X1300 and X1600 go AGP

Message

2005 · #1 Post by **2005** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 7:50 pm

Title says it all, who gives a shit

I7Iz490N · #2 Post by **I7Iz490N** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 8:04 pm

#3 Post by **palmboy5** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 8:11 pm

LOL. what a useless 'market' to enter again ^^

I7Iz490N · #4 Post by **I7Iz490N** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 8:20 pm

#5 Post by **palmboy5** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:29 pm

... what a WASTE of money, maybe the X1300, but nothing else, CPU too slow.

IM SERIOUS, do not fall in the same trap i did, just get something that balances out your system, my 6800 is a waste of money. the only thing where it can get ANY score ANYWHERE NEAR what it would with a faster system is 3dmark.

2005 · #6 Post by **2005** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 2:38 pm

He has a 3.0ghz CPU with 512kb L2 cache... I wouldn't say an x1300 is overkill.

#7 Post by **palmboy5** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:03 pm

yeah well...

palmboy5 wrote:maybe the X1300, but nothing else, CPU too slow.

now... should i get a 7800GT or a 6800GS

#8 Post by **palmboy5** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:08 pm

cuz like..
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6814130247
$304
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6814150118
$205

... ok a hundred bucks, that is NOT a similar price, is the 7800 really worth 3/2 the price??

2005 · #9 Post by **2005** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:57 pm

12 pipes with no unlockables vs 16 pipes.... look at the new benchies from thg and see for yourself. I say 7800GT.

#10 Post by **palmboy5** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 7:00 pm

thg? yeah.. i would.. but after they changed their layout, all the menu links have been buried by dual identical ads on the top

jk, that wouldnt stop me. ^^ but its a bit annoying none the less

the 7800gt is noticably faster but i wouldnt say it justifies $100 more. i dont care about bundled games

2005 · #11 Post by **2005** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 7:58 pm

The 7800GT is a big step up from the 6800GS... the GS is practically nothing more then a OCed 6800GT. Mean while the 7800GT outperforms the GS at stock by a fair margin, overclocked and the GT is an easy decision... and I think the 7800GT has pixel shader version 3.0 which from what I've read is a vast improvement over pixel shader 2.0

Its up to you, but personally when my new computer is built this march it will have a 7800GT.

EDIT: It seems that the GS was not benchmarked in the newest VGA testing for winter 2005. But when comparing the clockspeeds from the GS are 425/1000 and the GT are 350/1000, but the GT is Open GL 2.0 vs the GS's 1.5. SO I wouldnt expect THAT much difference between the GS and GT, in fact I think the GT would outperfom espically at higher resoultions due to the 4 extra pixel pipelines (doesnt the GT have 4 software locked or is that the nilla im thinking of). Now when we move to the 7800GT we get an extra 4 pipes vs the GT and 8 more vs the GS. Its stock clock speeds range from 400/1000 to 475/1100 depending on card maker. I think the choice is clear

#12 Post by **palmboy5** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:40 pm

from what i read 3.0 has nearly no difference over 2.0

OpenGL.. i think my old radeon 9100 has 2.0, when i was looking at the 6800 i asked ppl about it only having 1.5 and concluded that it has no useful difference. the last OpenGL game i played was old CS..

ur thinking nilla, which is a GT with only DDR memory and 4 disabled pipes.

XFX 6800GS stock speeds are 485/1100

yeah the pipe things are a big arguing factor, im REALLY 'iffy' about how much of a difference it really makes. i discussed with others that had the 6800 nilla and unlocking those pipes had zero improvement for any of them. and a negative effect on me, mine artifacted so badly....

2005 · #13 Post by **2005** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:27 am

Either way at 1600x1200 the GS wont be able to keep up... 12 pipes vs 20. I like the 7800GT better but its up to you, and thats odd because I've never heard of a case where the unlocked pipes didnt make a difference.. did you damage them or OC that card???.

#14 Post by **palmboy5** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:05 pm

did I damage them? no, i was one of the unlucky ones to get a core that deserved to be a nilla. but i didnt care because others who were able to unlock them saw no improvements

what kind of FPS do all those cards get at 1600x1200 in say.. FEAR? i cant take anything below 60. even if the GT pulls futher ahead in 1600x1200, it still isnt 60+, and i therefore will refuse to play at that resolution, high res comparison is null. i favor smoothness over sharpness as long as it doesnt go below 1024x768

Winter 2005 charts doesnt seem to have a 1600x1200 benchmark of FEAR without AA and AF so i dont know.. but with AA and AF, looks like every single card got owned.. 38fps for GTX SLI? LOL.

i recall that you planned to get an LCD thats 1280x1024, well thats not 1600x1200..

poor ATI.. theyre getting ignored, but thats kinda their fault, they got PWNED in FEAR, just look at it! look where the X850XT PE is, and the X1800 XT

LOL dragon, the X1300 got 12fps at 1024x768 in FEAR.

2005 · #15 Post by **2005** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:52 pm

No im not getting an LCD anymore.. still good ole CRT viewsonic 19" for 220$. It will do 1600x1200... and the reason those cards got pwned by fear at 1600x1200 is probably because of that one setting (bloom I think??).. alot of cards refuse to run it at all at that res.