X800XL vs. RADEON 9600 PRO

[bde]

I have tested counter-strike: source on two systems and the resaults are the same. WHY??????

My friend's comp: athlon xp 2500 (mobile) o/c'ed to 2.3Ghz, 1Gb of ram (DDR), Radeon 9600 pro agp

My comp: Intel p4 3.4Ghz, 1Gb of ram (DDR2), Radeon X800XL pci-e ( I hate intel, but I won the mobo "925x intel" with the cpu, at a tournament and I couldn't get rid of it, so I said w/e I'll use it.) ANYWAYS, WHyyy is this so?

That game has a stress test, which gives you the average fps and it was 128 on both systems, with the EXACT same settings (I made sure of that). so what the heck...

 

[Creig]

Is it possible that the test has an upper limit reporting of 128? In other words, anything at 128 or higher is simply reported as 128?

 

[imported_Hi]

you sir suck at teh computers

 

[jiffylube1024]

crank the resolution and AA/AF on the cards and yours will blow past his - you have your new card set too low.

Try it out at 1280X960 or higher with 4xAA and 8x AF.

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
crank the resolution and AA/AF on the cards and yours will blow past his - you have your new card set too low.

Try it out at 1280X960 or higher with 4xAA and 8x AF.

Exactly, the higher bit rate and memory of the X800XL will definately smoke the 9600Pro at higher resolutions/with AA/AF.

EDIT: Oh also remember to turn Vsync OFF.

 

[andy nowotny]

X800XL should lead 9600pro much

 

[bde]

Originally posted by: Creig
Is it possible that the test has an upper limit reporting of 128? In other words, anything at 128 or higher is simply reported as 128?

no, it has a maximum of 300 fps by default, and when I`m in the game it goes over 128, sometimes 200...

 

[bde]

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
crank the resolution and AA/AF on the cards and yours will blow past his - you have your new card set too low.

Try it out at 1280X960 or higher with 4xAA and 8x AF.

Exactly, the higher bit rate and memory of the X800XL will definately smoke the 9600Pro at higher resolutions/with AA/AF.

EDIT: Oh also remember to turn Vsync OFF.

Yea I had v-sync off, but the tests were done on 1024 res. and no AA, and filtering mode was on triol.
but the thing is, I play source competitively and when you have your graphic details set at high, you get a massive fps drop in game.
I was wondering if there is any particular reason for this... (I know with 4xAA and 8xAF I would beat him) but why not with lower?

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: bde

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
crank the resolution and AA/AF on the cards and yours will blow past his - you have your new card set too low.

Try it out at 1280X960 or higher with 4xAA and 8x AF.

Exactly, the higher bit rate and memory of the X800XL will definately smoke the 9600Pro at higher resolutions/with AA/AF.

EDIT: Oh also remember to turn Vsync OFF.

Yea I had v-sync off, but the tests were done on 1024 res. and no AA, and filtering mode was on triol.
but the thing is, I play source competitively and when you have your graphic details set at high, you get a massive fps drop in game.
I was wondering if there is any particular reason for this... (I know with 4xAA and 8xAF I would beat him) but why not with lower?

The reason you don't see an improvement at 1024 is because you're not GPU (video card) limited at 1024 in CS: Source.

There were some articles written about CS:S - it was written to run well on even mid to low end cards since it's an online game.

If you want to see an improvement at 1024, compare the cards in Doom3 or even Half Life 2 (single player). Far Cry (max details) would also be a good comparison.

Again, though, you're killing yourself by not running at least at 1280X960, and there should be little to no performance difference at that resolution, even with AA/AF.

Try out 1280X960 (or 1280X1024) with 2xAA and 8xAF and I can pretty much guarantee you framerates will be almost exactly the same but the game will look a whole lot better.

About worrying about FPS online - don't. Don't spend your time thinking about the framerate (it's hard when you first get a new card, I know, and your brain during slowdowns tricks you into thinking it would be better at a low resolution). Just play the game and enjoy the better looking scenery.

You can run CS:S at 1600X1200 with 2xAA/8xAF at about the same framerate as your current settings, so there should be no worries in going up to 1280X960.

 

[bde]

well said, thank you

 

[MegaWorks]

Originally posted by: bde
well said, thank you

Sorry bde but I suck at these things!

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
crank the resolution and AA/AF on the cards and yours will blow past his - you have your new card set too low.

Try it out at 1280X960 or higher with 4xAA and 8x AF.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Try another benchmark besides the Source one. There's a bug in the source demo that doesn't bench things correctly (notice the swirling ERROR panes).

 

[MatrixVPR]

I had the 96000 Pro and the X800 pro and your XL will out perform my old X800 PRO! After I sold the X800 i had to go back the 9600 PRO for a bit till i got all the pieces of the current system and the 9600 got me 63 fps with my AMD Athlon 64 3200+

9600 PRO
Halflife 2 = fps 63.69 (1024x768 default)

Model Detail: High
Texture " ": High
Shadow " ": High
Water " ": Reflect World
Shader " ": High
AA: none
AF: none
Vert. Sync: disabled

I wouldn't rule out the possibility that your friend might have a few optimizations going on that he isn't telling you about. If your benching the card in the same system then I would say the your demo is messed. What ever the issues is your system hooked up and you shouldn't fret. Download 3dMark and try that!

Updated: just ran the time demo and guess what... I GOT 128! WOW!!! The demo is messed due to updates from steam. Wait till Valve fixes their sh!t then try again I'll give you my X800 PRO benchies so you can have an idea of what to expect

X800 Pro
Halflife 2 = 108 fps (1024x768)
1024x768
Model Detail: High
Texture " ": High
Shadow " ": High
Water " ": Reflect World
Shader " ": High
AA: 4x
AF: 8x
Vert. Sync: disabled

 

[Pete]

The CSS:VST is messed up. Even if 10x7 were CPU-limited (which I doubt it is with a 9600P), the 3.4GHz P4 should smoke the 2500+. So, there's just something wrong with the benchmark. Try another game, or benchmark HL2 with Anand's timedemos, and you should see a huge difference.

 

[AristoV300]

Yeah you need to be running high resolution and AA/AF to get real performance out of that card.

 

[ShadowBlade]

his computer is also AMD........................

 

[RSanders]

I read some stuff about turning off cl_smoothing or cl_smooth (one of those) and some other options. It worked for me, but it wasn't an FPS issue, it was a problem when I would just play the game regular, it was be all jerky.

 

[bde]

Originally posted by: MegaWorks

Originally posted by: bde
well said, thank you

Sorry bde but I suck at these things!

LOl it's all good man, I wasn't expecting you to know everything

 

[bde]

source = 126 fps on 1024x768
Model Detail: High
Texture: High
Shadow: High
Water: Reflect World
Shader: High
AF: 8x
AA: 4x
V/Sync: disabled


Anyways, me personally when I upgraded my comp, I was hopping not to have my fps drop like this, but I don't know I guess it's just the maps in the game that's horrible,
And when you play first person shooters competitively, it?s extremely important that your fps don't drop or AT least in this case (source) have a higher fps than your opponent.

It's like a hockey player playing hockey with skates that the blades are less sharp than his opponent.

 

[imverygifted]

possibly sounds like the difference between direct x 8 and direct x 9