Sorry that this question is from a complete novice but here it is anyway.
I have an old motherboard which only supports DDR Ram but it does support PCI-e x16 so could I have a new graphics card in there that has DDR3 memory on it (the 8600gt)??
Just to add to the above. Video Ram on your graphics card is controlled and used only by your GPU, The motherboard communicates with the GPU not the memory it controls. You can thrown any PCI-E card in there you want.
Not to be a party pooper, but I use an 8600GT for gaming. Not bad at all. I probably wouldn't be happy with the performance of, lets say Crysis, but that is just one game. I play every other game (RV6, COH, NWN2, Oblivion, ETQW, to name a few) at a decent resolution (1280x1024) with just about all eye candy maxed in game and 4x AA and 16x AF. My framerates never drop below 30 or so, and are usually higher. I do have the XXX version, which is clocked a bit higher (plus a nice little OC on top of that
I've seen the 8600GT on a 1280x1024 with COD4, it wasn't too bad (you can't expect too much for a card of that price) unless you want to spend a wee bit more on an X1950PRO, but it sounds like you have an 8600GT already.
To answer your question, the motherboard will be fine.
I've seen the 8600GT on a 1280x1024 with COD4, it wasn't too bad (you can't expect too much for a card of that price) unless you want to spend a wee bit more on an X1950PRO, but it sounds like you have an 8600GT already.
What avid gamer uses a screen at 1280x1024? ;-) and you said "wasn't to bad" I consider that "NOT ENOUGH". haha.
I'd say that would be sufficient if you seldom game and just want something that will be adequate. If you plan to game on a regular basis you will tire from looking at a 1280x1024 screen with eye candy on the low settings.
Agreed. No way you can run Oblivion with 4aa/16af @ 1280x1024 on the 8600GT unless you reduce the settings.
OK, I revisted Oblivion on my PC. It had been awhile since I have played it. But, my memory was serving me correct, for the most part. I have it set up to do:
4xAA
8xAF (I was mistaken about the 16xAF, my bad) HDR 25% Exterior Shadows 50% Interior Shadows Tree Canopy Shadows Distant Lands Tree Clip 100% Grass Clip 100% Specular Distance 50% Item/Character Distance is about 50%
Things I do have off: Grass Shadows Soft Shadows
All of this is at 1280x1024 resolution. I brought up the FPS monitor in game, and never once did I see it go below 20. Most of the time, it was somewhere between 25-30 FPS, which is completely playable for me.
So, I guess I was mistaken in my statement that I had "everything" maxed out. But, I did have all of the important things that make the visuals good in that game (distant lands, large textures, HDR, grass, etc...), along with the 4xAA.
As to why there is such a variance from what THG shows in their tests, I am not sure. It could be the fact that my 8600GT is the XFX "XXX" version and runs at 620core/800mem stock speeds. I also OC on top of that to 700core/850mem. I think the one that THG used was 540core/700mem. Could that be enough to make that big of a difference, I don't know...
Message edited by basketcase on 04-03-2008 at 03:59:25 PM
What avid gamer uses a screen at 1280x1024? ;-) and you said "wasn't to bad" I consider that "NOT ENOUGH". haha.
I'd say that would be sufficient if you seldom game and just want something that will be adequate. If you plan to game on a regular basis you will tire from looking at a 1280x1024 screen with eye candy on the low settings.
My friend...he's a CoD4 addict, but a bit cheap, and doesn't like spending another £500+ a year on upgrades. O how I wish I had his resolve.
My friend...he's a CoD4 addict, but a bit cheap, and doesn't like spending another £500+ a year on upgrades. O how I wish I had his resolve.
To each their own really. My roomate occasionally plays cod4 on his 19" lcd at 1280X1024 on a 7900GS. And it runs "OK" and is playable. It's a really scalable game. I mean I personally would be tossing in a 9600GT in his machine and have it maxed out at that res.
I think it is totally dependent on what he does with his pc. If I didn't game I'd probably have an 8600Gt/GTS or 2600Xt or something of that nature.
(shhhh) I'm trying to sell a WoW gaming system to someone with a Radeon 9000 Pro OC to 325/300. But since I brought it up give me an opinion. Im selling a system thats got an XP +2100, 1GB 2700, 80GB HDD, and the 9000 pro OC'd. Its got Windows XP and runs surprisingly fast and I even demo'd wow(to make sure Im not selling a total pile of junk) and Everythings maxed with the exception of viewing distance and outside it runs a steady 30+ FPS @ 1024x768, outside it gets 20~30FPS @ 1280x1024, and inside it hits the 60FPS V sync limit(For kicks I ran it @ 1920x1200 on my 24" and inside caves it ran at a amazing 50FPS average. Outside it was a slideshow at around 11FPS but still for hardware thats roughly 6 years old its not a bad system for say $200?
---------------
The computer allows you to make mistakes faster than any other invention, with the possible exception of handguns and tequila- Mitch Ratcliffe
