Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (
More info?)
"Stoneskin" <no@thanks.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1af6e44aee23596d98978d@news.individual.net...
> ec left a note on my windscreen which said:
>
> > > im planning to buy the dell 2001fp and with a native resalution of
> > > 1600x 1200 i want to get a card that can run games well but on a
> > > budget under $200.
> > > look like the 9600xt or 9800pro can do the job. any recomendations?
> >
> > Honestly, no current card runs 16x12 well, at least not in the games I
play.
> > For $200 there is no way you will run well at that res.
>
> I'm curious as to what games you play and what you consider your
> 'minimum FPS' acceptable is. No game I own averages lower than 30fps on
> 1600 resloution (no AA or AF) and I am talking about the latest stuff
> here - PainKiller, UT2004, BF:Vietnam, Far Cry - and on full detail
> settings, apart from AA.
>
> The most taxing game there is probably Far Cry and this generally runs
> at around the 30-40fps mark. It does dip below that occasionally but,
> by some standards, this is perfectly playable. BFV is a bit of a
> quandry - for the most part this is perfectly acceptable but there are
> certain objects which really seem to hit the framerate at High or
> Highest Graphical Quality settings. I belive this is more to do with an
> issue with the game than anything else.
>
> I would be interested to hear what your expectations of playable
> framerates are.
> --
> Stoneskin
>
> [Insert sig text here]
I play with 8X AF minimum and prefer 2x AA at 16x12, I notice a difference.
I play about the same games as you. Ideally I would want 60fps average with
"acceptable" dips not going below 40. My 9800 Pro and P4 3.2 don't deliver
that. I don't think an XT would turn the tide.