9800Pro, X800Pro, 6800GT, or nothing.

[Cali3350]

Hey guys its my frist post here Nice place!

OK guys, system is in sig, but ill repeat it here incase some of you have sigs turned off.
AMD Athlon XP @12*200=2400mhz
1024 DDR400 ram @ 11(best on Nfoarce2)-3-3-2.5
Radeon 9700Pro

Now, my Question is what i should do with the vid card. I am unsatisfied with its performance in FarCry and other games when running AA and AF (or just plain running farcry). I have someone who will pay a quick and easy $100 for the 9700Pro (i know i could prob get more for it, but hes a freind i'd be helping out and itd be cash in my hand right away). That would allow me to get a 9800Pro for a easy $80. Now, the other thing is, im thinking maybe i should just wait for a X800 Pro or 6800GT. The thing is, im not sure my system would be any good with them. I think ill be severely underpowering them. Playing FarCry at 1024*768 with "medium" (4x) aa and 4 filtering (8x?) i am getting only ~ 6 fps lower then with no aa or af. Im thinking im hugely CPU dependent there (or else something is limited the 9700Pro thats not affected by AA or AF...but im not sure thats possible). Now i know the 9800Pro isnt gonna be a huge leap, but for $80 and the fact i dont believe that other cards would work well (seeing the FarCry results above) im thinking i should jump on it. HOWEVER, im not a very technical person, so please "enlighten" me if my assumptions there are off. Thanks, and sorry for asking such a long question, i really appreciate any responses.

 

[SickBeast]

X800PRO or nothing IMO. I don't really think your system can push anything faster, and since AGP is dead along with your platform, the next card you get will be PCI-E anyway.

If you want my honest opinion you're foolhearted in buying a $400 piece of hardware to run one game. I have an R9700PRO and it run Far Cry very nicely at 1280x1024 with some AF and no AA with the game configured properly.

Finally, the R9800PRO is a complete waste for you IMO. You're only going to get 15-20% more performance, and less than that if you overclock the 9700PRO. Read my first sentence again if you must.

 

[ScrewFace]

I'd go with the GeForce 6800 GT. It's a good match for your oc'ed CPU and it's way faster than the Radeon X800 Pro.:beer:

 

[LTC8K6]

I'd get an X800Pro or a 6800GT, whichever you can get for less.

Have you tried overclocking your 9700 to see if that will hold you for a bit?

 

[The Green Bean]

6800GT

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: ScrewFace
I'd go with the GeForce 6800 GT. It's a good match for your oc'ed CPU and it's way faster than the Radeon X800 Pro.:beer:

I wouldn't say it's *way* faster than the X800 (especially at Far Cry, which seems to be the 6800-series' weakest link right now), but it's certainly comparable, and better at many OpenGL titles. However, it's also not out yet, and it may be limited in its overclockability. I'd personally take the X800Pro (especially if you can get it for ~$350-360, as several stores have offered), but if you're willing to gamble on SM3.0, or are interested in the potential of their video encoder, the GT might be more attractive.

With an AXP at 2400Mhz, you certainly have the CPU power to push a next-gen card, so don't worry about that...

Edit:

Also, I don't think you should upgrade to a 9800Pro from the 9700Pro. It's really more like a 5-10% performance gain at stock (although, to be fair, the 9800Pros OC better). You can likely reach 9800Pro-like performance by OCing your 9700Pro anyway.

 

[classy]

I think you should read this article first. A lot of folks that play their games at 1024x768 will not see huge benefits from the new cards over the previous high end cards. X800 performance with Athlon XP

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: classy
I think you should read this article first. A lot of folks that play their games at 1024x768 will not see huge benefits from the new cards over the previous high end cards. X800 performance with Athlon XP

This, however, is misleading, as with an X800Pro, you could play at much higher resolution and detail settings without taking a performance hit (even if it doesn't boost your 1024x768 NoAA/NoAF framerates).

 

[vshah]

Originally posted by: hatim
6800GT

what he said. welcome to AT

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: classy
I think you should read this article first. A lot of folks that play their games at 1024x768 will not see huge benefits from the new cards over the previous high end cards. X800 performance with Athlon XP

This, however, is misleading, as with an X800Pro, you could play at much higher resolution and detail settings without taking a performance hit (even if it doesn't boost your 1024x768 NoAA/NoAF framerates).

You didn't read one word I said did you? Most folks don't game at high resolutions. Most people game at 1024x768. Not all but most. So for most folks the added benefits are limited some what.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: classy
I think you should read this article first. A lot of folks that play their games at 1024x768 will not see huge benefits from the new cards over the previous high end cards. X800 performance with Athlon XP

This, however, is misleading, as with an X800Pro, you could play at much higher resolution and detail settings without taking a performance hit (even if it doesn't boost your 1024x768 NoAA/NoAF framerates).

You didn't read one word I said did you? Most folks don't game at high resolutions. Most people game at 1024x768. Not all but most. So for most folks the added benefits are limited some what.

Most people game at 1024x768 because their cards aren't fast enough to support higher resolutions. Why on Earth would you buy an X800Pro and run it at 1024x768?

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: classy
I think you should read this article first. A lot of folks that play their games at 1024x768 will not see huge benefits from the new cards over the previous high end cards. X800 performance with Athlon XP

This, however, is misleading, as with an X800Pro, you could play at much higher resolution and detail settings without taking a performance hit (even if it doesn't boost your 1024x768 NoAA/NoAF framerates).

You didn't read one word I said did you? Most folks don't game at high resolutions. Most people game at 1024x768. Not all but most. So for most folks the added benefits are limited some what.

Most people game at 1024x768 because their cards aren't fast enough to support higher resolutions. Why on Earth would you buy an X800Pro and run it at 1024x768?

becuase some monitors dont support high refresh rates?? Maybe some people don't like low refresh rates? I never play <1024*786. Even CS I play at that wid a GF4ti. 100HZ or higher!

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: hatim
becuase some monitors dont support high refresh rates?? Maybe some people don't like low refresh rates? I never play <1024*786. Even CS I play at that wid a GF4ti. 100HZ or higher!

I don't like low refresh rates either -- but most monitors these days will do fairly high refresh rates at 1600x1200, or at least at 1280x1024. If you're thinking of spending $400+ on a video card, and you don't have a monitor that'll do an acceptable (to you) refresh rate at 1600x1200, maybe you should be investing in a new monitor first.

Also, even if you *do* stay at 1024x768 and are playing older games like CS, with an X800Pro you can turn on 6xAA and 16xAF, and crank all the in-game details up, with practically no performance hit. In fact, if you insist on playing at such a low resolution, I would think IQ features would be even *more* important.