A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Video Cards » Nvidia Videocards
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 19th 07, 09:26 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Beladi Nasralla
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end

I made a budget gaming computer -- AMD X2 Athlon 3600+ and 7600GT
(both overclocked). I ran Oblivion at playable framerates at almost
maximum settings. My colleague says that his new computer with 8800GTS
struggles to run Oblivion at maximum settings, and he wonders why I
can ran it on my computer. I run Bioshock at maximum settings, and the
game has no speed problems (that is, it runs at least at 20 fps). And
yet the reviews show that the high-end cards (like 1950Pro and 7900GT)
struggle to run the game at full settings.

What is happening ? Maybe my GPU card is better what it is claimed to
be (it is a grey import from China). The other consideration is that
both mainboard and the GPU are from the same manufacturer, MSI, and
the mainboard has an nVidia cheapset (like the videocard). Maybe the
GPU and the mainboard have an improved compatibility, which results in
an improved performance ?

This looks less likely so, because I ran the tests Mark3D03 and
Mark3D05. It came out that the unoverclocked computer had a
performance at the bottom of the surveyed computer systems of the
equal specifications. After overclocking, my computer performed the
test very closely to the median of the similar systems they tested.

That gives ?

  #2  
Old October 19th 07, 09:45 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Patrick Vervoorn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end

In article .com,
Beladi Nasralla wrote:
I made a budget gaming computer -- AMD X2 Athlon 3600+ and 7600GT
(both overclocked). I ran Oblivion at playable framerates at almost
maximum settings. My colleague says that his new computer with 8800GTS
struggles to run Oblivion at maximum settings, and he wonders why I
can ran it on my computer. I run Bioshock at maximum settings, and the
game has no speed problems (that is, it runs at least at 20 fps). And
yet the reviews show that the high-end cards (like 1950Pro and 7900GT)
struggle to run the game at full settings.


You don't mention the resolution at which you are running Bioshock vs the
resolution at which your colleague is running it...?

Perhaps you also have a different view of what 'no speed problems' are?
While you may find Bioshock at 20fps to be acceptable, your colleague may
have a different view, and may find 30fps to be totally unacceptable...?

What is happening ? Maybe my GPU card is better what it is claimed to
be (it is a grey import from China). The other consideration is that
both mainboard and the GPU are from the same manufacturer, MSI, and
the mainboard has an nVidia cheapset (like the videocard). Maybe the
GPU and the mainboard have an improved compatibility, which results in
an improved performance ?


I don't think that changes much, if anything.

This looks less likely so, because I ran the tests Mark3D03 and
Mark3D05. It came out that the unoverclocked computer had a
performance at the bottom of the surveyed computer systems of the
equal specifications. After overclocking, my computer performed the
test very closely to the median of the similar systems they tested.

That gives ?


I think you're comparing apples to oranges... Try to find out what
resolution other people (or the benchmark results you're comparing to) run
at.

I also have a P4-2400 system with a 7600GT. It was quite capable of
running something like Half Life 2 or Bioshock at an acceptable framerate
when I was still using a CRT, and used a resolution like 800x600 or
1024x768 with quite a lot of the eye-candy enabled. However, when I
switched to a TFT, with a native resolution of 1680x1050, I noticed this
system had considerable problems rendering all these pixels with the same
quality settings I used before.

Regards,

Patrick.
  #3  
Old October 19th 07, 02:47 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Beladi Nasralla
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end

On Oct 19, 5:45 pm, Patrick Vervoorn
wrote:
In article .com,
Beladi Nasralla wrote:

I made a budget gaming computer -- AMD X2 Athlon 3600+ and 7600GT
(both overclocked). I ran Oblivion at playable framerates at almost
maximum settings. My colleague says that his new computer with 8800GTS
struggles to run Oblivion at maximum settings, and he wonders why I
can ran it on my computer. I run Bioshock at maximum settings, and the
game has no speed problems (that is, it runs at least at 20 fps). And
yet the reviews show that the high-end cards (like 1950Pro and 7900GT)
struggle to run the game at full settings.


You don't mention the resolution at which you are running Bioshock vs the
resolution at which your colleague is running it...?


I run it with the resolution 1440x900. This is about 1.3 MP. This is
also the amount of pixels in the 1240x1024 screen which had been de-
facto for LCD screens. When I was buying my LCD, I did not pay much
attention to th eresolution, and bought what I have now; I was later
sorry that I did not instist when dealing with the salesperson, and
did not get a 1650x1050 screen. It has 1.6 MP. But there is a positive
side to it, too. With a 1650x1050 screen, my games would run 20%
slower than now ith a 1440x900 screen...

  #4  
Old October 19th 07, 03:29 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Patrick Vervoorn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end

In article .com,
Beladi Nasralla wrote:
On Oct 19, 5:45 pm, Patrick Vervoorn
wrote:


You don't mention the resolution at which you are running Bioshock vs the
resolution at which your colleague is running it...?


I run it with the resolution 1440x900. This is about 1.3 MP. This is
also the amount of pixels in the 1240x1024 screen which had been de-
facto for LCD screens. When I was buying my LCD, I did not pay much
attention to th eresolution, and bought what I have now; I was later
sorry that I did not instist when dealing with the salesperson, and
did not get a 1650x1050 screen. It has 1.6 MP. But there is a positive
side to it, too. With a 1650x1050 screen, my games would run 20%
slower than now ith a 1440x900 screen...


Yes, and now find out at what resolution your colleague is running, and
only then can you make a meaningful comparison between your system and
his...

Regards,

Patrick.
  #5  
Old October 19th 07, 03:56 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Conor[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 370
Default budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end

In article .com,
Beladi Nasralla says...
I made a budget gaming computer -- AMD X2 Athlon 3600+ and 7600GT
(both overclocked). I ran Oblivion at playable framerates at almost
maximum settings. My colleague says that his new computer with 8800GTS
struggles to run Oblivion at maximum settings, and he wonders why I
can ran it on my computer. I run Bioshock at maximum settings, and the
game has no speed problems (that is, it runs at least at 20 fps). And
yet the reviews show that the high-end cards (like 1950Pro and 7900GT)
struggle to run the game at full settings.

What is happening ?


You're running the game using DirectX 9 and he's running the game
running DirectX 10. If he forced the game to run in DirectX 9, it'd
trounce yours.

--
Conor

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
  #6  
Old October 19th 07, 03:56 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Conor[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 370
Default budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end

In article , Patrick
Vervoorn says...

Yes, and now find out at what resolution your colleague is running, and
only then can you make a meaningful comparison between your system and
his...

Irrelevent. His friend is running DirectX 10.


--
Conor

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
  #7  
Old October 19th 07, 06:06 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Beladi Nasralla
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end

On Oct 19, 11:29 pm, Patrick Vervoorn
wrote:
In article .com,
Beladi Nasralla wrote:

On Oct 19, 5:45 pm, Patrick Vervoorn
wrote:
You don't mention the resolution at which you are running Bioshock vs the
resolution at which your colleague is running it...?


I run it with the resolution 1440x900. This is about 1.3 MP. This is
also the amount of pixels in the 1240x1024 screen which had been de-
facto for LCD screens. When I was buying my LCD, I did not pay much
attention to th eresolution, and bought what I have now; I was later
sorry that I did not instist when dealing with the salesperson, and
did not get a 1650x1050 screen. It has 1.6 MP. But there is a positive
side to it, too. With a 1650x1050 screen, my games would run 20%
slower than now ith a 1440x900 screen...


Yes, and now find out at what resolution your colleague is running, and
only then can you make a meaningful comparison between your system and
his...


He is running 800x600 on his CRT...




  #8  
Old October 19th 07, 06:31 PM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia
Mr.E Solved!
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 888
Default budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end

Beladi Nasralla wrote:

That gives ?


Yes, different PC configurations have different performance profiles.
This confuses you?
  #9  
Old October 19th 07, 06:39 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Frank McCoy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 704
Default budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Patrick Vervoorn
wrote:

In article .com,
Beladi Nasralla wrote:
I made a budget gaming computer -- AMD X2 Athlon 3600+ and 7600GT
(both overclocked). I ran Oblivion at playable framerates at almost
maximum settings. My colleague says that his new computer with 8800GTS
struggles to run Oblivion at maximum settings, and he wonders why I
can ran it on my computer. I run Bioshock at maximum settings, and the
game has no speed problems (that is, it runs at least at 20 fps). And
yet the reviews show that the high-end cards (like 1950Pro and 7900GT)
struggle to run the game at full settings.


You don't mention the resolution at which you are running Bioshock vs the
resolution at which your colleague is running it...?

Perhaps you also have a different view of what 'no speed problems' are?
While you may find Bioshock at 20fps to be acceptable, your colleague may
have a different view, and may find 30fps to be totally unacceptable...?

What is happening ? Maybe my GPU card is better what it is claimed to
be (it is a grey import from China). The other consideration is that
both mainboard and the GPU are from the same manufacturer, MSI, and
the mainboard has an nVidia cheapset (like the videocard). Maybe the
GPU and the mainboard have an improved compatibility, which results in
an improved performance ?


I don't think that changes much, if anything.

This looks less likely so, because I ran the tests Mark3D03 and
Mark3D05. It came out that the unoverclocked computer had a
performance at the bottom of the surveyed computer systems of the
equal specifications. After overclocking, my computer performed the
test very closely to the median of the similar systems they tested.

That gives ?


I think you're comparing apples to oranges... Try to find out what
resolution other people (or the benchmark results you're comparing to) run
at.

I also have a P4-2400 system with a 7600GT. It was quite capable of
running something like Half Life 2 or Bioshock at an acceptable framerate
when I was still using a CRT, and used a resolution like 800x600 or
1024x768 with quite a lot of the eye-candy enabled. However, when I
switched to a TFT, with a native resolution of 1680x1050, I noticed this
system had considerable problems rendering all these pixels with the same
quality settings I used before.

Funny:
I have a similar situation to what the person you replied to has.

*My* computer has an AMD 2400+ with 1-gig (2 sticks) PC3200 memory in it
and an ATI 2006 "All In Wonder" card running an LCD screen (using the
VGA connector) at 1680x1050 pixels. I'm running memory-speed of 200mhz,
FSB of 266, and 133 bus-speed.

*The kid* has a different make (and supposedly much *faster*)
motherboard, with matched 500meg (again, 1 gig) memory for 128-bit
access instead of 64-bit like mine (it *requires* matched sticks). That
PC has an AMD 2800+ CPU, and a later (supposedly faster) video board
(also from ATI) without the extra bells and whistles of the AIW card.
That system has a 21" monitor, which normally is run at 1600x1200.

So ... You'd *expect* that the kid's computer would walk all over mine.
Only instead, while playing World of Wonder, mine *screams* along at
full resolution and all settings at max; while the kid's computer has to
be backed-off in resolution and/or settings to get decent playing speed.

Go figure.

Sometime I'm going down there, taking along a copy of CPU-Z, and see if
the kid's memory settings or something is off. No way should mine walk
all over the kid's ... but it does. You'd think it would be the other
way around.

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _
  #10  
Old October 19th 07, 06:45 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Frank McCoy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 704
Default budget gaming PC performs well vs. high-end

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Conor
wrote:

In article .com,
Beladi Nasralla says...
I made a budget gaming computer -- AMD X2 Athlon 3600+ and 7600GT
(both overclocked). I ran Oblivion at playable framerates at almost
maximum settings. My colleague says that his new computer with 8800GTS
struggles to run Oblivion at maximum settings, and he wonders why I
can ran it on my computer. I run Bioshock at maximum settings, and the
game has no speed problems (that is, it runs at least at 20 fps). And
yet the reviews show that the high-end cards (like 1950Pro and 7900GT)
struggle to run the game at full settings.

What is happening ?


You're running the game using DirectX 9 and he's running the game
running DirectX 10. If he forced the game to run in DirectX 9, it'd
trounce yours.


Hmmm ... Does DirectX 10 run under Win-XP?
Both of our computers are still XP.
(Wouldn't HAVE Vista!)
If so, that might be the difference with mine as well.
The kid might have that.

So ... how do you (as you say) "force the game to run under DirectX 9"?
I thought once you had an "upgrade" to DirectX installed, you couldn't
pull it out without completely reinstalling Windows.

I also thought the whole *idea* of "upgrading" DirectX was to get
*faster* performance of video stuff, not slower.

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Will this budget gaming system do for me??? Amolao Homebuilt PC's 1 August 14th 05 09:24 PM
Building budget gaming system,,please need opinions Amolao Asus Motherboards 6 August 13th 05 03:21 AM
How to build a gaming machine with a tight budget? Ivan Overclocking 9 December 22nd 04 12:07 PM
Pending configuration for budget gaming Zigzag Overclocking AMD Processors 11 May 27th 04 08:02 AM
Pending configuration for budget gaming Zigzag AMD Thunderbird Processors 11 May 27th 04 08:02 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.