Author Topic: CHOCKED down TI 4600 (Read 788 times)

mrblack · « **Reply #15 on:** October 20, 2003, 02:05:52 AM »

Yea I read that today on abits forum.
I reallt don't know If I will mess with the prescott If I can't get that much more speed out of the 875 chipset.

May just wait for the Tejas LOL.

Say would you go with the ATI 9800pro 128meg or the 9800xt 256meg?

I don't see that much difference between the two to justifiy the price jump.

Animal · « **Reply #16 on:** October 20, 2003, 02:47:10 AM »

There is a little speed bump, and the 256 may be of help down the road; but by the time any game benefits from that much video ram, your card will already be obsolete.

But what the hell, you seem to love having a fast machine, so get the XT, you know you want to, and we know if you buy it we'll get 3 more threads detailing how fast and cool everything runs

bloom25 · « **Reply #17 on:** October 20, 2003, 03:29:09 AM »

There's so little difference between the PRO and XT that it would be really hard to justify the $100 difference in cost. (Even harder to justify if you plan on overclocking the 9800 Pro.)

I'm with Animal, by the time games need more than 128 MB of video memory, the 9800 PRO 256 MB and 9800 XT will be obsolete anyway. No programmer is going to write a game that requires more video memory than what the average card has at the time the game is supposed to be released. You won't sell many copies of your game that way.

BTW: Check out my huge write-up on FSB issues (which is really relating to computer architecture in general) in the other thread. I spend a LOT of time on it so far, so I hope some of you get something from it. (I HATE feeling like I'm wasting my time.

) I still have more to write to finish the article up and tie the loose ends together, but I think there's enough there already to be interesting for some of you guys!

Roscoroo · « **Reply #18 on:** October 20, 2003, 04:22:20 AM »

Go Ahead Keep Writting Bloom

I'm just sittin on the sidelines slurping up all this info

Octavius · « **Reply #19 on:** October 20, 2003, 12:32:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bloom25
BTW: Check out my huge write-up on FSB issues (which is really relating to computer architecture in general) in the other thread. I spend a LOT of time on it so far, so I hope some of you get something from it. (I HATE feeling like I'm wasting my time. ) I still have more to write to finish the article up and tie the loose ends together, but I think there's enough there already to be interesting for some of you guys!

Which thread is that? I'm with Roscoroo

Skuzzy · « **Reply #20 on:** October 20, 2003, 12:41:57 PM »

Actually, the need for more video memory is not really related to the textures used in a game. It is more for the anti-aliasing being done.
Anti-aliasing takes up quite a bit of memory, depending on the sample pattern being used. The reason for most of the video memory growth is occurring as ATI/NVidia are realizing that users want AA.
With a 128MB or video ram, you are limited on high you can run AA sample levels when running at 1600x1200, for instance. With 256MB of video ram, you can run the highest AA levels at 1600x1200 and still have enough video ram for the textures of the game.

Honestly though, only reviewers will actually run the highest levels of AA at 1600x1200 and just for the sake of comparisons.

Roscoroo · « **Reply #21 on:** October 20, 2003, 01:02:04 PM »

its the "advice on cpu + video card "thread ...Ole Bloom has gone and written a book in it

BB Gun · « **Reply #22 on:** October 20, 2003, 02:22:28 PM »

Quote

posted by bloom25
My lowly system:
Athlon 2400+ OC to 2.13 GHz (same as 2600+)
Asus A7N266-C
Radeon 9800 (Cat 3.7)
512 MB PC2100
Win 2k SP4
DX 9.0b

This is at 1280x1024 32 bit color with 4x Anti Aliasing and 4x Anistropic Filtering turned on. (My monitor refresh rate is 85 Hz BTW.) On a GeForce 4 4600 you'd be lucky to get 20 fps with these settings.

[FR=84]

Quote

posted by mrblack
Yep you got me beat at 1280x1024 32bit with 4x AA the best i could get is 75

See? You're choking your system.

he probably spent less on all the other parts of his system than you can buy that fancy schmancy cooling system for at this point in time. Spend smart. Not lots.

BB

mrblack · « **Reply #23 on:** October 20, 2003, 02:50:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BB Gun
See? You're choking your system. he probably spent less on all the other parts of his system than you can buy that fancy schmancy cooling system for at this point in time. Spend smart. Not lots.

BB

You dont even know how much or how little i spent on my system.
Would you be suprised to hear 1.225.00

I salvaged parts from old computers lying around the house.
So all i had to buy was cooling system and motherboard.

Arlo · « **Reply #24 on:** October 20, 2003, 02:51:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bloom25
Turn on anistropic filtering to 4x and see what you get. I'm curious to see the results. When I had a Ti 4200 overclocked to 4600 speeds turning on AF completely killed my framerate. (Just a note: AF doesn't work right on nVidia cards with some 40 series drivers. The 43.65s are an example.) If it works right 4x AF should really allow you to see more detail in the terrain. Unfortunately it's hard to see the difference on my screenshot, because the compression scheme JPEG uses has the effect of blurring textures.

Regardless, getting 75 FPS with a Ti 4600 with 4x AA turned on at 1280x1024 is excellent.

BTW: Prescott support on current socket 478 boards is by no means a certainty. The early power consumption estimates Intel released by which the MB manufacturers based Prescott compatibility on were revised a couple months ago and were revised again just a week ago or so. As far as I know, only the Asus P4P800-E is capable of meeting the revised specs. In addition because of the delay in Prescott's release schedule, it's unlikely Intel will release more than one or two Prescott cored P4s in socket 478. Intel is currently showing LGA socket 775 using the Grantsdale chipset for Prescott's projected 2.8 to 3.6 GHz currently scheduled Q2 2004 release on their newest roadmap. Given the latest delay in Prescott's socket 478 release to mid-Q1 2004, that doesn't give them much time to release more than 1 or 2 speed grades. Even the latest revision to the power specs would only allow for around a 3.4 GHz model to fall within the P4P800-Es maximum current specs. I hope Intel finds a way to get power consumption down a lot, or quite a few people who bought Springdale and Canterwood socket 478 boards recently are going to be angry or at the very least disapointed that their boards are not going to be compatible with Prescott. (Myself included, I've built a few P4P800 systems now.)

Saved. A MAW ... huh ....

:impressed:

GODO · « **Reply #25 on:** October 20, 2003, 03:07:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mrblack
And Maybe the problems b people are having with the Beta.
Is more there lack of hardware than bad code on HTs part?

You better go and read "Beta testing" HiTech post on "Aces High II: Tour of Duty" forum.

Roscoroo · « **Reply #26 on:** October 20, 2003, 03:22:18 PM »

I can just see it now .... (you know how the've got that "junkyard wars " show ?)... We could all pool our parts and have a PC War:D

Lets see Ive got a iwill xp333r raid board laying around...
a 1x dvd rom . a couple of extra sets of 133 cables,a stack of .5 gb harddrives,a spare freezer,a couple of extra motorcycle oil coolers, my first water cooled heat sink I machined(its alittle ruff but it worked ),a spare ford escort,super glue,yama bond,artic silver, and a closet full of misc stuff.

mrblack · « **Reply #27 on:** October 20, 2003, 03:23:03 PM »

LOL:aok