Gaming at 1600x1200

[cv]

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?

 

[Bill]

I chose to go with the 9600xt with 256MB(I has the same choice as you.) as
opposed to the 9800 pro with 128 MB. Haven't gotten it yet though. Should be
here on tuesday.

My recommendations for you depend on what you think you'll need for the
future. Will you think you'll need more speed, or more memory? I Chose
memory.

 

[Inglo]

I chose to go with the 9600xt with 256MB(I has the same choice as you.) as
opposed to the 9800 pro with 128 MB. Haven't gotten it yet though. Should be
here on tuesday.

My recommendations for you depend on what you think you'll need for the
future. Will you think you'll need more speed, or more memory? I Chose
memory.

Well I'd say you made the way wrong choice. By the time you actually
need a card with 256 Mb the 9600 won't be able to hack it.

 

[Don Burnette]

Well I'd say you made the way wrong choice. By the time you actually
need a card with 256 Mb the 9600 won't be able to hack it.

I would tend to agree, plus the 9800 pro has considerable more horsepower.

 

[Andrew]

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?

You will be seriously hampered trying to run state of the art games at
1600x1200. You would be better off waiting for the next generation of
cards, but you won't get those for $200.

 

[cv]

You will be seriously hampered trying to run state of the art games at
1600x1200. You would be better off waiting for the next generation of
cards, but you won't get those for $200.

Thanks for all the advice. Its not for hard core games mainly (first
person shooters) i only play them once in awhile but others which are
not as demanding. I plan to buy it in 2-3 months so the price should
drop 10%-15% for the older cards as the new ones come on the marker.

 

[Les]

I chose to go with the 9600xt with 256MB(I has the same choice as you.) as
opposed to the 9800 pro with 128 MB. Haven't gotten it yet though. Should be
here on tuesday.

I would send it back and get the 9800Pro, the 9600XT has no where near the
ability of the 9800Pro, or the 9700Pro for that matter. I am talking about
gaming at 1600x1200 here too.

Speaking from experience here as my bro has a 9600XT and I have a 9700Pro

My recommendations for you depend on what you think you'll need for the
future. Will you think you'll need more speed, or more memory? I Chose
memory.

When textures are so big you need 256Mb of memory on the graphics card, the
fill rate of the 9600XT won't be able to keep up anyway, you would probably
need the 9800XT. More speed would be the best choice at this point in time
with the current range of video cards.

--
Les
AMD64 3200+
2x512 MB corsair platinum 3500
ASUS K8V
Herc 9700 Pro
SB Audigy

 

[ec]

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.

 

[Mike P]

Many games will run well at 1600 with a 9800pro, but you will likely have to
turn off AA (no big deal at 1600) AF and vsync.

Mike

 

[broncosfan]

You will be seriously hampered trying to run state of the art games at
1600x1200. You would be better off waiting for the next generation of
cards, but you won't get those for $200.

Andrew is correct. I have the FP2001 display (and what a beauty!).

I have been researching the exact same things as you are the past few
months. Here are my conclusions and ideas on what *I* am going to do:

1. No video card on the market can get you great framerates at 16x12
with full AA/AF.

2. The new NVidia 6800 can get you good framerates at AA/AF. I assume
the new ATI card will as well.

3. The 9800 Pro is the best option on the video card market right now
if you take performance and price into consideration. There is none
other even close.

4. If you want a great card right now for $200 get the 9800 Pro. It
may not run everything you want at 16x12 (with no AA/AF) but it will run
quite a few things at that res and settings.

5. 1024 and 1280 both look great on the FP2001. Even though native is
16x12 I see no significant degredation in quality running at 1024 or
1280. This monitor scales down extremely well.

My advice? Go with a 9800 Pro right now and wait until the end of year
to grab a nextgen card. By that time both Nvidia and ATI will have
their "cards on the table" and we can see who has won.

 

[Jarg]

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?

I have the 2001FP and a P4-2.2 and I recently upgraded to a 9800Pro that I
picked up for $189. It works well with most games. For example I played
Far Cry with most of the settings at highest and it wokred pretty well,
though there were a couple of sections where I had to bump the resolution
down to 1280x960 in the "windowed" mode.

Jarg

 

[Stoneskin]

Andrew left a note on my windscreen which said:

You will be seriously hampered trying to run state of the art games at
1600x1200. You would be better off waiting for the next generation of
cards, but you won't get those for $200.

I tend to disagree. Far Cry for example runs at ~30fps on 1600 on my
9800 Pro. Certainly playable by many people's standards. Of course,
YMMV.

 

[Stoneskin]

ec left a note on my windscreen which said:

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.

 

[Julian Richards]

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.

My 3DMark2001 scores stink (14000 or so), yet UT2004 (antialiasing
tinkered with), Far Cry demo, even the dreaded Halo demo run well at
high detail and res. 30-40 fps and they look perfectly fine to me.
--

Julian Richards
computer "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk

XP Home
L7S7A2 motherboard
Powercolor 9800 SE 8 pipelines 438/364 with Omega drivers
1 GB RAM
10 GB + 80 GB HDs
CD+DVD/CDRW drives

 

[ec]

ec left a note on my windscreen which said:


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.

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.

 

[Stoneskin]

ec left a note on my windscreen which said:

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.

Ah - it's probably the 2xAA which does it in that case. At 16x12 I
don't bother with AA or AF. I really can't see much difference and my
framerate gets a nice boost. So for me - many games are playable on
current hardware at that res.

 

[Darthy]

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?

Bwahahaha... funny.

That's like saying "I want a car that goes 200mph, 0 to 60 in 5
seconds " with a budget of $10,000.

1600x1200 isn't possible on some games with 9800 which is the fastest
until the x800.

Your problem:

1 - Its a dell (no hard core gamer buys a Dell)
2 - 9600xt is still half the horse power of a 9800Pro

How much ya spending?

Build an AMD64-3200 system for less than a Dell and put the money
saved into the new X800Pro which is $400 (next month).

Trust me... the X800Pro on an AMD64 will smoke a P4 Dell with a
9800Pro.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=2044&p=11


== == == == == == == == == == == == ==
Remember: In the USA - it is dangeroud to draw or write about Heir Bush in a negative way. The police or SS are called, people threaten to kill you. (What country is this again?)

- 15yr old boy in Washington was disciplined for drawing such images.
- White House blows cover of an undercover agent because her husband said there were no WMD (before the USA started the war) - her job was finding terrorist. (This makes sense?)

God bless the land of the free. Where you can burn the Constitution... Ashcroft does it every day.

 

[Darthy]

Well I'd say you made the way wrong choice. By the time you actually
need a card with 256 Mb the 9600 won't be able to hack it.

9800Pro with 256mb does very little... usually 0~3fps faster.
In some games it does come in handy, but the 9800pro is hitting its
performance limit.

The new X800 can make real use of the 256mb.


== == == == == == == == == == == == ==
Remember: In the USA - it is dangeroud to draw or write about Heir Bush in a negative way. The police or SS are called, people threaten to kill you. (What country is this again?)

- 15yr old boy in Washington was disciplined for drawing such images.
- White House blows cover of an undercover agent because her husband said there were no WMD (before the USA started the war) - her job was finding terrorist. (This makes sense?)

God bless the land of the free. Where you can burn the Constitution... Ashcroft does it every day.