So you only have PCI slots and want to game?

[red1776]

whats logic..got to do...got to do with it...

Not exactly an answer...
I really can't think of any logical reasons not to get an LCD these days. Maybe "logical" is the key word here.

Well that about says it all Techno, with the exception of the thread starter, vnf4ultra, who got it right on the first page, the 100+ pages following have defied logic.

 

[Tha General]

Well i guess i could always check out a LCD, but i like to game at a resolution of 1280x1024. They don't have that resolution for LCD do they?

Is it pci or pci express x16.

http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/...her/PCIGraphicsCards/EVGA/512-P3-N946-LR.html

They keep changing the dates on receiving the card to sell.

Well a while back, they had a picture of the 9400gt pci , but this time they have the PCIE version, but it reads pci. But if they keep changing the dates, how is it possible for anyone to know what they have. I guess come september 1st, go to the store and see do they have it in stock.

Make sure its pci tho.

 

[treetops]

They have all the resolutions on lcd that any other monitor has.

 

[Tha General]

Question, does pcie cards have that issue where say if you are looking at a certain object or area and the fraps are at 85, but when you turn around it drops to around 11-15fps. But when you start walking and go to another area, it goes up to 100, but again when you look at something, it drops down to 20. WTF is that and does pcie cards do that, or none of that stuff exist?

I am playing this game called shadow razor unit, with my 8400gs in Vista( note vista could be a problem with the card ) max settings of course, and the fraps mostly says around 70-100fps, but it does drop to about 11-15 in certain areas, then speeds back up to around 75 or something. Its kinda annoying, because the slowdown is horrible when it does it. But it could be a vista issue, or its a pci issue.

 

[LinkedKube]

TEXTURES, PIXELS,

It happens on all cards, it depends on what you're looking at and the detail of the place, object etc. That's not uncommon at all, its been happening since the begining of gaming

 

[olefarte]

I've been following this thread for a long time, just got to say something now.

..............i am playing Warhead at 1280x1024 at low settings and i get 7-23fps. Thats playable , very smooth to me.

7-23 smooth as butter if I remember you right, somewhere. Now it's a problem when a game drops to ONLY 11fps?

I'm glad I'm not in the market for a PCI card. Are you for real? Really.

 

[Tha General]

You also got Project eden. What's your FPS in that ?

Fps limit on vista seems to be 60. Only problem there is no sound in the game, seems like a vista issue, so i will not be playing it. Max settings at 1280x1024 32bit color, i get between 20-40-60. Never drops below 20, most of the time it stays at 40-60. Not sure why i am not getting any sound tho.

7-23 smooth as butter if I remember you right, somewhere. Now it's a problem when a game drops to ONLY 11fps?

Did i say that when i was using My Pentium III?
Because in Warhead at 1280x1024 enthusiast to gamer to low settings, with my HD2400 i get between 18-35fps. 30-45fps at 1024x768 same settings.

 

[LinkedKube]

It doesnt matter if you're using a pent3 or a core 2 duo, 11fps is 11fps or did I miss something?

 

[PCIGamer]

Did i say that when i was using My Pentium III?
Because in Warhead at 1280x1024 enthusiast to gamer to low settings, with my HD2400 i get between 18-35fps. 30-45fps at 1024x768 same settings.

+

+

=

 

[Tha General]

The first photo is when i was using my Visiontek 2400 PCI, and when i was using XP drivers on Vista, which is why you see a 1.0 there, because when i use my 2400 and vista, the gpu score is 3.5. The second photo is when i was using my 8400gs shown clearly in the picture and those benchmarks i did was when i was using the 175.16 + 8400gs
http://www.overclock.net/benchmarking-software-discussion/510076-my-3dmark06-score.html

3rd photo, crysis or crysis benchmark tool doesn't mean anything.

Not sure why you posted a troll photo, when i clearly explain the above photos. I remember getting 7-23fps a while back, thats when i think i had my Pentium III. And yes it was smooth, because it didn't stay at 7 all the time.

 

[PCIGamer]

it means everything when you claim

"Because in Warhead at 1280x1024 enthusiast to gamer to low settings, with my HD2400 i get between 18-35fps. 30-45fps at 1024x768 same settings."

when clearly you do not.

 

[Tha General]

it means everything when you claim

"Because in Warhead at 1280x1024 enthusiast to gamer to low settings, with my HD2400 i get between 18-35fps. 30-45fps at 1024x768 same settings."

when clearly you do not.

Yes with my 2400hd in Xp, at 1280x1024 resolution at enthusiast to gamer to low settings, i get a solid 18-35fps and at 1024x768 same settings i get 30-45 easy.
The only settings i have on low are " Shadows, Post processing, and volumetric effects and sound "

Setting sound on low or highest doesn't do anything. Shadows on warhead decreases warhead slightly, but not as much as it does on Crysis. So i leave shadows off on warhead. Post and volumetric effects kills performance big time, so i keep it on low. If you don't know , volumetric effects controls the sky level of detail, so its best to keep it on low for best performance.

My emachine amd le-1620 is a really powerful machine, will be even better once i buy my first pcie card depending on what it is.

 

[Technochicken]

LOL! Right!

First of all, Enthusiast to Gamer to Low settings covers every single graphics setting except medium. Which one do you actually use?

If you are talking about either enthusiast or gamer that is completely ridiculous. On my 8500 gt PCI e, which, even though it is terrible, is probably better than your 2400 pci, and a phenom II X3, I get about 3 fps on gamer at 800 by 600 res. Not to mention enthusiast, at which I get a little over a frame per second at the same resolution. Withe everything low at 1280 by 1024, I get around 35 fps. But you said you only had 4 things on low, so your numbers somewhere between extremely optimistic and completely ridiculous, probably leaning towards the latter.

 

[PCIGamer]

Yes with my 2400hd in Xp, at 1280x1024 resolution at enthusiast to gamer to low settings, i get a solid 18-35fps and at 1024x768 same settings i get 30-45 easy.
The only settings i have on low are " Shadows, Post processing, and volumetric effects and sound "

Setting sound on low or highest doesn't do anything. Shadows on warhead decreases warhead slightly, but not as much as it does on Crysis. So i leave shadows off on warhead. Post and volumetric effects kills performance big time, so i keep it on low. If you don't know , volumetric effects controls the sky level of detail, so its best to keep it on low for best performance.

My emachine amd le-1620 is a really powerful machine, will be even better once i buy my first pcie card depending on what it is.

A rig that pulls 644 3dmarks, run Crysis Warhead at 30-45fps "easy"

LMFAO

:haha:

 

[LinkedKube]

My pc runs crysis at that resolution with 65 fps, to think you can achieve half that is beyond my wasted money that's at least 7x more than tha generals. Someone go show these benches to the many people with pci e cards so they can evaluate their purchases.

 

[Tha General]

I can't show anyone anything now, because well i am using my 8400gs, however here is a shot from a while ago:

https://www.techspot.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/3510

Around that time, 17-30fps, it does drop to 15 when fighting, but overall stays above 17 95% of the time. Stays around 23-30fps most of the time tho. Runs just fine. I notice putting volmetic effects on low settings really does incresae performance, and if you put it on higher it kills performance. Something about the sky detail is more demanding then textures or objects, which i have on gamer settings.

On another note, i am finally buying a new card very soon, a pcie card. So i will see how crysis runs once i get it. Most likely i am buying a 9500GT GDDR3 XFX card

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4311526&CatId=1826

I read that it has 25GB of bandwidth or 52gb, but i think its 25GB. Should be a great card for my first pcie card over the 8400gs and 2400

 

[LinkedKube]

Well ThaGen how much are you willing to spend, there are many cards that will perform better for cheap, and not including rebates.

 

[LinkedKube]

OH btw thageneral I've just purchased a 8400gs, it would be worth the results to prove or disapprove your results here. If I cant achieve the things you've posted about with an i7@4.5ghz then there's no way you can.

 

[red1776]

OH btw thageneral I've just purchased a 8400gs, it would be worth the results to prove or disapprove your results here. If I cant achieve the things you've posted about with an i7@4.5ghz then there's no way you can.

Oh this is gonna be good!...go super!

Someone go show these benches to the many people with pci e cards so they can evaluate their purchases.

I agree, as someone who has gone triple crossfire 4850's, 3 teraflop, 2400 SPU's, mach three with my hair on fire to play Crysis/Warhead on enthusiast at playable frame rates, Tha's results are preposterous.

 

[LinkedKube]

I agree, my results currently with a 295 on the same settings were unexpected I admit, and yet still not comparative to thagenerals results, even unclocking.

 

[Tha General]

OH btw thageneral I've just purchased a 8400gs, it would be worth the results to prove or disapprove your results here. If I cant achieve the things you've posted about with an i7@4.5ghz then there's no way you can.

Why did you buy a 8400gs?
How much did you pay for it?
Which brand is it?
Is it PCI or pcie?

Well ThaGen how much are you willing to spend, there are many cards that will perform better for cheap, and not including rebates.

I don't buy cards that require power connectors, and i am buying a Diamond 1GB 4650 and a 9500gt gddr3 card, and for my secondary rig i am buying a 9800gt Low power card and a Visiontek 1gb 4670.
Those cards will be just fine.

 

[Technochicken]

Why two cards for each? Seems a bit of a waste.

 

[Tha General]

Why two cards for each? Seems a bit of a waste.

I like both ati and nvidia the same and i support them, so i always buy more then one card. And if one card doesn't work well with a few or couple games, thats why i have another card. Also i like buying more then one card, and most of the time when i buy one card, i always buy another one soon after. And last, good for backups.

 

[LinkedKube]

Why did you buy a 8400gs?
How much did you pay for it?
Which brand is it?
Is it PCI or pcie?



I don't buy cards that require power connectors, and i am buying a Diamond 1GB 4650 and a 9500gt gddr3 card, and for my secondary rig i am buying a 9800gt Low power card and a Visiontek 1gb 4670.
Those cards will be just fine.

The pci version and brand doesnt matter much, and it was 49 dollars. I have many aftermarket coolers for 8 series cards, including waterblocks, so any clock rate offered by one brand to another will be easy to obtain.

 

[Tha General]

The pci version and brand doesnt matter much, and it was 49 dollars. I have many aftermarket coolers for 8 series cards, including waterblocks, so any clock rate offered by one brand to another will be easy to obtain.

Ok, but do you mind telling me what brand, not saying it matter or it doesnt just curious.