New Graphic Card update, quick help!

[Dogman5]

if you're getting choppiness with those specs, i can almost gaurentee it isn't the mx card that's the problem... they work great (particularly for emulation).

my guess is you need a reformat, maybe get rid of norton antivirus, a clean install of xp sp 1.

your specs rock and there is NO need for slow down, not even the video card. my guess is software bloat.

see whats running under the windows task manager processes.... i bet the problem is listed.

jamie

I understand that part and all, but emulation isnt the only thing I will be doing. Thanks for the reply, I will try some of that advice.

I play many other PC games, and would like to play them at higher resolutions with max settings, expecially games like Half Life 2, and even run my emulations at very high resolutions with max settings without slowdown. :term:

and I just ordered the 9600 PRO for 150$. Wish me luck! :evil:

 

[flow``]

there really is no great or outstanding dx9 hardware out right now unless you plan on running 800x600 with no aa/af.

it's probably better to wait for the r400/nv40 line of cards that will be out around q1 '04 or so. until then you can probably get by with a gf4 since the only game really pushing hardware right now will be hl2, and that's delayed until holiday season.. so.. why upgrade?

 

[Tagrineth]

As for speed, well, if nVidia manages to get the 50 series drivers working without major quality loss, then I think ATi is going to have some decent competition.

Speedwise? Not from what I've seen. DX9 shaders are still an absolute train wreck... and any speed increases otherwise can be summed up by a lovely slide provided by Valve which lists a LOT of evident "pure cheats" in the 50 series driver (i.e. clip planes which accelerate timedemos dramatically but don't help gameplay one tiny little bit; massive loss of visual quality [DX9 shaders probably turned off], and a function which detects screengrabs and boosts quality for a frame or two so they don't show the difference).

 

[pandamoan]

yeah ati AND nvidia are both cheating bastards, that's the corporate game i guess.

i think that the 9600 pro will be the best card out for the money/quality though, so good choice dude.

let me know and post some screenshots!

jamie

 

[Dogman5]

yeah ati AND nvidia are both cheating bastards, that's the corporate game i guess.

i think that the 9600 pro will be the best card out for the money/quality though, so good choice dude.

let me know and post some screenshots!

jamie

Will do!

Thanks for all your input guys, I'll let you know how it is.

On another not, did anyone ever find out about that silly error where Project 64 gets an Error message about Jabos Video input? On selected days, I get an error about it, and can only play Project 64 with other video inputs other than Jabos that were crappy, or my pc couldnt run, or just the inputs didnt work all that well.

 

[pandamoan]

sounds to me like you are experiencing problems that are not of the hardware kind (as i mentioned). my advice is to back up your important data and reformat your hard drive, then don't install any bloatware.

ie: virus scan software, or anything that shows up down in the systray. don't let winamp run it's crappy agent, don't use msn messenger, stuff like that.

Will do!

Thanks for all your input guys, I'll let you know how it is.

On another not, did anyone ever find out about that silly error where Project 64 gets an Error message about Jabos Video input? On selected days, I get an error about it, and can only play Project 64 with other video inputs other than Jabos that were crappy, or my pc couldnt run, or just the inputs didnt work all that well.

 

[flow``]

what does bloatware have to do with emulation?

 

[Tagrineth]

yeah ati AND nvidia are both cheating bastards, that's the corporate game i guess.

...the only difference being nVidia cheats in ways that can never benefit the user...

 

[Tagrineth]

what does bloatware have to do with emulation?

I have four words for you:

Failed to Allocate Memory

 

[Hyper19s]

all i got to say is that the geforce FX5900ULTRA
and the RADEON9800PRO are beating each other
with diferent numbers (depends on which site you go too) like FX has better AF and RADE has better
AA the fighting will never stop!!!!!!!!!!
SO WHY FIGHT IT !!!

Bye the way tagrineth radeons do suck and the
geforce 4 and FX are way better no matter how you Render it


so there

 

[revl8er]

Pretty much everyone has their own opinions about graphics cards. Me I am sticking with nvidia based cards.

 

[pandamoan]

Pretty much everyone has their own opinions about graphics cards. Me I am sticking with nvidia based cards.

well ati hardware is superior (def atm), but nvidia is really cool in one way right now:

opengl power over proprietary crap MS dx9.

everything coded opengl runs better than dx derivatives on my machine.

MS sucks. so does dx9.

i really only intend to purchase games that are opengl compatible, as an ethical financial thing.

id has done this right in the past, though i'm EXTREMELY concerned about how pure they will keep doom 3.

jamie

 

[Lizard Blade]

Bye the way tagrineth radeons do suck and the
geforce 4 and FX are way better no matter how you Render it


so there

Geez, I didn't realize what a fat lot of fanboys/girls we had at emutalk. And here I was joking about Tagrineth's bias!

But hypershadow, the way you phrased that, I must advise you it sounds like you couldn't tell an AGP slot from your ***hole. The GeForce 4 ti was an absolute top rung übercard... a year and a half ago. But you didn't specify ti, and if you're saying the GeForce4 MX is better than anything in the 9x00 line... As for the FX line, as far as I've heard they're crippled cards. I just hope the GeForce6, or whatever, will be some penultimate DX10 card that could rip a hole in anything from ATI.

 

[flow``]

sorry tag.. bloatware/spyware isn't much of a memory hog. if your running less then 64 or 128 ram.. well that's your own damn fault eh?

about your ati/nvidia cheating comment. remember quack3?

sure that's takin it back in the day. i'm not saying nvidia has better hardware, they just can't help it ms/ati decided to use fp24 instead of an interger of 2 (fp 16/32) which nvidia hardware was designed for.

nvidia's playing catch up the way ati has been forever now. they're just losing now because most games have been recently designed on ati hardware (which it rarely had been in the past).

 

[Hexidecimal]

If you plan to buy soon, you can go to pricewatch.com and get the ATI 9800 SE 128 for about the same price as the 9600, the SE is optimized for gaming, you may want to look at it as well.

 

[Hyper19s]

Geez, I didn't realize what a fat lot of fanboys/girls we had at emutalk. And here I was joking about Tagrineth's bias!

But hypershadow, the way you phrased that, I must advise you it sounds like you couldn't tell an AGP slot from your ***hole. The GeForce 4 ti was an absolute top rung übercard... a year and a half ago. But you didn't specify ti, and if you're saying the GeForce4 MX is better than anything in the 9x00 line... As for the FX line, as far as I've heard they're crippled cards. I just hope the GeForce6, or whatever, will be some penultimate DX10 card that could rip a hole in anything from ATI.

no its not that ***hole its because ive had nvidia based cards for years
and thev always had better drivers and ogl support and look at the nubers there even.

by the i was refering to the ti 4600

 

[flow``]

i liked the anandtech review of the 9800xt/gf5900u.. very interesting

hypershadow1: i think the key word in your sentence is *had* betterr drivers and ogl support..

but the last year or so nvidia has done very little right pr and hardware wise

honostly i'd probably buy an ati card right now if i had the money and need for one, but right now a gf4 ti card could probably play anything out there you'd have installed with very few exceptions to recent titles (exclude unreleased games due later this year)

 

[Tagrineth]

sorry tag.. bloatware/spyware isn't much of a memory hog. if your running less then 64 or 128 ram.. well that's your own damn fault eh?

256MB.

With plenty of virtual memory allocated (400MB or so).

Everything I have except PJ64 1.5 runs with no problems.

about your ati/nvidia cheating comment. remember quack3?

Quack was an accident.

And besides, it did have a tangible, if dubious benefit... it _did_ increase frame rates at all times, though the quality loss was extreme.

nVidia adding clip planes to speed up benchmarks, obviously will _not_ work in gameplay, thus inflating the timedemos only and leaving the in-game frame rate at easily HALF that of the benchmark.

sure that's takin it back in the day. i'm not saying nvidia has better hardware, they just can't help it ms/ati decided to use fp24 instead of an interger of 2 (fp 16/32) which nvidia hardware was designed for.

nVidia's FP16 isn't very much faster than FP32 (the only thing faster is register use!), while fixed-point (DX8 and lower) math is VERY fast. FP24 has nothing to do with it... NV3x has a broken floating-point shader, plain and simple.

nvidia's playing catch up the way ati has been forever now. they're just losing now because most games have been recently designed on ati hardware (which it rarely had been in the past).

Actually, no. Did you know that Valve spent FIVE TIMES more time optimising for GeForce FX than for Radeon R3x0? And even in the mixed-mode path, the 9600 Pro beat the FX 5900 Ultra! That's just plain SILLY! And you know what? Tomb Raider AOD and 3DMark03, the only other benchmarks which use DX9 pixel shaders, EXHIBIT THAT SAME CURIOUS RESULT!

 

[pandamoan]

there is NO question right now amongst the tech educated that ATI is soundly knocking the teeth out of nvidia. nvidia will not recover from this for at least 6 months, and until they radically redesign EVERYTHING, and quit making video cards that more closely resemble a DUST BUSTER.


now, if you don't want to play halflife 2, doom 3, tenebrae, quake 4, or any other dx 9 game, (or opengl 1.3?) then there is no point in worrying much about it, as a geforce 4 ti will do everything for you VERY WELL, and so the ati nvidia debate is not especially valid.

this is a valid point because ONLY ONE of those 4 titles is out right now, and quake is just fine in it's original incarnation, and really great in FUHQUAKE, thank you very much.

the fx series of cards ultimately blows (literally and figuritively (sp?)) in comparison with the radeon 9600 + line, both in value and in actual performance.

there is no point in fanboying either company anyway, as they are both cheating bastard companies, and THE NUMBERS DON'T LIE.

just go look at pretty much ANY unbiased review (if you can find one!)

jamie

 

[Tagrineth]

there is NO question right now amongst the tech educated that ATI is soundly knocking the teeth out of nvidia. nvidia will not recover from this for at least 6 months, and until they radically redesign EVERYTHING, and quit making video cards that more closely resemble a DUST BUSTER.

On a related note <shameless plug>Go check out any of the recent threads on this at Beyond3D... that's about as tech educated as it gets these days.</shameless plug>

now, if you don't want to play halflife 2, doom 3, tenebrae, quake 4, or any other dx 9 game, (or opengl 1.3?) then there is no point in worrying much about it, as a geforce 4 ti will do everything for you VERY WELL, and so the ati nvidia debate is not especially valid.

this is a valid point because ONLY ONE of those 4 titles is out right now, and quake is just fine in it's original incarnation, and really great in FUHQUAKE, thank you very much.

A GF4Ti will _not_ look as good in Half-Life 2 as the DX9-capable cards. HL2's visuals are designed around high dynamic range (HDR) rendering, which uses floating-point precision (PS2.0), and according to many sources are noticeably worse on fixed-point DX8 cards.

DOOM3 isn't even a DX9-class game, it's DX7-class but requires the kind of performance that no DX7-class card can offer. Basically it takes DX7-level tech to obscene levels... but pixel shaders aren't used for ANY visual effects - much like Unreal Tournament 2003 and Unreal 2's engine, they're used for speed bonuses only.

The original Quake is one of the most uninspired and BORING games I've ever played through, just as an aside. Its only strong point was it being the first true 3D game.

the fx series of cards ultimately blows (literally and figuritively (sp?)) in comparison with the radeon 9600 + line, both in value and in actual performance.

To be fair, though, if floating-point shaders aren't used, the FX line is about comparable (SPEED ONLY, NOT QUALITY) to the Radeon line.

just go look at pretty much ANY unbiased review (if you can find one!)

<shameless plug>http://www.beyond3d.com/</shameless plug> <-- that's about as unbiased as it gets. It's a shame the three most popular sites (Anandtech, THG, and [H]) are pathetically nVidia-biased (though Anand is really ticked at nV and it shows).