Mayday Mayday Read This Asap

[Overclocker550]

his ti4400 was stock and his cpu was slower than mine. I get twice the fps he does cause my cpu and ti4200 are heavily overclocked. Youd need a very exceptionally good overclocking 9800 pro to be twice the performance of my overclocked ti4200 and I dont have $1000 to go looking for 5 9800 pros and besides ill be cpu limited so I wont get twice the fps except maybe in 2048x1536 but at 1024x768 my ti4200 isnt chugging at all so id get maybe 50% more fps with a 9800p at best.

 

[micamica1217]

his ti4400 was stock and his cpu was slower than mine. I get twice the fps he does cause my cpu and ti4200 are heavily overclocked. Youd need a very exceptionally good overclocking 9800 pro to be twice the performance of my overclocked ti4200 and I dont have $1000 to go looking for 5 9800 pros and besides ill be cpu limited so I wont get twice the fps except maybe in 2048x1536 but at 1024x768 my ti4200 isnt chugging at all so id get maybe 50% more fps with a 9800p at best.

well said OC550.

but there is no need for you to drasticly look for a great OCing 9800pro....
just get your hands on one, and you'll see that your belief of 50% performance increase with the new card, is more like min then max....and I'm not even talking about OCing the card yet.

about 60% would be for games like far cry, UT2003/4....
about 80% would be for games like deus ex:iw, sw:kotor
(plus you'll have all the DX9.0 eye candy, and some *cough* AF and AA for free *cough*)...and I'm mostly talking about a res of 1024x768

the 9800pro won't be an out right, bad card to have with the A64 system you might build in 2006....
and getting a 9800pro now will still be cheaper (and give you much more performance) then building a whole new A64 system in 2006.

using your own words as a bases of performance increase;
I just can't see you spending about twice the amount of a 9800pro for an A64 system, to only get about 30%-40% increase in most games(with that ti4200).

while I'm not telling you that you have to upgrade anything at this time....
please rethink your upgrade path.

you seem to be basing your thoughts of the 9700/9800pro (performance wise) as if they would be running on slow CPUs...
and that is something that you "don't" have.
while you may not have the fastest system, your system is more then fast enough to run a 9800pro quite well.
and the best news is, if your able to OC that system of yours a little more then you'll get even more performance out of it.

getting a 9800pro (over a faster system) is basicly a no brainer...
I can almost hear it in many of your latest replys.

mica

 

[funnyperson1]

his ti4400 was stock and his cpu was slower than mine. I get twice the fps he does cause my cpu and ti4200 are heavily overclocked. Youd need a very exceptionally good overclocking 9800 pro to be twice the performance of my overclocked ti4200 and I dont have $1000 to go looking for 5 9800 pros and besides ill be cpu limited so I wont get twice the fps except maybe in 2048x1536 but at 1024x768 my ti4200 isnt chugging at all so id get maybe 50% more fps with a 9800p at best.

Right, my point was just that your Ti4200 is not representative of most Ti4200s, most people will not buy 5 or 6 cards to see which one overclocks the best.

I also agree with you keeping the 4200 for now. But like micamica said, a new graphics card like a 9800Pro would definately be called for before you get an A64 system.

I think for people buying new cards now, the 9800 is the better choice because it has more longevity much like your 4200 had more longevity over buying a Geforce2 or 3 back when you started buying Ti4200s.

 

[cV]

Yeah, I meant with his system. Upgrading the platform is a foolish mistake when it's not the bottleneck.

Honestly, an AXP platform only BEGINS to become the bottleneck once paired with a 9800 pro.... I have the numbers to prove it.

 

[Overclocker550]

another thought occured to me, by the time I upgrade in early 2006, wont ati have some midrange card on like 90nm as fast as todays 9800 pro but be alot cooler and more overclockable with more features such as ps 3.0? Of course there is the price thing, id have to see how much the 9800p costs and an equal to it. I know the r420 is comming out soon, the rv420 could be alot like a 9800xt on .13 microns too.

 

[funnyperson1]

It does seem I had some wrong impressions about the intensity of Far Cry.

I tried it on my laptop which has PC2100 ram, a Centrino(Pentium M) 1.5, and a Radeon 9200.

At 1024x768 low details I get 30-60 fps with an average of about 45.

My desktop with an [email protected] with an 8500 should easily stay in the 50's the whole time and will probably run 40-45 fps with medium detail at 1024x768.

Sorry, I was under the impression that Far Cry was more strenous than it actually is.

 

[funnyperson1]

another thought occured to me, by the time I upgrade in early 2006, wont ati have some midrange card on like 90nm as fast as todays 9800 pro but be alot cooler and more overclockable with more features such as ps 3.0? Of course there is the price thing, id have to see how much the 9800p costs and an equal to it. I know the r420 is comming out soon, the rv420 could be alot like a 9800xt on .13 microns too.

None of us could tell you, but Ati and Nvidia have gotten pretty good at crippling their midrange cards.

After nearly one and a half years the 9700Pro is still a better card overall than either the 9600XT or 5700Ultra both of which were released only a couple months ago.

The 9600XT is a lot more overclockable than the 9700Pro, but the core is so weak to begin with it doesn't really matter.

 

[Overclocker550]

well yea but I am hoping that by 2 years even a "crippled" midrange card should still be at least as fast as a 9800p but more features, IQ and better overclocker. If not, maybe ill just get the 9800 pro or even r420(9900 pro) if cheap enough. and I was right about farcry. the radeon 9200 sucks but since a 1.5GHz centino is faster than pentium 4's the game runs just fine. I dont know if youll believe me, but I ran farcry fine at high details 1024x768 on a geforce2 GTS with sdr ram! like 30fps average too!
like I said, a faster video card doesnt really help unless you run 1600x1200 and/or aa/af

 

[snyper1982]

or you want to run higher than dx7. sure you ran farcry on a gf2, but it didnt look nearly as good as it would have on a 9800. and thats what some people pay money for, some people like IQ as well as speed, and thats why there are 9800 pros being sold, and not just 4200's. and i will still stand by my statement that a video card is far and away the single most important part in a gaming rig. sure its nice to have a completely well rounded rig, but you can play games just fine with a sub-par cpu, and a good draphics card, as well as get the added iq that a good card has.

 

[Artyboy]

My secondary machine runs almost as well as my primary in almost all instances (unless I really start cranking up the graphics). Even running really "hard on the system" games like SWG I still get 30 fps everywhere but in towns and around huge groups of people. If I put my old gf4 mx420 in the same machine I can't even move in most newer games. The image quality takes a huge hit too. As long as your system can handle the vid card you want to put in then a better vid card will help your gaming performance drastically.

 

[Overclocker550]

a fast cpu and slow gpu will own any slow cpu anyday. yes the iq was not as good without the dx8 effects but my fps werent bad at all. dx7 to dx8 is quite a difference but dx8 to dx9 isnt any real difference in todays games

 

[micamica1217]

a fast cpu and slow gpu will own any slow cpu anyday.

not entirly true....and it's not that you have a slow CPU ether.

yes the iq was not as good without the dx8 effects but my fps werent bad at all. dx7 to dx8 is quite a difference but dx8 to dx9 isnt any real difference in todays games

and how would you know??? you haven't played any DX9 game with any DX9 eye candy.

while I'm sure you are talking about Far Cry, the only true DX9.0 game that I've ever heard you speak of....
you have repeatedly stated that you don't care for it, so I don't supose that you actualy have the full retail game.

but there are DX9.0 games out there...far cry being one of them.
Oh, and if you can't see the diff between DX8 and DX9 in this game....well it's because you only have a DX8.0 card!!!!!

realy, there are pics all over the net as to what this game looks like in both DX8-DX9....as well as with nVidia vs ATI cards.
(please, I'm not trying to start a flame war )

I just don't know were you get the ideas that you do from?
when PS2.0 and VS2.0 are added to things/monsters in the games I play, it looks sooo sweet....and alot better then just PS1.1

mica

 

[Overclocker550]

please show me pics of the difference between dx8 and dx9 cause my friend took screenshots and it looks exactly the same as mine. with my geforce2, the water looks crap but almost everything else looks the same to me *shrugs*

 

[micamica1217]

please show me pics of the difference between dx8 and dx9 cause my friend took screenshots and it looks exactly the same as mine. with my geforce2, the water looks crap but almost everything else looks the same to me *shrugs*

no way.....there is alot more detail (more trees/leafs, richness, fog, bla, bla....) with DX9.0 then DX8.0.

btw, what is your friend's vid card??? and what are his/her settings?

mica

 

[Overclocker550]

what you described was what I saw going from dx7 to dx8 LOL

 

[Steven4563]

Oh No !! its turned into OC550 Vs Mica again

Got to respect mica for proving OC550 wrong "most" of the time

 

[Tazon]

wooohoo here they go <grabs popcorn and soda>

yeah, CPU bottleneck my a$$, DX8 and DX9 suck!, die microsoft! yeah!!!

 

[snyper1982]

a fast cpu and slow gpu will own any slow cpu anyday. yes the iq was not as good without the dx8 effects but my fps werent bad at all. dx7 to dx8 is quite a difference but dx8 to dx9 isnt any real difference in todays games

i never said a slow cpu now did i? a mediocre cpu, say a 2500+ is more than enough for ALL of the games that will be coming in the next year or so, as long as you have a decent gpu. if my cpu at stock can run games fine, then i see no reason why a 2500+ wont either. so your telling me your cpu with say a geforce 3, will outperform my setup? i HIGHLY doubt it.

 

[Tazon]

i wish i was rich, then i would have ninja assasins kidnap oc550 and bring him to my dungeon where he would have to play new games all day, on a xp 1700 with a 9800pro, with only vanilla pepsi to drink.

emilio