🚀 go-pugleaf

"Visine" <darrend43-removethisbit-@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:SLOdnaFM1558lIjanZ2dnUVZ8tChnZ2d@bt.com...
>I have a GF 7800gt with a Socket 939 4600 chip 2 gb RAM all is sweet. LCD 
>screen 1280x 1024
>
> A Second machine
>
> ATI 2600 pro 512 meg ,  socket 939 4400 chip, 2 gb RAM,  1280 x 768 
> widescreen LCD TV Via HDMI.  and its on its knees graphics very jumpy and 
> un playable
>
> The second machine is my movies/ TVplayer as I think ATI draws prettier 
> pictures.
>
> What specs are working for you all??
>
> Vis
>

Ath dual core running stock, 7900gs overclocked about 15%, 2GB cheap ass RAM 
1280 x 1024

Clean strong and playable, especially after Folk pointing me to the Nv 
"fix". I hesitated to run a statfps on a demo because the end product may be 
much better. The level of detail far surpasses any expectations I had 
concerning playability versus visual candy. I have a vanilla 6800 (the 512 
version) on a second box that I will install tonight for a little  LANing 
with my kid. I'll report back on how the next level down goes. 

TY  m8e

Vis 

Visine wrote:
> I have a GF 7800gt with a Socket 939 4600 chip 2 gb RAM all is sweet. LCD 
> screen 1280x 1024
> 
> A Second machine
> 
> ATI 2600 pro 512 meg ,  socket 939 4400 chip, 2 gb RAM,  1280 x 768 
> widescreen LCD TV Via HDMI.  and its on its knees graphics very jumpy and un 
> playable
> 
> The second machine is my movies/ TVplayer as I think ATI draws prettier 
> pictures.
> 
> What specs are working for you all??
> 

ATI 1900XTX, P4HT 3Ghz, 2 GB ram and UT3 with default settings except 
resolution at 1920x1200. There is a little jumping some 2-4 seconds 
after maps loads and then it runs fine.

I have sort of lost track with the whole PC hardware thing (decided to 
put in on hold a bit and bought a four wheel toy instead) but it sounds 
strange a 2600 pro card is not given the needed performance.

Are other games on the thing okay? Have you updated drivers and made 
sure no spyware and stuff is ruining things (stupid questions I know but 
still)?

Kind regards
Bruno

"Bruno" <dont.use@this.address.ever> wrote in message 
news:471549a7$0$21924$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk...
> Visine wrote:
>> I have a GF 7800gt with a Socket 939 4600 chip 2 gb RAM all is sweet. LCD 
>> screen 1280x 1024
>>
>> A Second machine
>>
>> ATI 2600 pro 512 meg ,  socket 939 4400 chip, 2 gb RAM,  1280 x 768 
>> widescreen LCD TV Via HDMI.  and its on its knees graphics very jumpy and 
>> un playable
>>
>> The second machine is my movies/ TVplayer as I think ATI draws prettier 
>> pictures.
>>
>> What specs are working for you all??
>>
>
> ATI 1900XTX, P4HT 3Ghz, 2 GB ram and UT3 with default settings except 
> resolution at 1920x1200. There is a little jumping some 2-4 seconds after 
> maps loads and then it runs fine.
>
> I have sort of lost track with the whole PC hardware thing (decided to put 
> in on hold a bit and bought a four wheel toy instead) but it sounds 
> strange a 2600 pro card is not given the needed performance.
>
> Are other games on the thing okay? Have you updated drivers and made sure 
> no spyware and stuff is ruining things (stupid questions I know but 
> still)?
>
> Kind regards
> Bruno

You gotta be careful expecting too much from a demo too. Nv and ATI are yet 
to put out optimized drivers, as well as the game itself will surely run 
better when done.

Off topic but if you like playing with four wheels you should see the sand 
dunes we have here. About 40 miles long, 2 miles wide and all oceanfront and 
public accessible. People come from all over to play in the sand.
http://www.dunefest.com/home.html 

Bruno wrote:
> Visine wrote:
>> I have a GF 7800gt with a Socket 939 4600 chip 2 gb RAM all is sweet. 
>> LCD screen 1280x 1024
>>
>> A Second machine
>>
>> ATI 2600 pro 512 meg ,  socket 939 4400 chip, 2 gb RAM,  1280 x 768 
>> widescreen LCD TV Via HDMI.  and its on its knees graphics very jumpy 
>> and un playable
>>
>> The second machine is my movies/ TVplayer as I think ATI draws 
>> prettier pictures.
>>
>> What specs are working for you all??
>>
> 
> ATI 1900XTX, P4HT 3Ghz, 2 GB ram and UT3 with default settings except 
> resolution at 1920x1200. There is a little jumping some 2-4 seconds 
> after maps loads and then it runs fine.
> 
> I have sort of lost track with the whole PC hardware thing (decided to 
> put in on hold a bit and bought a four wheel toy instead) but it sounds 
> strange a 2600 pro card is not given the needed performance.
> 
> Are other games on the thing okay? Have you updated drivers and made 
> sure no spyware and stuff is ruining things (stupid questions I know but 
> still)?
> 
> Kind regards
> Bruno

The 2600 is WAY below the x1950s (not much above the x850) with no AA or 
AF, and even worse WITH AA and AF, to a point of being below the x850. 
Even the x2900 scored lower than the x1950 when AA and AF get turned up.
It's weird how the new cards don't seem to hold their own in a few ways. 
  They do well at lower resolutions though. . .

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=859&model2=722&chart=280

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:12:07 +0100, "Visine"
<darrend43-removethisbit-@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I have a GF 7800gt with a Socket 939 4600 chip 2 gb RAM all is sweet. LCD 
>screen 1280x 1024
>
>A Second machine
>
>ATI 2600 pro 512 meg ,  socket 939 4400 chip, 2 gb RAM,  1280 x 768 
>widescreen LCD TV Via HDMI.  and its on its knees graphics very jumpy and un 
>playable
>
>The second machine is my movies/ TVplayer as I think ATI draws prettier 
>pictures.
>
>What specs are working for you all??
>
>Vis 
>

A Core2Duo E4300 @ 3200MHz, 2 gigs pc6400 ram. A pair of x1950pro
video cards running crossfire.  Running 20" LCD at 1650x1050
resolution. I built this a few weeks back with the sole intent of
running UT3 and crysis.  So far, so good.  With both textures and
world detail set to 3.  I run tight to the 60fps limit set in the
games ini. Disabling that, I run in the mid 80's at times.  Coming
from a P4 2400, 9800pro. I couldn't be happier.

Cheers and happy fragging.
Jimbo

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:04:38 -0700, "goPostal"
<agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I hesitated to run a statfps on a demo because the end product may be 
>much better.

Or possibly worse.  When the 2K4 demo came out I was getting better
framerates from the demo.  Turns out the demo was using more
compressed textures than the retail version.

GTD wrote:
> 
> The 2600 is WAY below the x1950s (not much above the x850) with no AA or 
> AF, and even worse WITH AA and AF, to a point of being below the x850. 
> Even the x2900 scored lower than the x1950 when AA and AF get turned up.
> It's weird how the new cards don't seem to hold their own in a few ways. 
>  They do well at lower resolutions though. . .
> 
> http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=859&model2=722&chart=280 
> 
It sounds like they are suffering from slow memory. Memory performance 
is a major factor when using higher resolution and also a factor when it 
comes to AA.

Kind regards
Bruno

Athlon 64 X2 4600+

4 gig matched DDRii 6400

RAID0 SATA-300 500gb

Gforce 8800 GTX

1680x1050 ASUS 22" LCD


UT3 is smooth as butter


Messa






"Jimbo" <jim@att.com> wrote in message 
news:pgebh314s41li6m8i3qjr6bnoaqv212cbk@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:12:07 +0100, "Visine"
> <darrend43-removethisbit-@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I have a GF 7800gt with a Socket 939 4600 chip 2 gb RAM all is sweet. LCD
>>screen 1280x 1024
>>
>>A Second machine
>>
>>ATI 2600 pro 512 meg ,  socket 939 4400 chip, 2 gb RAM,  1280 x 768
>>widescreen LCD TV Via HDMI.  and its on its knees graphics very jumpy and 
>>un
>>playable
>>
>>The second machine is my movies/ TVplayer as I think ATI draws prettier
>>pictures.
>>
>>What specs are working for you all??
>>
>>Vis
>>
>
> A Core2Duo E4300 @ 3200MHz, 2 gigs pc6400 ram. A pair of x1950pro
> video cards running crossfire.  Running 20" LCD at 1650x1050
> resolution. I built this a few weeks back with the sole intent of
> running UT3 and crysis.  So far, so good.  With both textures and
> world detail set to 3.  I run tight to the 60fps limit set in the
> games ini. Disabling that, I run in the mid 80's at times.  Coming
> from a P4 2400, 9800pro. I couldn't be happier.
>
> Cheers and happy fragging.
> Jimbo
> 

Thanks for the replies chaps.  Looks like its time to splurge some cash.

GF8800 gts i think as it's good bang/buck 320 or 640 mb not sure yet.

TTFN

VIS 

Visine wrote:
> Thanks for the replies chaps.  Looks like its time to splurge some cash.
> 
> GF8800 gts i think as it's good bang/buck 320 or 640 mb not sure yet.
> 
Mark Rein says the more memory on the gfx card the better.

Kind regards
Bruno

Cheers Bruno

640 mb it is then

Thanks

Vis 

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:12:07 +0100, "Visine"
<darrend43-removethisbit-@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I have a GF 7800gt with a Socket 939 4600 chip 2 gb RAM all is sweet. LCD 
>screen 1280x 1024
>
>A Second machine
>
>ATI 2600 pro 512 meg ,  socket 939 4400 chip, 2 gb RAM,  1280 x 768 
>widescreen LCD TV Via HDMI.  and its on its knees graphics very jumpy and un 
>playable
>
>The second machine is my movies/ TVplayer as I think ATI draws prettier 
>pictures.
>
>What specs are working for you all??
>
>Vis 
>

Anandtech put up a preliminary UT3 demo performance article, although
at this time only high end vid cards are benched.  
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3128
TBH, I think it would make more sense to wait and benchmark the retail
version.  

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:51:22 -0400, Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:12:07 +0100, "Visine"
><darrend43-removethisbit-@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I have a GF 7800gt with a Socket 939 4600 chip 2 gb RAM all is sweet. LCD 
>>screen 1280x 1024
>>
>>A Second machine
>>
>>ATI 2600 pro 512 meg ,  socket 939 4400 chip, 2 gb RAM,  1280 x 768 
>>widescreen LCD TV Via HDMI.  and its on its knees graphics very jumpy and un 
>>playable
>>
>>The second machine is my movies/ TVplayer as I think ATI draws prettier 
>>pictures.
>>
>>What specs are working for you all??
>>
>>Vis 
>>
>
>Anandtech put up a preliminary UT3 demo performance article, although
>at this time only high end vid cards are benched.  
>http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3128
>TBH, I think it would make more sense to wait and benchmark the retail
>version.  

Sorry, the article I linked to *does* contain midrange graphic
cards... they just put it up today.  The high end card article can be
found off their main page.

"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
news:ub7fh35391qnc4p6af3poq5it3jlir3jc9@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:51:22 -0400, Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:12:07 +0100, "Visine"
>><darrend43-removethisbit-@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I have a GF 7800gt with a Socket 939 4600 chip 2 gb RAM all is sweet. LCD
>>>screen 1280x 1024
>>>
>>>A Second machine
>>>
>>>ATI 2600 pro 512 meg ,  socket 939 4400 chip, 2 gb RAM,  1280 x 768
>>>widescreen LCD TV Via HDMI.  and its on its knees graphics very jumpy and 
>>>un
>>>playable
>>>
>>>The second machine is my movies/ TVplayer as I think ATI draws prettier
>>>pictures.
>>>
>>>What specs are working for you all??
>>>
>>>Vis
>>>
>>
>>Anandtech put up a preliminary UT3 demo performance article, although
>>at this time only high end vid cards are benched.
>>http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3128
>>TBH, I think it would make more sense to wait and benchmark the retail
>>version.
>
> Sorry, the article I linked to *does* contain midrange graphic
> cards... they just put it up today.  The high end card article can be
> found off their main page.

Thank you for posting that. Even though it only gives a rough estimateas to 
the shipped game, it's still good to see what works well. 

Bruno wrote:
> GTD wrote:
>>
>> The 2600 is WAY below the x1950s (not much above the x850) with no AA 
>> or AF, and even worse WITH AA and AF, to a point of being below the 
>> x850. Even the x2900 scored lower than the x1950 when AA and AF get 
>> turned up.
>> It's weird how the new cards don't seem to hold their own in a few 
>> ways.  They do well at lower resolutions though. . .
>>
>> http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=859&model2=722&chart=280 
>>
> It sounds like they are suffering from slow memory. Memory performance 
> is a major factor when using higher resolution and also a factor when it 
> comes to AA.
> 
> Kind regards
> Bruno
It's listed as having faster memory IIRC, ,

I'm now running a GF 8800 gts 640.

Its well Lush  :-)


And now Nvidia have released a GF 8800 GT 512mb  that craps all over the 
GTS.

Its less cash, a die shrink from 90nm and a single slot design.

DOH..

c'est la vie as they say in botswana

Vis 

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 20:25:33 -0000, "Visine" <darrend43@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I'm now running a GF 8800 gts 640.
>
>Its well Lush  :-)
>
>
>And now Nvidia have released a GF 8800 GT 512mb  that craps all over the 
>GTS.
>
>Its less cash, a die shrink from 90nm and a single slot design.
>
>DOH..
>
>c'est la vie as they say in botswana
>
>Vis 

I hope this doesn't surprise you.  ;-)

GTD wrote:
> Bruno wrote:
>> GTD wrote:
>>>
>>> The 2600 is WAY below the x1950s (not much above the x850) with no AA 
>>> or AF, and even worse WITH AA and AF, to a point of being below the 
>>> x850. Even the x2900 scored lower than the x1950 when AA and AF get 
>>> turned up.
>>> It's weird how the new cards don't seem to hold their own in a few 
>>> ways.  They do well at lower resolutions though. . .
>>>
>>> http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=859&model2=722&chart=280 
>>>
>> It sounds like they are suffering from slow memory. Memory performance 
>> is a major factor when using higher resolution and also a factor when 
>> it comes to AA.
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Bruno
> It's listed as having faster memory IIRC, ,

Hmm - the graph I linked to show the 2600 at 1100 Mhz and the 1950's at 
1350-1950 Mhz depending on model.

Kind regards
Bruno

8800GTX and it is smooth as silk.

messa



"Bruno" <dont.use@this.address.ever> wrote in message 
news:472f859f$0$7607$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk...
> GTD wrote:
>> Bruno wrote:
>>> GTD wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The 2600 is WAY below the x1950s (not much above the x850) with no AA 
>>>> or AF, and even worse WITH AA and AF, to a point of being below the 
>>>> x850. Even the x2900 scored lower than the x1950 when AA and AF get 
>>>> turned up.
>>>> It's weird how the new cards don't seem to hold their own in a few 
>>>> ways.  They do well at lower resolutions though. . .
>>>>
>>>> http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=859&model2=722&chart=280
>>> It sounds like they are suffering from slow memory. Memory performance 
>>> is a major factor when using higher resolution and also a factor when it 
>>> comes to AA.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>> Bruno
>> It's listed as having faster memory IIRC, ,
>
> Hmm - the graph I linked to show the 2600 at 1100 Mhz and the 1950's at 
> 1350-1950 Mhz depending on model.
>
> Kind regards
> Bruno
> 

In article <RtCdnZy-Y9u54bLanZ2dnUVZ8tyqnZ2d@bt.com>, "Visine" <darrend43@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I'm now running a GF 8800 gts 640.
>
>Its well Lush  :-)
>
>
>And now Nvidia have released a GF 8800 GT 512mb  that craps all over the 
>GTS.
>

I have yet to see a review that claims that the 8800GT 512 craps on a 640mb 
8800GTS.

>Its less cash, a die shrink from 90nm and a single slot design.
>
>DOH..
>
>c'est la vie as they say in botswana
>
>Vis 
>
>