Hardware Canucks

Hardware Canucks (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/)
-   Video Cards (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/video-cards/)
-   -   Old video card (X1600 XT) - Will new one get better FPS? (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/video-cards/50329-old-video-card-x1600-xt-will-new-one-get-better-fps.html)

cameronc January 10, 2012 08:43 PM

Old video card (X1600 XT) - Will new one get better FPS?
 
Hi forum members,

First time poster here. Great forum, great articles!

I run a Pentium D 2.80ghz, 4 gigs ram.. Currently using a Radeon X1600 XT (PCI-E) and a Radeon 9200 Pro (PCI) for a quad-monitor setup. I use this computer to program (quad monitor) but occasionally like to game (AA3, thinking of getting Battlefield 3).

I only get 20-25 fps when in AA3.. doesn't matter if I pull the PCI vid card or not, still runs the same.

I'm looking at a GTX 550 ti video card to replace the X1600 XT. Will this give me a decent performance boost? I'd be happy in the 45-60 fps range with the current system until I save some more 'free' cash to upgrade to a quad core or better processor.

All thoughts are appreciated.

Cameron

enaberif January 10, 2012 09:13 PM

Don't bother that cpu is gonna be your worst nightmare er hardware for bottlenecks

Ed103194 January 10, 2012 09:16 PM

^ what he said

jumpload January 10, 2012 09:31 PM

Keep in mind that some tasks for rendering 3d graphics are 100% the video cards job, others tasks fall more on the cpu and more often then not are a mix of both.

In the case of more then one video card if their both going at it on the same task then you up with a lot of sub system drain ~ cpu ram.

In the case of res and textures its 100% the video cards job.
Meaning if your at min game setting at low res and you try and raise the res and you see the fps drop when using a fps counter like fraps then your video card is topped out.

As well your trying to run a D3D 10.0+, pixel Shader Model 4.0 game on a video card that only supports in hardware D3D9c + pixel Shader Model 3.0.

As many know the main difference from d3d10+ vs d3d9 was really replacing direct draw with direct2d and adding in pixel shader 4.0, more then that and it was all so made it seems to brake compatibility with older versions of windows.

Direct2d is vomit as well i might add on the compatibility topic.

All in all ya id go for it, it should give you a little extra something as well given time when you swap out the mobo~ram~cpu you video card will all ready be payed for.

My self im waiting for the 560ti to get cheaper, i wont touch the geforce 4xx cards.
they all suck in openGL.

enaberif January 10, 2012 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jumpload (Post 588979)
Keep in mind that some tasks for rendering 3d graphics are 100% the video cards job, others tasks fall more on the cpu and more often then not are a mix of both.

In the case of more then one video card if their both going at it on the same task then you up with a lot of sub system drain ~ cpu ram.

In the case of res and textures its 100% the video cards job.
Meaning if your at min game setting at low res and you try and raise the res and you see the fps drop when using a fps counter like fraps then your video card is topped out.

As well your trying to run a D3D 10.0+, pixel Shader Model 4.0 game on a video card that only supports in hardware D3D9c + pixel Shader Model 3.0.

As many know the main difference from d3d10+ vs d3d9 was really replacing direct draw with direct2d and adding in pixel shader 4.0, more then that and it was all so made it seems to brake compatibility with older versions of windows.

Direct2d is vomit as well i might add on the compatibility topic.

All in all ya id go for it, it should give you a little extra something as well given time when you swap out the mobo~ram~cpu you video card will all ready be payed for.

My self im waiting for the 560ti to get cheaper, i wont touch the geforce 4xx cards.
they all suck in openGL.

Bad advice. The system needs a total upgrade before seeing any benefits

jumpload January 10, 2012 09:37 PM

true but you lose nothing by changing the video card now seeing as when you change the rest down the road the video card is all ready pay-for as all ready stated.

yycraven January 10, 2012 09:52 PM

You have lasted this long with what you have, maybe stick with it till you have more money to do a full upgrade, your waste your money to buy a GTX 550Ti.
So when you do have the cash then get a good card and mobo and cpu and ram well the whole 9 yards really.
for you to get just a card and use it with a P4 D 2.8Ghz single core your not going to like playing BF3.
this is just my 2 cents.

rommelrommel January 10, 2012 10:59 PM

Agree, BF3 ain't going to happen in any sort of satisfying way. You aren't going to get 45fps with any video card at any settings in that rig I would wager.

Bond007 January 11, 2012 03:31 AM

Need a new system for BF3.

Masteroderus January 11, 2012 07:07 AM

I would agree too. From recent experience a cpu bottleneck in today's games will result in low fps no matter what video card you put into it.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:11 AM.