Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Do I need an 8800 to solve my irksome framerate problems?

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 31, 2007 9:58:50 PM

RESPONSES TO BELOW : I forgot to mention. I am using a 52" 1080p HDTV, LCoS technology. It does NOT do scaling that well : it's "ok" but you lose the razor sharpness there is running in native resolution. Everything is blurry, especially text.

(1824x1028 is native because like all currently made rear projection HDTVs, the projector is set too far forward forcing overscan. Manufacturers did this to hide the ugly 'edge' of the projected image and to hide the edges of analog and digital TV, which have flaws in them)

I am actually sending a 1920x1080 HDMI signal to my TV, but my video card has been instructed to put 'black' pixels for the outer edges.

I CAN see the difference between this resolution and lower ones.

Come to think of it, this large a digital display, with it's extremely harsh intensity gradients, reveals flaws in almost ANY source.

I am glad to hear your opinions : evidently, when I built this system a couple of months ago, I should have went ahead and bought an 8800 GTS with 640.

Actually, I am not doing all that bad with my 7900. All the games I mentioned are quite playable, with framerates near 30, at native resolution with most graphics effects on. Just not the 60 FPS with all lighting and AA on like an 8800 can probably do... Which would make a big difference in how my games feel.

I have a 7900GS, the factory overclocked one from XFX.

For these games, I cannot quite max out the settings at the resolution of 1824x1028 :

Oblivion - had to disable GRASS to stay above 20 fps all the time! UGH!

STALKER - no dynamic lighting, no sun shadows or grass shadows, and it STILL runs barely above 20 fps most of the time. What a dog.

Marvel : Ultimate Alliance - have to disable advanced lighting effects which really really lowers quality of graphics

Rainbow Six Vegas - had to lower lighting effects quality

Neverwinter Nights 2 - shadows

About the only games that are rock solid smooth all of the time and have awesome graphics are Half Life 2 Episode 1 and World of Warcraft. Darn it, WoW is the best running game of the bunch. It has an FPS locked at 60 virtually of the time.

And of course, I never can enable anti-aliasing in these and several other games. Although, at 1824x1028 I can't seem to notice a difference.

CPU is a C2D at 3200 MHZ, 2 gigs of ram at 4/5/5

More about : 8800 solve irksome framerate problems

March 31, 2007 10:22:45 PM

All those games above need really good Videocards, a 7900gs will cut it but it wont be amazing


8800 FTW
March 31, 2007 11:05:46 PM

if your running a monitor size around 20" You could try and turn your res down to the widesceen equivalent of 1280 x 1024..not sure what that is..
You don't really have the RAM capacity on that card to run much, if at all, higher.. Also, I have a 7900GT, which is probably clocked considerably higher that yours.. and I run all those games on full cept for AA and HDR at the same time, and stuff like that. Don't have stalker, but sometimes in oblivion, I stumble around 15 FPS, but thats the very minimum..

Oh, and about needing an 8800, no you dont a x1950xt xtx or 7900GT/GTX would solve your problems, yet the 8800 GTS 320 is the most cost effective at the moment, and the only dx10 of the bunch mentioned. the 7900GS is a pretty nice card, Id just keep it and lower my settings to what was needed, and then when its time, when there is more dx10 competition, and when we finally know how much dx10 really needs in terms of RAM and clockspeed from a dx10, then buy something really nice..

EDIT: Actually, I think that 1824x1028 is around the closest to 1280x1024.
Related resources
April 1, 2007 9:25:06 AM

Fender : a 7900GT has more pipes in it, as well as sometimes a high clock.

I cannot run in anything but native resolution : my panel looks WAY worse, everything is noticeably blurred at anything but native resolutions.

The screen is 52", so I can't turn the res down for that reason either.

Sigh, I know what everyone is thinking. Friend said the same thing when I described my ultimate gaming box : "you put all that money into CPU, sound, and display yet you have a weak video card? wtf?"
April 1, 2007 9:33:30 AM

You will definitly benefit from a 8800, I own one awesome dosent quite say it :D 
April 1, 2007 11:59:18 AM

In games likte this, a graphic card is needed.

Whether a 8800 now, or a R600 or 8900 later, you need a better card. nVidia's 8 series and ATI's R600 cards are your best option.
April 1, 2007 1:18:45 PM

Shouldnt stalker run much smoother on a 7900gs??

Even my x800gto plays it 15fps with dynamic lightning turned on :?

Without dynamic lightning i play it around 30-60fps @1024*768

Are you running it with the latest nvidia drivers??
April 1, 2007 8:11:17 PM

Well in that case.. with that huge monitor, An 8800 would be great
April 2, 2007 2:34:07 AM

ok call me a noob but...

I'm using a 7600gs (agp), a p4ht 3ghx and a gig of ram, and I run stalker at medium settings @1024x768 with very little hitch just some loading hitch every now and then when the world loads into my ram. On bf2 Im running it with settings maxed and get 60+ fps always. What are you using to cheak your fps?
April 2, 2007 11:50:55 AM

i just put the graphics to high and dynamic lightning off :p 
maximum runs good also, but takes some fps and i dont see the difference... I have done no tweaking to the game
April 2, 2007 12:24:01 PM

Quote:
I have a 7900GS, the factory overclocked one from XFX.

For these games, I cannot quite max out the settings at the resolution of 1824x1028 :

Oblivion - had to disable GRASS to stay above 20 fps all the time! UGH!

STALKER - no dynamic lighting, no sun shadows or grass shadows, and it STILL runs barely above 20 fps most of the time. What a dog.

Marvel : Ultimate Alliance - have to disable advanced lighting effects which really really lowers quality of graphics

Rainbow Six Vegas - had to lower lighting effects quality

Neverwinter Nights 2 - shadows

About the only games that are rock solid smooth all of the time and have awesome graphics are Half Life 2 Episode 1 and World of Warcraft. Darn it, WoW is the best running game of the bunch. It has an FPS locked at 60 virtually of the time.

And of course, I never can enable anti-aliasing in these and several other games. Although, at 1824x1028 I can't seem to notice a difference.

CPU is a C2D at 3200 MHZ, 2 gigs of ram at 4/5/5
Well I know Rainbow Six Vegas runs like shit on my 8800GTX, I've heard that Neverwinter Nights 2 is a underperforming resource hog, Stalker was originally meant to be run on the Geforce FX line(WTF happened?), and Oblivion pretty much kicks the crap out of anything short of an 8800 GTS.
April 2, 2007 12:31:20 PM

Quote:
I have a 7900GS, the factory overclocked one from XFX.

For these games, I cannot quite max out the settings at the resolution of 1824x1028 :

Oblivion - had to disable GRASS to stay above 20 fps all the time! UGH!

STALKER - no dynamic lighting, no sun shadows or grass shadows, and it STILL runs barely above 20 fps most of the time. What a dog.

Marvel : Ultimate Alliance - have to disable advanced lighting effects which really really lowers quality of graphics

Rainbow Six Vegas - had to lower lighting effects quality

Neverwinter Nights 2 - shadows

About the only games that are rock solid smooth all of the time and have awesome graphics are Half Life 2 Episode 1 and World of Warcraft. Darn it, WoW is the best running game of the bunch. It has an FPS locked at 60 virtually of the time.

And of course, I never can enable anti-aliasing in these and several other games. Although, at 1824x1028 I can't seem to notice a difference.

CPU is a C2D at 3200 MHZ, 2 gigs of ram at 4/5/5


you have a powerfull videocard but there is not enough video memory on it. u can do a voltmod on it and run it gt speeds. i currently have a 7900gs and i run everything at 1024x max everything and get above 70fps on all games. mine runs at 650gcore and 880mem
April 2, 2007 2:18:29 PM

7900 GS + 1824x1028 = bad framerates, plain and simple.

You need an 8800 320mb minumum to push that resolution to any satisfaction... maybe an X1950 XT, but that's pushing it.
April 2, 2007 2:21:12 PM

Quote:

you have a powerfull videocard but there is not enough video memory on it. u can do a voltmod on it and run it gt speeds.


No, this is incorrect. The video memory on a 7900 GS won't allow him to play at the huge resolution he wants to play at.

The 7900 GS is a great card for 1280x1024, but it's never going to perform well at 1824x1028 - no matter what clockspeed or amount of memory it has.
April 2, 2007 3:25:19 PM

Why don't you lower the resolution to, say, 1280x1024? It's still a great resolution. I'm happy when my games are playable at 1024x768. Problem solved, 0$ involved. I don't get why people should want to play at such crazy resolutions, I honestly can't see any difference in quality going above 1280x1024.
April 2, 2007 3:35:03 PM

Quote:

1824X1028 will kick a 320mb 8800gts right in the balls, especially if any amount of AA and AF is enabled. For 1680X1050 and up either a 640mb GTS or a GTX is recommended.


I dunno about that. Even my old X1900 XTX can handle 1680x1050 pretty easily.

Admittedly it's a 512mb card, but I can't imagine that extra 144 pixels across will make or break a 320mb GTS. The OP never said he needed AA at that high resolution, or even max detail at that res.
April 2, 2007 3:35:25 PM

Well maybe you see a difference because you want to.
April 2, 2007 3:43:40 PM

Quote:
Well maybe you see a difference because you want to.


No, I see a difference because there is a difference :roll:That can't be, since there is no difference because I see no difference, and not because I want to.
April 2, 2007 3:48:35 PM

Glad you admit I am right and you are wrong on no rational basis. :D 
April 2, 2007 3:50:15 PM

Quote:

Well on the same token he never said he didn't either.


He kind of did. He mentions all of the steps he's taken to reduce in-game settings, and about AA he said: "...anti-aliasing in these and several other games. Although, at 1824x1028 I can't seem to notice a difference. "

I'll agree with you though that if he wants to max out detail and IQ, a 640mb GTS is the way to go.

But the man is making due with a 7900 GS right now, even a GTS 320 will be a huge step up at that high resolution. Depends on how much he's willing to spend.
April 2, 2007 4:00:39 PM

Quote:
Yep, im packing up my new 22" LCD right now and sending it back in favor of my CRT 1280X1024 monitor. :roll:
Better dissassemble the nasty thing and burn it piece by piece, just to make sure you don't fall again for the useless pixels in the future. :lol:  Ok enough brain inactivity for today.
April 2, 2007 4:20:58 PM

Quote:
7900 GS + 1824x1028 = bad framerates, plain and simple.

You need an 8800 320mb minumum to push that resolution to any satisfaction... maybe an X1950 XT, but that's pushing it.

Agreed. All of these people saying "blah blah blah runs fine on my blah blah blah at 1024 X 768" are ignoring one key point... the OP is NOT trying to run those games at that resolution.
April 2, 2007 4:59:19 PM

1824 x 1028 with high graphics on any card is gonna be a heavy load.


Also, about not seeing a difference above 1280 x 1024 check out the windows icons and see if they're smaller or not.
April 2, 2007 5:33:49 PM

Quote:
1824 x 1028 with high graphics on any card is gonna be a heavy load.....


really, not that heavy of a load on 8800GT 640 8800GTX, they start to choke but only so much around 2560 x 1600 which is native only to dual displays or a freaking huge monitor.

His problem is simple, that resolution he's trying to push native, is requiring lots of bandwidth for huge textures. That 7900gs ain't gonna do it. Plus most of the games he mentioned are not well optimized, lazy programming.

All he has to do is lower the resolution but is sounds like he doesn't want to do that..., you can lead a horse to water....
April 2, 2007 6:59:04 PM

Quote:
1824 x 1028 with high graphics on any card is gonna be a heavy load.....


really, not that heavy of a load on 8800GT 640 8800GTX, they start to choke but only so much around 2560 x 1600 which is native only to dual displays or a freaking huge monitor.

His problem is simple, that resolution he's trying to push native, is requiring lots of bandwidth for huge textures. That 7900gs ain't gonna do it. Plus most of the games he mentioned are not well optimized, lazy programming.

All he has to do is lower the resolution but is sounds like he doesn't want to do that..., you can lead a horse to water....

Unlike the old CRT days, lowering a resolution on an LCD is a rather unpleasant thing do... it has less to do with pride and more to do with image quality now on the newer screens.
April 2, 2007 7:26:14 PM

Quote:
Unlike the old CRT days, lowering a resolution on an LCD is a rather unpleasant thing do... it has less to do with pride and more to do with image quality now on the newer screens.


This is true to an extent. LCD non native scaling depends on the model and manufacture. Some do it better than others. I have scaled my LCD to 1280x 1280 and 1024x768 and lower and it I have to say it does a fair job. Better at some lower resolutions than others. If he has bad issues than a faster card with a healthy amount of memory and bandwidth will solve his problems.
April 2, 2007 8:00:41 PM

Quote:
Well maybe you see a difference because you want to.


No, I see a difference because there is a difference :roll:That can't be, since there is no difference because I see no difference, and not because I want to.Anything lower than 1680x1050 isn't worth my time! :wink:
April 2, 2007 8:00:41 PM

Quote:
I've heard that Neverwinter Nights 2 is a underperforming resource hog


its not as good looking as Oblivion and it runs slower sometimes at least in my 8800 GTS with most settings max.But a great game though :) 
April 2, 2007 9:05:27 PM

oh wow man for those resolutions you might consider Sli or crossfire solutions

if you dont have a board that supports either you could get the 7900gx2 or the upcoming 8900gx

the 7900gs was not meant to play games at those resolutions as it only has 256mb video ram, you need at least 512mb to run at those resolutions
a b U Graphics card
April 2, 2007 9:35:52 PM

To run at that resolution, yes.
April 2, 2007 10:33:12 PM

Quote:
I have a 7900GS, the factory overclocked one from XFX.

For these games, I cannot quite max out the settings at the resolution of 1824x1028 :

Oblivion - had to disable GRASS to stay above 20 fps all the time! UGH!

STALKER - no dynamic lighting, no sun shadows or grass shadows, and it STILL runs barely above 20 fps most of the time. What a dog.

Marvel : Ultimate Alliance - have to disable advanced lighting effects which really really lowers quality of graphics

Rainbow Six Vegas - had to lower lighting effects quality

Neverwinter Nights 2 - shadows



What is the point to run a game at that resolution ? Someone explain to me ? I mean a 1280x1024 is already super duper nice !
April 2, 2007 10:37:29 PM

Quote:
This is true to an extent. LCD non native scaling depends on the model and manufacture. Some do it better than others. I have scaled my LCD to 1280x 1280 and 1024x768 and lower and it I have to say it does a fair job. Better at some lower resolutions than others. If he has bad issues than a faster card with a healthy amount of memory and bandwidth will solve his problems.


"fair" might be good in a pinch, but spending the cash on a bigscreen only to dumb-down the quality w/ lower res would personally piss me off if I was in that situation. And some ppl notice it more than others, the interpolation of lower res I mean.

to the OP:
Honestly, the recommendations for the 8800 is the way to go right now. If you have the cash in all the other components, spend it there too.

as for whether or not to go 640mb... IMO a good rule is spend as much as you can afford, it will last longer. That 640 will last longer on newer games than the 320 at your resolutions... and the gtx longer still. Get what you can pay for man.
April 3, 2007 12:24:49 AM

Quote:

you have a powerfull videocard but there is not enough video memory on it. u can do a voltmod on it and run it gt speeds.


No, this is incorrect. The video memory on a 7900 GS won't allow him to play at the huge resolution he wants to play at.

The 7900 GS is a great card for 1280x1024, but it's never going to perform well at 1824x1028 - no matter what clockspeed or amount of memory it has.
WTF... why not quote everything i said instead of trying to correct someone. .....
April 3, 2007 5:11:57 AM

Yep, im packing up my new 22" LCD right now and sending it back in favor of my CRT 1280X1024 monitor. :roll:[/quote]

You got a 22" Lcd for a SLI GTX setup 8O *faints* Get a 30" Lcd :p 
April 3, 2007 1:44:01 PM

Quote:

WTF... why not quote everything i said instead of trying to correct someone. .....


Because you implied the problem was mainly the amount of memory. It's not, it's the GPU.

You can put 2 gigs of ram on a 7900 GS, it's still not going to handle that res.

I'm correcting you so people don't assume the information you gave is correct. It's nothing personal.
April 3, 2007 2:31:53 PM

Quote:


What is the point to run a game at that resolution ? Someone explain to me ? I mean a 1280x1024 is already super duper nice !


The point is that the op has a 52" LCD TV and that is its native resolution. He stated that the TV doesnt do a good job at scaling, so the image quality is degraded. Thats why he wants to run at that resolution.
April 3, 2007 2:58:33 PM

reality is that there are lots of ppl out there that either have poor eyesight or just don't care about image quality. Then notice the jump from 640x480 to 1280x1024 but not much else.

I have some friends that still use the old crap-tacular 27" TV that has a nice "halo" of distorted and blurred pixels near the outer edges and it drives me nuts to watch ANYTHING on it. Every time I rant about it they just shrug it off... and they play an xbox360 on this thing! yikes.

Bottom line is that there are ppl that care, and those that don't. Those that don't get enjoyment out of cheaper/lower quality items... and that is fine. Those of us who are, umm, "graced" with the need for higher-Q are forced to spend more cash and complain when it doesn't work right...

...hmm, maybe I should gouge out my eyes and then I wouldn't be so broke. 8O
April 3, 2007 3:01:29 PM

Ok. I get this all the time, and maybe I'm wrong, so someone chime in.

Unless the game uses in excess of 320MB of texture memory (and few do), then you're wasting your time.


Most games use 256MB or less at the moment, because 512MB+ is kind of a recent trend. The only time you run into a problem is when you exceed your physical memory and the GPU has to compress/decompress the images. This is where the GPUs differ. From what I've seen, the 8800 takes a serious hit in the frameate when it needs to compress/decompress (I forget, but I think it was only FSX and UT2004 of the popular games, but that might've been more of an OpenGL issue for UT).

Anyway, to the point, getting a memory card with 320MB versus 640MB (or 256/512) doesn't impact framerates unless the game uses in excess of 320MB, and that's easily addressable by using medium-quality textures (but everything else can be maxed out accordingly).

To the point, a lot of people choose the 640MB over the 320MB because it will deliver 'more performance', and that's generally not the case for most games out today. By the time games come out that actually require more RAM for high textures, you won't have to sell a kidney to get the video card.
April 3, 2007 3:53:03 PM

I think you're right for the most part, although more memory does seem to help framerates once you reach very high resolutions.
April 3, 2007 3:57:16 PM

Why do you think that is? At what resolutions does it start to help?

Thanks.

(P.S. I notice you upgraded to a core 2 :)  )
April 3, 2007 4:01:26 PM

If memory serves, 1600x1200 is the turning point where the amount of memory starts to noticably help.

Yeah, got a core 2. The single core Athlon64 wasn't cutting it for video processing and 3d rendering. (and Supreme Commander :wink: )
April 3, 2007 4:24:13 PM

Yeah SupCom was the final nail for my P4/9800 Pro lol (Yeah I waited too long I know).

I mostly play LAN games. I tried SupCom online and got my commander r*&^ed by a level 1 scout plane rush. So cheap.

So much for strategy. I had a TON of AA defenses, too.

I'll try again soon I s'pose; once I figure out a viable defense. At any rate, SupCom was the perfect successor to TA :) 
April 3, 2007 5:08:56 PM

You are running a HUGE display with a MASSIVE amount of pixels.
You want to play the LATEST games at the HIGHEST SETTINGS.



You NEED the BEST video card you can get.
April 3, 2007 5:23:56 PM

there are also other games besides the ones you mention that use more than 256 texture mem. GhostReconAW is one. It does not even allow high qual settings on cards w/ 256 or less mem. Firingsquad did a bench on it and confirmed that indeed it used like mid-300 in mb's for mem. (if I remember right) Their test also showed that on low-mid range cards that increase in memory did you no good, it only worked on the high-end cards.

resolution does it at high levels like cleeve said. So does moderate resolutions with high AA set. And then there is the high qual textures.

Again though, why spend cash on all other components and then force yourself to use lower qual textures or settings. And if you have to run lowQ now, what about in a year? IMO you should get the most you can afford at any point in time, and that memory (on a high end card mind you) is worth it.
!