New card advice

[chrismr]

This upgrade will be for the other halfs pc. Currently it is using an x800xl and it used strictly for Flight Sim 2004.

Now, please don't think "It's FS2004, anything can run it!" as it is a HEAVILY modded FS2004 and would probably make my system struggle a bit.

So I am looking ot replace the X800 as some time in the past I damaged it slightly by dropping something on it (while it still runs there are some glitches witch may or may not be attributed to that) and FS2004 is eating up all the current 256MB video memory with ease.

So I am looking for something which is about as powerful as the X800 (or more) with 512MB memory which does not cost much - probably in the region of £50 to £60 (About $100, I think).

Bearing in mind this needs to run about 6X AA and 16X AF, preferably ATI as the due to better IQ.

I have been looking at the X1600 and X1650's, both pro's and XT's, but I have no idea how they compare to the X800XL.

Also, I am not sure if getting a card with ddr2 as opposed to ddr3 would drastically affect performance.

Any help greatly appreciated.

 

[IlllI]

the x1600 really isnt all that great. comprehensive chart

 

[BernardP]

7600GT is generally faster than X800XL, as you can see in the link above. You will be able to find one within your budget Take your pick

If you want to stay with ATI, there are a couple of good deals on the even slightly faster X1650XT

 

[imported_Kiwi]

The problem with lowering your sights from the "800" level is that you LOSE the needed 256 Bit memory system. That 7600 GT is a 128 Bit card. That means it just can't quite do anything in the short window that FS2004 is going to have, beyond the base 256 GBs for mid-level cards (and even for regular use of all 256, there will be some limitation!) That will also apply to the X1650 Pro, and probably to the X1650 XT.

If you actually believe that 512 MBs is needed, you have to pay for the better speed, or else not waste the money on any more than the 256. There were some X800 XT-PE's with 512 MBs, maybe some of them are in the used market. I'm not sure, but I think that X850 XTs came with 512 on some models, whether they were "Platinums" or not. The interface could also be something to consider, since the variety of "800" level card models for AGP is limited.

 

[chrismr]

Thanks for the replies all. Yeah Kiwi, was think the 128 bit bus could be a problem.

I did a little test on FS2004 yesterday in which I tunred down all graphical settings to their minimum (no AA, 800 x 600, etc) and gave it a try. Whereas it was still chugging along a little more than I would have epxected it did indeed run better/smoother with low settings, so I am pretty sure there is a little of gpu bottleneck at least - which I think is mostly coming from the memory.

The more I look around at graphics cards, the more I am kind of thinking I will land up having to go for an x1900gt/pro with 512MB.

I am going to stick my 8800GTX in that pc to try with FS2004, which I know will definitely alleviate and GPU bottleneck that may exist - provided the thing will fit and run i that computer...

 

[lyssword]

1950gt/pro even 256 mb will be twice as fast than ur x800xl. As for me, you will have to pry my fingers from my dead body before you can take my x800xl away

 

[evolucion8]

Bus width is not everything in GPU performance, I recall that the 128-Bit GeForce 6600GT was able to outperforms the 256-Bit Radeon 9800PRO in most games. The 7600GT is able to almost equal the X800XT which runs on a 256-Bits BUS. If you want a nice boost performance, a X1650XT or 7600GT only will bring you almost X850XT PE performance levels with better feature set, is not a huge jump from a X800XL, better go off to a X1950GT/PRO or GeForce 7900GS.

 

[imported_Kiwi]

The key to the overall thread here isn't the SPEED, since we are talking about FS 2004, not FEAR or Prey. In the Flight simulator, you sometimes want access to quickly swapped textures, and in order to have 512 MBs that you can actually swap textures between 256 MB blocks with, you need the more expansive memory system.

Incidentally, I've tested a Leadtek 6600 GT against a Radeon 9800 XT, and it couldn't run either NWN2 or Oblivion as well as the older, 256 bit card. Plus, the visual quality of the 6600 GT is sorely lacking compared to ATI cards. I now have a BFG 6800 GT and a Sapphire X800 XT Platinum, both 256 bits, both 256 MB VRAM onboard, and I still find ATI better by far in both of those CRPGs.

 

[chrismr]

Well, still not bought a card. Took a chance on trying my 8800gtx in the system, but the PSU was not up to the challenge - it did run, but things such as AA seemed to be disabled. It did not improve frame rates any, but I am hesitant to take the results from the brief test at face value, and need to try it with a lower powered card.

I have also ordered a dual core 3800 to try. I know that FS2004 is not multithreaded, but it is possible that it will help with all the add-ons running along with FS.

Next month will try a 512MB card of some flavour.

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: Kiwi
The key to the overall thread here isn't the SPEED, since we are talking about FS 2004, not FEAR or Prey. In the Flight simulator, you sometimes want access to quickly swapped textures, and in order to have 512 MBs that you can actually swap textures between 256 MB blocks with, you need the more expansive memory system.

Incidentally, I've tested a Leadtek 6600 GT against a Radeon 9800 XT, and it couldn't run either NWN2 or Oblivion as well as the older, 256 bit card. Plus, the visual quality of the 6600 GT is sorely lacking compared to ATI cards. I now have a BFG 6800 GT and a Sapphire X800 XT Platinum, both 256 bits, both 256 MB VRAM onboard, and I still find ATI better by far in both of those CRPGs.

Wouldnt the 66 be taking a performance penalty there because it would be using SM3 instead of the less taxing SM2?

 

[imported_Kiwi]

Oblivion actually doesn't use a great deal of SM3 code, and in the case of NWN2, the evidence seems to favor the idea that when the release deadline got close, the SM3 stuff that had been intended was disabled instead (and to this date apparently remains that way). However, FS 2004 doesn't use SM3; it probably doesn't use anything past 1.1 -- but I'm not sure about that.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Kiwi
Oblivion actually doesn't use a great deal of SM3 code, and in the case of NWN2, the evidence seems to favor the idea that when the release deadline got close, the SM3 stuff that had been intended was disabled instead (and to this date apparently remains that way). However, FS 2004 doesn't use SM3; it probably doesn't use anything past 1.1 -- but I'm not sure about that.

I used to play Oblivion on my Radeon X800XT PE which supports SM2.0b, and in the Renderer Log it said something about Uses SM3.0 shaders: Yes, Shader Instruction Slots: 512. After all like I said thousands of times, SM2.0b is just SM3.0 without dynamic branching. Both have the same native 512 shader instructions count of each components (Total of 3) in hardware, but the static branching of the SM2.0b allows a max of 1,536 which is high for todays standards and due to the DX9 overhead, only techdemos can reach 300 (Or higher) in shader instructions count in real time, while in games rarely exceeds the 100 (Sometimes higher) shader instruction count threshold, those games exists though. The Dynamic Branching of the SM3.0 will allow an throughput of 65,536 (Unlimited in hardware, but the limitation is imposed by the API). I also liked more the image quality of any ATi's DX9 card against any GeForce 6/7 series of cards. The 6600GT even though it has only 128-Bits BUS, performs as fast as the 9800PRO, but once you turn heavy bandwidth settings like fsaa or high resolution textures, the 9800PRO will be slighly faster, the slight difference is because the 9800PRO tends to be more GPU bound than bandwidth bound in games, while the X800XT PE tends to be more bandwidth bound than GPU bound.

 

[imported_Kiwi]

The (ATI branded) 9800 XT I have runs quite hot, mid-70's at idle, mid-80's and upward in Oblivion without auxilliary cooling. I couldn't get anyone at ATI to name a safe operating range. In fact, I got a very snotty and unhelpful response instead.

So I pulled the card and stuck in the BFG 6800 GT. There was "some" noticeable outdoors animation speed improvement (at the gates, it was a dramatic improvement), but the visual quality is just not as good. So I shopped a good while to acquire an X800, which also will run hot when gaming, but idles at a comfortable 40-something. All I have as an improvement is a backplane slot fan, pulled apart and reversed, to blow upward into the X800's fan intake.

I forget who makes it (Vantec, perhaps). I got it from a local Altex Electronics shop. It really helped the 9800 XT, and does a decent job on the XT-Platinum as well.