|
|
|
Video Card Thread (Mostly Gecube x1950xt)
|
|
Senior Member
|
5. August 2007 @ 07:46 |
Link to this message
|
wow this is way off topic.... lol
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Member
|
5. August 2007 @ 07:51 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Waymon3X6:
wow this is way off topic.... lol
No it's not, I'm still trying to speed up the AGP-bus to help the card.
I don't know if I should do the thing I said.
The other CPU-half is yeah.
|
Senior Member
|
5. August 2007 @ 09:43 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
The other CPU-half is yeah.
That's what I was refurring to...
Anyways, maybe this card will allways perform medioker? Since it is a PCI-e gpu, modified to fit an agp slot. The agp slot just cant handle the bandwith I guess.
I have not seen one person with this card working 100%. I guess I kinda got mine to work, medium/high on bf2 at 25-40fps is good enough for me, since that's what I bought this card for.
I guess I'll start to hate this card when Crysis comes out, and when I can only play on low with 20fps. :(
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
5. August 2007 @ 11:28 |
Link to this message
|
I think you will, but I also think you'll hate AGP. If you want to play Crysis, you're just going to have to dig deep I'm afraid. I'm not looking forward to subjecting my Poor little PC to that.
As for the CPU, correct, All Core 2 Duos , Athlon64s, Athlon X2s and Athlon FXs, along with the Pentium 4 600 (and I think the 500 as well) and Pentium D 800/900 support 64-bit, but will run 32 bit OSes fine.
yes, go for it on the AGP/PCI/SRC frequency.
|
Member
|
5. August 2007 @ 11:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
I didn't get this card for Medium/High settings, but highest depending on which game.
Well, I would put some settings in like Battlefield at Medium to let the system "breathe" a bit, for performance's sake.
Since most settings in BF you don't evne see much difference between Medium and High, while some are critical to be at High(est) though.
But this card should just suck it up and pump 100fps at highest settings in BF2 damnit lol.
This card is from begin '07, like may or something, not that it's the best card, but still.
It better run a damn 2005 game well, especially for it's price.
I'm sorry, but it's kinda pissing me off now.
Oh well, I'll try the frequency-thing...
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 5. August 2007 @ 11:36
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
5. August 2007 @ 11:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
Actually I'm not entirely sure my card can pull off 100fps at max at that res in BF2, and that's PCI express.
|
Member
|
5. August 2007 @ 11:43 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Actually I'm not entirely sure my card can pull off 100fps at max at that res in BF2, and that's PCI express.
Yeah ok, but that sounds like it should be able to do 50-75+ constantly.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
5. August 2007 @ 11:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
True. I guess it's noe obvious why nobody else made the X1950XT in AGP. If you're still not happy, all I can suggest is to try a 7800GS+.
|
Member
|
5. August 2007 @ 13:42 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
True. I guess it's noe obvious why nobody else made the X1950XT in AGP. If you're still not happy, all I can suggest is to try a 7800GS+.
I tried the frequency-thing, but I think it only smoothed it out a bit.
Frames still go too low.
I've been thinking about another one I've seen yes, by XFX but I'd have to find back the bookmark of the exact one.
I wouldn't know how it would perform better, but I feel more confident with nVidia and a more standard looking card.
Plus it's more of an official card, probably made for AGP anyways.
The messed up thing is probably that it's the same price as this one.
Which just feel weird, you know, paying the same for way lower specifications.
I know it's the performance that counts, but still...
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
5. August 2007 @ 14:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
As far as I'm aware, they're also nonstandard, and made by only one company, I think it's Gainward. There's nothing explicitly wrong with ATi cards, but just that this one's a bit odd.
|
Member
|
6. August 2007 @ 02:10 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
As far as I'm aware, they're also nonstandard, and made by only one company, I think it's Gainward. There's nothing explicitly wrong with ATi cards, but just that this one's a bit odd.
Yeah, that's what I mean.
This one's a pretty different case than the other ones, which always happens to me in products (and girls and most other situations).
Anyways, the XFX is one of those more standard looking too, a flat (1-slot) with a "blower" with one of those smaller fans.
Plus, I haven't read or experienced many positive things about ATi.
Even though I believe or know that it's one of the (at least) 2 top GPU-brands.
No doubt about it actually right...
But it's like, I always have a feeling a GeForce will work right.
I put the card in, install the drivers, and it's ready to go.
But with ATi, there's things like the CCC not even being able to open, bad performance, stuff like that.
Also reading the quality of ATi Radeon graphics are a bit lower, like more fragments and things like that.
It's always been pretty good to have a GeForce, starting with the... ehm... GeForce 3 Ti200 or something, before that it was Trust Voodoo XD , and then the 6800XT.
Except for the fact that they weren't always the best cards out, I never had many other problems besides low performance.
With the reason of low specs that is, not having high specs and still low performance like now :P .
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. August 2007 @ 02:10
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
6. August 2007 @ 02:34 |
Link to this message
|
Actually, up until the end of the 7000 series, ATi cards offered marginally better picture, at a marginally decreased performance, which I preferred, since if you don't want it quite so sharp, you can turn the detail down to get your performance back, the nvidia cards prohibited you from ever getting the best visual experience. When the 8800 arrived, that was finally resolved.
The truth is, there are only two major players in the desktop graphics market, in much the same way as there are only really two CPU makers now, although more do exist. However, unlike Intel vs AMD, a long-standing rivalry of underdog vs market menace, ATi vs nVidia is long-standing know-it-all (ATI) versus ground-up newcomer (nvidia). The first Geforce only appeared a few years ago, so it's pleasing to see just how far nvidia have come.
I hold no fanboyism for or against either company, but up until the 8000 series, I usually went with ATi cards, due to the scandals that nVidia used to get where they are now. The Geforce FX series was awful, left in the dust by the performance of the Radeon 9000 series, but that's not what the benchmarks had you believe, simply because back then, the cards and drivers were engineered to get massive 3dmark scores to up sales, and offered poor performance everywhere else.
I too had a Geforce, an MX440 PCI a long while back, it was fine, and none of the 6 graphics cards I've owned over the years has ever had a fault, so both manufacturers I trust on that part.
You've just had a negative experience with one brand, and have been put off using them, and in your case example, it isn't strictly ATi you should be cross with, it's Gecube. There are plenty more people who've had issues with an nVidia card (and you can bet your life the fault was with the card manufacturer, not nVidia) and sworn never to use them again.
These are the cards I've had over the years:
ATi Rage Pro 8MB Integrated over PCI bus 1999-2002
Sparkle GeForce 4 MX440 64MB PCI 64-bit 2002-2004
Sapphire Radeon 9200 Atlantis 256MB AGP 128-bit 2004 (Jan-Sep)
Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro 256MB AGP 256-bit Sep2004-2006 July
Sapphire Radeon X1900 XT 512MB PCI express 2006- Present (refitted with Thermalright HR-03 cooler)
Sapphire Radeon X1600 Pro 256MB PCI express 64-bit 2007- Present in Multimedia server
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. August 2007 @ 02:37
|
Member
|
6. August 2007 @ 03:41 |
Link to this message
|
I know it's usually the manufacturer to blame, and I can easily "guess" that GeCube isn't one of the bigger GPU-brands.
I only found the brand GeCube when I searched for the AGP-card with the highest specifications, months ago.
Even had to get used to the name since I know the Nintendo Gamecube from years ago lol.
But I guess the only other Radeon I had, which was a lower-end 9200 LE Family or something, was also because of it being from Gigabyte like my motherboard.
Only, it's not one of those big GPU-brands like Sapphire for instance, but it is good with Motherboards and things like that.
I've never seen anything bad about them anyways, and it's not letting me down so far.
Then again, I had bought a Sapphire before, which was a X1600XT (512mb) I believe.
I'm not sure, but something like that.
Only it wouldn't even show anything on-screen when I'd start the computer.
But I think it was the computer to blame since it was a DELL.
I believe that company is known to like... lock features and stuff, not even being able to edit the BIOS and things like that?
I didn't get as deep into the technical side of computers before like, I think 2005.
But I only started to know about GeForces when they had those GeForce 2, 3, 4 and maybe 5(?) and all.
And that's just hearing about them from other people and all, and seeing them displayed in stores.
Later I saw a lot of people on the internet had those high-end ones from the 7-series, that they were so awesome and everything.
And also PCIe, SLi and Crossfire appearing and stuff like that.
Oh yeah, I just remembered we also had the Viper 550 after the Voodoo2 I believe.
Around those times that 3DFX came out, which was all awesome and stuff hèhè.
I still remember games having splash/intro-screens for 3DFX, like GTA 2.
And I think this is the best AGP-GeForce I could find:
http://www.xfxforce.com/web/product/list...ationId=1006114
It's really pushed against the barrier of being an 8-series lol.
I mean like: SEVENTY-NINE-FIFFFTY... GEE.. TEE *PUSH* FIVEHUNDREDANDTWELVE EMBEEEEES ARGH! *explosion*
:P ...
I'm not a big fan of those colors and all, but I like how it looks individually.
Plus the green would kinda match my case, I believe it's even got a lighting up logo on the top-side.
Again, a blower to the wrong side, but I guess I could also even see for one of those other ones, I forgot the brand.
Or else Zalman again...
What do you think of it?
How would it perform with it's specifications, would it be able to play HD-quality fluently (without stutters)?
And what game-settings of course, things like that...
Sorry for the long posts, just bla-ing on, just take your time lol...
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
6. August 2007 @ 03:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
Pretty much all of those problems sound like they weren't the graphics card.
Anyway, you're welcome to try the 7950, XFX are a good brand. Graphics is sort of importsnt to play HD video, but the processor is too.
|
Member
|
6. August 2007 @ 04:31 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Pretty much all of those problems sound like they weren't the graphics card.
Anyway, you're welcome to try the 7950, XFX are a good brand. Graphics is sort of importsnt to play HD video, but the processor is too.
Yeah, the same guy of the bus-frequency-idea told me the 6800XT didn't have this certain technology to run HD correctly.
Even though I do have PowerDVD with this certain HD-codec (or somthing) installed.
With this GeCube-card it still performed HD about the same.
Oh, I do see the H.265 for HD mentioned at the bottom of the page though.
I don't know if you know if my processor could handle it?
Copied:
"High-Definition H.264, MPEG-2 and WMV Hardware Acceleration2
Smoothly playback H.264, MPEG-2, and WMV video?including WMV HD?with minimal CPU usage so the PC is free to do other work."
I guess it would give my processor a break.
And how do you think games would do, like an estimate of settings Vs. framerates?
You have to know that I want it to play the heavy game Rainbow Six Vegas, so I don't know if the card would be enough.
And I'm not really planning to keep the best looking settings down.
I'm sure it's an improvement from the 6800XT, but... again, maybe it's not enough to take it.
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=441&card2=511
It seems like every number is about double or even 3/4 times as much.
And compared to the X1950XT:
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=511&card2=503
Some numbers are like, damn, that's so much more it might need.
Note that surprisingly the XFX's Memory Clock is 1300MHz instead of 700, so 400MHz more than the X1950XT's 900MHz.
Or actually 600MHz more since it shows 702 requested in the Overdrive-menu, strangely enough.
Again, what I also meant before, is that the Texture Fill Rate is better(?) on GeForces than Radeons usually.
Plus it has double the amount of video-RAM.
The Memory Bandwidth is a bit lower, but I guess that would rather fix the trouble it has here??
I'm only worried about the Shader Operations being 2-3 times as much on the X1950XT.
I mean, shaders are a big thing in games right?
It does have Shader Model 3.0 obviously...
I wish there was an easier way to find honest results.
Like some website where you can "build a system", so obviously the same parts as your own, and see what it would do with a certain card.
Doesn't something like that exists?
Or at least a website, with existing results through similar systems?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
6. August 2007 @ 04:41 |
Link to this message
|
He probably means HDCP, which means it won't be able to play HD-DVDs or Bluray discs in the PC. That's it really, if you want HDCP you need to go with an 8000 or HD2000 series card.
As for your CPU, I couldn't say, my XP 3000+ with an X800 pro didn't fare too well, it was only when I got my X2 4200+ that HD became a reality. I would imagine an X800 Pro should be powerful enough for HD playback, so I'm guessing it was the CPU...
That minimal CPU usage is BS< WMV-HD is the most demanding of all HD codecs on my PC, The divx, H264, X264 codecs run OK, with WMV-HD it's working flat out.
As for rainbow six Vegas, my X1900XT bests all the AGP cards available, and I have to play it on object dynamic lighting,not full, or I have to turn the resolution right the way down to 1024x768 for it to be playable. I don't think anything short of an 8800 can max Vegas.
Move away from the Mhz idea (the lower reading is because you're looking at it in 2D mode, the cards under clock themselves at the windows desktop to run cooler, they only bring up the high clock speeds when rendering 3D.
Mhz isn't really a good way of determining performance, the 9600 pro had a higher clock speed than a 7800GTX, but it was a fraction of the speed, it's all down to architecture, hence how my 3Ghz Core 2 Duo minces a 3Ghz Pentium 4, or even Pentium D.
No such site exists, because there are too many variables, you can only make an estimate based on your knowledge of the technology in the field.
|
Member
|
6. August 2007 @ 04:58 |
Link to this message
|
Ok, but it shows both the current clock and requested clock in the Overdrive-menu.
The current is obviously what it is currently running at, the requested is I guess would be the speed in 3D-mode.
But that one's only going up to 702MHz, while the Core Requested speed is showing the correct speed.
But ahm, it's weird if a card like the 7950 couldn't play RSV at higher settings, not necessarily maxed out with the resolutions and all.
Because RSV, although looking really good, is from like what, mid 2006 and the 7950 I just read is from September '06.
Of course I know it's AGP also...
About one of those "test-websites":
I really like systemrequirementslab.com .
But, when it checks your videocard it will only detect how many RAM you have on the card.
And based on that it will say if your "video-department" is good enough to run the specific game.
I mean, ARGH, that's such a beginner's-mistake right?
They should just make it so it checks the speeds or more details of your GPU and see if can run the game.
I don't know if it's possible or they just don't know how, but they should make it possible. :)
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
6. August 2007 @ 05:02 |
Link to this message
|
yes, but you have to bear in mind the 'performance ambition' coded into top titles like Vegas. Games are designed so that they can't run on max settings on ANY hardware available at the time of release. This means that when hardware does come along that can do that, peopl play the game again at its top settings, extending the shelf-life of the game. It's sneaky, but it's been going on for quite a while.
As for systemrequirementslab, you're correct, a 7300LE with 512MB of RAM (half of which is probably coming from your system RAM) is not going to be a match for an 8800GTS with only 320MB.
Game manufacturers usually have a hierachy system, i.e. "Radeon X700 series or better", though this usually means that any higher number will work - so an X1300 should - a bit misleading because some X1300s are slower than an X700.
|
Member
|
6. August 2007 @ 05:16 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
yes, but you have to bear in mind the 'performance ambition' coded into top titles like Vegas. Games are designed so that they can't run on max settings on ANY hardware available at the time of release. This means that when hardware does come along that can do that, peopl play the game again at its top settings, extending the shelf-life of the game. It's sneaky, but it's been going on for quite a while.
As for systemrequirementslab, you're correct, a 7300LE with 512MB of RAM (half of which is probably coming from your system RAM) is not going to be a match for an 8800GTS with only 320MB.
Game manufacturers usually have a hierachy system, i.e. "Radeon X700 series or better", though this usually means that any higher number will work - so an X1300 should - a bit misleading because some X1300s are slower than an X700.
Yeah, it can be confusing, but I bet they don't do it on purpose.
The GPU's just happen to get the model-number they get in a certain order right...
But I know what you mean with games not even being able to run maxed out at release.
I've been thinking about that, and actually found it messed up.
But I also find it a good thing, like you said shelf-time, it will also have the chance to look good for a longer time.
That's especially handy for me since I already thought games would kind of look like today or even better almost 10 years ago.
I mean, I actually thought games back then like Grand Prix 2 or something would look great, but I just didn't have a good enough computer yet.
I actually had a vision of the 3D-realistic games they are today or still have to come, 10 years ago.
I guess 3D-MOVIES and TRAILERS misled me, but also inspired my fantasies lol.
But you have to know that I'm really into quality.
I mean, I'm really bothered by any flaws, even though I've loosened up about things over time.
Blurriness and jagged lines are just the worst things in graphics.
Also blurry audio or any other flaws like stutters, which would also mean the graphics performance needs to be stutterless.
Etc. etc...
BUT, I guess I could just try the card, I've seen a store with the exact same price (as the GeCube), even the shipping-costs the same.
If it's too disappointing I guess I could just return it.
And maybe then wait with gaming and concentrate on mu music-career lol.
Damn, I'm gunna live on the streetz...
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. August 2007 @ 05:17
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
6. August 2007 @ 05:18 |
Link to this message
|
hehe, you sound like me, an eye for detail, any blemishes aren't satisfactory. put it this way, even at 2560x1600 in games, if I can turn Anti-Aliasing on, I do!
|
Member
|
6. August 2007 @ 06:12 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
hehe, you sound like me, an eye for detail, any blemishes aren't satisfactory. put it this way, even at 2560x1600 in games, if I can turn Anti-Aliasing on, I do!
Hehe yeah, if it would totally be about quality, me too.
But it's performance too, you won't see me smiling with shiny sparkly super-tight images, running at 1 frame per 10 seconds lol.
When you're playing a hectic FPS or where you have to concentrate almost every seconds anyways, you won't notice some flaws anyways.
I'm rather afraid to get killed any second, you know, "battlefield-awareness".
But still, good images enhance the more realistic experience, and the flaws are quite disappointing to look at.
I think to put a resolution 1 or 2 steps up will rather smooth out the rough edges than the AA 1 step up.
You know, for performance's sake...
Oh well, if I get rich and famous in the next 10 years, I'll also buy YOU a monster-computer after your own specs lol.
I don't care about money really, the pain is just that you need it :P .
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
6. August 2007 @ 06:17 |
Link to this message
|
Hmm, upping two resolution scales has more of a hit on performance then using Anti-Aliasing.
For example:
battlefield 2142 run on ATI X1900XT
1024x768: 70fps
1024x768 with AA and AF: 55fps
1600x1200 with AA and AF: 33.6fps
AA and AF caused a 21% drop in performance at 1024x768.
once they were on, upping the resolution by 2 levels caused a drop of 39%.
|
Senior Member
|
6. August 2007 @ 06:41 |
Link to this message
|
wow you guys wrote alot since the last time I was here!
Anyways, before when I was searching for a good AGP card, I found the Gainward Bliss 7800+ (plus is important) and that's what I was going to get for a while untill I found the gecube, which was clocked faster and I thought it would be a faster card... Guess not...
Well on newegg, everyone complained about the cooling blah blah blah, but after I did that cooling mod, right now my temps are 35.63C core and 48C ambiant. (This was even without the fan since it broke)
But yeah, I would go with the gainward... I guess you could try the XFX card but, well, do what you want... (Im still a gainward fan from a previous card that I had)
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
6. August 2007 @ 06:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
Now you see the probem I have when I go away for a week!
Google Mail - Inbox(37), about 30 of them'll be Afterdawn thread updates!
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Member
|
6. August 2007 @ 06:56 |
Link to this message
|
I also like to use combinations of different settings.
But Waymon:
Even though the cooler doesn't seem right for a card like this, it's not that bad.
So yeah, you're right that the complaints aren't needed, except for that something's up at GeCube that the coolers aren't placed right.
It's either the pressure, which you can fix with that mod we both did, or else that the cooler isn't mounted straight or flat, like I found.
People just don't know this is the problem.
But on the other side they have a right to complain, cause a product should be working out of the box.
I wouldn't be so sure with Gainward, since that's again one of those brands I never heard of.
I'd rather go with Sapphire, BFG, EVGA, XFX, things like that.
But hey, if it work's, that's always good.
Be glad you don't have too much e-mail, my box has over 600 in it right now.
That used to be around 1000 when I took a break from the computer, or online anyways.
Oh, and not to forget ASUS, which my 6800XT was made by.
I was pretty pleased with it, except that it did something which is a long story again.
And I also got it late... but that's because I didn't dig into the details of GPUs yet.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. August 2007 @ 06:58
|
|
