wrote:It sounds like you aren't happy unless you're getting 60 fps at 1600x1200 so you must have had a rough 3-4 years there. 😉
That's exactly me 😁
But I'm also a penny pincher and I hate unpatched games. So waiting a while solves a lot of issues!
wrote:Well Doom3 was definitely smooth on a 9700/9800 depending on the resolution. I think I played it at 1024 or 1280. ATI improved p […]
wrote:I know the Radeon 9700pro and 9800 were fast, but the FX5950 Ultras were quicker in most DX8 and OpenGl games. And yeah Doom3 was playable on a 9800 in 1024 - but it wasn't smooth. Probably lost about 6-10fps to a 5950.
Well Doom3 was definitely smooth on a 9700/9800 depending on the resolution. I think I played it at 1024 or 1280. ATI improved performance over time as well but 5950 maybe have always been faster than R3x0.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/7200/5Doom3's rendering style breaks some of ATI's efficiency hardware. The NV cards were really well tailored for how Doom3 works. I think NV thought Doom3's tech was the future more than ATI did. But I don't think NV was right 🤣
http://alt.3dcenter.org/artikel/2004/07-30_english.phpGeForce FX are such strange cards. You really have to wonder what they were thinking. They suck so much for DirectX 9 that it is truly a curiosity... What was more amazing was how much NV40 differed and how it fixed every weakness.
Here's a snip from the Wiki entry
"Its weak performance for processing Shader Model 2 programs is caused by several factors. The NV3x design has less overall parallelism and calculation throughput than its competitors. It is more difficult, compared to GeForce 6 and ATI Radeon R3x0, to achieve high efficiency with the architecture due to architectural weaknesses and a resulting heavy reliance on optimized pixel shader code. Proper instruction ordering and instruction composition of shader code is critical for making the most of the available computational resources."
So a game using DX9 pixel shaders would have to be optimized for nVidia to run fast with an FX card. Games that didn't play nice with nVidia cards crawled. This was one of the reasons they had their little hissy fit over 3DMark turning in poor results with the FX cards, because Futuremark didn't (and rightly so) optimize for them.
wrote:wrote:It sounds like you aren't happy unless you're getting 60 fps at 1600x1200 so you must have had a rough 3-4 years there. 😉
That's exactly me 😁
But I'm also a penny pincher and I hate unpatched games. So waiting a while solves a lot of issues!
How long did you have to wait before you were able to play Crysis at those settings?
I had that 5900XT when the Doom3 demo released. While it looked pretty cool, it just didn't run fast enough for me to want to play it. And by the time I got a 6800GT, HL2 made me forget all about D3.
wrote:Man I used to have a Geforce FX 5600 XT which is actually slower than a vanilla 5600. I got that thing with my then new PC, a Celeron 2.4 and 256mb RAM. I know killer combo.
I remember quite fondly that a friend of mine had a Pentium 4 2.0 GHz and a GeForce Ti4200 and he enjoyed better performance. Half Life 2 autoselected DX 8.1 because it would work painstakingly slow in DX9. After a few years I got a Pentium 4 2.8 and a GeForce 7600gs and man was it an upgrade...Funny story with those tech demos actually, a lot of them, if not all of them, refused to run with any other card other than an FX one. So Nvidia was bragging about Dawn and how it would only work on their cards because they had the best. That was until a bunch of hackers hacked it and managed to get it running on ATi hardware and it was actually running faster on them 😁
Sounds almost as bad as a 5700LE
wrote:How long did you have to wait before you were able to play Crysis at those settings?
Well currently I have use a "special" LCD for gaming. It's a 1366 x 768 LCD with 75Hz. Low resolution gaming FTW!
It means all the latest games run find even on an average video card and I get insane FPS.
Crysis is likely the worst case scenario in recent years. I still had a 19" 5:4 LCD in those days, so I had this trick of getting more speed for games.
I set a custom resolution of 1280 x 720 with black bars at the top and bottom (like watching a movie on a 19" 5:4 LCD) and that way I could play the game on a 8800GT. I did the same for FEAR on a 7900GT.
Currently I have a Phenom 2 555 which unlocks and can be run with 2,3 or 4 cores depending on need. A GTX460 has enough grunt to handle any game at the 1366 x 768 resolution.
wrote:Well currently I have use a "special" LCD for gaming. It's a 1366 x 768 LCD with 75Hz. Low resolution gaming FTW! […]
wrote:How long did you have to wait before you were able to play Crysis at those settings?
Well currently I have use a "special" LCD for gaming. It's a 1366 x 768 LCD with 75Hz. Low resolution gaming FTW!
It means all the latest games run find even on an average video card and I get insane FPS.
Crysis is likely the worst case scenario in recent years. I still had a 19" 5:4 LCD in those days, so I had this trick of getting more speed for games.
I set a custom resolution of 1280 x 720 with black bars at the top and bottom (like watching a movie on a 19" 5:4 LCD) and that way I could play the game on a 8800GT. I did the same for FEAR on a 7900GT.
Currently I have a Phenom 2 555 which unlocks and can be run with 2,3 or 4 cores depending on need. A GTX460 has enough grunt to handle any game at the 1366 x 768 resolution.
FEAR runs great on my 7600GS though. Or did you mean FEAR 2 perhaps?
Nope it was FEAR, right after it cam e out. I had an Athlon 64 (single core) and a 7800GT.
Another little story, I asked on WHIRLPOOL (which is am Australian ICT forum) which video card I should get for a 19" LCD (they where still luxury back then, cost me ~ A$ 400 and it was the cheapest Proview brand).
Anyway, everyone told me get a 6600GT. So I did and well I wasn't happy. FEAR struggled. Need for Speed (don't know which one) also struggled. Keep in mind that when I say struggled, others would likely been happy reducing some settings and be done with it.
So I went back to the shop and the only option was getting a 7800GT or 7800GTX so I had no choice and got the 7800GT for ~ A$ 600 my most expensive video card purchase to date.
But I was happy. All the games ran fine, so did BF2 and I had a fantastic Xmas break 😜
wrote:Currently I have a Phenom 2 555 which unlocks and can be run with 2,3 or 4 cores depending on need. A GTX460 has enough grunt to handle any game at the 1366 x 768 resolution.
Enough grunt? A GXT 460 seems like a overkill for that resolution. Or do you have plans for a new monitor in the near future?
wrote:Enough grunt? A GXT 460 seems like a overkill for that resolution. Or do you have plans for a new monitor in the near future?
No such thing as overkill 🤣
Play one of the Stalker games with 4x AA or once you muck around with SSAA...
I'll buy a new card once we are going 28nm and/or when BF3 comes out.
I got the GTX460 because the previous card struggled with BC2 (it was 9600GT).
wrote:No such thing as overkill LOL […]
wrote:Enough grunt? A GXT 460 seems like a overkill for that resolution. Or do you have plans for a new monitor in the near future?
No such thing as overkill 🤣
Play one of the Stalker games with 4x AA or once you muck around with SSAA...
I'll buy a new card once we are going 28nm and/or when BF3 comes out.
I got the GTX460 because the previous card struggled with BC2 (it was 9600GT).
Are you using a TV or what for that resolution? I just dont understand why you would have invested in a pretty powerful comp to run last decade resolutions.
I found STALKER COP just looks better at 1920x1200 without AA then at a lower lower res with AA. I also run BC2 1920x1200 max settings and 4xAA with my GTX460 @ 60+ fps. Unleash that 460, upgrade your monitor! 😁
I play many games on a 50" TV at 1360x768 with varying degrees of AA. SSAA is incredible. I recently upgraded just so I could run more games with 4X SSAA. It just cleans up the entire image so well...
The low resolution is not a very tangible problem when you are 6-7 feet away from the monitor and can't see the individual pixels. This is the critical thing that I only really realized from practical use. And also when you are that far away you don't want small text and icons because they are annoying.
Honestly I think if anyone here hasn't tried gaming on a huge screen, you should save your money and pick a TV up because I can't recommend it enough. It is a change that reminded me of the first time I played a 3D game. It is breathtaking.
On a more on-topic note, I powered up ye olde FX 5900 last night for some Doom3 action. 1024x768 on the old fading CRT. The box has an Athlon 64 2.0 GHz inside. It really runs the game pretty well but I am just not a big fan of D3. I think it might have negative replay value because it only has some small play value in the first place 🤣.
One thing that amazes me is how the card can run Doom3 quite smoothly at high quality 1024x768 (40fps maybe?), but FEAR will run 10 fps medium quality 640x480. 😁 The games do pretty much the same thing but clearly the Jupiter EX engine is no friend of the FX.
wrote:Are you using a TV or what for that resolution? I just dont understand why you would have invested in a pretty powerful comp to run last decade resolutions.
Nope it's a 18.5" Acer LCD. This model can do 75 Hz which is very very important, because I use V-sync.
With 60 Hz V-sync you get noticeable input lag, 75Hz is much better. My next LCD will likely be a 120Hz model though.
That's the thing, I didn't invest much. I'm a penny pincher. The GTX460 (it's the 768 model) got really cheap over here in Australia (A$ 149) and my CPU is a phenom 555 which fully unlocks into a quad. I usually buy my times when manufacturers are very competitive or there is a part that has outstanding performance per dollar (like an unlocked 555).
The mainboard is the most basic ASUS uATX board.
To me it's a smart selection of components and the choice of LCD gives me ~ double the fps compared to a Full HD screen.
The GTX460 might be fine for you at FullHD, but I know myself pretty well, I wouldn't be satisfied and would be forced to buy a power hungry, hot, loud and expensive card.
Once we see the new 28nm products I might upgrade...
Yup I agree on the speed benefits of 768p. You get a lot more performance from your video card if you stay away from 1080p and higher.
I took my 8800GTX out of my 1920x1200 desktop and put it in my TVPC 768p setup and that card went from struggling with Crysis to eating it alive. 😁 I love having excess GPU power and getting years of life from cards.
wrote:Nope it's a 18.5" Acer LCD. This model can do 75 Hz which is very very important, because I use V-sync. […]
wrote:Are you using a TV or what for that resolution? I just dont understand why you would have invested in a pretty powerful comp to run last decade resolutions.
Nope it's a 18.5" Acer LCD. This model can do 75 Hz which is very very important, because I use V-sync.
With 60 Hz V-sync you get noticeable input lag, 75Hz is much better. My next LCD will likely be a 120Hz model though.
That's the thing, I didn't invest much. I'm a penny pincher. The GTX460 (it's the 768 model) got really cheap over here in Australia (A$ 149) and my CPU is a phenom 555 which fully unlocks into a quad. I usually buy my times when manufacturers are very competitive or there is a part that has outstanding performance per dollar (like an unlocked 555).
The mainboard is the most basic ASUS uATX board.
To me it's a smart selection of components and the choice of LCD gives me ~ double the fps compared to a Full HD screen.
The GTX460 might be fine for you at FullHD, but I know myself pretty well, I wouldn't be satisfied and would be forced to buy a power hungry, hot, loud and expensive card.
Once we see the new 28nm products I might upgrade...
I wonder how well vsync works on a plasma screen with 600hz refresh... 🤣
Ok ok.
If you don't have anything to say about the crap FX cards, go make a new thread! 😁
FX related:
Never gets old 🤣: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOVjZqC1AE4
wrote:FX related:
Never gets old 🤣: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOVjZqC1AE4
Or this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qspdnAYiiug
Or this
wrote:FX related:
Never gets old 🤣: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOVjZqC1AE4
Hilarious! I bought one back then, i arrived home, installed it, ran a bench and returned it.
I live near the Oporto airport and i hear airplanes engines all the time (especially when they are passing here to land), but that thing was like having the plane inside the house!!!
wrote:Or this one
Unreal...
wrote:I bought one back then, i arrived home, installed it, ran a bench and returned it.
Hahahah
The FX experience in a nutshell 🤣
