeon 7500, it game me good years just like a car now its time to let go just like a old car you will find a new love see my other post for details on best ATI to buy for budget. remember you can ***** but sooner or later you will have to get a good card if you want to play games like half life 2 doom 3.

later all

marlon

deus ex fan for LIFE!

PointlesS
22nd Nov 2003, 07:10
sorry but the dx2 does not use the source engine...it uses a modifed unreal warfare engine with a custom renderer...and people with cards that do not have pixel shaders do get screwed but come on...it's not like shaders were invented last week or the cards are too expensive...

marlon4242
22nd Nov 2003, 21:04
Originally posted by PointlesS
sorry but the dx2 does not use the source engine...it uses a modifed unreal warfare engine with a custom renderer...and people with cards that do not have pixel shaders do get screwed but come on...it's not like shaders were invented last week or the cards are too expensive...

ah yes it does, if you been following the develpment then you would know this.... i know Dx1 used unreal

PointlesS
22nd Nov 2003, 21:15
uh no it doesn't...perhaps you've been following the wrong game or what but it does not use the source engine:


To do this the team is using the Unreal Warfare engine. That is to say, they're using a heavily modified version of the engine. They've changed the materials, the objects, the lighting, the physics, the sound and pretty much everything except the basic tools. Warren jokes, "We're taking an approach to technology that's so radical that Tim Sweeney [founder of Epic] thinks we're insane." Unfortunately we only got to see some raw geometry tests and a few facial animations but the team plans to increase the polygon counts by a factor of 200 by using new static meshes.
http://pc.ign.com/previews/15304.html?fromint=1


the only thing that dx2 and hl2 has in common is that they both use the havok physics engine which is developed by neither valve or ion storm...it's a seperate company: www.havok.com

Pooeypants
23rd Nov 2003, 14:11
Directx 8 compliant cards have been around for nearly 3 years.
People should stop whinging and upgrade or get it for the Xbox seeing as DX2 is primarily a console game now. :(

Silverdawn
23rd Nov 2003, 14:20
I've seen the graphics. To archieve that kind of result, you don't need pixel shaders. If there's one true conspiracy out there, it's hardware manufacturers working with software programmers to contantly let people upgrade. I can run a few top of the line games just fine right now on my Radeon 7000. A lot of it depends on programming. Extremely well programmed games will run smoothly on even "low-end" PCs.

The art of programming is underestimated. If you do it well, you won't need that kind of "cutting edge" technology.

The Phony Pope
23rd Nov 2003, 14:33
What video card is better (I can get both for the same price), the Radeon 9200 or the GeForce FX5200?

Sourcerer
23rd Nov 2003, 15:29
Originally posted by The Phony Pope
What video card is better (I can get both for the same price), the Radeon 9200 or the GeForce FX5200?

I don't think I would consider either of them, I think they are not directX 9.0 compatible.

Can't you spend a little more money ?

I wouldn't consider anything earlier than ATI's 9600, otherwise, you'll be needing to upgrade again in 6 months or less.

Just my opinion though.

Silverdawn
23rd Nov 2003, 16:24
I have a Radeon 7000 which is fully compatible.

jaywalker2309
23rd Nov 2003, 16:28
Originally posted by Silverdawn
I have a Radeon 7000 which is fully compatible.

You sure u got a 7000 and the demo works fine?.. the 7000 is definitely not on the supported list (no pixel shader etc)

Silverdawn
23rd Nov 2003, 16:38
No, the demo doesn't work, unfortunately. I was replying to:


I don't think I would consider either of them, I think they are not directX 9.0 compatible.

I have other games that run on DX9, and work.

jaywalker2309
23rd Nov 2003, 16:43
Originally posted by Silverdawn
No, the demo doesn't work, unfortunately. I was replying to:



I have other games that run on DX9, and work.

Ahh..

there is a misconception a lot of people have. People think (not saying u do) that just cos they have dx9 installed they have dx9 support.. there are not many dx9 compatibile cards out there, most are only just beginning to get dx8.1 support (dx8.1 is where pixel shader 1.1 comes from)

Its very confusing and is a shame that a lot of people get caught out by it :(

Check your card on this site to see what DX your card is based on, you will be surprised (http://freespace.virgin.net/neeyik.uk/3dspecs/) (thanks to pooey for this link)

dirigimaster
23rd Nov 2003, 16:51
Originally posted by The Phony Pope
What video card is better (I can get both for the same price), the Radeon 9200 or the GeForce FX5200?

They both suck, but if given the choice I would get the 9200, solely because ATI cards runs DX9 better than Nvidias.

dirigimaster
23rd Nov 2003, 16:52
Originally posted by Sourcerer
I don't think I would consider either of them, I think they are not directX 9.0 compatible.

Can't you spend a little more money ?

I wouldn't consider anything earlier than ATI's 9600, otherwise, you'll be needing to upgrade again in 6 months or less.

Just my opinion though.

Both are DX9 compliant, they both do suck. 9600 at least.

GingerNinja
23rd Nov 2003, 17:00
Getting the 9200 because it runs Direct 9 beter is complete bull btw


Either of those will not run Direct X 9 features.

You need newer cards as the others have sugested.

The 9600 is an excelent place to start :)

The Phony Pope
23rd Nov 2003, 17:48
Ok, thanks a lot. Just one more thing-

When you say Radeon 9600 are you reffering to the normal Radeon 9600, Radeon 9600 pro (by MSO), or All-In-Wonder Radeon 9600 Pro?

The Phony Pope
23rd Nov 2003, 18:56
hello?

PointlesS
23rd Nov 2003, 19:35
the normal radeon 9600 sucks...I wouldn't go anything less than a radeon 9600 pro or a geforce fx 5700 ultra for direct x 9 support...almost all the other cards (fx5200, 5600, 9600 non pro) will be too slow to use all the dx 9 features anyways...in fact in half-life 2 valve actually forces the fx5200 and fx5600 to run on the direct x 8 codepath since they are just too slow to run in dx 9 mode...

oh and also the all-in-wonder radeon 9600 pro has the exact performance of a normal radeon 9600 pro but it adds some nifty multimedia features with it...there's also the radeon 9600 xt which is a little faster than the pro but imo it isn't enough to justify the price difference...

Pooeypants
23rd Nov 2003, 21:36
Originally posted by jaycw2309
Ahh..

there is a misconception a lot of people have. People think (not saying u do) that just cos they have dx9 installed they have dx9 support.. there are not many dx9 compatibile cards out there, most are only just beginning to get dx8.1 support (dx8.1 is where pixel shader 1.1 comes from)

Its very confusing and is a shame that a lot of people get caught out by it :(

Check your card on this site to see what DX your card is based on, you will be surprised (http://freespace.virgin.net/neeyik.uk/3dspecs/) (thanks to pooey for this link)
Slight correction Jay, directx 8.1 = pixel shader v1.4
dx8 = PS v1.1

Confusing but thats microsoft for yer.

Pooeypants
23rd Nov 2003, 21:40
Originally posted by dirigimaster
They both suck, but if given the choice I would get the 9200, solely because ATI cards runs DX9 better than Nvidias.
The 9200 is not a directx compliant card, the FX5200 is however, the FX5200 is too "slow" to render dx9 features anyway so regard them as dx8 and in this case they trump the 9200 which is a sawnoff of the 8500/9100.

Pooeypants
23rd Nov 2003, 21:43
Originally posted by The Phony Pope
Ok, thanks a lot. Just one more thing-

When you say Radeon 9600 are you reffering to the normal Radeon 9600, Radeon 9600 pro (by MSO), or All-In-Wonder Radeon 9600 Pro?
He means 9600, however, I'd recommend the 9600pro which is the best value for money out there. Good solid performance for a reasonable price and I've got one so I'd know. :D

Pooeypants
23rd Nov 2003, 21:51
Originally posted by jaycw2309
You sure u got a 7000 and the demo works fine?.. the 7000 is definitely not on the supported list (no pixel shader etc)
compatible is not same as compliant.
So he's right, the 7000 is compatible with direct 8 and 9 but not compliant with it.
I'm not sure though he actually said that he can run the demo itself.

jaywalker2309
23rd Nov 2003, 21:59
Originally posted by Pooeypants
compatible is not same as compliant.
So he's right, the 7000 is compatible with direct 8 and 9 but not compliant with it.
I'm not sure though he actually said that he can run the demo itself.

THATS the terms i was trying to think of.. Compliant and Compatibile.. people put the 2 together yet they are not the same thing..

That hardware list shows what compliance each card is. thats the important bit

Quillan
29th Nov 2003, 02:58
Buy a 9600 XT. It's a deal that cannot be beaten right now. Roughly 180 USD for the card, and that includes a coupon for Half Life 2 once it is released, so you save 50 bucks right there (assuming you are planning on getting it. You are, aren't you?) I wouldn't get a Radeon card that didn't have either the Pro or XT suffix. Those are considerably slower.

bobk
29th Nov 2003, 03:56
Originally posted by Pooeypants
He means 9600, however, I'd recommend the 9600pro which is the best value for money out there. Good solid performance for a reasonable price and I've got one so I'd know. :D

Best Buy has the 9600 non-pro on sale for $69 after rebates.
Probably sold out by now though...
The 9600 does 1300 Megapixels per sec. The 9600 pro
does 1600 Megapixels per second. TI4200 does 1000 MPS.
DX2 likes fill rate I have heard. I had a GF3 TI200 in my
Athlon XP 2400 with 256k cache, at it was very sluggish
at 800x600. I stuck a friends 9600 pro in my machine, and the DX2 demo smoothed out quite a bit at 800x600. My GF3 TI200 at
640x480 was similar to the the 9600 pro at 1024x768
for framerate.
I think if you could get a 9600 for less than $80, it would
probably be a good choice for DX2 at 800x600, if there end
up being some optimizations, which I believe there will.
The 9600 pro will probably buy you 20% increase in FPS
over the 9600, I am guessing, based on fill rate. I imagine a 9600 could be overclocked by 10% and get you close to the 9600 pro.