Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

video card for high quality 1280 x 1024 gaming

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 14, 2004 1:17:26 PM

I'm building a new computer soon for mainstream gaming and software development. I would like to play games at high quality with AA and AF enabled. I haven't been gaming in a few years now and was wondering what kinda fps would provide a good gaming experience at 1280 x 1024 res for games such as UT2004.

Another question, what CPUs make it a bottleneck for video cards? I'm thinking of getting a P4-3.0E (prescott) or the Celeron D 320 socket 478. Would they be possible bottlenecks?

Which video card should I get for high quality gaming at 1280 x 1024 res? I'm assuming I don't need the high-end cards to do this
November 14, 2004 2:48:09 PM

Thanks for the tip! I'm getting the Benq FP783 which runs at a native res of 1280 x 1024. Would it affect the image quality if i change it to 1280x960?

Would the GeForce FX 5900XT 128MB be good enough to pump out good fps at high quality settings/AA/AF enabled at this res for games like UT2004?


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by dspayre on 11/14/04 12:00 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
Related resources
November 14, 2004 3:31:05 PM

Dont get a celeron no matter what the speed! Especially for gameing. Get the high end intels or get an fx-53 or fx-55.
The lowest vid card I would go with is the ati 9600xt or equivalant nvidia. You want directx 9.0 support.
The ati 9800 series would be better or better yet would be the x800 if you have the money.
November 14, 2004 4:55:51 PM

you generally want to get fps ability to go as high as possible for smoothest game play.
but look for a card that can run greater than 40 fps at the res youll be playing at...
that way makes sure that when in intense graphics game play moment, your game play remains smooth.

<font color=red><pre>_____________________________________
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>
November 14, 2004 5:07:44 PM

leave the reso on the LCD at 1280*1024.
All cards that can handle 1024*768 or 1280*960 shld be able to play at that reso easily.

:tongue: <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/priyajeet/fing.jpg" target="_new"><i><font color=red>Very funny, Scotty.</font color=red><font color=blue> Now beam down my clothes.</font color=blue></i></A> :tongue:
a b U Graphics card
November 14, 2004 7:50:39 PM

First the FXs suck. Either get a GF6600GT AGP version (soon to arrive) or a Radeon 9800PRO like someone else suggested. And you might even think of the GF6800LE or X800SE, but from the looks of things, from another post here, the GF6600GT AGP is a better card most of the times.

If you're programming and wanna tweak stuff and test new features, stick with the GF6600GT. If anything the FX will lead to to program in such away that would lead you away from the norm.

As for the CPU question, UT2K4 is very CPU limited in big maps with lots of players are the worst (you could have a GF6800, and it won't help if you have a sucky CPU, but the 3.0+ghz P4 should be fine. Keep away from a Celeron IMO.

Now if you do go prescott and get a newer mobo, perhaps PCIe would be a wise choice (not available with older sockets [IIRC]), and then your card choices could be the GF6600GT, X700XT, X700PRO, X700, and your future upgrade option may be better.

As for the resolution, I don't trust running things outside of LCDs native resolutions. Usually look like crap to me.

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
November 14, 2004 10:19:19 PM

Yeah, I'll keep the res at the LCD native. Hopefully, it doesnt stretch the image too much.

At a res of 1280x1024, I didnt think that I would need the best graphics card (x800,6800Ultra, etc), aren't they just overkill? I'm looking for a mid range card, but if it makes gaming choppy, i'm willing to go all out.

OK, I'll forget about the celeron and just go with the P4 3.0E Ghz.
a b U Graphics card
November 14, 2004 11:35:31 PM

Yeah, x800 and GF6800 would be overkill IMO, that's why I think X700/x700pro/x700XT/GF6600 or the R9800.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
November 14, 2004 11:48:44 PM

out of those cards you listed, only the R9800 is AGP right?

wow, I just found a R9800XT card for $200US. However, I've never heard of this board maker, I think it's only available here in Japan.

Take a look at the specs on the following link and let me know what you think.

http://www.kuroutoshikou.com/products/gboard/rd98xt-a25...;P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by dspayre on 11/14/04 09:02 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
November 15, 2004 12:13:23 AM

u can get a good 9800pro for abt $150 second hand from manufactureers like Hercules.
U can mod them to a XT if u want.

:tongue: <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/priyajeet/fing.jpg" target="_new"><i><font color=red>Very funny, Scotty.</font color=red><font color=blue> Now beam down my clothes.</font color=blue></i></A> :tongue:
November 15, 2004 5:37:37 AM

I think I'll go with the Albatron 6800GT. I doubled checked that Japanese card and it looks suspicious. The memory clocks dont match 9800XT clocks specified on ATI's site. And it's only 128bit.

What's a good CPU match for a 6800GT card? P4 3.0E GHZ socket 478 shouldnt bottle neck the video card, right?
a b U Graphics card
November 15, 2004 5:50:22 AM

The GF6600GT is coming soon as an AGP card with an MSRP of $200US. It's better than an R9800Pro in most situations, and significantly cheaper than a GF6800/GT.

But if you can afford it, the GF6800GT will give you much more gaming power, and may give you more quality options, like AA/AF.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
November 15, 2004 10:15:15 AM

Always keep your lcd at the native resolution or youll suffer interpolation (Dimished visual quality not having the lcd run at the resolution it was made for).

Im running games at 1280x1024 and honestly, I dont get frame rates that make me happy all the time with my 6800 GT. In cs source im getting between 60-115 at 800x600 resolution, In 1280x1024 I was getting 50-90. Anything under 60 is unacceptable to me (After paying 500 dollars for a videocard). Im already looking into the Ultra. If your going to be playing games at least 1280x1024 espically newer games like half life 2 etc, Id at least, at a dead minimum get 6800 gt or x800 if you want frame rates that dont suck.

Asus p4c800 Deluxe,1 Gig Mushkin PC3200 Dual Channel Level II V2,Pentium 4 3.0 512k 800fsb HT, Thermaltake Xaser III, Thermaltake Spark 7+, Sound Blaster Audigy2 ZS Platinum Pro, eVGA GeForce 6800 GT
November 15, 2004 12:54:48 PM

oh damn....the 6800GT may not be good enough at 1280x1024 res? hmmm, how much does one have to pay to enjoy a gaming experience? =)

Could your P4 3GHz be a bottle neck? I noticed that in Tom's review of the 6800Ultra, the mentioned that a P4 3.2GHz was a bottle nect for 12x10 but 16x12 was where 6800Ultra showed it's power.
a b U Graphics card
November 15, 2004 4:51:28 PM

Yeah I have alot of experience with interpolation on the laptops. D3 on the current one (with FX5200 try to run 1024x768 no chance, so 640x480, OIE!)

However he's talking about UT2K4, which isn't that bad, it runs fine on my R9600Pro. It's really alot more CPU limitied than anything else. But you're right, for games like D3, FartCry, CS, HL2, Painkiller, etc. easily 1280x1024 could start stressing things.

I was somewhat staying within the confines of the question, but to try some level of 'future-proofing' (no such thing) would require more power for sure.

Sad to hear CS is struggling with your card, considering I will likely go from the R9600Pro to the GF6600 (non GT, yeah don't start, I know it's mediocre at best [depends on pricing, which right now is usually about 60% of the GT]) while waiting for the NV5x/R5xx to hit the market place, so HL2 may not be as great as I could possibly have it in that case.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
November 16, 2004 11:03:37 AM

Its not *struggling* but its cutting it pretty dam close, I would like at least a 100 fps + with full graphics. Not a unstable 60-100 with some medium and some high.

Thats barley passable going on the mantra of The human eye cant notice anything past 60, that means anything under 60 is running less than optimum, and running exactly 60 is running right on the edge of running less than optimum.

I wanna see btx and dual core proc's and more lethal pci x video cards so I can build a new system. I built this one right before the big technology boom. The new p4 3.8 is looking nice to, espically the clocks well into 4 ghz territory, I built this system I had no intention of overclocking my processor, hence fast stock ram. Next time around thats not going to be the case.

Also my frame rates right now in cs source are with only half my ram (the other half is rma'd) and with the default nvidia website drivers, im going to start searching for the optimum drivers soon and when I get the rest of my ram back Ill rebench cs s and hopefully come up with some better results.

Asus p4c800 Deluxe,1 Gig Mushkin PC3200 Dual Channel Level II V2,Pentium 4 3.0 512k 800fsb HT, Thermaltake Xaser III, Thermaltake Spark 7+, Sound Blaster Audigy2 ZS Platinum Pro, eVGA GeForce 6800 GT<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Rx7000 on 11/16/04 08:10 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
November 16, 2004 4:44:16 PM

As long as the FPS does not got below 30fps during gameplay your really set since the human eye will not tell beyond that.

For UT2004 I can tell you the 9800 pro can do that res setting easily but for other games out there that depends. games like doom3 or far cry you may needs little more when you up the res like the X800pro or 6800gt.

<i><font color=red>Only an overclocker can make a computer into a convectional oven.</i></font color=red>
a b U Graphics card
November 16, 2004 6:40:24 PM

Quote:
As long as the FPS does not got below 30fps during gameplay your really set since the human eye will not tell beyond that.

That's incorrect. If that's the case for you, that's fine but physiologically that's not the case for the average person.

If yo want further information you can check the fourm search tool as we've had this discussion many MANY times.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
November 16, 2004 8:10:21 PM

Beyond that is a psychological issue.

<i><font color=red>Only an overclocker can make a computer into a convectional oven.</i></font color=red>
a b U Graphics card
November 16, 2004 8:27:13 PM

No it's not.

It's a combination of both, and you can perceive changes especially specific ones (like angular acuity and converging/contrasting motion), at far FAR higher framerates than that. [edit: in order for it to be psychological it first has to be physiological, unless it's ESP vision. The rods and cones have to fire and they are definitely not limited, and then there are so many things involved in phsycologial perception that you'd have no way of pinning down an exact number except the absolute maximums, which is well into the 400fps.]

If you have some research to show us that goes against everything we've already discussed, have at 'er, but 30fps is a good 'gaming standard' but it's a fallacy that it applies equally to all situatiuons, and that perception breaks down above that; and it's equally myopic (perfect word for this :lol:  ) to think everyone has the same threshholds.

As it relates to this thread it's obvious that 30fps isn't good enough for at least one person here. For me it depends alot on my blood alcohol levels! :cool:


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by TheGreatGrapeApe on 11/16/04 03:36 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
November 16, 2004 8:38:45 PM

If you can wait just a little bit I think the 6600GT AGP is an excellent choice. It's only a <i>tad</i> bit slower than the PCIe counterpart. Very nice card. Sapphire has a passively-cooled X700XT that looks tasty, although who knows when the AGP version will debut.

I don't think the 6600GT has the VP issues that the AGP 6800s have, but don't quote me on that.

<A HREF="http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/landing/landingIndex.jsp..." target="_new">DumbLand</A>
a b U Graphics card
November 16, 2004 9:05:46 PM

It's almost certain no AGP x700s. The R9800Pro and the X800SE are supposed to address those needs.

Of course nothing is certain, but ATI has stated that they have no plans for the AGP version. But that could be like having no plans fr something like SLI, right up until Multi-rendering was announced. :wink:

BTW, the AGP GT is clocked slightly different than the PCIe GT, yet it does outperform the PCIe version some times, but that's likely more due to system differences.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
November 17, 2004 9:26:22 AM

Yeah the 6600 looks tasty too, but I live in Japan, so I dunno when they will come out here if it just came out in the US. Either way I have to wait now, cuz i want HL2 and initial "biased" reviews show ATI as the front runner. I'm gonna wait till things settle down and tone my system for HL2!

This forum rocks, helped me with most of my decisions already, gonna get the P4 3.2EG, ABIT IC7-MAX3, 2 512MB PC4000 ballistix, 74GB WD raptor....man I can't wait! video card is the last decision!
a b U Graphics card
November 17, 2004 12:10:27 PM

Quote:
initial "biased" reviews show ATI as the front runner

Well I wouldn't call DriverHeaven biased, but then again they didn't test the GF6600/GT in their benchies. Really the biggest issue about the initial reviews is what's nV going to do with their drivers in 2 months' time? That would be my concern, the initial perfromance figures seem legit.

I'd just ask beyond HL2, how long do you plan on keeping this card. If it's for a year or less, then likely the X700XT/PRO may be you best choice depending on games, if you're thinking more long term, then I think the GF6600GT would be a wise choice. But both the X700XT and GF6600GT should perform very close to each other throughout that time, with their various wins and losses.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
!