So you only have PCI slots and want to game?

These are benchmarks at 1024x768 low to high. The only way i get 10-25fps and the game is really really playable if i set it at 1024x768 low to medium, but i notice i can set it to low and keep shader on medium and post processing on medium and get 10-25.
So i am only getting 6-16fps at 1024x768 low to high.
http://www.filecram.com/files/Crysisbuild.jpg
http://www.filecram.com/files/Crysisbuild2.jpg
http://www.filecram.com/files/Crysisbuild3.jpg

So really with the 6200 card, on my Intel P3, at 1024x768 low to high its 6-16. 1024x768 low to medium and 1024x768 all low 10-25fps.
I use to get 20-30 with my 8400GS.
 
solid state hard drives

OK - very off topic, but looks like we could use a short vacation:haha:

Has anyone investigated using Solid state hard drives ? the reason I ask this question in this thread, is that we are all trying to squeeze as much performance out of old hardware and I wonder if this is a possible route ? I have seen the prices of these devices (IDE & SATA 2) solid state drives tumble. I read some reviews from 2006 where write performance was slower than conventional drives but this is porbably improved and the prices have tumbled (partly becuase of the ACER netbook devices which use them). It occured to me that a samll solid state drive would make an ideal page file or temporary file location IF write performance was better than normal drives.

A couple of drives were around $20 for 16Gb and they fit on a standard IDE connector though they are nowhere near as big as a normal drive. Possibly don't even need proper fixings
 
8500GT is the only way to go for your PCI only bus interface no matter what else you have in your PC because the GPU is completely separate from everything else. Until we can get the 8600GT or the 9500GT, this is all I can recommend and yes it is maybe 20%-25% as effective as the PCI-E version. You will get a few frames more over the 8400GS PCI but not a huge leap forward. Nonetheless, I wouldn't get the 8400GS regardless of the PCI limitations as you will want to squeeze every last FPS you can from your rig and anything less than the 8500GT will hinder you.

General's stats seem like a bit of a stretch to me considering I struggle with a lot of games on my P4 HT system and I don't believe I can play anything circa 2007 on max settings on this rig with 9500GT massively overclocked either. Retro gaming is my goal and if I can max Oblivion one day on this rig then I would be well pleased to be sure. You can't expect miracles with PCI bus type IMO.

Don't know much about solid state drives but external hard drives are a good value these days and I would like to invest in a terabyte version myself.
 
teklord said:
General's stats seem like a bit of a stretch to me considering I struggle with a lot of games on my P4 HT system and I don't believe I can play anything circa 2007 on max settings on this rig with 9500GT massively overclocked either. Retro gaming is my goal and if I can max Oblivion one day on this rig then I would be well pleased to be sure. You can't expect miracles with PCI bus type IMO.

Don't know much about solid state drives but external hard drives are a good value these days and I would like to invest in a terabyte version myself.
Click to expand...

SSD drives which are faster or competitive in average transfer speed to regular HDDs cost an arm and a leg (and a kidney). What is worthwhile about SSDs (in all shapes and sizes, from full sized SSD drives to SD cards and USB sticks) is that they have extremely fast access times, which makes them good for swap file usage.

External storage is nice to have, I recently bought a Seagate FreeAgent 750GB and a Western Digital Passport 250GB and they work great. Just don't expect quick transfer rates - the slowest of my two RAID0 setups is around four times faster than the 750GB external HDD, and that one is faster than the 2.5" WD Passport (The other RAID is five times the avg. transfer rates of the 750GB Seagate). Both my external drives are USB2.0

As for Tha General's results, I already argued that point. If I get the time/motivation, I'll pull out the PCI8500GT from my HTPC and stick it into my main rig (E5200 @ 3.8Ghz) and run those benchmarks there to bury that issue once and for all.
 
Just a update. Using w2k is a very nice OS, performance in games are amazing now. My 6200 can handle crysis ok at low settings at 1024x768. But man, my Visiontek2400HD can handle the game much better. I get between 13-27fps at 1024x768 all medium settings, and the game moves very smooth. :) Also my temps stay at 39c - 44c after an hour of playing.

direwolf007 said:
As for Tha General's results, I already argued that point. If I get the time/motivation, I'll pull out the PCI8500GT from my HTPC and stick it into my main rig (E5200 @ 3.8Ghz) and run those benchmarks there to bury that issue once and for all.
Click to expand...

teklord said:
General's stats seem like a bit of a stretch to me considering I struggle with a lot of games on my P4 HT system and I don't believe I can play anything circa 2007 on max settings on this rig with 9500GT massively overclocked either. Retro gaming is my goal and if I can max Oblivion one day on this rig then I would be well pleased to be sure. You can't expect miracles with PCI bus type IMO.
.
Click to expand...
Timeshift with my 2400HD on my Intel Pentium III, using w2k 1024x768 medium to best(high settings) = 20-50fps.

And as i mention Crysis runs even better using my 2400HD at 1024x768 all medium settings.

Here is my PSU too:


 
Can I run cod4 with a 8500 GT sparkle 512mb + 1-2 gigs of ram with a PT4 with HT(2.79GHZ)? at like a 30+ minimum fps since the guy above can run it on a PT3 and a 6200? and playable on normal- high settings even low if the fps is a constant 20-30+ minimum
 
Hey Dell, with my BFG 6200, i can run COD4 at 1024x768 normal to high settings, with NO AA and get between 16-30fps. It does struggle in some spots tho, depending on where i am at, it will drop down to 10fps, but go back up to 16 and 30. So pretty good.

Now you using a P4, with 2.79ghz, hell you should be able to run the game at normal to high settings, maybe with AAX2 at 1024x768 or 1280x1024 all the same without AAX2, and get between 30-50.

Btw, you said 8500GT 512MB, PCIE OR PCI?
For PCI there is only has 256MB as the 8500GT, or are you talking about the 8400GS?
 
Looks like I will have to pull out that Sparkle PCI 8500GT 256MB and run some benchmarks, because there is no way in hell Crysis is even half-playable at 1024x768 with a PCI HD2400Pro and a P3 for a CPU on medium settings.

A Core 2 Duo CPU at 1.6Ghz and a 8400M GS 128MB DDR3 on my friend's Dell XPS M1330 is barely playable with the game on Low settings at 1280x800. Considering the differences in CPU power between the two machines (factor of 10 anyone ?) and the fact that laptop's GPU is using 16 PCI-E lanes and not PCI, it is not very likely that the P3 can do anywhere near that.
 
direwolf007 said:
Looks like I will have to pull out that Sparkle PCI 8500GT 256MB and run some benchmarks, because there is no way in hell Crysis is even half-playable at 1024x768 with a PCI HD2400Pro and a P3 for a CPU on medium settings.
A Core 2 Duo CPU at 1.6Ghz and a 8400M GS 128MB DDR3 on my friend's Dell XPS M1330 is barely playable with the game on Low settings at 1280x800. Considering the differences in CPU power between the two machines (factor of 10 anyone ?) and the fact that laptop's GPU is using 16 PCI-E lanes and not PCI, it is not very likely that the P3 can do anywhere near that.
Click to expand...

Just a couple things right quick.

I will post pictures soon, with that displayinfo infomation on the screen and prove to you that the game at all medium settings , um shadows on low( shadows are dumb ) at 1024x768 and i still get 13-27fps.

Btw, this is the info from my 2400HD
........
[ PCI Express 1.0 x16: ATI Radeon HD 2400 (RV610) ]

Graphics Processor Properties:
Video Adapter ATI Radeon HD 2400 (RV610)
BIOS Version 010.059.000.004.000000
BIOS Date 12/11/07 04:31
GPU Code Name RV610
Part Number 113-AB19003-100-IT
PCI Device 1002-94CC / 1545-3250 (Rev 00)
Transistors 180 million
Process Technology 65 nm
Die Size 82 mm2
Bus Type PCI Express 1.0 x16 @ x1
Memory Size 256 MB
GPU Clock 520 MHz (original: 525 MHz)
RAMDAC Clock 400 MHz
Pixel Pipelines 4
TMU Per Pipeline 1
Unified Shaders 40 (v4.0)
DirectX Hardware Support DirectX v10
Pixel Fillrate 2080 MPixel/s
Texel Fillrate 2080 MTexel/s

Memory Bus Properties:
Bus Type DDR2
Bus Width 64-bit
Real Clock 396 MHz (DDR2) (original: 400 MHz)
Effective Clock 800 MHz
Bandwidth 6336 MB/s

Miscellaneous:
Fan Speed 30%
Utilization 11%

ATI PowerPlay (BIOS):
State #1 GPU: 525 MHz, Memory: 400 MHz (Boot)
State #2 GPU: 525 MHz, Memory: 400 MHz (OverDrive)
State #3 GPU: 525 MHz, Memory: 400 MHz



And last check out some videos using my 6200
Fraps decreases performance of course.

http://www.youtube.com/u2konline
 
It says 4fps or 5fps or 7 or 6fps, because i am recording at 1024x768 low to medium when i was using the 6200. I get between 10-20fps tho, but using fraps it decreases fraps if you didn't know.
 
Alright here are some benchmarks that proof that my computer can handle crysis, also the game is not that much demanding like people say. Benchmarks using my 2400HD DirectX10 PCI card, and i did not OC my card. Even tho i can with ease, from 519/396 to 600/450 and temps won't even touch 50c.

Nevertheless, tested with 102x768, antialiasing X2, everything almost on medium settings, so medium to low. Getting about 8-20fps. Plays pretty decent and very smooth at times. :) Without antialiasingX2, at 1024x768 everything to low to medium i get around 14-28fps now.

Menu Screens:

Around 20-64fps at the menu screen:
http://i39.tinypic.com/f5544h.jpg

Around 100-999fps at the loading settings
http://i43.tinypic.com/289cthw.jpg

With AAX2 1024x768 everything low to medium

http://c83.cc/images/j0f0ep6cytdtfo54zr8w.jpg
http://c83.cc/images/iqrkcjd2dg27ku0bxvwl.jpg
http://c83.cc/images/a9l3s9ql03gncx66df9i.jpg
http://c83.cc/images/jncziixfdq82fgry7s3r.jpg

Without AAX2 1024x768 everything low to medium
http://c83.cc/images/fmjj4qr0e42dzbu9sl.jpg
http://c83.cc/images/z5whai4opjmbwu4y18t.jpg
http://c83.cc/images/curln5muovu96r03f6g9.jpg
http://c83.cc/images/c9xaliurism41rixb44v.jpg

None of this wouldn't even be possible with the help of the 2400HD card.
Crysis runs pretty decent for my rig.

Nevertheless, for this rig my Pentium III, i am upgrading to a 8400GS 512MB BFG from the 6200(which i plan to keep for backup) & for my secondary rig when i buy the Gateway/Intel Pentium Dual Core 2.4ghz i will use the visiontek2400HD, until i am able to get the 8500GT or 8600GT or even the 9500GT.

I plan to continue using PCI until they stop making them, but will always them for my older rig and when they stop making them, i will move on to PCIE for my newer rig.
 
I am still trying to see where precisely are you getting your reported numbers from. With AA, your max FPS seems to be 10-11, without AA it seems to be something like 15. Saying you are getting about 8-20 FPS when your average is around the 9 FPS mark is seriously skewing the results in favor of your claim.

Neither resolution is playable for you, you aren't getting the FPS you claim to get (even in your own pictures and videos !) my point is made, and we can move on. I'll still run these benchmarks with my main rig with the PCI8500GT pulled out of the HTPC to make sure the subject stays dead.
 
direwolf007 said:
I am still trying to see where precisely are you getting your reported numbers from. With AA, your max FPS seems to be 10-11, without AA it seems to be something like 15. Saying you are getting about 8-20 FPS when your average is around the 9 FPS mark is seriously skewing the results in favor of your claim.

Neither resolution is playable for you, you aren't getting the FPS you claim to get (even in your own pictures and videos !) my point is made, and we can move on. I'll still run these benchmarks with my main rig with the PCI8500GT pulled out of the HTPC to make sure the subject stays dead.
Click to expand...

LOL you still don't believe me haha. You said that i was lying and i couldn't play it at all, but as you can i prove you wrong , as well as other folks who thought i was lying on other forums.

In the second photo without aa i get 20fps, thats proven. Now with AAX2, i get around 28fps max , but the reason you don't see it in the photos, because i only get them in certain spots within the game. The demo is long, i will post only 2 more tomorrow with the highest fps which i get.

You can do your benchmarks all you want, but i have already proven to you, that it works on my rig, pretty good which i might add. Crysis should run even better with the same 2400hd on my new rig , which is going to be a Intel pentium dual core with 2.4ghz , with 3GB of ram. And whenever i get the 8500gt myself or the 8600gt it should really good. The point being, PCI cards are cool, not as powerful as AGP or pcie, but still cool and i support them.

peace
 
Tha General said:
LOL you still don't believe me haha. You said that i was lying and i couldn't play it at all, but as you can i prove you wrong , as well as other folks who thought i was lying on other forums.

In the second photo without aa i get 20fps, thats proven. Now with AAX2, i get around 28fps max , but the reason you don't see it in the photos, because i only get them in certain spots within the game. The demo is long, i will post only 2 more tomorrow with the highest fps which i get.

You can do your benchmarks all you want, but i have already proven to you, that it works on my rig, pretty good which i might add. Crysis should run even better with the same 2400hd on my new rig , which is going to be a Intel pentium dual core with 2.4ghz , with 3GB of ram. And whenever i get the 8500gt myself or the 8600gt it should really good. The point being, PCI cards are cool, not as powerful as AGP or pcie, but still cool and i support them.

peace
Click to expand...

You are lying - because even if you get 28 fps max - you are still getting under playable on your average results, and under 10 avg fps with AA enabled - this is all in your shots !

This does not qualify as playable, this doesn't qualify as "pretty good", this qualifies as "epic fail". You can harp your max FPS all day long, but your average FPS isn't anywhere near playable and the fact you keep harping your max just shows how desperate you are to skew the results in your favor - and skewing the results in your favor might be an elegant way of lying - but it is still lying.
 
By the way. If I remember correctly, the Crysis built in console reporting tool gives out the FPS in the following format:

<avg> (<min> .. <max>)

Is this correct ?
 
Tha General said:
Nevertheless, tested with 102x768, antialiasing X2, everything almost on medium settings, so medium to low. Getting about 8-20fps. Plays pretty decent and very smooth at times. :) Without antialiasingX2, at 1024x768 everything to low to medium i get around 14-28fps now.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are misleading people with your benchmarks. Not to sound like a broken record but you claim 14-28fps. This is not correct.

I am running a 8400gs 512Meg on a P4 3.2Gig with HT. I'm gonna run Crysis tonight and post out some *real* numbers.
 
PCIGamer said:
Yes, you are misleading people with your benchmarks. Not to sound like a broken record but you claim 14-28fps. This is not correct.

I am running a 8400gs 512Meg on a P4 3.2Gig with HT. I'm gonna run Crysis tonight and post out some *real* numbers.
Click to expand...

Thank You. I also shall post results with the Core 2 Duo E5200 at 3.8Ghz using the Sparkle PCI8500GT 256MB tomorrow so we can sort out this mess once and for all.
 
Tha General said:
It says 4fps or 5fps or 7 or 6fps, because i am recording at 1024x768 low to medium when i was using the 6200. I get between 10-20fps tho, but using fraps it decreases fraps if you didn't know.
Click to expand...

so which is it? 10-20fps or 14-28fps?

oh and this

Crysis tested with 8400GS PCI = 1280x1024 AAX2, low settings, but texture & shader on medium 20-30fps
Click to expand...

Im gonna run this test exactly as above on my P4. I should get 35-40fps right? </sarcarm>
 
direwolf007 said:
You are lying - because even if you get 28 fps max - you are still getting under playable on your average results, and under 10 avg fps with AA enabled - this is all in your shots !

This does not qualify as playable, this doesn't qualify as "pretty good", this qualifies as "epic fail". You can harp your max FPS all day long, but your average FPS isn't anywhere near playable and the fact you keep harping your max just shows how desperate you are to skew the results in your favor - and skewing the results in your favor might be an elegant way of lying - but it is still lying.
Click to expand...

ya this is correct. I would imagine facing a wall would give you a max fps close to 60.

Heck, i wasnt even going to bother with this Crysis debate because Oblivion plays poorly on my rig. 1024x768 at low settings with a whole bunch of .ini hacks is the only way i can get it playable.

I'm going to test out COD4 as well as a bonus
 
28fps is playable. Maybe its just a matter of opinion or how someone views a game, but some folks which i have talk too, said they can't stand to get 30fps in a game. If i get 15fps in crysis, which i do, or in Jericho, thats playable to me. It runs really smooth, maybe because i am not obsessed with graphics or trying to max out games.
 
Tha General said:
28fps is playable. Maybe its just a matter of opinion or how someone views a game, but some folks which i have talk too, said they can't stand to get 30fps in a game. If i get 15fps in crysis, which i do, or in Jericho, thats playable to me. It runs really smooth, maybe because i am not obsessed with graphics or trying to max out games.
Click to expand...

but you are not getting an average of 28fps in game. Thats the point.
 
I hate correcting people. Now look this, i just finish playing Crysis for an hour and 30mins and my look at my temps was at 42c.

Also, look at this, 33fps, plus 11+fps, on both photos. It quick drops however to around 9-10 after the bombing, but quickly shoots back up to 20, 30, now 33 lol. I did however put physics quality on low now, and shadow is still on lmedium. But everything else is on low, and i did not OC my card, but when i do, the game moves about 3-5% faster. I told yall, it depends on where i am at in the game, because some parts really drop, only because i have the settings on medium, the lowest it drops is 8fps, one time at 4fps lol because i blew up 2 trucks at once lol. But other then that, crysis runs ok for my rig.

http://c83.cc/images/9qal9kck99o67vzi16ip.jpg

http://c83.cc/images/op3xnk0gjv1udqv1x0f.jpg

http://c83.cc/images/z0026fh3jq3oyoo0bi.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Daniel Sims
GPUs are so bulky now that Asus is using gyroscopes to detect sagging
2
Replies
36
Views
285
harm9963
harm9963
midian182
Amazon restricts some Nvidia RTX 50 and AMD Radeon 9070 GPU sales to Prime members
Replies
6
Views
115
poohbear
P
midian182
Game developers warn GeForce RTX 4000 and 3000 owners to roll back Nvidia drivers
2
Replies
37
Views
473
All2surreal
A

Latest posts

Back