I was just curious, is the ATI Xpress 200 decent for playing Warcraft 3 and CS? I mean, like 1024x768 res with everything turned up. The rest of the system specs are Sempron 3400 and 1 Gig of PC3200. What is the Xpress 200 comparable to?
ATI Xpress 200
- Thread starter xSeongminx
- Start date
I personally decided on the GTO2 for its near 100% success rate of unlocking to 16 and with potential to hit x850xt pe speeds or even higher.
At stock, the X800XL is faster then the GTO2, and slower then the X850XT. But once you/if you can unlock the GTO2, it beats the X800XL and X850XT if OCed enough.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
for PCIe, I'd get either 6800GS for $200 or X850XT for $218 or GTO2 if it's < $218.
For AGP, I'd get 6800GS and try to unlock the pipes. XFX version.
For AGP, I'd get 6800GS and try to unlock the pipes. XFX version.
Good deal at Newegg-http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102596
Hope pci-e is ok.
Hope pci-e is ok.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,002
- 126
Some good benchmarks here.
In a nutshell the card still does very well especially since my version is passively cooled and makes zero fan noise.
I went from a 6800U to running a X800 XL for the last six months and the ATi card compares very nicely. SM 3.0 has never been an issue for the card during my time with it and 6xAA has fantastic IQ. It's also a lot more stable than the 6800U was.
In a nutshell the card still does very well especially since my version is passively cooled and makes zero fan noise.
I went from a 6800U to running a X800 XL for the last six months and the ATi card compares very nicely. SM 3.0 has never been an issue for the card during my time with it and 6xAA has fantastic IQ. It's also a lot more stable than the 6800U was.
Don't know what kind of display you have, but if you like high resolutions, a 7800GT that's fatory OC'd is normally less than $300 and offers a big performance gain.
Just got the 7800GT for 300$... I'm broke now... Btw, anyone know much about the ATI Xpress 200 IGP (onboard video)?? I want to know if it is sufficient enough to play counter-strike and warcraft at 1024x768... (and yes, I bought a 7800GT for these two games and NFSMW...). If the 200 is powerful enough, I want to return the 7800 and save my money for something else. Thanks and LMK.
can likely play them but not at any respectable framerate or image quality. If thats all you wanted to play you could have spent alot less than $300 and been pleased.
Yah, I should have spent my money on a different card but I want to be prepared for a new game that I might just like. Back to the Xpress, I should be able to play at 1024x768 on warcraft 3 and cs? This is with a Sempron 3400 and 1 gig of ram (the whole computer was 125$ so don't ask me... xP).
That Xpress onboard video card would be able to play those games at 1024*768, but with most, if not all, of the settings on low.
Okie dokes. Thanks for the input guys. Any more opinions would be appreciated. Btw, I'm going to overclock this sucker 
.
.Warcraft 3 plays fine with most stuff cranked up.
ATi xpress200 uses onboard ATi x300, which compares in speed to ATi 8500/9100 (better than ATi 9200), nvidia GF3 Ti200, and FX5700.
Overclocked in a good system (like Jetway A210 Pro which has 32 meg dedicated onboard + shared), scores about 2000 3dm2k3, and 7500 3dm2k1se.
Did I read that correctly? The ATI xpress 200 (onboard) is faster than my (stand alone) Radeon 9200?
yes, you read that correctly. THe xpress200 is just a lowered clocked x300 hypermemory, which uses the 9600 core.
Yes, you are correct.
Since the ATi 8500 and 9100 (same thing) are faster than the ATi 9200, and the xpress200 uses ATi x300, and the x300 compares to ATi 8500/9100, yes, onboard is noticably faster than standalone 9200. If you had a 9200se, onboard would be MUCH faster.
Erm, isn't the Xpress 200 only the X300 chip - i.e. hasn't got it's own memory? It's likely slower than even an X300SE due to having to use system RAM - and 5700 lol, I know it wasn't great, but it'll beat an onboard Xpress200, hell, it even did Ok against the 9600. Don't know aboue the 9200 - probably similar performance I would say - depends on the game.
agreed, the 5700 should be faster than the xpress200. However, i'm thinking xpress200 will perform better or equal to a 5500
I built an AMD64 939 3000+ system for my dad that used that video chipset. Performance in Farcry was about equal to my Amd XP 2000+ w. Ti4200 (at the time).
I want to say that it got an 1100 in 3dmark03, whereas my ti4200 was getting a 1450 or so. On the other hand, this is a DX9 card where the 4200 was only a dx8. I think when I used the compare feature in the ORB of 3dmark, it was about dead even with a 9200.
Farcry was the only game we tried on it. I thought it was playable, but most people on this board's standard of barely playable is far higher than mine.
I want to say that it got an 1100 in 3dmark03, whereas my ti4200 was getting a 1450 or so. On the other hand, this is a DX9 card where the 4200 was only a dx8. I think when I used the compare feature in the ORB of 3dmark, it was about dead even with a 9200.
Farcry was the only game we tried on it. I thought it was playable, but most people on this board's standard of barely playable is far higher than mine.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me hoorah.
Games that had FPS of 40-60 at 1024x768 on the ATI xpress 200 had 100+FPS on the Ti4200 with settings turned up.
There's no way an xpress200 can fare well vs a ti4200 as far as I know.
Farcry is very CPU limited anyway, so a 3000+ vs an XP 2000+ wouldn't be that fair a comparison..
Games that had FPS of 40-60 at 1024x768 on the ATI xpress 200 had 100+FPS on the Ti4200 with settings turned up.
There's no way an xpress200 can fare well vs a ti4200 as far as I know.
Farcry is very CPU limited anyway, so a 3000+ vs an XP 2000+ wouldn't be that fair a comparison..
Well if Farcry is CPU limited, than that would make sense, wouldn't it? I was simply stating that it seemed faster on the new system, I certainly didn't do any real benchmarking to be sure. You're right though, it really isn't a far comparison.
Does Farcry have any Dx9 features that would unfairly limit a dx8 card?
In any event, it was by far the best onboard video I've ever seen (not that I've seen many). To have onboard video that does about as well as a 9200 is much better than, say, my laptop, which gets beat by a GF2mx.
I guess the OP already answered his question about being able to play CS. I've never played WC3, but I would think so. Give it a try!
Oh, one other thing. In the bios, I had the option of setting the memory size and setting the clock speed on the chip (something like a 50 mhz swing). Neither did squat for performance.
Does Farcry have any Dx9 features that would unfairly limit a dx8 card?
In any event, it was by far the best onboard video I've ever seen (not that I've seen many). To have onboard video that does about as well as a 9200 is much better than, say, my laptop, which gets beat by a GF2mx.
I guess the OP already answered his question about being able to play CS. I've never played WC3, but I would think so. Give it a try!
Oh, one other thing. In the bios, I had the option of setting the memory size and setting the clock speed on the chip (something like a 50 mhz swing). Neither did squat for performance.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter