Ok...Buying an X800 pro.Will my system bottleneck this card severly?

G

Gmok Bonecrusha

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
1,090
I have a P4 2.5

MSI 845E Max MB.533 FSB.

1 Gig of 2100 Generic Mem.

60 Gig 7200 whateverthename is HD.

9800 pro.

Will I see any signifigant increase in FPS in lets say D3 or World of Warcraft?

I should also say..I'm playing at 1600x1200 because I own a 213T



Also.Separate question.

Will I be able to upgrade the ram to lets say 3200?Will that make any diffeernce?

Thx guys.
 
Yes your system will bottleneck it.
Mostly because of the FSB and RAM speed. No, the 3200 won't help unless you actually push your fsb that high.
 
Doom III and World of Warcraft are all in Nvidias gaming program. Those games work best under Nvidia based cards because that's what they're being developed under. Doom III will run best with Nvidias card (6xxx series) and you won't have to use shader replacements in AI for the ATI drivers. I would try to get a 6800 GT if I were you. The 12 pipeline X800 Pro is something you shouldn't get if you're planning on playing OpenGL games. I am also in the World of Warcraft Open Beta myself :p My friend 6800 GT runs the game much much better than my 9800 XT with all the eye candy on.

Also you will be CPU limited.
 
the 9800 pro isnt a bad card, you should look into getting a new CPU/RAM/MOBO combo first
 
yea the 9800pro will last you into next year yet (probably)

your cpu/mobo/ram are all going to show their age though, time for them to go to the great linux box in the sky :p
 
Doom III and World of Warcraft are all in Nvidias gaming program. Those games work best under Nvidia based cards because that's what they're being developed under.
Click to expand...

Which game is not in Nvidia's TWIMTB program? 5 out of thousand? I see the logo everywhere. Does this mean all these games run better on Nv hardware? :confused: ;)

The 12 pipeline X800 Pro is something you shouldn't get if you're planning on playing OpenGL games.
Click to expand...

I would recommend a Pro Vivo which can easily be flashed to 16pipes, beating a GT in most games @ 1600x1200 with AA/AF due to it's higher clockspeeds/fillrate. In Doom3 even without AI it matches a GT if you use the 8.07b driver.
 
Mr Mean said:
My friend 6800 GT runs the game much much better than my 9800 XT with all the eye candy on.

Also you will be CPU limited.
Click to expand...



Well duh, a 9800Xt gets owned by both the 6800GT AND the X800 Pro. Don't compare two different generations cards...

On that system, it will indeed play better at 1600x1200 with eye candy turned on, that X800 Pro will spank that 9800 he has now...
 
Although the x800 pro isn't a bad card by any means, I'd recommend either upgrading the computer or by a GT. Or if you stick with ATI buy the x800xt over the pro.

But you have 9800pro so that should last you a while. You WILL see a huge difference in speed though between the cards though. But your cpu will be holding you back just a bit.

So overall I'd say upgrade the computer first (CPU and Memory first and you'll notice your pro "gaining" speed) Then if still not fast enough, look at the video cards
 
Apple740 said:
Which game is not in Nvidia's TWIMTB program? 5 out of thousand? I see the logo everywhere. Does this mean all these games run better on Nv hardware? :confused: ;)
Click to expand...

Yea no joke. Doesn't mean ANYTHING.
You might see Sears on Nascar. Doesn't mean its driving faster ;)
 
yes another vote for the cpu/memory upgrade over the videocard.....

first of alll ur memory just sucks :) get pc3200.. and ur pentium4 is at 2.5 ghz so i assume its not 800mhz or a "c" series.. so yeah those has to go and later on get the 6900 or x900 whatever or grab a 6800gt afterwards
 
At 1600x1200 with AA/AF, I doubt you'll be running into significant CPU bottlenecks, especially in more taxing games like Far Cry.
 
MemoryInAGarden said:
At 1600x1200 with AA/AF, I doubt you'll be running into significant CPU bottlenecks, especially in more taxing games like Far Cry.
Click to expand...

Yep, he's right ^^^ :p


My vote is get the video card first. Your cpu is not really that slow. Most people would die to have a 2.5ghz cpu. I know lots of gamers playing all the current stuff on Athlon 2200+'s and even *gasp* S478 celerons...
 
Went with the vid card..

In WoW I notice very small gains.Like some zones like Western Plaguelands went from 20 FPS to 30.

Ogrimmar went from like 25 to 35 FPS.

Havent really tested anything else.

Silly question.How big a differnce will my memory speed make?
 
MMORPG's and massive game modes like onslaught in ut2004 rely almost entirely on cpu... Why did you get a video card when everyone suggests the cpu/mobo first... You are being severly bottlenecked. Btw, tally up another vote for cpu/mobo first.
 
Gmok Bonecrusha said:
Went with the vid card..

In WoW I notice very small gains.Like some zones like Western Plaguelands went from 20 FPS to 30.

Ogrimmar went from like 25 to 35 FPS.

Havent really tested anything else.

Silly question.How big a differnce will my memory speed make?
Click to expand...


Considering those are MMORPG's, those are huge gains. 20fps to 30fps is like 50% !!!!

You would see bigger gains in D3 and stuff like that...if you had said you were primarily a MMORPG player then maybe you should have gone with more cpu first...


Oh well, still a good buy, now go get an athlon 64 cpu ($165) and decent NF3 mobo ($80) , use the same ram you already have, and you will have plenty of juice!
 
WoW is definitely more CPU intensive than GPU. My rig in sig below I run WoW at 1280x1024 with 8xS AA and 16xAF. Drop that down to zero AA zero AF and I get no framerate increase whatsoever. I usually have good framerates, only drop to 30's at the main gates of Stormwind city and in Goldshire. Sometimes on Gryphon rides I hit the 30's also.

If WoW is gonna be your main game, a lot of horsepower in the CPU department would benefit you greater. Also, I have 1 GB of ram, I have yet to see WoW use more than 300mb's in my Task Manager. Peak memory usage for my system afer hours of gaming is less than 500mb's.
 
6800 GT.

Well I should add thats with 4xAA and 4x AF...where as before I had them off.Ya....I shoulda added that.

I'm just gonna get a new rig.Wanted to grab the GT while I had the chance.They kinda rare around here.
 
Apple740 said:
Which game is not in Nvidia's TWIMTB program? 5 out of thousand? I see the logo everywhere. Does this mean all these games run better on Nv hardware? :confused: ;)



I would recommend a Pro Vivo which can easily be flashed to 16pipes, beating a GT in most games @ 1600x1200 with AA/AF due to it's higher clockspeeds/fillrate. In Doom3 even without AI it matches a GT if you use the 8.07b driver.
Click to expand...

Well to be honest with you Battlefield Vietnam ran great on release day on Nvidia cards. While I had the wonderful glittering/colorful flashing texture AA/ANSIO bug. Wasn't fix till 60+ days later with ATI BETA drivers :p Also FarCry gets HDR which is something in action when you get the settings right. So there is some incentive in their Nvidia program.

I don't know how exprience this guy is in flashing a videocard. If he does it wrong his videocard is dead and his warranty is voided right away if the flash fails. That possibilty does exist and should be noted. It's easy for people who have experience in this process. I wouldn't bother with an X800 series card at this late of the game when ATI announced they're releasing a PS 3.0 card in the future anways. Might as well get a GT that is already a PS 3.0 videocard. Pretty much all developers that are working with PS 3.0 have an Nvidia card in their developer system. Also you forgot to mention OpenGL is ATIs worst part and he stressed Doom III performance in his statement. This is something that ATI needs work and where Nvidia totally excels at.

From what I've seen with ATI 1600 x 1200 AA/AF is not winning by a huge margin to be a factor with that statement. X800 pro had its time when it was released but the GT is by far a better buy over a regular x800 pro.

If World of Warcraft is using PS 3.0 he would also get the added peformance boost. So it doesn't hurt him either way to go with the 6800 GT over the x800 pro. Just my two cents in the matter.
 
Gavinni said:
MMORPG's and massive game modes like onslaught in ut2004 rely almost entirely on cpu... Why did you get a video card when everyone suggests the cpu/mobo first... You are being severly bottlenecked. Btw, tally up another vote for cpu/mobo first.
Click to expand...
I agree :p WoW is heavily CPU intensive game. It stutters on my old Athlon XP 2000+ :p It's stutter free with my Athlon FX 53. The time it get bad is when you have like 40 horde and 40 alliance players in raid going at it. That's when my XP 2000+ falls to its knees :p My Athlon FX 53 keeps on going with no problems. So a CPU/Memory upgrade would be first on my list. Also I noted that the game (yes it's still beta) sucks up between 600-825MB of my RAM. Just a heads up on the RAM.
 
you'd be best off getting a new dfi lanparty nforce3 board, 2 sticks of kingston value ram pc3200, and the highest clocked amd athlon 64 processor you can afford.

what type of 9800pro is it? 256bit?
 
Mr Mean said:
Well to be honest with you Battlefield Vietnam ran great on release day on Nvidia cards. While I had the wonderful glittering/colorful flashing texture AA/ANSIO bug. Wasn't fix till 60+ days later with ATI BETA drivers :p Also FarCry gets HDR which is something in action when you get the settings right. So there is some incentive in their Nvidia program.

I don't know how exprience this guy is in flashing a videocard. If he does it wrong his videocard is dead and his warranty is voided right away if the flash fails. That possibilty does exist and should be noted. It's easy for people who have experience in this process. I wouldn't bother with an X800 series card at this late of the game when ATI announced they're releasing a PS 3.0 card in the future anways. Might as well get a GT that is already a PS 3.0 videocard. Pretty much all developers that are working with PS 3.0 have an Nvidia card in their developer system. Also you forgot to mention OpenGL is ATIs worst part and he stressed Doom III performance in his statement. This is something that ATI needs work and where Nvidia totally excels at.

From what I've seen with ATI 1600 x 1200 AA/AF is not winning by a huge margin to be a factor with that statement. X800 pro had its time when it was released but the GT is by far a better buy over a regular x800 pro.

If World of Warcraft is using PS 3.0 he would also get the added peformance boost. So it doesn't hurt him either way to go with the 6800 GT over the x800 pro. Just my two cents in the matter.
Click to expand...

Too bad WOW runs perfectly fine on a 9700pro at 1280X1024 2xFSAA 8XAF on running around 25-30fps? <and no you dont need more fps for a MMORPG>

DASHlT
 
Mr Mean said:
From what I've seen with ATI 1600 x 1200 AA/AF is not winning by a huge margin to be a factor with that statement.
Click to expand...

You haven't read Hardocp's latest Farcry 1.3 article? Brent Justice shows here the maximum (good) playable resolutions, which is 1600x1200 for the X800XT and 1280x1024 for the 6800GT. Besides this, read all the other Hardocp's reviews which show real-time performance graphs (not just avg fps). The XT kills the GT @ 1600x1200 in most games, even the Ultra.

I wouldn't bother with an X800 series card at this late of the game when ATI announced they're releasing a PS 3.0 card in the future anways.
Click to expand...

This generation, PS2.0b is just as good for speeding up things. By the time PS3.0 is needed your 6800 cannot produce more than a slight show.
I don't know how exprience this guy is in flashing a videocard. If he does it wrong his videocard is dead
Click to expand...

BS. Pop in a PCI card and you can flash back to original. But if you carefully read all the provided flash articles nothing goes wrong.
 
Apple740 said:
You haven't read Hardocp's latest Farcry 1.3 article? Brent Justice shows here the maximum (good) playable resolutions, which is 1600x1200 for the X800XT and 1280x1024 for the 6800GT. Besides this, read all the other Hardocp's reviews which show real-time performance graphs (not just avg fps). The XT kills the GT @ 1600x1200 in most games, even the Ultra.



This generation, PS2.0b is just as good for speeding up things. By the time PS3.0 is needed your 6800 cannot produce more than a slight show.


BS. Pop in a PCI card and you can flash back to original. But if you carefully read all the provided flash articles nothing goes wrong.
Click to expand...



This guy hit the nail on the head...
:D
 
DASHlT said:
Too bad WOW runs perfectly fine on a 9700pro at 1280X1024 2xFSAA 8XAF on running around 25-30fps? <and no you dont need more fps for a MMORPG>

DASHlT
Click to expand...
Do you know what settings I am running at? 6XAA and 16XANISO at 1280 x 1024 Try running on lakeshire wooden panels. Make sure you're viewing it an angle and you can clearly see the jaggies eveywhere. At 2XAA 8X ANISO I can see difference compared to 6XAA and 16XANISO.

Are you even on a PvP server? Try having 40 horde and 40 alliance start casting spelling and raining ice shards on your screen. Your 25-30FPS will drop considerably.
 
Apple740 said:
You haven't read Hardocp's latest Farcry 1.3 article? Brent Justice shows here the maximum (good) playable resolutions, which is 1600x1200 for the X800XT and 1280x1024 for the 6800GT. Besides this, read all the other Hardocp's reviews which show real-time performance graphs (not just avg fps). The XT kills the GT @ 1600x1200 in most games, even the Ultra.



This generation, PS2.0b is just as good for speeding up things. By the time PS3.0 is needed your 6800 cannot produce more than a slight show.


BS. Pop in a PCI card and you can flash back to original. But if you carefully read all the provided flash articles nothing goes wrong.
Click to expand...
You don't understand that the 6800 GT is going for $399 on pricegrabber.com while the X800XT is going for $469! Hell for $30 more you can order a x800 XT PE! I would be comparing a $399 6800 GT with a $399 X800 Pro. He didn't mention money is not an issue. With comparing x800 pro vs 6800 GT, The 6800 GT is the best value for money and features. That's all I am saying. Plus he should be fully aware that PS3.0 games are already coming out. So this is something he should be also looking at a $399 pricepoint if he's planning to buy a new video card. Not everybody upgrades every 6 months :p I don't :p

Like I said I don't know if he knows about flashing videocards. He might not have a PCI videocard lying around. I think my oldest PCI card that I have lying around is a matrox millenium II on my Pentium 166MHz :p I have no idea if that PCI card will work on a non PCI 1.0 motherboard.
 
That's ATI's fault for not making a 16 pipe card at the same price point as NV's 16 pipe card. Too bad cost is such a big factor, the cards really should be compared on the basis of the amount of pipes. The X800 Pro was never meant to compete against the 16 pipe NV cards...$$$$ made it that way. ATI's loss.:(

For some tech savvy users that CAN flash a vid card BIOS, the X800 VIVO is really the only way to go for cost effective and fast XT-PE ratings :p


If you don't want to mod the ATI card, by all means, get a 6800GT and like it. It's a great card. Just not the best, IMO.
 
Good choice on videocards. Now play farcry with HDL and SM3.0
 
darktiger said:
Good choice on videocards. Now play farcry with HDL and SM3.0
Click to expand...


Yeah, just what I wanted, to play FarCry with jaggies all over at a low resolution just so I can try to keep more than 30fps...because you sure can't use antialiasing if you want to use HDR in FarCry.

SM3.0? Again, I point you to the [H]'s own FC 1.3 patch review, where the XT hands the GT it's own ass on a plate. It even SAYS that SM3.0 offered no real gains and that SM2.0b looked just as good. I quote:

NVIDIA GeForce 6800GT.....
Moving to Patch 1.3 with Shader Model 3.0 enabled by default did not make image quality better than Shader Model 2.0. The same darkening of the water and lighting differences with the flashlight were seen moving to Patch 1.3 with the Radeon X800XT


Oh, and you might have missed the fact that the ATI card was able to play at 1600x1200 and MATCH the framerate of the poor NV card running at only 1280x1024 (no HDR). Not to mention the MINIMUM framerate of the NV card was barely half of the ATI card.


Another quote:

The current pausing/hitching phenomenon is a problem, at least on my system. There have been others mention this hitching issue as well in our forums. Hopefully this is something that can be fixed with a new driver.......There are some performance hurdles for HDR to make it though as it is very demanding on today&#8217;s latest and greatest hardware

Now, stop shooting your mouth off and acting like a.....(won't say it, but it rhymes with pan toy)....for Far Cry, the X800XT is clearly, superior, unless you have to have jaggies with HDR turned on. I had a 6800GT, it was decent, but my current card, is better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top