Is 9600XT enough for HL2 and the like?

[sluthy]

Slowly piecing together new comp, few months away yet. Anyway, looking at whether to keep my current AGP video card (Powercolor 9600XT Bravo) and get the ASRock ULi board, and upgrade to PCI-E later, when 7800's drop to reasonable prices. Or just cut my losses and get a new card (6600GT? ATI alternative? Won't be OCing, I like stability and warranty) as well. Keeping my current card would be much better financially, because I can save up for a much better card later on, and get a better CPU now.

Anyway, I want to know how far a 9600XT (Bravo's OCed a bit I think) can go. I've got HL1, CS, Max Payne 2 and other such games that can run perfectly right now, but HL2 and DoD:S (basically, Source-based games) run like crap (I'm talking 15FPS in the quiet, 3-5FPS when in the thick of it). Half of that is the CPU and motherboard (AGP4X and 1.5 P4 are holding it back). Textures and reflections don't change it much, but AA kills it. And HDR? Forget it!

If I go for the ULi board with a 3800+ X2 or something, will the 9600XT be liberated enough to go good in games like Source and Doom3 and such (smooth, 30+FPS rate, I don't care for 100+, just a wank)? As I said, I'm running 1280x1024.

 

[dug777]

not at 1280 mate

1024 in hl2 and CS:S my 9550@9600XT speeds was fine, but for 1280 you want a 9800 pro/6600GT really (both of which i've owned recently ), i'd say you're best bet would be to jump on a 7800GT now, since a 6600GT won't allow smooth play in many current games at 1280 at maximum detail, let alone throwing AA into the matrix (serious sam 2, farcry, FEAR are three good examples)...

 

[Eureka]

I would say a 9600XT would get you up to 1280 with HL2, but you'd have to sacrifice details. Otherwise, no, the card cannot support other games (DODS will die). 6600GT will do pretty well though.

Norm

 

[Kogan]

Since you've already got the 9600xt, I'd try it out and see how well it works. It actually shouldn't be that bad in HL2.

I wouldn't get the 6600gt if you'll be playing newer games. It may disapoint you very shortly in the future if you like games at 1280x1024 with aa/af on (my 6800 is already starting to choke on newer games at those settings).

 

[jiffylube1024]

Half Life 2? Maybe with reduced details or at 1024X768 on a 9600XT. HL2 scales incredibly well with reduced settings.

The like? Doubtful. Very few other games scale like HL2 does; pretty much all other games are going to need a 9800 Pro or above if you want to play at anything higher than 800X600 without super choppy frames.

Sorry, a 9600 class card just isn't very good. If you even think you might consider one day possibly fathoming of playing a game like F.E.A.R., then you'll want something MUCH more powerful, like an X800XL or 6800GT. New games are demanding, unfortunately...

 

[ITPaladin]

I just finished HL2 at 1680x1050 on the 2005FPW. I turned down some details. Someday I hope to look at it again with a better card with all the details up.

 

[Crescent13]

I beat HL2 on a 9000IGP with all high details, of course, it was only directx 7.

 

[sluthy]

Well, the 1280x1024 is pretty much compulsory since it's an LCD screen (unless I go down to 640x512, is that an option...? ). It currently seems to be let down by the CPU more than anything, my 3DMark2001 is ~8400, where the card's capable of ~15000.

I don't care much for AA or HDR (makes it look like crap mostly), all that can wait for PCI-E. With all graphics set to Minimum @ 1280, what max frame rate can I expect in DoD:S?

It truly sucks how game developers are obsessed with using tomorrow's tech all the time, making the same games look better for the sole purpose of looking better than the others, instead of being lenient on the graphics front and concentrating on content.

 

[josepavento]

My 2.6c/1024mb pc3200/ 9600pro combo ran HL2 @1280 just fine.

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: sluthy
Slowly piecing together new comp, few months away yet. Anyway, looking at whether to keep my current AGP video card (Powercolor 9600XT Bravo) and get the ASRock ULi board, and upgrade to PCI-E later, when 7800's drop to reasonable prices. Or just cut my losses and get a new card (6600GT? ATI alternative? Won't be OCing, I like stability and warranty) as well. Keeping my current card would be much better financially, because I can save up for a much better card later on, and get a better CPU now.

Anyway, I want to know how far a 9600XT (Bravo's OCed a bit I think) can go. I've got HL1, CS, Max Payne 2 and other such games that can run perfectly right now, but HL2 and DoD:S (basically, Source-based games) run like crap (I'm talking 15FPS in the quiet, 3-5FPS when in the thick of it). Half of that is the CPU and motherboard (AGP4X and 1.5 P4 are holding it back). Textures and reflections don't change it much, but AA kills it. And HDR? Forget it!

If I go for the ULi board with a 3800+ X2 or something, will the 9600XT be liberated enough to go good in games like Source and Doom3 and such (smooth, 30+FPS rate, I don't care for 100+, just a wank)? As I said, I'm running 1280x1024.

yeah , i had a 9600xt on my lan box. i used the high res put i lowered the setting to medium. Played DOD:source alright + CS:S. which both use source engine. but now i have a X800GTO2 modded to x850xt pe in my lan box

My old lan box :
Intel P4 2.8Ghz Northwood
Abit IC7 478
1GB DDR Geil 3200 value ram
ATI 9600XT HSI 256MB AGP 8x

it could play
DOD:S/CS:S @ 1280x1024 but setting had to be changed but it still looked good and very playable. Model : med , Text detail : med , Shader detail : low , shadow detail : high.
No HDR ;( and AA

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I would get a better mobo that's just PCI-E only and then get a new video card. I don't think the 9600 XT is worth it--not worth saddling yourself with a lesser motherboard for it. Perhaps get a 6600 GT (look for a sale and rebate) and then eBay it when the 7800's come down in price.

 

[rancherlee]

Currently I can run most any game at 1280x1024 on my 9600pro AIW but I need to turn ALL the eyecandy off in Doom 3 to use that resolution. UT 2003/2004 I have no issues with 1280/1024 and 2XAA. I have a X800XL AIW on the way though

 

[OvErHeAtInG]

Originally posted by: sluthy
Well, the 1280x1024 is pretty much compulsory since it's an LCD screen (unless I go down to 640x512, is that an option...? ). It currently seems to be let down by the CPU more than anything, my 3DMark2001 is ~8400, where the card's capable of ~15000.

I don't care much for AA or HDR (makes it look like crap mostly), all that can wait for PCI-E. With all graphics set to Minimum @ 1280, what max frame rate can I expect in DoD:S?

It truly sucks how game developers are obsessed with using tomorrow's tech all the time, making the same games look better for the sole purpose of looking better than the others, instead of being lenient on the graphics front and concentrating on content.

Truthfully, I don't notice the difference when running FPS's at 1024 on my 1280 LCD. Racing games and RTS, yes, but have you even tried turning down the res a bit in the game? Running at native res is a nice visual bonus but certainly not compulsory IMO.

And to answer your question: NO. 9800p plays HL2 1280 and gets choppy at parts. Unless you turn down details but who wants to do that? Better to turn down the resolution.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

1280x1024 requires a 6800 GT/Ultra at the very minimum. A lot of games like FEAR or BF2 won't even run too well on those unelss you sacrifice some details. That's why I recommend a 7800GT. I think gaming at 4xAA, 8xAF if not 16xAF is just awesome, and can be done perfectly well on a 7800GT.

 

[duragezic]

With a fast processor and adequate ram, I think a 9600XT is good enough for HL2 games at 1280x1024. I have a XP 3200+, 1GB ram, and a 9800Pro (overclocked to almost XT speeds), and I play HL2/CS:S/DoD:S at 30-75 fps at 1680x1050. A 6600GT would be much better, but for the price of it I don't think it's that much faster than a 9600XT.

I don't agree with the majority here. Of course that 9600 is almost useless for FEAR or any new games, but since he specifically said HL2 then I am saying yes. I have details on medium and low in HL2, but that is preferable so that I can actually run the native, widescreen resolution. THe HDR in DoD:S made it chop very badly, but that looked like crap anyway. CS:S is remarkably fluid still.

 

[junkyardDawg]

You might want to consider stepping back your cpu to a A64 and use the extra cash to get a 6800-x800 class GPU. That should give better balance between CPU-GPU, and you still have room to upgrade later

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: Crescent13
I beat HL2 on a 9000IGP with all high details, of course, it was only directx 7.

was the "i beat it part necessary? not once does that sentence show how well the game ran...