Tyrion Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 Originally posted by legameboy Which would be better? A 9800 Pro or a 9800XT? I heard you could replace something on the 9800 Pro with a VGA silencer and then bio flash it and it would basically be a 9800 XT. Of course, I have no clue how to do any of that... Never put custom heatsinks on my video cards, but the performance difference between either isn't that much.(you could probably overclock the 9800 Pro to the xt with stock cooling..but I wasn't that lucky. :/) Edit- Actually, now that I retested Doom 3, you could probably very easily play Half-life 2 on high. Right now with Doom 3 I'm getting 30-60(average of 45) fps at High quality, 1152X864 with 8xaf. I imagine with Half-life 2 Highest Quality with the same resolution(maybe higher) and 8Xaf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treacherous Mercenary Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Arctic Cooling is supposed to be great actually. But I'd go for an ATi Silencer now that they're released. Maybe ATi Silencer 3, but definately 1. I'll check back on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legameboy Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 9800 Pro then. I guess it's final now. I'll get that and then I'm getting a Seagate 120 GB hard-drive and upgrading my ram to one gigabyte. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbacco Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 I have the 5700, and it is overclocked. It runs UT at around an average rate of 38 fps at full settings with full amount of bots on most onslaught levels. I am satisfied with its performance. Its not the best but it okay my level of priorities. Chew Mein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crow_Nest Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Yeah ATI does have alot of problems with the drivers. My cousin has a 9200 Pro and when he got the 4.7 catalyst JA, Painkiller and Max Payne 2 keeps hanging and crashing. I've also heard the same stories for the 9600 and 9800 too. Anyway if you're a fan of games like Doom 3 get the 5700, if you're a halflife 2 guy get the 9800XT. But alot of ATI users with the 9600 and 9800 got extremly disappointing performance on Doom 3 not even at the max detail and advance options Originally posted by Chewbacco I have the 5700, and it is overclocked. It runs UT at around an average rate of 38 fps at full settings with full amount of bots on most onslaught levels I had everything maxed out and played UT2004 with at least 50 frames and didnt overclock it. Originally posted by Anthony The price will drop for the X800 in about 6 months to a year. : / Thats the same thing happening to the 9800 Pro right now Moral of the story: Dont buy the top-of the line card unless you're those hardcore gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Originally posted by |GG|Crow_Nest Anyway if you're a fan of games like Doom 3 get the 5700, if you're a halflife 2 guy get the 9800XT. But alot of ATI users with the 9600 and 9800 got extremly disappointing performance on Doom 3 not even at the max detail and advance options Eh, the 9800 Pro is still good at Doom 3, at least for me. Certainly nice looking and smooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Zack- Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Originally posted by Siv i want to buy a new graphics card and i've got it down to two options... but i'm unsure of which one to go with. i've been to benchmarking sites to see comparisons, but they all seem to say it's too close to call. the main difference between them is the 9800XT is better with directX, but the FX5700 works better with openGL. so which one should i go for? If it's ati radeon 9800 XT then it's the 3rd best cards basically, the better ones are radeon x 800 pro and radeon x 800 xt. FX cards basically suck, usual PC sellers put FX cards into the pc's always because they cost high, but they suck hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 What I would like to know, is that why do ppl get so hyped up over having the biggest and baddest video cards, when they mostly just use their video card for gaming, and perhaps some DV editing(which I do alot of)...... at the end of the day, if you have a decent card, thats been affordable for you, thats all you need..... I dont even need to bother worrying about it as being a notebook owner, my choices are *very* limited Still, I wouldnt use anything else.... *hugs notebook* mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legameboy Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 I think I've made my decision... I'm getting a 9800 Pro. Overall, I think it will run Half-life 2 extremely well, last me about a year and a half or so, and give me great performance on most current games and good performance on future ones. Correct me if I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivy Posted August 20, 2004 Author Share Posted August 20, 2004 Originally posted by Astrotoy7 What I would like to know, is that why do ppl get so hyped up over having the biggest and baddest video cards, when they mostly just use their video card for gaming, and perhaps some DV editing(which I do alot of)...... at the end of the day, if you have a decent card, thats been affordable for you, thats all you need..... the problem is that new games always need something that older cards aren't capable of doing. i.e pixel shading or openGL 1.5 and/or directX 9+ compatibility. it used to feel like every time you brought a new game you had to also buy a new video card just to play it. however nowadays it’s easier to ‘stay ahead of the game’. thats why buying a new video card is important, especially to gamers. the last thing you want is to shell out a boat load of cash for a card that wont work with next year's games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legameboy Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 I went to pricegrabber.com and the 9800 XT was as much as the X800! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treacherous Mercenary Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Originally posted by legameboy I went to pricegrabber.com and the 9800 XT was as much as the X800! Surprisingly, yes, but they are also being phased out also. I guess it costs more to make compared to 9800 Pro when you get down to hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legameboy Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 Ah... So basically, to summarize every post in this thread, it would be: Screw the 9800 XT, get the 9800 Pro. Hmm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 Originally posted by legameboy Ah... So basically, to summarize every post in this thread, it would be: Screw the 9800 XT, get the 9800 Pro. Hmm? Pretty much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crow_Nest Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 Originally posted by sushiman FX cards basically suck, usual PC sellers put FX cards into the pc's always because they cost high, but they suck hard. Who said it sucks? I ca run UT2k4 at MAXIMUM detail and get 50 - 60 over FPS. And in a HL2 benchmark the 5900 Ultra beat the 9800 Pro with 4x AA and AF. The FX 5700 Ultra is also as good as the 9600 Pro. Both ATI and NVIDIA are equally good, they have advangates and disadvantages in many games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 Originally posted by |GG|Crow_Nest And in a HL2 benchmark the 5900 Ultra beat the 9800 Pro with 4x AA and AF. The FX 5700 Ultra is also as good as the 9600 Pro. I assume you mean the article by Firing Squad? If you do, they said in the article that the 5900 Ultra and below used DirectX 8.1, while the 9800 used DirectX 9. Thus meaning that the 9800 Pro was worked harder than the 5900 Ultra(they said that the 5900 ultra performed too poorly under DirectX 9). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crow_Nest Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 It wasnt from firing squad but i cant remember where i read it, it was a link somewhere on the hl2.net forums. Besides, 8.1 and 9.0 doesnt make a lot of noticeable difference execpt 9.0 is slightly brighter and clearer. There are 2 pics of DX 8.1 and 9 here (Its at the bottom) http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/halflife2/screenindex.html?page=3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 Originally posted by |GG|Crow_Nest I Besides, 8.1 and 9.0 doesnt make a lot of noticeable difference execpt 9.0 is slightly brighter and clearer. Yeah, but then the 9800 Pro would still be as fast if not faster than the 5900 Ultra when it also runs in DirectX 8. There are 2 pics of DX 8.1 and 9 here (Its at the bottom) http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/halflife2/screenindex.html?page=3 Yeah, there isn't much of a difference between Direct X 8.1 and 9, Unreal Tournament 2k4 still looks great to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acdcfanbill Posted August 22, 2004 Share Posted August 22, 2004 of course dx8 and dx9 will run dx8 games similarly. dx8 wont run any dx9 games the same tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.