|
Video Card Thread (Mostly Gecube x1950xt)
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
20. December 2007 @ 22:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
It makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Also it might be because everything else in my machine is much better ;)
It might offset the 8800 advantage, although 3Dmark is a GRAPHICS test so maybe not TOO much.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
20. December 2007 @ 22:54 |
Link to this message
|
Well, I may as well share this with you:
X1900XT stock (625/725), E4300 stock (1.8Ghz): 4600 3dmarks
X1900XT stock (625/725), E4300 OC'ed (3.0Ghz): 5500 3dmarks
X1900XT OC'ed (663/873), E4300 OC'ed (3.0Ghz): 6700 3dmarks
X1900XT OC'ed (663/873), E4300 OC'ed (3.15Ghz): 6870 3dmarks
I'd still say it's mostly down to the graphics card, but the CPU helps. With a 3.0Ghz CPU I reckon his score would have been about 11,000.
I thought to myself the other day, "If I had the money would I upgrade to an 8800GT or 8800GTX?" after some thought, my answer was "no". I pretty much obsess over image quality in games (hence why I'm the only one who goes around shouting that Crysis looks rubbish), and no matter how much money I had, I'm not swapping to a graphics card that makes games look worse than they do now, full stop. What use is a higher resolution when the shadows are all wrong?
Does this make me an ATi fanboy?
No not really. I'm still willing to recommend the G92-8800GTS and 8800GTX to people who have the money to spend on them, because they probably won't find all the missing details in games. As for me though, I'll stick with what gets me the best image. If that means using ATi for now, so be it.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 20. December 2007 @ 23:09
|
|
MaccerM
Member
|
21. December 2007 @ 05:37 |
Link to this message
|
Well I?m a happy bunny anyway. It?s nearly doubled my score from the x1950xt and that?s really it isn?t it? Essentially the same pc now goes much faster and uses 30w less juice! Everything looks sweet, UT3 maxed at 1280x1024 a constant 60fps (I use vsync so that is max) and Crysis with everything high, 2xAA, same res, and min framerates are 20ish in complex cut scenes and 27-35 in game. That is double the real-world performance too.
As for whether the 3870 would have been better in my system or not, I can?t say. What I do know is that you can?t get a 3870 in the UK at the moment and I had another system to build before xmas so I couldn?t wait around for stock. An equivalent 3870 (with a clockspeed over 800) would have cost me £15 more too. And I went on the basis that the vast majority of the reviews I read tipped the 8800 as the more powerful card.
What?s your score with your 3870 abuzar? I think you said it was 11500 or something with the GTX, you change your cards so much I have no idea! I think I should be able to hit 11000 easily, just with a bit more on the cpu and ram.
Going from 1.86 stock to 2.33 gave me an extra 1280 points, so 2.8ghz and were well over 11000, probably about 11300 but maybe even 11500 if you extrapolate in a straight line. Facts are the cards are roughly equivalent either is a good buy and at the resolutions I play I?ll probably only notice the extra speed in a few titles. Bottom line I?m happy with it, great card!!
Finally tho Sam, you wouldn?t buy one if you had the money? (You'd get a 3870 right? - sure) But seriously, play on a 8800GT and then tell me it looks worse than on a x1950xt, I can tell you having owned both that?s rubbish! I can also tell you that I'm glad I got it to replace my old x1950xt!
Q9550 @ 3.4Ghz-1.275v & TRUE, Asus P5N-T Deluxe, 4Gb Dominator 1066 (5-5-5-15), Inno3d OC 8800GTs in SLi with TT Duorbs, 580w 5.1 Setup, 2x DVD-RAM, 320&160Gb SATA2 HDDs, 17" 3ms Hyundai TFT, 700w Jeantech PSU.
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
21. December 2007 @ 06:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
Maccer, I have a HD 3850, not 3870. My score is like 10,480+.
|
|
MaccerM
Member
|
21. December 2007 @ 10:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well that's a pretty hot score then!! You do have a E6750 tho compared to my lowly E6320! What are you clocked at? Have you tweaked you card at all either?
Q9550 @ 3.4Ghz-1.275v & TRUE, Asus P5N-T Deluxe, 4Gb Dominator 1066 (5-5-5-15), Inno3d OC 8800GTs in SLi with TT Duorbs, 580w 5.1 Setup, 2x DVD-RAM, 320&160Gb SATA2 HDDs, 17" 3ms Hyundai TFT, 700w Jeantech PSU.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
21. December 2007 @ 12:59 |
Link to this message
|
MaccerM: Crysis doesn't support AA, you may as well turn it off. It'll be reducing your frame rate, but look closely and you'll find the game isn't anti-aliased at all.
The HD3850 is what Abuzar owns, not the HD3870, which is as rare as the 8800GT has also been over the past few weeks.
I'm not going to compare the 8800GT to what you did have (which I'll be honest was complete rubbish), but I'll compare it to what you could have had. There are so many people that still fault ATi for certain rebuilder's inability to make decent graphics cards, which annoys me. They become fanboys for life, and as such get the raw end of the stick almost every time. People who typically buy the 8800GT in spite of availability of the HD3870 (so currently just the US) go "but I want it to be fast" - look at those benchmarks again. There are very few where the 8800GT is much more than 10-15% faster than the HD3870. It's always faster, but never by more than that amount. Now, consider the lowest frame rate you're willing to put up with in a game. 30fps? 40? I'll be honest with you, I'd have a hard time telling the difference between 30 and 33fps, or even between 40 and 46. I would instantly notice if my games had cruddy shadows though, as did most of the people who bought 8800GTXs so they could play Oblivion well, a year ago. Imagine their disgust when their new £350 card rendered shadows only half as well as the X1900XT they just got rid of!
This pretty much sums up where nvidia stand in the graphics card market.
I suppose if you wanted to sound like a complete *profanity* you could compare them to two artists - one that can paint an entire landscape in 10 minutes, but it looks a bit sloppy, or one that spends a bit longer making it look neat and tidy.
I don't buy powerful graphics cards to get more frames per second than even a high speed camera could see. I buy them so I can turn the resolution and level of detail up, to make my games look good. What use is being able to do that if at the end of it all, the game looks worse than it did before?
What's more, most of the people who bought 8800GTs probably run 1280x1024 or 1680x1050 monitors. At this level, they can probably max a lot of games. This therefore means, that a 3870 could also probably max a lot of games - if you're maxing out the detail of a game with a decent frame rate, how about some decent quality rendering to go with it?
[/rant]
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. December 2007 @ 13:02
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
21. December 2007 @ 14:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hey I have my CPU clocked at 3.6 Ghz, and I haven't really messed with the video card. It's factory overclocked.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
21. December 2007 @ 14:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
I've just spotted the 512MB HD3850 in stock in the UK. I'm quite tempted, that's some tasty kit for £130.
|
|
MaccerM
Member
|
22. December 2007 @ 07:40 |
Link to this message
|
Wow 3.6ghz is quite a clock, that's a ghz over stock on the 6750 isn't it, no wonder you mark so high! I don't think I'll get much over 2.6 on mine - I'll give it a go soon once my tim has set and let you know.
Sam, I take your points - for now the games would play noticably just as fast, and have a better render quality on the 3870 - but in a few titles time, that extra 10-20% is gonna come in handy. When the frame rates start to slip, the 8800 is going to play smoother than the 3870. You are going to have to sacrifice level of detail to play at the same fps with the 3870, so the 8800 will last you that little bit longer. So the painters will be painting away and in a few pictures time the 3870 guy will have to start using smaller canvasses or cut out some of the detail to finish at the same time as the 8800 guy!
When a single card no longer cuts it you can buy another one and slap it in SLi, which everyone agrees although it doesn't scale as well as crossfire it has better game support.
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
22. December 2007 @ 13:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
Actually I think SLI scales bette rthan crossfire.
Also I have taken my E6750 to 4Ghz but I didn't like the heat it produced. I did start to overclock the video card but I got carried away and screwed it up. I had to re-install windows to get my PC working again.
|
|
MaccerM
Member
|
23. December 2007 @ 11:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
In a review I read it said in some games the crossfire scaled virtually 100%, whereas the SLi was about 60-70%. The net effect was they were the same as the 8800s had a bit more power to start with but in some games crossfire scales really well.
4ghz is a mentle overclock! It's quite amazing that you can buy cpus now that have so much more potential than their rated speeds. I can't imagine you'd ever choke a 4ghz chip at the moment!
Q9550 @ 3.4Ghz-1.275v & TRUE, Asus P5N-T Deluxe, 4Gb Dominator 1066 (5-5-5-15), Inno3d OC 8800GTs in SLi with TT Duorbs, 580w 5.1 Setup, 2x DVD-RAM, 320&160Gb SATA2 HDDs, 17" 3ms Hyundai TFT, 700w Jeantech PSU.
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
23. December 2007 @ 12:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
I just played around with my overclock a bit and not I'm at 11,000! I'm going to lower the clocks now though. Need to get a nicer cooler...
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. December 2007 @ 04:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
SLi indeed scales far better than crossfire, and has better game support, which is why I never recommend anyone go with Crossfire. As for the performance gap between the cards, as frame rates dip I think it'll become even less relevant. 10% on 20fps is just 2fps, hardly a big difference.
Still, I like my Anti-Aliasing so I will never support a card that's unable to render it if another similarly priced one will.
As for a decent cooler, can I sneak a bit of brand favouritism in here and recommend a Thermalright HR-03GT?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. December 2007 @ 04:30
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
24. December 2007 @ 06:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
Haha I knew you would say that but I meant a CPU cooler. Maybe I should get a Thermalright Ultra 120? lol
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. December 2007 @ 06:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sure, why not? 3 hours gaming in a room with ambient temperature of 24C and my CPU temp is 41C. Not bad considering I didn't bother changing the Arctic silver after I removed my old heatsink (so only half of it's still on there!)
|
|
MaccerM
Member
|
8. January 2008 @ 06:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
On the cpu speed link to 3dmark scores, I clocked my cpu up the other day to 2.60Ghz and got 10,904. This was in cpu/ram unlinked mode tho with loose 5-5-5-15 timings on the Ram which I have since lowered to 4-4-4-12. Score at 2.33Ghz (with tight timings) was 10,220. That translates to just over 2 ½ points increase per mhz on the cpu clock, compared with the 0.75 points per mhz Sam was getting. So Sam, I think you may underestimate cpu speed in 3dmark scores, I think the gain you see depends on your gfx card and whether it can use that extra cpu power. Put that in context Sam?s 4600-5500 with the XT is a 20% increase in score for a 67% overclock on the cpu. My 10220-10904 is a 7% increase for an 11% overclock on the cpu ? clearly much better figures.
So, at 2.66Ghz I?ll be 11,000 plus easy, and that?s at least a whole Ghz lower than Abu, but I?m holding off the fiddling too much (back at 2.33 now) until I get my 800mhz Ram thru, which will get me to 2.8Ghz in linked memory mode, and that should get me past 11,500 with no probs, just by tweaking the cpu and without touching the gfx card. And if I had a 3.0ghz chip or if I could get mine to 3.0Ghz then we?d be talking 12,000, and that would be about a 30% or more gain on a 60% overclock.
So abu, I hope I?ll be able to set you a challenge in a short while ? crack 11500 with your setup!! For now I?d be interested to see your score with your cpu at stock, that?s 2.66 isn?t it? (9000?s??)
Q9550 @ 3.4Ghz-1.275v & TRUE, Asus P5N-T Deluxe, 4Gb Dominator 1066 (5-5-5-15), Inno3d OC 8800GTs in SLi with TT Duorbs, 580w 5.1 Setup, 2x DVD-RAM, 320&160Gb SATA2 HDDs, 17" 3ms Hyundai TFT, 700w Jeantech PSU.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
8. January 2008 @ 07:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
So what if I told you that by increasing my overclock further by 150mhz, I got an extra 122 marks?
3.0Ghz: 6755
3.15Ghz: 6877
|
|
MaccerM
Member
|
8. January 2008 @ 07:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
On your overclocked gfx card? Well that proves the point, that the faster your gfx card the better it is able to use the extra cpu power and convert that into points. My original comparison was based on cpu clocks using stock gpu speeds so that it's fair. When you o/c the gfx card are cahnging additional variables so you change the results, but going on your old figures with the g/c at 663mhz you went from 6700 to 6870, which is a 3% increase on a 5% cpu/oc which is obviously much better than the 20% increase on the 67% cpu o/c you got on stock speeds. Obviously mine would scale better if I o/c'd the gpu as well, that's not the comparison though. The comparison was that the 8800 performance scales much better with cpu clocks (at stock gpu speeds) than the X1900. It just shows that the newer cards benefit more from the cpu speed increases.
Q9550 @ 3.4Ghz-1.275v & TRUE, Asus P5N-T Deluxe, 4Gb Dominator 1066 (5-5-5-15), Inno3d OC 8800GTs in SLi with TT Duorbs, 580w 5.1 Setup, 2x DVD-RAM, 320&160Gb SATA2 HDDs, 17" 3ms Hyundai TFT, 700w Jeantech PSU.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
8. January 2008 @ 07:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yeah, 663/873 is my overclocked speed. 625/725 is the original.
|
Senior Member
|
8. January 2008 @ 13:35 |
Link to this message
|
Pretty good overclock sam! Is that with the stock cooler? Oh wait, you're running the HR-03 right?
Just ran 3dmark06 again with the quad @ 4Ghz with 1.6 on the vcore. Still testing to see where the FSB wall is. Other people say they get to 4.20 on 1.6 before they hit the wall. Might try to run it at those speeds, and increase the GPU clock to 900Mhz when I get the flashed BIOS loaded.
20265 3DMarks
SM2:8270 Marks
SM3:9379 Marks
CPU:5547 Marks
Having some problems w/ publishing the results, it says I am running a illegal copy when I used the 3dmark06 key code that came with the Maximus...
Heres the link anyway, not sure how long it will be up there:
http://service.futuremark.com/orb/result...=0&UID=13254827
EDIT: Here's the link to the screen shot, sorry for the giant size!
http://img172.imageshack.us/my.php?image=3dmark06gw8.jpg
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. January 2008 @ 13:41
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
8. January 2008 @ 14:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
I am, but I achieved the same overclock on the GPU with its stock cooler. It was obviously just a lot noisier!
1.6VCore? Holy hell, that's high. Are you going to keep running it at that voltage?
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
8. January 2008 @ 14:48 |
Link to this message
|
Ray, you're going to burn out your CPU at that voltage, and your parents will be mad lol. 4Ghz on a quad core is crazy, I didn't know they could do that much! Seriously though I wouldn't take up the voltage more than 1.52.
|
Senior Member
|
8. January 2008 @ 14:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
...It was only for 1 3dmark run, as I was desperate to break 20k. I think that voltage is max for the quad, as I will try and lower it in very small increments to find the lowest voltage where I can still keep 4Ghz.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
8. January 2008 @ 15:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
Then I'll ignore that figure. What do you get at a CPU voltage you're happy to live with?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
8. January 2008 @ 15:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
The voltage our CPUs can handle should be about same as they are G0 stepping. In fact I think a Duo can overclock more and take more voltage.
|
