cleeve
Illustrious
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
If you could get me that Vegas benchy with ye ole xp2500+ cpu that would be MOST APPRECIATED!
i'm sorry dude, I would have accomodated you but as soon as I had finished that review I sold the system, it was my personal property and I didn't think I'd have a need for it again...
Nightowl42
Distinguished
- Jan 3, 2007
- 4
- 0
- 18,510
Thanks for the answer Cleeve. I still look forward to your next article as it will be on a system much closer to my own.
Definitely let us know! That's pretty much my setup, and I was planning to go from 512 to 1gig RAM and get a 9800 pro. I'd be very interested in seeing what a difference that makes for you
yeah, no problem. i'll either let you know via PM or another post on here.
I'll be playing half life 2, cs:s, doom3, quake 4, and maybe the fear expansion pack (if the demo doesnt lag too bad). I dont know if i'll run any 3dmarks but i will let you know resolution, textures, settings ,etc.
I have to clean out my system though, it has been freezing randomly ever since i ran the new steam update as well as cleaned up the inside wires and such to accomodate my new card.
How ironic is it that 3 years ago I was drooling over the 9800 for $349, and now i buy it for $50. regardless, it's still an exciting time for this poor college kid.
miahallen
Distinguished
- Oct 2, 2002
- 572
- 0
- 18,990
Thanks for the great write up Cleeve! I run the 939Dual-SATA2 mobo, and have had a Radeon 9700pro since it was first released. I loaded up Oblivion for the first time last night, and I was pleasently surpised how much I was getting. Anyhow, I've been contemplating upgrading to a newer AGP, and saving the PCIe slot for DX10 in another year or so. But, alas...my wife said I could spoil myself for my birthday this month (plus she didn't get me a Christmas present) and I ordered an 8800 GTX last week. I'm looking forward to that. 
I'm also writing a review, just for sh!ts and giggles, comparing the first DX9 and DX10 cards on the market. I'm pretty curious what a major arcituctural change and 5 years does to graphics performance. 8)
I'm also writing a review, just for sh!ts and giggles, comparing the first DX9 and DX10 cards on the market. I'm pretty curious what a major arcituctural change and 5 years does to graphics performance. 8)
titan_tgforumz
Distinguished
- Jan 13, 2007
- 24
- 0
- 18,510
Why isn't Company of Heroes included? It is a super fun game, it has cutting edge graphics, and it isn't other FPS.
CoH has a 94/93% average rating on Game Ranking/Metacritic so I'm not the only person who thinks it is awesome. I've got an old AGP system I need to upgrade to play CoH and this review was almost exactly what I was looking for. 🙁
CoH has a 94/93% average rating on Game Ranking/Metacritic so I'm not the only person who thinks it is awesome. I've got an old AGP system I need to upgrade to play CoH and this review was almost exactly what I was looking for. 🙁
miahallen
Distinguished
- Oct 2, 2002
- 572
- 0
- 18,990
There was a link on page 2 to a firing squad article, it includes Company of Heroes. Check it out http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/powercolor_radeon_x1950_pro_agp_review/page13.asp. This is on the nForce3 platform with a X2 4200. They were able to get very good frame rates (55fps) even at 1920x1200 with AAx2 and AFx8. The PCIe version of the x1950pro reached 58fps on a similar nForce5 platform (same CPU). Pretty competitive if your not bottlenecked elsewhere in the system. At 1280x1024 and AAx2 AFx8 the AGP version hit 88.7fps! The only problem with the artical is they omit what settings are used within the game.
I'd still say the card has the power for the game, the only question is whether your system can keep up. Can you post your specs?
blade85
Distinguished
- Sep 19, 2006
- 1,426
- 0
- 19,280
Im no benchmarking expert so my results are in no way reliable :lol: .well i ran CoH on my system and used the in built test to see how it ran.
oh im using a E6600 with the x1950 pro AGP and 2 gigs of memory on the asrock 775 dual vsta. My memory isnt very good (pc2700...old....but didnt have any spare change left for better mem). Still its not exactly a low end agp system, so has absolutely nothing to do with cleeves work (which by the way was very well done).
If you want me to try it with any other specific settings lemme know. However my monitor is old and cant go any higher than 1280x1024, so..yeah.
Any way, this is the settings i normally play the game at.
And this is with all the in game settings set to their max.
oh im using a E6600 with the x1950 pro AGP and 2 gigs of memory on the asrock 775 dual vsta. My memory isnt very good (pc2700...old....but didnt have any spare change left for better mem). Still its not exactly a low end agp system, so has absolutely nothing to do with cleeves work (which by the way was very well done).
If you want me to try it with any other specific settings lemme know. However my monitor is old and cant go any higher than 1280x1024, so..yeah.
Any way, this is the settings i normally play the game at.
And this is with all the in game settings set to their max.
I'm curious to know if the PSU used in the article was adequate, I've read a lot of reports on other forums that the x1950 needs a lot of ampage (30A apparently) on the 12V rail, though can't find any official power requirements for the card, so I don't want to buy one only to find out I need to get a new PSU as well.
Has anyone else had problems with their PSU if they got this card?
I'll be very interested in the next article as I have a similar system and am interested in how it will perform if I were to get the card.
Has anyone else had problems with their PSU if they got this card?
I'll be very interested in the next article as I have a similar system and am interested in how it will perform if I were to get the card.
potoroo
Distinguished
- Jun 5, 2006
- 20
- 0
- 18,510
No, that was just the final straw for me, hence my frustration. I'll concede that blanket generalisation overstated the case but I stand by my point that there just seems to always be an excuse to not include it in comparos (the THG roundup being a notable exception). You've stated it didn't have a place in that specific article but since that seems to be the case generally then where does it fit? Apparently nowhere.
I don't know that I'm biased for it so much as simply recognising its current popularity. It's nice it gets listed in the "Best Buys" but unless the reader is the sort of person who'll buy it simply on THG's say so that's insufficient.
Part of what I do is mediate the results of reviews like yours for those less computer literate. IOW, I incorporate information like benchmark results from the more reliable review sites to my own knowledge base and use that to advise people when they're upgrading or replacing their systems. I'm perfectly happy to recommend a 7600GT or whatever but people with older systems typically won't be persuaded without something more concrete to go on and that's where the 7600GS's constant omission matters. I think that does reflect a subconscious bias against it. Maybe it's just not exciting enough.
The THG VGA charts are important and useful but they're based on an otherwise high end setup, so they don't address the question of "whether or not it's worthwhile it[sic] to stick a new AGP card into an older PC", yet for so many people that question matters more than "how well does a given card perform in a bleeding edge system?" The result is a big gap in the general knowledge base. Maybe that's not important to to you or THG generally but I think that would be short-sighted.
Consider that your own tests showed in some cases system limitations meant an upgrader would be best off saving $50 and buying the 7600GT because its results were effectively the same as the X1950 Pro's. Surely that argues the 7600GS should be included if only to test where the boundary lies. It's more capable than the 9700 Pro. If, for the sake of argument, those system limitations meant the 7600GS was effectively as good as the higher end cards in those same instances then that's important information (and might silence some of the sneers aimed not only at the card but those who are buying it). OTOH, if it conspicuously failed even on an older system then you'd have stronger grounds for saying it's had its time in the sun than merely "because we say so". Either way the results would matter but as things stand we don't and won't know.
cleeve
Illustrious
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
So you admit that it's off base. I'm satisfied with that, that comment colored your entire first post and I found it very unfair. Other than that I have little reason to even disagree with you.
I still think you're seeing overreacting on this point. Where would it fit? I imagine it would fit nicely in a midrange AGP roundup. Has THG done one of those recently and left it out? Nope. Hell, AGP reviews are far and few as it is, mostly because PCIe is more prevalent, the cards are cheaper and all the new boards are PCIe.
Does that mean I have a problem with a midrange AGP roundup? hells no.
Would I rather do one about the high end? Yeah, I would.
Is that because I'm biased against the midrange? No, it's frankly because I think is more interesting. it's no conspiracy, I got to submit the idea for the article, and with the release of the X1950 PRO I was curious if it was a good buy on old systems. To round out the review I included the best Geforces money could buy. Including the 7600 GS probably wouldn't have been fair for this review, for every guy like you telling me I was wrong to omit it, I'd have had four guys complaining that It wasn't fair to pit the 7600 GS against the heavyweights. no matter what we do, we're conspiring against something.
if it's insufficient for someone, it'as probably a safe bet that they are inquisitive enough to hunt down some 7600 GS benches. They are out there, and there's quite a few of them.
Well, if I'm subconsciously biased against the 7600 GS, then I'm also biased against the X1650 PRO which is a better buy IMHO. But I recommend them both to countless people on this forum on a daily basis so I'm going to disagree with your assessment based on that evidence. I think it's off base but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
Maybe we will someday if someone has time to do a midrange AGP review. I don't have time this go around, but who knows? Depends on the interest...
potoroo
Distinguished
- Jun 5, 2006
- 20
- 0
- 18,510
I think on this point we will continue to disagree then, because I say it would fit either in a review of midrange cards on current systems or in a review of new cards on older systems. I refer back to what I said about finding out the system limitation boundary conditions.
True. However, there are still more AGP systems out there than PCIe ones, which is why it refuses to go away (remember when Nvidia said the 7800GS would be their last AGP offering?). That does not mean THG should concentrate more on AGP, because there's more happening on the PCIe front, but AGP's persistence means it should be given its due. At the risk of being seen to be flogging a dead horse, I think this was a missed opportunity.
There doesn't need to be a conspiracy for a series of individually explicable decisions having a particular cumulative effect. However, since the 7600GT was as good as the X1950 Pro in some cases on older systems then what if the 7600GS was as good as the 7600GT in those same instances? Acknowledging you physically didn't have a 7600GS handy, as things turned out you could pretty much have omitted the 7800GS without distorting the results, whereas including the 7600GS might well have told us all something important. What makes the 7600GS midrange on a Conroe system does not automatically mean it's midrange on an Athlon XP system.
I'm not seeing lots of people with older systems going X1650 Pro, I am seeing them going 7600GS. I think the X1650 Pro suffers from Nvidia's reputation for delivering more bang for the buck and the widespread perception of the poorer quality of ATI's drivers. I'm seeing reports ATI's drivers have improved recently but the perception lingers.
cleeve
Illustrious
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
Well, by that same logic every targeted review is a missed opportunity for something else.
You don't think it's important to know that the 7800 GS performs exactly the same as the cheaper 7600 GT? I think that's pretty darn significant, there's lots of people still talking up the 7800 GS like it's worth the premium over the 7600 GT.
Wow, that does not jive with my experience at all. Ati seems to own the lower end sector and has for some time as far as sales go, Nvidia has been trying to catch up in that segment for a while. I'm sure I see more interest in the X1650 PROs on this board than the 7600 GS.
I haven't seen Nvidia have a flawless reputation since the 4600 Ti. Once the FX series was born and the R300 derivatives put them to shame Nvidia certainly lost the unconditional 'best bang for the buck'. The 6x00 series put them back in the running but both companies offer excellent products now.
In some diehard circles there is probably a perception that Nvidia drivers are superior, but on the whole from what I've seen people have woken up and noticed that Nvidia have their own driver problems. Indeed, even brand new Nvidia drivers will show a bit of texture shimmering artifacts at default settings where Ati cards will not.
I probably have more experience with multiple videocards than the average guy and I haven't had a significant problem with an Nvidia or Ati driver in ages, so for me it's a level playing field and has been for a couple years now.
By your preoccupation with the 7600 GS and dismissal of the X1650 PRO, I'd submit that you might be 'ignoring the X1650 PRO' more than I've ignored the 7600 GS...
potoroo
Distinguished
- Jun 5, 2006
- 20
- 0
- 18,510
I do think it's important and I've already filed it away in the wetware database. However, what I was getting at was its appearance didn't have an impact on the general finding of "sometimes a higher end AGP card in an older system can be justified, sometimes not."
Wow, that does not jive with my experience at all.
Fair enough, your experience isn't mine, and on that note I think I'll leave it alone (at least for now).
Where is the "sits on hands" emoticon?By your preoccupation with the 7600 GS and dismissal of the X1650 PRO, I'd submit that you might be 'ignoring the X1650 PRO' more than I've ignored the 7600 GS...
cleeve
Illustrious
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
Heheh, yeah I don't think they've included that emote for us.
For research's sake, here's an X1650 PRO review at elitebastards showing it against the 7600 GS:
http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/in...sk=view&id=163&Itemid=27&limit=1&limitstart=3
The game bench story:
Oblivion: X1650 PRO wins
Prey: X1650 PRO wins (An OpenGL title! Strange. Good spread, too.)
HalfLife2: X1650 PRO wins Not by a ton though, although at high res it pulls notably ahead.
F.E.A.R.: X1650 PRO wins Not by much, almost insignificant at the lower resolutions but that's the trend.
Age of Empires 3: X1650 PRO wins
Need for Speed: most wanted : TIE Very close
Call of Duty 2: X1650 PRO wins significantly
Splinter Cell Chaos Theory: X1650 PRO wins
Actually, I thought the 7600 GS would have pulled at least an OpenGL win in Prey. I'm surprised at the X1650 PRO's sweep.
Just checked newegg, the cheapest 7600 GS is $119, the cheapest X1650 PRO is $123 but there's a mail in rebate that brings it down to $108. Based on those benches I think the X1650 PRO is the obvious choice.
This is pretty interesting, maybe I WILL have to include both of these cards in a future test...
For research's sake, here's an X1650 PRO review at elitebastards showing it against the 7600 GS:
http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/in...sk=view&id=163&Itemid=27&limit=1&limitstart=3
The game bench story:
Oblivion: X1650 PRO wins
Prey: X1650 PRO wins (An OpenGL title! Strange. Good spread, too.)
HalfLife2: X1650 PRO wins Not by a ton though, although at high res it pulls notably ahead.
F.E.A.R.: X1650 PRO wins Not by much, almost insignificant at the lower resolutions but that's the trend.
Age of Empires 3: X1650 PRO wins
Need for Speed: most wanted : TIE Very close
Call of Duty 2: X1650 PRO wins significantly
Splinter Cell Chaos Theory: X1650 PRO wins
Actually, I thought the 7600 GS would have pulled at least an OpenGL win in Prey. I'm surprised at the X1650 PRO's sweep.
Just checked newegg, the cheapest 7600 GS is $119, the cheapest X1650 PRO is $123 but there's a mail in rebate that brings it down to $108. Based on those benches I think the X1650 PRO is the obvious choice.
This is pretty interesting, maybe I WILL have to include both of these cards in a future test...
TheGreatGrapeApe
Champion
- Feb 18, 2003
- 20,040
- 0
- 50,960
Yeah I think I rememebr saying that! :tongue:
Of course before when it was just the X1600P the GF7600GS was an easier winner and didn't have any competition unless you wanted HDR+AA in Oblivion (granted at a bit of a res penalty, but 2XAA was worth it IMO, but only for that game). Once the GF7600GT, X1650Pro/XT and X1950Pro came out and had good pricing and now have good availability, there's less of a compelling case compared to the summer, when it was usually the best choice between a pretty weak X1600P and an overpriced GF7800GS.
So when's the Volari DUO V8 gonna get the props it deserves !?! :twisted:
TheGreatGrapeApe
Champion
- Feb 18, 2003
- 20,040
- 0
- 50,960
:lol: , nice
still waiting for my 1950pro to come, unfortunatly out of stock.
add this on it will help.
IE spell checker
still waiting for my 1950pro to come, unfortunatly out of stock.
add this on it will help.
IE spell checker
potoroo
Distinguished
- Jun 5, 2006
- 20
- 0
- 18,510
Techspot's review had them more evenly matched:
http://www.techspot.com/review/24-radeon-x1650pro-vs-geforce-7600gs/
I knew you'd see sense eventually.This is pretty interesting, maybe I WILL have to include both of these cards in a future test...
cleeve
Illustrious
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
Yeah, but only 4 games tested, and the only game that was tested in both elitebastards and techspot - FEAR - showed similar results. So we can assume the two reviews are consistant, in which case the score is:
Quake4: 7600 GS
FEAR: TIE
Far Cry: TIE (we'll call it a tie instead of an X1650 PRO win)
Need for Speed Most Wanted: TIE
Oblivion: X1650 PRO wins
Prey: X1650 PRO wins (An OpenGL title! Strange. Good spread, too.)
HalfLife2: X1650 PRO wins Not by a ton though, although at high res it pulls notably ahead.
Age of Empires 3: X1650 PRO wins
Call of Duty 2: X1650 PRO wins significantly
Splinter Cell Chaos Theory: X1650 PRO wins
Final score:
7600 GS: 1
X1650 PRO: 6
(ties: 3)
Still only one win for the 7600 GS... the rest is ties and clear X1650 PRO wins. Still seems like a clean sweep in favor of the X1650 PRO to me.
I knew you'd see sense eventually.
See what sense eventually? That an X1650 PRO vs 7600 GS bench wouldn't be worthwhile? Hell, I've never had a problem with that... my problem was being accused of ignoring a videocard because it was on your own personal 'A' list but didn't fit in my review. 😛
I'm all for more benchmarks tho...
i know a few people were wondering about my *yawn* mediocre upgrade from an fx5500 to 9800PRO..... so here are my thoughts.
im currently only running 512mb ram DDR@266, slow i know, but gets it done for the older games.
you would be amazed however, at how much a 256mb upgrade in ram did for my system (i borrowed my roommates ram just to see if there is a difference) with the 9800 PRO
Runnings 9800PRO.
with 512mb i could not run fear. with 768mb ram, i ran fear with low settings at 1024x768 just fine.
512mb with farcry ran medium @ 1024x768 with some stuttering here and there. 768ram ran it medium-high at 1280x1024 easily.
doom 3 ran 1280x1024 at medium w/512mb with some hiccups here and there while the 768ram ran it the same resolution at high.
so the 9800 PRO is a decent upgrade from my piss poor fx5500. but what i need now is another 512mb stick of ram. i think i was looking too much on gpu rather than other requirements and ram is a big one. so i think 1gb is def a minimum regardless of GPU
so this poor college kid will continue to make the most out of his system until july when he graduates
im currently only running 512mb ram DDR@266, slow i know, but gets it done for the older games.
you would be amazed however, at how much a 256mb upgrade in ram did for my system (i borrowed my roommates ram just to see if there is a difference) with the 9800 PRO
Runnings 9800PRO.
with 512mb i could not run fear. with 768mb ram, i ran fear with low settings at 1024x768 just fine.
512mb with farcry ran medium @ 1024x768 with some stuttering here and there. 768ram ran it medium-high at 1280x1024 easily.
doom 3 ran 1280x1024 at medium w/512mb with some hiccups here and there while the 768ram ran it the same resolution at high.
so the 9800 PRO is a decent upgrade from my piss poor fx5500. but what i need now is another 512mb stick of ram. i think i was looking too much on gpu rather than other requirements and ram is a big one. so i think 1gb is def a minimum regardless of GPU
so this poor college kid will continue to make the most out of his system until july when he graduates
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
AMD Ryzen 9 9950X vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Faceoff — it isn't even close- Started by Admin
- Replies: 54
-
-
Question I have an old system in the basement that has really basic specs, but am planning to give it just a little uplift with an RTX 5060 ti 16gb- Started by Guy_who_thinks_hes_cool
- Replies: 8
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram