New Vid Card Questions

[RawDog]

Hey Guys!
I'm new here and love L4d!

Anyways I just got a new Video Card for my aging AGP system, so anyways before I had a Nvidia 6600 GT in my system and it was good for about 2 years ago but now most games run like shit and if I want to see L4D in full detail I need to upgrade!
so i got this:
http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools /item-details.asp?EdpNo=3013023&CatId=2234
A Nvidia AGP 7950 GT 512MB card.
And now my questions:
Just answer as many as you can, I'm upon to multiple anwsers

1. I play games like Counter Strike: Source, Doom 3, Company of Heroes, and Battlefield 2, will I be able to run these games on high detail with this new card? My system specs: AMD Athlon 64 Processor 3400+ 2.42Ghz and 1GB of RAM

2. Is it going to be a big difference? Like compared to my 6600GT am I going to notice it or is it going to do nothing at all?

3. Is it good enough to last a year or two? It's just temporary as i'm currently half way through my SLi PC but I need money lol.

Thanks everyone for your help, I hope to play L4D with some of you one day!

PS don't brag about some dumb fucking shit about your comp.

[frogopus]

Sounds like we have almost the same rig (before your upgrade at least). I run on a 6600GT (looking to upgrade towards the end of Summer) but I play most of those game on quite high detail as it is. CS:S I know I run maxed, and all those games have run quite well. But yeah, things are certainly not looking their best anymore and I need to upgrade too.

I can't imagine you not seeing a difference with the card, especially as more games will require the larger memories (my 6600 is only the 128mb).

[squerl]

You'll be able to run L4D fine with that card.. depending on what resolution you run on don't know how much AA/AF you'll be able to enable.

[RawDog]

Same here mines 128 MB, I can run most games at medium detail, it's good... but I want to run my comp to look at least the same as a 360 or better because I want this card to last..

[RawDog]

Sorry for DoubleP

Do you think my new card will run the source engine on max or high because I'm looking to run it on max, ofcourse I don't have it yet I ordered it and it takes or week or something.

[squerl]

It depends on what you mean by "max". If you mean max as in all of the settings at "high" then yes. If you mean max as in having full AA and AF, I don't think so. If you're playing on a normal size monitor you won't really notice a difference anyway.

[RawDog]

well right about know I got my source games running on all high but no AA/AF, I'm looking to get all my textures up and AF with this new card, I don't need AA i don't like it either. I got a 22' widescreen, its alright i usually run it at like 1400x1200 or something i can't remember, I'm just wondering if games like Battlefield 2 and Company of Heroes, and Call of Juarez and stuff like that will be on max, or atleast really high.

[No Shelter]

Ok guys step aside. I for one have the same card. I can run all sources games high with the AA/AF and yes you can. BF2 I have all high and runs fine. I can even run CoH on high and be fine. World in conflict, high with AA/AF, bloom, the whole thing. The card is the one below a 8800 I suppose.

Edit: Anymore questions to ask me before you get the card, just ask away.

[Deadly]

i just bought a new video card a day ago, went from nvidia geforce 6600 to 8600 so i hope i will be able to run it

[No Shelter]

8600? Dude of course you can lmao

[Puscifer]

I think u should be able to run it fine, but i think u will have boarderline fps with all settings/resolution on high...???

How do u guys think it will run on:

AMD Athalon X 2 dduel core 2.21 ghz

2gig of ram

SLI Nvidia 7600 gs

???

[No Shelter]

Perfect, dont worry about you puscifer.

[Puscifer]

thats good then:) thought it would be ok, but u never no with all the source updates and the amount of infected on screen etc...

[dontleave]

PS don't brag about some dumb fucking shit about your comp.

My comp pwnz you. 8800GTX, AMD X2 4400+, 37" Wide screen... oh yeah.

1. You probably will, the processor is going to get old too, I don't think RAM is a problem, if you do experience sluggishness its like 78 bucks for another gig... And for L4D at its fullest you'd want atleast Dual Core processor.

2. Big difference. Yes...

3. It'll last you a year or two, it depends if you want to play DX10 exclusive games though, or want to play with DX10 then you need a card that supports it. But so far im pretty sure Crysis is one of the only DX10 exclusive games. Unless you actually want Halo 2... (It sucked on Xbox so we're making it for PC to milk customers until another crappy game comes out (Halo 3))

Good luck with the SLi computer, hope I have it running by the time you do. And vista... :P Vista.

well right about know I got my source games running on all high but no AA/AF, I'm looking to get all my textures up and AF with this new card, I don't need AA i don't like it either. I got a 22' widescreen, its alright i usually run it at like 1400x1200 or something i can't remember, I'm just wondering if games like Battlefield 2 and Company of Heroes, and Call of Juarez and stuff like that will be on max, or atleast really high.

You'll play all of those on high except maybe Call of Juarez. Im not sure, it's featuring DX10 also. Im not sure if its native to the game like Crysis or if you can choose but obviously DX9 is not as high as it can go if there's DX10.

You can probably run everything else on high, an extra gig of ram would help, im not sure you should buy another processor just now if you're going to save for 2 years. Btw, 7950 will run EVERYTHING on CS:S on high, even AA, which is a good thing, I don't know why you dont like it.

Just throwing this in there, again you might want a faster CPU for L4D, and more ram considering the kind of game it is. Source right now already stresses old processors, and with like 40 zombies on screen well...

[Teknobry]

I'd buy another gig of RAM, bf2 doesn't run to well on my desktop system with just 1gig.

$78 for 1gig of RAM?

I paid £58 ($100?) for 2 x1gb Low latency DDR2 800mhz RAM.

[dontleave]

Well im in Canada, everything costs a good 20 bucks more, and in Futurshop it costs a good 20 bucks more than the first 20 bucks.

[hool10]

That 1GB of RAM is going to bottleneck things. Just hold off buying things for your old system and overclock it. Save your money for the new computer jeez.

[Deadly]

i have amd athalon 64, do you think that will be enough? also a gig of ram

[No Shelter]

I found a 1000mb something stick of DDR2 Ram for like 50 bucks.

[Arkeneaver]

my systems fairly average. Im currently waiting for the amd Barcelona series and the new nvidia series or... ATI if they release the 2900XTX some time soon. Nvidia boasts 1 trillion floating point calculations with the new 9 series. If thats true, i say bring it on. That kind of power will last you through about 3 years of DX10 use.

Current system is:
AMD 4200 dual core = 2.21 ghz
2gb OCZ 800mhz gold edition RAM
gigabyte AM2 590 chipset (can handle 16GB of RAM so should last a little while)
XV Geforce 7900gs overclocked

the good news is, is that the new quad cores soon to come out are compatible with my mobo, and if the new graphics cards are going to be 80nm rather then 90nm... ill be able to fit them into my case. I can fit an 8800gts but their not worth the money now as they've been out too long and a new product line will be out soon so itll be worth my while to wait for it.

[bub]

I have an ati 1900 xt but only a single core cpu do i really need a dual core for l4d or episode 2? My current cpu is a 3.0 ghz pentium d.

[A DUCK]

Someone mind explaining what the main difference in DX9 and DX10 is? I havnt played any games in DX10 yet. Is it just like way better gameplay/graphics?

[No Shelter]

This is DX9

http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/13/0,1425,sz=1&i=133378,00.jpg

This is DX10


http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/13/0,1425,sz=1&i=133379,00.jpg



Edit: Shit thats huge!

[dontleave]

I'd like to point out the water...

[bub]

http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=19965&ty pe=mov (http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=19965&type=mov) this is a better comparison.

[Quotidius]

Err, that's a concept shot. Created by the devs to showcase the graphics that "will" be featured in the DX10 version. The water isn't real.

Edit: and even if I didn't know this, just looking at the water gives it away. Not only is it blurred, it's far too detailed to be rendered by any contemporary hardware.

[Zombie Ade]

... but I want to run my comp to look at least the same as a 360 or better ....

You`ll find you really need a G80 model ( ie the 8800 Geforces ) to get near Xbox 360 standards.
I recently upgraded from a 7950 to an 8800 GTX OC2 , its only now that my PC comes close to looking like the 360. ( And this is with a Dual Core 6600 too, and 4Gb of RAM )

Someone correct me if I`m wrong, but I think the 360 has an ATI graphics chipset, and I believe it contains some DX10 architecture. Not all the features, as I think DX10 was still in development at the time the 360 was released.

Example, I had Marvel Ultimate Alliance on the PC, with the graphics on max ( so it looked as near to the 360 as possible ) and it would not run smoothly at all.
Only now, with the 8800 does it equal the 360 - same with Spiderman 3. But even Spiderman 3 is not as smooth as the 360 at full detail.

Another example is the Colin McCrae Dirt demo. On the PC now, I can run it at 1680x1050 with 16x AA and 16x anisotropic filtering, and at ULTRA detail.
The only time I get a bit of slowdown is on the start of the buggy race where you have about 10 other cars on the track. On the 360 the game is smooth from the start. But I think that is down to the DX10 features that the 360 has access too. Dirt on the PC is DX9, so wont take advantage of the 20% speed increase offered by the optimised DX10 API.
If Dirt was written especially for DX10 on the PC, I think my PC would now outperform the 360.

I have the Lost Planet DX10 PC Demo, and have owned the game on 360. The PC version runs at 60fps with all bells and whistles , and looks identical to the 360 version. So, when a game is written exclusively for DX10 and you have a G80 card, then and only then do I think you could come close to the 360.

Any other tech heads here agree? I`ve not read anything on the net to back up my theory, but thats the way I see it. I`m open to correction as my views are just an educated guess on why the PC cant outperform the 360 ( well, until now anyway )

[No Shelter]

^^ Duh.. I didn't feel like looking at gametrailers to get some of their comparisons. Thanks bub. Just look at Crysis for some DX10.

[Quotidius]

If Dirt was written especially for DX10 on the PC, I think my PC would now outperform the 360.

DiRT à la PC already outperforms the 360.

^^ Duh.. I didn't feel like looking at gametrailers to get some of their comparisons. Thanks bub. Just look at Crysis for some DX10.

Hah, I love it when people go "duh, I totally knew it wasn't real". No offense.

[Zombie Ade]

DiRT à la PC already outperforms the 360.

I imagine you`ll need a quad core CPU and an 8800 to see that then!
Better graphics dont mean a thing if the framerate cant stay above 30!

Dirt on my PC is probably slightly better looking than the 360, but you pay the price in framerate on the tracks that involve other cars, whereas the 360 keeps a smooth framerate at all times.

[Quotidius]

I imagine you`ll need a quad core CPU and an 8800 to see that then!

Sorry to break your bubble, but the Xbox 360 is and has been outperformed by PCs for some time. I don't have anything against the machine - I happen to own one, and I enjoy playing on it.

Better graphics dont mean a thing if the framerate cant stay above 30!

When I say 'outperform' I refer to performance, not graphics.

Dirt on my PC is probably slightly better looking than the 360, but you pay the price in framerate on the tracks that involve other cars, whereas the 360 keeps a smooth framerate at all times.

The fact that the 360 runs it at a more stable rate cannot be attributed to the supposed inferiority of the PC. Your rig may be insufficient, or you simply haven't adjusted the in-game settings. Surely you realize that optimizing for the PC is a more complex and arbitrary matter than for the 360?

Edit:

but I think the 360 has an ATI graphics chipset, and I believe it contains some DX10 architecture.

That is incorrect. The 360 doesn't support D3D10. Shame, really.

[RawDog]

sorry for a long reply here, right now this is just a card that i want to last a couples years with a good run (running games good quality), and that video comparison of crysis, the DX10 doesn't even look that much better, DX9 still pwns, but im guna wait a bit for vista and DX10 cuz there's some serious glitches and driver problems with DX10, and I don't feel I should deal with them just yet. Plus this is the best AGP card out there as you can't get higher then the 7950 Gt in an AGP system.

[Zombie Ade]

Sorry to break your bubble, but the Xbox 360 is and has been outperformed by PCs for some time.I don't have anything against the machine - I happen to own one, and I enjoy playing on it.

What spec PC will outperform an Xbox 360 then? Especially from a while ago - as i said in my post, its only with my current spec PC that I`ve seen anything come close to the 360 graphics and performance. I mentioned Marvel Ultimate Alliance , which is a prime example. When I had the 7950 card and the dual core it still wouldnt run as well as the 360 one when the graphics were set to the same detail that you get on the 360.
I know I sound like an Xbox fanboy, but I have no allegience to any console. I just buy them all , simply due to the titles available - ie , youre not going to get Metal Gear Solid on the Xbox or Halo on the PS3.

The fact that the 360 runs it at a more stable rate cannot be attributed to the supposed inferiority of the PC. Your rig may be insufficient, or you simply haven't adjusted the in-game settings. Surely you realize that optimizing for the PC is a more complex and arbitrary matter than for the 360?

I dont think for one minute the PC is inferior to the Xbox 360, especially if you have the money for a top-end system. My rig certainly isnt insufficient, its simply only just caught up with the current gen consoles. Consoles always had the edge on PC`s at first, but the PC always catches up and even takes over in about 12 months.

That is incorrect. The 360 doesn't support D3D10. Shame, really.

No, it doesnt support DX10, not the version that you get with Vista. However, the hardware ( ie the ATI graphics chipset ) pioneered some of the DX10 hardware , like the unified shader. Read this article http://www.techreport.com/etc/2005q2/xbox360-gpu/i ndex.x?pg=1 (http://www.techreport.com/etc/2005q2/xbox360-gpu/index.x?pg=1)

"Feldstein cited several major areas of innovation where the Xbox 360 GPU breaks new ground. The first of those is the chip's unified shader array, which does away with separate vertex and pixel shaders in favor of 48 parallel shaders capable of operating on data for both pixels and vertices" - from the article

This is why its only with the G80 cards that you are starting to see the PC surpass the PS3 and XBOX360. Especially since with Vista you get the full features of DX10, not the `cut-down prototype` DX10 on the 360.


PS - Hope I`m not coming across as trying to start a major argument! I`m all up for some debating, but I`m not out to cause any bad feelings Quotidius. I`m more than happy to put my hands up and say I`m wrong if thats the case! :)

Anyway - must get to bed, gotta be up at 6am! Any errors in my post, I`ll put down to tiredness!!

[fatalslaughter]

The Source Engine is very CPU dependent. I'm not sure if they are multi-threading L4D...but you're gonna want a decent CPU to control all of the A.I. on the screen.

I'm running a X1950PRO, and X2 3800 OC'd to 2.5ghz....it handles all of the source games flawlessly with all of the AA/AF maxed.

[KashMunni]

man Crysis just looks so amazing :O

[Quotidius]

as the 360 one when the graphics were set to the same detail that you get on the 360.

Seeing as there is no obvious way of determining whether or not the settings are "identical" between the two versions, I'd say that's impossible.

Especially since with Vista you get the full features of DX10, not the `cut-down prototype` DX10 on the 360.

Which only fortifies my point; the 360 doesn't support D3D10 to the same extent as the 8800 GTX (Or any other contemporary GPU that supports D3D10).

but I`m not out to cause any bad feelings Quotidius.

Heh, don't fret! I simply find this an interesting subject :)

[Arkeneaver]

If im not mistaken... the 360 uses an ATI graphics card with unified shader technology. The graphics card uses 512mb RAM and so can substantially produce some nice eye-candy without problems... however, this graphics card is DX9 capable and by no means is it compatible with DX10 or anything above DX9 (c) for that matter. There is a problem with this card. The unified shaders it uses are not very efficient. The Nvidia 7 series can easily match the memory bandwidth of the 360 and in actual fact the 7900 gtx onwards have much higher floating points.

There are other factors when considering performance between the PC and Xbox 360. For a start, the 360 only has 512mb RAM, thus can only achieve 16 players online at any one time. Any more then that on an up to date game would cause noticeable lagg. This is a huge disadvantage thus giving a PC superiority in major online gaming. However, due to the obsessive use of CPU cores, it is capable of using a huge number of AI characters and generating advanced physics. The only advantage to this is for simulation games where physics is really concentrated on, as these CPU cores take the role of physix processors. As such, car simulation games are terrible on your average PC.

You must also consider the fact that all 360's are exactly the same in every way (components wise) thus the games created can be perfected in every way acording to the hardware intergrated within the xbox. This gives the 360 an advantage for most reasons.
1. all CPU cores, RAM and video card memory can be used to its limits
2.Smooth gameplay can be achieved as optimization is much simpler for an 360 to an extent (the 6 CPU cores make it hard to optimize certain games)
3.you have no control over the display settings for games on an xbox, which allows for "Plug and Play" action without worrying with performance issues

But all these advantages are because a 360 is built for games. A PC is a multimedia center built for everything and no console could compete against that without becoming a Personal Computer themselves.

To conclude, the PC has a much higher performance and graphics capability, this is due to having access to upgradeable parts 24/7.
In reality, the 360 was outmatched the moment it was released, as long as someone, somewhere bought the latest upgradeable components at that time.

[Quotidius]

You must also consider the fact that all 360's are exactly the same in every way (components wise) thus the games created can be perfected in every way acording to the hardware intergrated within the xbox. This gives the 360 an advantage for most reasons.
1. all CPU cores, RAM and video card memory can be used to its limits
2.Smooth gameplay can be achieved as optimization is much simpler for an 360 to an extent (the 6 CPU cores make it hard to optimize certain games)
3.you have no control over the display settings for games on an xbox, which allows for "Plug and Play" action without worrying with performance issues

Pretty much what I said, but more succinctly.

[Arkeneaver]

lol

i thought i should include what u said... it made sense lol

[Zombie Ade]

Seeing as there is no obvious way of determining whether or not the settings are "identical" between the two versions, I'd say that's impossible.

I agree there, you cant really see the AA settings on the 360, I think its only 4x though.
My 8800 handles 16x with little performance hit.
I know you cant compare settings exactly, but what I was getting at is that its only now ( with an 8800 card ) that a PC cant perform similarly to the 360.

Which only fortifies my point; the 360 doesn't support D3D10 to the same extent as the 8800 GTX (Or any other contemporary GPU that supports D3D10).

Again, youre not wrong, but you also fortify my point with this! Which is that its taken a G80 card with full DX10 features to outperform the 360!

Anyways, interesting conversation Quotidius, you may find these couple of links here an interesting read. Especially the second one comparing the PS3 to the 360, some information there that I wasnt aware of! ( Scroll down the posts and look for the looong one that was split into two posts I think its actually the last one)

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/24/xbox-360-cant-ru n-directx-10-confirms-ati/ (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/24/xbox-360-cant-run-directx-10-confirms-ati/)

http://xbox360.qj.net/Unreal-Tournament-3-will-be- DirectX10-Optimized/pg/49/aid/92295 (http://xbox360.qj.net/Unreal-Tournament-3-will-be-DirectX10-Optimized/pg/49/aid/92295)

[Puscifer]

im curious, how does the power of an xbox 360 stand up to my rig?...

i have:

AMD Athalon x 2 2.21ghz

2gig of ram

Nvidia SLI 7600gs

...???

[Arkeneaver]

the fact that you have more RAM and a more "up to date" graphics card, your pc is capable of alot more then a 360.