No, they both seem to be on the same level of gaming performance, however the 8400gs is clearly more powerful. As i said i only have trouble with about 5-6 games, but all my other games are running just fine. So the 8400gs is more powerful overall. When i had my celeron D, the 8400gs out perform the 2400hd in pretty much all areas. But i wouldn't be bother with any card, for pci gamers, just use a 9400gt or 9500gt at this moment. But the 8400gs is very good depending on what sort of rig you have.
Hey PCI gamer if you are reading this, do you still have those benchmarks and video of you playing Fallout 3? Because i have the game now and i have it running at 1280x1024 AF 15 samples , Bloom , everything else on High To Ultra Settings, No AA, no Shadows and with the 8400gs i get a solid 20-25-30-50-80fps. It does drop to around 15-17fps only looking at some very demanding stuff. But speeds back up to around 30 and sometimes 75fps. I am sure if i turn off screen effects i will get slightly better performance with AA on, i guess i will test it out soon.
It's not the speed that's the problem it's the rendering that slows everything down. In Crysis I looked at your other video PCIGamer. How is the cut scene's with both of your PC's. Not the gameplay.
So you get a "solid" FPS with a range of four times the lower limit of it ? I think you need check whether your definition of solid coincides with that of the rest of the humanity. And stop recommending the waste of money the 9500GT for PCI is, not that you'll listen.
The speed seems the same but the graphics render faster with Express x16 cards, PCI cards are not as fast, but the speed seems the same I looked at both PCIGamer's videos. The Crysis one. What does that state stick with older cards than the 9500GT. Another thing why are these cards only 64bit, my integrated card is 128bit they should they be higher. Are companies being stingy.
Well thats inside to what i get, outside is a different story, so overall the game does not very good. Oh well, guess.
Great. Your IGP has a 128-bit bus. Yipp-die-doo ? The HD2900XT has a 512-bit bus with GDDR4 memory, and a 256-bit GTS250 with GDDR3 outperforms it. What I was getting at is that the performance increase of the 9500GT/8600GT on PCI over the 8500GT or 8400GS on PCI does not justify the massive difference in price. Addendum: BTW, no wonder on the 128-bit bus, too. Most likely the reason it is 128-bit is because that's the memory bus on the chipset's memory controller in the first place.
What do you mean by speed? Do you mean FPS? If so, FPS are the direct result of rendering AFAIK, which makes me even more confused by your post.
hey red1776, would that be an agp card? and would that be the best that i could get for a good price and not have to cut both my legs and a hand off to buy? and thank you for the reply
Yes, it is the best you can get IMO because there is no driver support for the HD 4xxx series in AGP. Plus if you are using anything less than a dual core then you won't even use all the power of the HD 3850, I know because that is my situation. It's the best you can buy for a $100 for AGP IMO. Great graphics card. Don't worry if you only have AGP4x because the processor bottleneck effects performance before the bus bottleneck can.
well i'm most definitely not using a dual core. it's only like a 1.6 GHz processor. so would this still be the best for me? I also have a PCI slot. are agp's better than PCI'S? i'm not sure what you mean by this.
That HD3850 would be so badly bottlenecked by your CPU it isn't even funny. Find a HD2400/HD2600/HD3650 for AGP and buy it (Or buy a second hand 6800 for AGP), anything over it (And heck, even those I listed, most likely, but at least those are somehow better value for money in your case) is wasted with your ancient PC. AGP is far better than PCI for graphics cards. Do NOT bother with PCI cards at all if you have any other option (PCI-E/AGP).
Yes, unquestionably it is the best your system can use but if you want to save $20 dollars then get the HD 3650 because your processor probably won't even utilize the speed of that one. Your processor will greatly limit what the HD 3850 can actually do. Your GPU is only as powerful as your processor. Like Yukikaze said, never use PCI slots for graphics cards if you have AGP or PCI-e slot types. AGP 4x has 8 times the bandwidth of PCI plus it is dedicated and doesn't share that with other PCI slots as the PCI slots share bandwidth with one another. HD 3850 AGP for me is like 2-3 times more powerful on my P4 system than the 9500GT PCI card is. Can't wait to build a PCI-e 2.0 rig.
The 3650 would be next in line after the 3850, for an agp card its relatively powerful, I really don't know where the bottleneck threshold would be for your cpu http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102814
My other option is PCI Express x1, better than PCI ? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161280 You are very objective to everyone's comments why ? not everyone's got a superduper PC.
PCI-e x1 is twice as fast as PCI and is dedicated. That card will perform better than the 9500GT PCI which is the best PCI has ATM.
I object to misinformation only. As long as people keep posting falsified results that defy logical explanation, I will keep objecting to them. I'm sure others agree. As for the PC, this is a point you constantly bring up for some reason; maybe you should consider saving that $130 towards a new PC; spending that much on a PCI-E x1 card is a waste of cash. It is possible to build a decent PCI-E gaming PC for $500 or even lesser.
so then. this would be the best for me in my case? it won't kill my pc but will be way better than my on board graphics card? will i need to buy a new PSU?
