The jury is still out on my X1950 AGP Upgrade

[HeadRusch]

Just for those of you who might be curious about such things, I've been messing around with my Radeon X1950AGP board a bit, no overclocking (the board doesn't seem to benefit much from doing so)......and while in some ways its definately impressive, in other ways......its not giving me enough bang for my buck considering where I was coming from.

I knew that the 7800GS wasn't enough of a jump to upgrade to...and I had hoped that this 1950Pro might be the ticket since in benchmarks it soundly trounces the 6800GT....but the trouble is...it doesn't seem to give me enough OOMPH where I actually *NEED* it..that is on a game like FEAR.

See, I'm gaming on a 1080p monitor.......37" widescreen LCD to be exact, and frankly I need to run 1080p (and not a lower resolution) if I can avoid it...or else I get the uglyness of scaling to a fixed pixel display.

Based on my observations so far, compared to my overclocked 6800GT, the Quake games run about the same (since they favor Nvidia hardware)..maybe a little faster but its hard to tell......Unreal Tournament runs better on the ATI part than the 6800GT with AF and AA turned on.......but FEAR...well FEAR still isn't running up to snuff. And the problem is, if FEAR isn't running up to snuff...what does that say about the upcoming FPS's for the PC...??

I had hoped to get close to 60fps with no AA and 4xAF, after all this is a "next gen" card to a certain extent.

Well, that ain't happening.

Granted, with the 6800GT 1080p even with AA and AF off was *barely* playable.......this card makes it "more playable"....but it still itsn't smooth. Close-in environments are ok...but moving into larger areas it will studder a bit, at least the FEAR Expansion Pack demo will (the underground subway tunnels).

I played FEAR at 1024x768 and it was great fun and smooth, but that was on my old 19" analog monitor. 1280x720 scaled on my monitor still looks scaled....not too pretty.

I dunno...I'm torn.....on the one hand, its a relatively cheap upgrade at $240 before the rebate. On the other hand, I dont know that its buying me enough horsepower to justify the $240 bucks over my 6800GT, regardless of what the benchmarks online are saying.

I think I should try Battlefield 2 at 1080p, and see how that fares....

[ChrisFB]

Is this on Vista? I think I remember you saying something about that - maybe that was someone else.

I still have a 9800 Pro All-in-Wonder so this would be a monster upgrade for me. Plus my pannel is 1024x1280.

Also, maybe it's just Fear specific. Sometimes an update can really kick up a certain game. Not sure what to tell you.

[HeadRusch]

This is on XP, I'm not down with Vista until I dont have a choice ;)

Part of my problem is my expectation level, too.......and I understand that.

I just ran a benchmark of Half Life 2 Lost Coast. 2xaa, 4xaf, full HDR at 1080p...and I get an average of 61fps. At first I was like "Meh thats weak! HL2 is old!", but then I checked out some reviews at Firingsquad...they clocked the card at 1920x1200 4xaa, 8xaf at 35fps!!

According to them, Fear at that resolution..with 4xaa and 8xaf should result in 45fps on average. I guess its just because FEAR fluctuates so much that it doesn't feel like its giving me the framerates I want....and I dont run FEAR with any AA and 4xAF. Again, I might just have to adjust my expectation levels.

According to Firingsquads benchmarks, where they bump it up against a 6800 Ultra, the 6800 Ultra is left in the dust. My 6800GT didn't seem THAT slow...but its been awhile since I gamed with it on this 1080p display..why? Cuz when I got the new monitor I remember it being...damn slow :)

I think maybe I need to just adjust to this card.......but I guess right now the question is, besides FEAR can I get decent 1080p framerates in most games with a 6800GT or is this card really worth it for the $240 bones I dropped.

I guess I'll try to install more stuff this weekend and see what I think.

[ChrisFB]

I don't know. 1080p is A LOT of pixels for high frame rate and that's the most intensive game. I don't know that there's really anything out there is the $200-300 price range that's going to give you what you want. Certainly you can build a monster with the new 8800 GTX (or two of them) but that's a whole different level of upgrade and a whole different price point for double to triple per card.

I think for $220, you are expecting a lot and pushing 1080p with Fear is a lot (plus with frame rate you only notice the slow down, you ignore silky smooth periods). My thought would be that you will at least be able to use the 1080p monitor and get some quality gaming in for a while. So $220 gets you in the realm of fun and then when you do a major upgrade the 8800 or beyond type cards will be more affordable and they will certainly give you what you need to play the newest games at that point in 1080p.

That's my line of thinking anyway. It all comes down to expectation and satisfying it or readjusting it - and that's up to you ;).

[HeadRusch]

You are wise :)

The only reason I had doubt was because of this: My current crop of FPS's isn't likely to change anytime soon. At 1080p, Quake 4, Doom 3, HL2, UT2004....if you turned off AA and HDR, were all perfectly playable at that rez. I think, overall, this card buys me 15-20fps.
Thats my expectation level now.

But I also know that spending $500 for an 8800GTX, plus another $400 for a Dual Core, MB and RAM....just to get faster speed in FEAR is a dumbassed thing to do. I also know that new DX10 titles like Unreal3 and so forth will probably challenge even a mighty 8800gtx at 1080p.

So right now the wait and see part comes into play. Maybe if I put my 6800GT up on ebay and get $75 for it that'll help take the bite out of the upgrade :)

[fnbaldtaco]

Hey im just curious to what the rest of your specs on your pc are?

[HeadRusch]

Intel 3.0Ghz Northwood at 3.5Ghz (on air) (Socket 478)
2 gigs Crucial Ballistix ram at stock timings....
A hard drive here, a hard drive there....

Thats the basics

[Scotty L]

What kind of PSU is powering your system? IIRC ATi recommends at least 450w for the x1950 pro. Sounds like your system is loaded, with oc'ing to boot.

[HeadRusch]

There's an Antec Truepower 430watt in there, so far no issues.

Its not like the thing will run "slow" without max power, it just wont work at all..or it'll lockup constantly, or fry the PS. So far, no issues at all.

PS: Their requirement for 30a on the 12v rail is **insane**, I couldn't find any PS that didn't cost $150 bucks that advertised 30a on the 12v rail......and even then, its advertised..who knows if its tested or stable....<shrug>

[SteelWill]

Did you get the 256mb or 512mb x1950?

[HeadRusch]

256, I saw no advantage to the 512 version except requiring twice as much power :P

Plus the sapphires are having major failure rates......inadequate cooling solutions it seems.

The Powercolor has a nice juicy high-end 3rd party cooler slapped on....saved me a few bux.

[HeadRusch]

Doing more benchmarking....

So far...everything is playable at 1080p with either no AA or some AA turned on, with 4xAF. Example, Battlefield 2 with 2xaa and 4xaf is probably 60fps, or awfully close.

Prey, which should run not-so-great on this ATI part, keeps a steady peg between 50 and 60fps with no aa and 4xaf. If I turn 2xaa on, the visuals dont improve much, but I lose 10fps right off the bat, so I leave it off. Because its the DOom 3 engine at work, it doesnt' really benefit that much from AA on or off, at least to my eyes.

When in the outdoor environment for Prey at the beginning, in the rocks where you gain your spirit powers, it was more like 40fps but doing the corridor crawl or open environment battles in the early parts of the ship....it stays at 60fps. Hmmm...I wonder how Quake 4 would fare.......

Hmmmm...so maybe the 20fps this card seems to buy me are going to carry me through after all. Normally when I upgrade I want to be at 100+ fps, but I guess since I'm hitting 60fps right now....thats good enough. I can't drop resolution, but I suppose I could drop a visual effect or two to keep the numbers closer to 60fps.

I just checked the 8800GTX numbers....and was surprised to see that a game like FEAR at 1920x1080 with 2xaa, 8xAF is apparrantly only getting about 70fps on FEAR? Is that right? I thought that wouldbe up in the hundreds......

I thought the 8800gtx was faster than even a pair of 7900GTX's SLI'ed......in FEAR I mean, its the current card-killer and I thought they had whomped on it pretty good. Or does the ATI part (1950XTX?) beat up on FEAR better than an 8800GTX will...?

[DaverJ]

...so has the jury read the verdict yet?

[Tinker]

I just checked the 8800GTX numbers....and was surprised to see that a game like FEAR at 1920x1080 with 2xaa, 8xAF is apparrantly only getting about 70fps on FEAR? Is that right? I thought that wouldbe up in the hundreds......

I thought the 8800gtx was faster than even a pair of 7900GTX's SLI'ed......in FEAR I mean, its the current card-killer and I thought they had whomped on it pretty good. Or does the ATI part (1950XTX?) beat up on FEAR better than an 8800GTX will...?
FEAR is optimized for dual vid cards esp SLI'd ones. Yes one 8800GTX in most cases is as fast or faster then 7900GTX SLI'd except for extreme hi res like 2560x1600. I tested all of them, thats why I replaced my 8800GTX with SLI'd 8800GTS's (OC'd) in my gaming rig to support 2560x1600.

EDIT: Bench of FEAR with SLI config's
http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q1/geforce-8800-sli/index.x?pg=6

[fnbaldtaco]

what kind of 3dmark 06 numbers do you get? Im just curious im still on tthe fence also ive been playing burning crusade in 1080p with everything on and it runs from 28 to 85fps averaging around 45fps and my 3dmar06 score is 4000 twice what my highly overclocked 800pro did my setup is amd 64 3000 ocd to 2442ghz 2gig of ddr400 and a 450watt sli msi psu. I have till sunday to return it visiontek x1950pro went with that one because of the cooling and lifetime warrenty.

[HeadRusch]

...so has the jury read the verdict yet?

Jury Says Dis:

This is the fastest card you can put in an AGP slot right now. How much faster it is over my 6800GT will vary from game to game, but in general I feel that my system is now running at 1080p 60fps+ whereas before I felt it was maybe 40fps or less.

The 6800GT just wasn't up to the task of playing games at 1920x1080p with AF and maybe some AA turned on. On older games, sure..no problem....but modern games....not so much. I stopped playing HL2: Episode 1 because it wasn't running at 60fps (which I kind of want with a monitor this big, 30fps really looks not so great 2 feet from a 37" monitor). Sin Episode I was even worse. HL2 Lost Coast was unplayable with HDR turned on, it was just too choppy.

All of that goes away with this card...FEAR is the only thing giving me grief, and thats mostly in its framerate fluctuations, and thats the DEMO version of the expansion pack. I am going to try to install the full game tonight and run the benchmark.

BF2 1920x1080p 2xAA and 4xAF (I never see a visual increase going beyond 4XAF) is butter smooth (60fps) pretty much all the time in single player, playing on the 64 player sized maps (ran the hack), just no slowdowns at all.

Unreal Tournament, same thing......Painkiller...same thing......in fact on those games I can go max details and stay at 60fps+....8xaa, 16xaf, etc (wasteful settings IMHO, just used for benchmarking/pushing the card).

Online benchmarks are indicating that the X1950 Pro can be as much as twice as fast as the 6800GT part......depending on game. Because its got a higher clockspeed and more shaders it works better with newer games, particularly at higher resolutions.

I was hoping the 512meg part would run even better but early indicators say thats not the case.....plus the only one out now is made by sapphire, requires two molex connectors on seperate 12v rails to run,a nd apparrantly doesn't boost framerate by any appreciable measure over the 256meg version......

My only gripe is that the card wont overclock at all. If I bump either number up (core or mem) I get flashing on the screen...it could be my 430watt PS is at its max driving the card at default voltages, but I've been reading online that this card doesn't overclock well..and when it does, its scores dont improve much...could be as fast as this particular architecture gets.

I gotta send in the rebate....but even at $240 it should get me back into PC gaming a bit more. I forgot how much fun BF2 was on the big maps......maybe even try out the newer battlefield game now....hmmmm.

Add it to my stack of 27 other unopened games I haven't had time to play :)

[ChrisFB]

Good review. You are selling me on the card. It'll be an upgrade from a 9800 Pro AIW so huge difference and on my 1280x1024 all I need for a while (plus then I'll retire it as a HTPC and build a new gaming rig). I'll grab one sometime in the next month or so when I get some spare time.

I actually picked up a retail 150GB Raptor X from Best Buy no less for $169 (all instant savings, no rebate). Was pretty stunned since Newegg and others list it for $250-300. The warranty is 5 years so this will be my OS and gaming drive for a while. A new video card would complete the upgrade (probably need a new PS too).

Also, I highly recommend the BF2 mod Point of Existance 2. Tactical Gamer has a good server for it with games almost every night. It's a great addition to the game and much more infantry/squad focused. Plus it's free and if you like BF2, you will love this (unless you are one of those guys who stand on the heli-pad, waiting for it to spawn and TK any teammate who comes near you ;)).

[HeadRusch]

Last night I ran some benchmarks on my system: 13900 is as high as I could get my 3DMARK 2003 scores (remember, 2005 and 2006 are giving me grief, though I will try to reinstall those apps this weekend when I have some time).

Now, I think when I ran the 6800GT the scores were like 11000 to 12000 or so (my GT was running a medium overclock, 400Mhz on the core I think, ram at 1.00).

BUT...this is at 1024x768, no AA and I think 4xAF, whatever the default values are for the demo version of 3Dmark 2003. At that resolution, I'm guessing both the 6800GT and 1950Pro are bottlenecked by the 3.4Ghz P4 I'm running. That demo just doesn't push those two GPU's hard enough at that resolution, but a 1500-2000 point increase isn't so bad, again...at that resolution. One interesting thing.....on the 6800GT battle of proxycon at 1024x768 ran at like 22fps-40fps, but on the 1950 battle of proxicon at 1024x768 was above 60 most of the time during benchmarking.....

At higher resolutions, I have no doubt the 1950GT outgunns the 6800GT.

Chris, if you are only driving 1280x1024, then you need to check your system specs to see if this card would be wasted power.......check out some of the benchmark comparisons of this card driving that resoultion...if its not a huge jump over, say, a 6800GT, I could probably put mine up for sale for less than 1/2 of what a 1950pro would run you. Of course, I have to think if I can find a home for that card in my LAN or not.......it may be available....but do some checking first to make sure your CPU and Resolution can benefit from the horsepower.

..and as for BF2, I'm just enjoying seeing the game at 1920x1080 on my huge desktop with no slowdown at all. 2x adaptive AA, 4xAF....everything maxxed....its a thing of beauty.

Actually at that rez and distance to my monitor, you can see the crappy low-rez shadowing they use, but the regular textures look *amazing*....I'll lookinto that mod, but right now I'm happy fighting the Bots...online my unlocks and rank would be so weak now, dudes yellin at me to learn how to fly a helo, why am I not using a joystick, why am I going this way to a flag, etc, etc. All the "map/gameplay experts" turn me off :P

PS: Unreal Tournament 2004, 2x Adaptive and 8xAA I had FRAPS running and I fired up all the onslaught maps....the ones where you gotta capture points, the maps are large and have alot of stuff going on in them, I culdn't get FRAPS to show me frames below 50....which are close enought o 60 as to not really notice......so again, pleased.

[ChrisFB]

Actually at that rez and distance to my monitor, you can see the crappy low-rez shadowing they use, but the regular textures look *amazing*....I'll lookinto that mod, but right now I'm happy fighting the Bots...online my unlocks and rank would be so weak now, dudes yellin at me to learn how to fly a helo, why am I not using a joystick, why am I going this way to a flag, etc, etc. All the "map/gameplay experts" turn me off :P

On most BF2 servers no one knows crap and no one can fly so I wouldn't worry in the least. TG servers are pretty competent but it seems mostly 30+ year olds and everyone is very cool and all about fun, I honestly don't want to play anywhere else. If a few of them want to get serious they have likely joined pre-made squads and they lock their squads. Unlocked squads everyone is very cool. I've played quite a bit with their "33rd Squad" and "7th squad" and those guys are all very fun. The only expectation is that you don't team kill and act like a reasonable person. It's really a blast, they are serious about having fun playing the game, they don't expect perfect execution by any means and I've seen whole squads wiped out driving off cliffs accidentally and everyone laughs their asses off. Just use a cheap headset as there is an expectation of VOIP and especially if you don't know what you are doing it makes it easier to coordinate with them. And most orders are "we are going to stay here and defend, let's spread out and watch the northwest, call out if you see anything, we need someone to respawn as SpecOps when you die."

I know I can't fly anything for crap, I literally won't fly. Neither am I some super player but I never fail to have fun and it's quite honestly the best online gaming experience and group of people I've had the pleasure of playing with. Plus BF2 with squads and voip translates so well to that style of play.

I'm going to check out the 6800GT benchmarks on my resolution in a minute.

[ChrisFB]

This was an interesting review at Toms with both the AGP saphire and powercolor cards
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/02/01/agp-platform-analysis/index.html

They are using an Athlon64 3400+ and 1gig of ram which is exactly what I have. I think I will likely go with the x1950 simply because it is HDCP compatible and I'll be able to retire it to HTPC duty on the big screen (1080i) later on. Plus I figure I can max out more settings at my panels' resolution now.

[jwatte]

If you are CPU bound, then no faster card will help you.

If you are upload bound, then no other AGP card will run faster.

The real upgrade you need is a Core 2 Duo E6700 with a PCI Express card, if you want a big chunk of improvement.

[ChrisFB]

A full upgrade isn't in the cards for me - I don't think HRush wants to go that route either right now. I'm looking to take this rig, update it so I can play some games for a while (or at least a bit better than now) and when I build another I'll retire this to the HTPC which was always the plan. According to the review and charts my processor is enough to get a lot of performance out of this card so I'm pretty set for now unless someone dumps a fat bonus in my lap for a full rebuild (most would go to family so it has to be big to make enough scrap!).

[HeadRusch]

Agreed...there's just no reason for me to upgrade to anything higher right now. FEAR is the only game that gives me a problem, and I'm not dropping $1600+ bucks to get 60fps in FEAR....considering I've already played it through twice.

All of those benchmarks on Toms site show the 1950Pro as being very playable at high resolution, and those tests were mostly done with 4xaa/8xaf. Its the 4xAA that kills the framerate at such a high resolution, so if you drop that down to 2x...or off completely, you pick up at least 10 fps if not more...and thats plenty for me, for now. If you factor that in, 1600x1200 and 1920x1080 or 1200 become capable of hitting 60fps in many, many games.

I'm not an obliviion gamer so I dont care so much about that.

I think the upgrade you're making is a wise choice...since the 6800GT runs slower than a 7800GS, I'm sure I made a good decision as well.

[ChrisFB]

My only gripe is that the card wont overclock at all. If I bump either number up (core or mem) I get flashing on the screen...

HeadRusch,

I found this today on Newegg regarding the overclock and screen issues:

Excellent Card
Reviewed By: John on 2/8/2007 Reviewed By: John on 2/8/2007 Rating + 5Rating + 5Rating + 5Rating + 5Rating + 5
Tech Level Tech Level: high - Ownership: 1 month to 1 year


Pros: Great card! Fan is so great it is NEVER heard. When I overclocked, I benched better than the x1950pro 512mb cards. So, I kept this card and returned the others.

Cons: None

Other Thoughts: Anyone have overlock issues needs to use the older drivers, they allow for overclocking without any issues(screen flickers)!

[Richard713]

I just installed a saphire x1950 Pro 512mb. I am only trying to drive 1216x684 but as I needed another video card anyway I figured I would upgrade slightly. I have an Athlon 64 3000. The improvement in fear seems to be somewhat marginal from my x800pro 256mb. I was able to set a few items up to maximum rather than medium settings but it seems no matter how I adjust the settings (medium and above) i still get some drops to below 25fps.

Half Life 2 - Lost Coast on the other hand was a significant improvement. I was unable to run the game at full detail with HDR before - it just wasn't playable. With the x1950 I haven't seen a single hiccup. The video stress test said the average frame rate was 57fps.

Overall, I believe it was worth the $229.00.

[Kingskin]

I just installed an x1950 Pro 512 AGP and I'm interested in your BF2 experience as that is really why I got it.

However I seem to be having some serious problems with mine.

I average about 40FPS with most settings on medium and a couple on low, 2xAA, 1024x768.

This is really disappointing as it's not much better than my 9800Pro.

Rest of my specs:

3Ghz P4
2GB 400Mhz RAM
Catalyst 7.1

I really can't see why it running this slow! I know my system is hardly cutting edge but I would have though I could max out BF2 at that res and get a good FPS. Anyone have any ideas?

[ChrisFB]

I wonder if Fear is more CPU bound since it seems both of you are running into a similar blockage and likely have similar genre processors. To get tons more performance on other games and not much on Fear would seem to indicate something at work (or something really odd in the game).

[nameless33]

There's an Antec Truepower 430watt in there, so far no issues.

PS Their requirement for 30a on the 12v rail is **insane**, I couldn't find any PS that didn't cost $150 bucks that advertised 30a on the 12v rail......and even then, its advertised..who knows if its tested or stable....<shrug>


No no no, that antec 430 is a swing and a miss.

This is what you want. 49 Amps on the 12 volt rail.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16817703005

Yeah, it costs, but it'll work for you. What have you got to lose ? This thing will work with your next box.

[cohagen]

FYI

I recently bought a whole new gaming rig. In the process I decided I'd keep my old PC as it was and just use the new PC just for gaming.

I decided to buy an x1950 pro for the old PC so that I might have two decent gaming machines. I was upgrading from a x800xt which actually had sort of died on me. (was overheating I think... too hot to touch any part of the card, caused crashes, would not display at all on startup sometimes)

Anyway! With the x800xt on bf2142 I ran all setting medium, 1024x768 no AA and it was smooth. Now with the x1950pro, I run 1024x768, all settings high, no AA and it is smooth. However if I bump up to 2xAA it goes very, very slow.

System is is Intel board, 3Ghz P4, 2GB ram.

Based on the benchmarks I saw of the x1950pro, I'm inclined to think I'm CPU bound as well as I expected to at least run some AA with high textures but oh well!

[HeadRusch]

Comcast's DNS servers were wacked yesterday and I couldn't get to AVSForum....so I'll try to answer all the questions posted above:

1) The Antec Truepower 430 is 2 years old :) Its still working, so no upgrade yet.

2) Thanks for the info on the drivers and flashing video...I'll try to find the last round of ATI drivers and see what an overclock buys me in terms of FPS.

3) BF2: I had FRAPS running while gaming a bit yesterday.....I would say this card averages in the mid 50's to 60+ on most games. Battlefield2 I'm playing at 1920x1080p with 2xAA and 4xAF, on a 3.4Ghz P4. I'm between 50 and 60 most of the time.....even when it dips into the 40's I dont notice it....if it gets closer to 30, i start to notice it.

There isn't any real reason to go HIGH detail on some of those settings in BF2, there is almost no visual benefit by enabling them up from medium. I think I have textures and lighting at High, the rest at medium...

On the new map (new to me, anyhow) in single player...the one with the Mosque in it, city-fighting against the middle eastern guys......I saw the framerate dip as low as 28 in some areas for quick seconds. I turned off AA and that bought me about 10 frames per second more on average. But BF2 is one of those games that looks better with AA turned on...other games dont benefit nearly as much.

I only have the demo for BF2142 and it runs at high-everything, 1080p, in the 40's to 60's depending....but it "felt smooth" to me, so no complaints.

This card is definately CPU bound by Intel P4's and slower athlons......

KINGSKIN: Are you sure your default card settings aren't set to, say, max AA and Max AF? ARe the boxes for "Allow the application to decide" checked for AA and AF in the driver dashboard..???

[Kingskin]

3) BF2: I had FRAPS running while gaming a bit yesterday.....I would say this card averages in the mid 50's to 60+ on most games. Battlefield2 I'm playing at 1920x1080p with 2xAA and 4xAF, on a 3.4Ghz P4. I'm between 50 and 60 most of the time.....even when it dips into the 40's I dont notice it....if it gets closer to 30, i start to notice it.

There isn't any real reason to go HIGH detail on some of those settings in BF2, there is almost no visual benefit by enabling them up from medium. I think I have textures and lighting at High, the rest at medium...

On the new map (new to me, anyhow) in single player...the one with the Mosque in it, city-fighting against the middle eastern guys......I saw the framerate dip as low as 28 in some areas for quick seconds. I turned off AA and that bought me about 10 frames per second more on average. But BF2 is one of those games that looks better with AA turned on...other games dont benefit nearly as much.

I only have the demo for BF2142 and it runs at high-everything, 1080p, in the 40's to 60's depending....but it "felt smooth" to me, so no complaints.

This card is definately CPU bound by Intel P4's and slower athlons......

KINGSKIN: Are you sure your default card settings aren't set to, say, max AA and Max AF? ARe the boxes for "Allow the application to decide" checked for AA and AF in the driver dashboard..???

Hi,

Yes I've played with everything I can think of, including making sure all of that is set to application preference. I just can't see why I'm having to set everything so low.

I think the card may have to be returned - if I need to upgrade my CPU I may as well make the switch to PCI-E.

I ran 3dMark 05 and 06 last night and got about 6800 and 3800 respectively which seems to match up to the benchmarks roughly, I just can't see why I cant run BF2 at high with 2xAA @1024x768. If you're managing all on medium and a couple on high with AA and AF at that res, I really should be able to manage more than ~40fps with medium settings given that we have pretty similar PCs. :(

[SteelWill]

Kingskin, try overclocking your CPU if you can. You might be able to get enough more out of it to save you from going through the hassle of a new build. You seem to have a decent computer already, you should be albe to tweak enough speed out of it too keep you happy.

Also, I never, ever set anything to application preference. If it has a manual driver setting, I use it, that way I'm sure it's using what I've set it to use. If there is an in-game setting, disabling it should allow the drivers to override it.

[HeadRusch]

I dropped back to the December drivers, ran the auto overclock function and re-ran 3Dmark03...I can now get 14500 points (previous high was around 13400.

This is with no AA and no AF at 1024x768.

If I enable 2xAA 4XAF....that score drops down to 6000 :)


I would think this card is being starved by my CPU...I've already got it about as fast as it will go, unless I play with my memory timings a bit and see what that buys me. usually tho thats a lateral move...a higher Mhz overclock for less work actually being done.

[Kingskin]

Kingskin, try overclocking your CPU if you can. You might be able to get enough more out of it to save you from going through the hassle of a new build. You seem to have a decent computer already, you should be albe to tweak enough speed out of it too keep you happy.

Also, I never, ever set anything to application preference. If it has a manual driver setting, I use it, that way I'm sure it's using what I've set it to use. If there is an in-game setting, disabling it should allow the drivers to override it.

Yeah I think I will give that a go and if I get no joy I will just hang on to the card for a media box. It handles 1020p HD Vids very well and it gives me an excuse to get a new main PC :D

[HeadRusch]

FWIW some games run just fine without any AA turned on. Unreal Tournament, the Quakes, Doom 3....Prey...none of them have any real benefit from AA being turned on at 1080p...slight, but the performance hit is "felt".

Battlefield 2 is the only game that absolutely must be run with some form of AA...even at 1080p it looks like ass without any AA turned on.

FINALLY: 3Dmark 06 score, default demo (1280x1024 rez, nothing turned on in dashboard so whatever the demo runs with in terms of AA or AF)
3782.

Based on this score, and seeing others online, I see this card benches about 4200 or so in faster CPU systems, so my P4 3.4Ghz is not quite pushing it to what its capable of, at least at that 1280 rez), but its close (at least according to that one benchmark).