Another gfx card question

[Bubblegum Bandit]

Ok guys, I need something to hold me over until I do my BIG upgrade. Eventually I want to go to AMD 64 w/PCI-E gfx card...blah blah blah. I just have to wait a bit because there is a possiblility I could be moving across the country yet again and I don't want to spend that big until I know my fate.

 

So, I have a 9500 Pro that I'm using right now. I get around 50 fps normally and it can drop by 20-25 fps when I get in smoke and firefights and what not. Is there something that will keep me up closer to the 100 fps or so range and still be around 100 or 150 bucks? I don't want to go for much more than that right now.

[-=SKArface=-]

Ok guys, I need something to hold me over until I do my BIG upgrade.  Eventually I want to go to AMD 64 w/PCI-E gfx card...blah blah blah.  I just have to wait a bit because there is a possiblility I could be moving across the country yet again and I don't want to spend that big until I know my fate.

 

So, I have a 9500 Pro that I'm using right now.  I get around 50 fps normally and it can drop by 20-25 fps when I get in smoke and firefights and what not.  Is there something that will keep me up closer to the 100 fps or so range and still be around 100 or 150 bucks?  I don't want to go for much more than that right now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What resolution do you want to run? I have an X850 and I get 100-125 indoors at 16x12 everything full. Outside (esp in pirinese) it drops to 70 or so at times. I've never run into a situation where I've noticed any lag though.

 

I've read that the x800 is also a solid card but I don't know what they are selling for at this point.

 

Newegg has the x800 for 189. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16814102529

 

If you're running at a lower res than 16x12 you probabbly have many more options. I have a few friends that have the 9800pro and have had good luck with it. (none of them have hl2 so I can't say how it runs)

 

 

- andrew

[Vovik]

Bandit, I have 9500Pro also, and you know, I wanted a better videocard before but already gave up on the search because it's too pricey. All you gotta do with this one is get the latest catalyst. With catalyst 5.5 I'm in perfect shape. I run at 11xx by 8xx (not even sure exact numbers) and I'm fine. On the other hand if you want 1600 by 1200 you'd need to upgrade.

I'm prolly going to wait a year or more before completely changing my comp.

[Bubblegum Bandit]

I believe what I run is 1024x768 right now. I was playing in our MCC VII match last weekend and locked up twice in less than 15 rounds? It was a brand new install, I had just reformatted that morning and dled the latest drivers. I did figure out that some of my settings were set to high (I guess this happens by default when you do a fresh CS install?).

 

Oh yeah, forgot to mention, I would also like to be able to keep my dual monitor set up. Come to think of it, I guess that could be causing the problem since I use my 9500 Pro to run both monitors...LOL I guess I should try disabling the second monitor and see how it works.

[Vovik]

hmm...dual monitors? Yeah, that should give you problems.

 

Btw, I run most settings on high with exception of water, bilinear filtering and no aa.

 

But, since we play eachother this week, I say you keep those dual monitors and crank it up on max

[Clueless]

There is an X800 XL out there right now that has full memory and pipelines, but is just clocked a tad bit slower. It sells for about 200 bucks, and it beat the pants off the nVidia card in its class, definately worth looking into.

[Preacher]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16814102344

 

I use the 9600XT and get about 100-150fps on CS: S and I can play Doom 3 on highest available settings with zero choppiness or lag (single player)

 

If you are like me go with this refurbished one, it's just a little better than the standard edition with a Mem Clock speed of 650 instead of 600. It's the one I use.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...82E16814161113R

[Norguard]

The question here is what is the resolution you're gunning for, and what is the detail level.

 

I can get CS:S running at 40-50fps on a 64MB GeForce2MX... ...it just looks no better than CS: Condition Zero, at 640x480.

 

First, decide on what the minimum is that you'd like to average (can't guarantee that it'll never drop below, but average). Then add/remove options in the menu, or in CVAR until you hit it. If that means 640x480, with low everything, and bodies that disappear, see if you can hit your mark. Then decide what needs to change, based on what speed/detail you're playing at.

 

I can practically guarantee you that if you have a Socket-A/Socket 475 processor (IE: AthlonXP or earlier), your fps is also hard-limited by it. Half-Life 2 is the most processor intensive of all of the games out there, due largely to its full use of its customized Havok physics. The client netcode also isn't totally perfect, yet.

 

A processor upgrade will net you a sizeable increase. Even with your current card. That being said, a new card will net you a sizeable increase, even with your current processor. You just have to expect limitations such as detail levels, with your old card, or slowdowns with a full server or a lot of explosions, with your old processor.

 

I can speak wonders of the x800XL, for its cost. It's about $490, here, regular retail (I got it for $395), but worth it, considering the bleeding-edge cards are pushing $750... ...before 15% tax...

 

I see a huge increase in my framerate, and in its smoothness - especially after the new 5.6 drivers. On my 128MB 9600XT, I could get 40s-50s and top out at 70, at 1024x768, but if there were a lot of people, or there was a DD rush in Aztec, I could drop to 9fps, due to my detail settings... I still get slowdown and fps drops, especially with 23 people dancing in front of the double doors, but most of that is due to the fact that I'm using an old AthlonXP 2500+. That and my family's awful habit of setting P2P programs to run as ultra-peer, downloading 2 songs, and then leaving them running for a week, just to kill my uptime. Playing at 1280x1024, or 1360x768 (letterbox widescreen) depending on the map (and on a PC that hasn't been formatted in 10 months) I'll average 60s-80s and top off at 115 in a 12-24 man game, with some dips into the 40s-50s. In a 4-12, or when I'm alone, I can get a buck-fifty, easy - telling me that I need some more juice from my processor.

 

Anyway, if it's $200 for an x800XL, I'd say that's a deal for the increase it gave me.

Oh, and I'm just waiting another day or two for my new nForce3 Pro motherboard, so I can plop my new Athlon64 in, and get a 64-bit environ going. We'll see if the extra horsepower over my 2500+ is worth it (PS: It will be.)

Edited June 11, 2005 by Norguard

[Preacher]

well the reason I post about the 9600xt 256mb is because right now it's the best card (hands down) for around $100 and he wanted to bump up from his older one without the painful x800 price.

[Norguard]

For $100, it is, hands down, unless the 256MB 9800Pro is close to that price.

 

I don't think that he's going to notice too much of a performance jump between a 9500Pro and a 9600, though. Even with the extra 128MB RAM. It's a solid card, just not one that I think fits his upgrade path.

 

And for an extra $49.99 on his budget, he'll get one that's a generation better - going from the high end version of the lowest card of the generation, to a low end version of the highest card in the generation, and an immediate difference in performance.

 

I can't really recommend an nVidia card, unless you're going all the way. If somebody was upgrading from a GeForce2-4, I'd recommend the 9600Pro/XT in a heartbeat, but we need some inter-generational lovin' here.

[Preacher]

9600xt blows the 9500pro out of the water. Like the dif between 250mhz GPU and memclock speeds of 350 I think.

[Bubblegum Bandit]

Processor = XP 3000+ right now.

 

I'd like to run the game at my desktop resolution. Now, I don't want it to look like I'm playing pong, but I'm not that worried about it being so nice and pretty. That will come with my big upgrade. I want to get out the door below 150 bucks and have my frame rate high enough where the game isn't choppy.

[Clueless]

I think he's talking about the X800 XT, not the XL, the XL goes for around 200 bucks, 400 sounds about right for the XT, which is what I have.

 

Thats the budget card I would buy right now.

[Preacher]

The x800XL runs at $279 + $4 for shipping

 

That's not a budget card in my house.

 

Not to be pushy since this is the 2nd thread I'm supporting the 9600xt, but for the money nothing touches it. here's one for $83 after shipping http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...82E16814164027R

And newegg takes good care of ya even if you buy refurbs.

[NOFX]

OK......lets see here... I have had my 9500 pro for 2+ years and bought it when it was the best price/performance ratio. Ihave done massive research on this card and comfortably say that I know it very well.

 

My advice BB..Overclock it first, I use omega drivers and OC to about 300Mhz in Synch normally because I dont have super duper cooling and dont feel like tweaking right now. But I notice significant difference when I OC it. I think you can push the core to around 325Mhz. but if i remeber correctly you get the best performance with the memory speed increase. and trust me, you will notice a difference with a 300mhz OC.

 

I dont see any signicant difference in your performance unless you go with like a 6600 GT. Which I was thinking about buying, but I dont have a pci-e mobo and I dont want to buy one.

 

Side note: a 9500 pro is better than a 9600 pro. a 9600 XT may sbe a little better than a 9500 pro, but nowhere worth the money the upgrade would cost for such a small amount of difference and if you OC that 9500 pro, I bet you will be happier with it

[Preacher]

with overclocking I have heard that the 9600XT is even better but if he wants to OC his card that would be the way to go. All my above statements were in line with cards right out of the box, no regard for OCing. I'm very amateurish when it comes to the OC area so you would have to talk to NOFX and ALL Killer.

[Laz.e.rus]

Out of curiosity....

 

I can get a 6600gt agp for about 170 +- ( all diff ranges from 150 to 249). What ati card is this comparable to? It only has 128 MB, vs the 256 you can get in a str8 6600, but it has all the advanced goodies like a 6800...ddr3, pipelines,gpu, etc

[NOFX]

i can't do the research right now, but I can tell you, you won't notice any difference between a 128 and 256 meg card.

[Norguard]

Kinda true. You may or may not notice the difference. I would, because of my texture sizes. The average person wouldn't, unless they crank the AA at high rez. If you can live without using the highest quality textures/Anti-Aliasing, you likely won't notice a difference with a card in this generation.

 

Laz, its most direct competition is either the ATI x600, or the x700 cards. See what you can do. The 6600GT is not a bad piece of hardware at all.

[Preacher]

If you can live without using the highest quality textures/Anti-Aliasing, you likely won't notice a difference with a card in this generation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who would want to live in such a world?

Edited June 13, 2005 by Preacher

[Norguard]

Heh. My AA is right off. I prefer resolution to fuzziness. I do however run with 1024x1024 specular maps, instead of the chincy 512x512 that most people have. I couldn't live without super high-rez textures.