Different graphics cards for my P4PE

[Lars-Erik Østerud]

Is there a comparison chart between Nvidia cards?

My old 4200 card scores 1600 on 3dMark 03, and I see others get over
6000 with new 6800 cards, but what about the other cards in between?

After all it's a question about price vs power. I need a bit stronger
card (today I get full speed at old games with 2x AA, but HL2 won't
run faster than 42 fps w/o AA, what do I need to get 85 fps 4x AA?)

BTW: Will all new cards work OK with my Asus P4PE board, or is there
AGP limitations that will slow down the card on the P4PE (AGP speed)

 

[Mikael]

Is there a comparison chart between Nvidia cards?

My old 4200 card scores 1600 on 3dMark 03, and I see others get over
6000 with new 6800 cards, but what about the other cards in between?

After all it's a question about price vs power. I need a bit stronger
card (today I get full speed at old games with 2x AA, but HL2 won't
run faster than 42 fps w/o AA, what do I need to get 85 fps 4x AA?)

BTW: Will all new cards work OK with my Asus P4PE board, or is there
AGP limitations that will slow down the card on the P4PE (AGP speed)

I also have an P4PE, P4@2,667, 1GB PC3200, and have gone from a Inno3D
FX5200 (3dmark03: 1460), MSI 6600GT (3dmark03: 7400) to a LeadTek 6800
(3dmark03: 8300) - unlocked the pipelines and vertex shader and got > 9000.
Problem is, in games it doesn't seem to make much of a difference. E.g. in
HL2, outside train station, overlooking the plaza, I get around 30FPS with
the two 6x00 cards (can't remember the FX5200, but it wasn't unplayable). In
all fairness, I usually get higher FPS, but it just fells laggy most of the
time. Overall, for the price, I'm not impressed, so the 6x00's are going
back for a refund... Surely, I've got some bottleneck in my system that's
limiting the FPS (CPU speed, RAM timings, AGP x4, who knows?), and until
it's located, it's just not worth the upgrade for me.

 

[Lars-Erik Østerud]

HL2, outside train station, overlooking the plaza, I get around 30FPS with

the two 6x00 cards (can't remember the FX5200, but it wasn't unplayable). In

What resolution are you using? I mainly use 800x600 (yep, that's low,
but then my monitor gives 85hz), and only need a card that can hold 85
fps with 4x AA in 800x600 (most cards are tested at 1024x768 now).

Will a 6600GT card keep up with 85fps at 800x600 w/4x AA in HL2?

Will a cheaper card do this as well? Does the P4PE slow down the card
beacuse of the missing AGP 8x support (the P4PE is only 4x right)?

 

[Mikael]

unplayable). In

What resolution are you using? I mainly use 800x600 (yep, that's low,
but then my monitor gives 85hz), and only need a card that can hold 85
fps with 4x AA in 800x600 (most cards are tested at 1024x768 now).

Resolution is 1280x1024@60hz, due to LCD monitor. All settings are high, no
AA, triliniar filtering, reflect world.

Will a 6600GT card keep up with 85fps at 800x600 w/4x AA in HL2?

Don't know. Tried dropping resolution to 1024x768, but that didn't seem to
make much of a difference.

Will a cheaper card do this as well? Does the P4PE slow down the card
beacuse of the missing AGP 8x support (the P4PE is only 4x right)?

Yes, the P4PE has AGP 4x, but not sure if there is much of a difference
between 4x and 8x. As I said, as long as I run benchmarks that tax the GPU,
everything seems ok, but in games, where the whole system is testet, things
are not so great. So far, I haven't found a solution for this. However, if
you get a 6600GT, I'd like to hear what your results are.

 

[Iain Dingsdale]

Is there a comparison chart between Nvidia cards?

My old 4200 card scores 1600 on 3dMark 03, and I see others get over
6000 with new 6800 cards, but what about the other cards in between?

After all it's a question about price vs power. I need a bit stronger
card (today I get full speed at old games with 2x AA, but HL2 won't
run faster than 42 fps w/o AA, what do I need to get 85 fps 4x AA?)

BTW: Will all new cards work OK with my Asus P4PE board, or is there
AGP limitations that will slow down the card on the P4PE (AGP speed)

Why do you want 85fps? The human eye is incapable of distinguishing anything
higher than 60, and 40 is plenty smooth enough. It really depends on the
rest of your system - cpu ram etc. The 6600GT is a good midrange card but it
wont get you your pointless 85fps! will be playable though

 

[Iain Dingsdale]

Why do you want 85fps? The human eye is incapable of distinguishing
anything higher than 60, and 40 is plenty smooth enough. It really depends
on the rest of your system - cpu ram etc. The 6600GT is a good midrange
card but it wont get you your pointless 85fps! will be playable though

I've just benchmarked my system at the settings you seem to want

"Resolution: 800×600
Demo: HardwareOC - Coast
Detail: Maximum quality
Antialising mode: 8×
Filtering mode: From System
Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9
Heapsize: 64 MB - default
Score = 68.8 FPS"

2 points - 68.8 is enough, thats not skipping once, not a single frame
dropped
Secondly, it looks crap. I play it on 1280x1024 with full details, full AA
and AF and it looks superb, i get about 45fps like this and its as smooth as
possible, again no frames dropped at all. Run at the highest resolution you
can, if you have enough headroom afterwards then crank up the AA and AF -
not the other way round. You ideally dont want to drop below 30fps.

My specs:
Athlon 64 3400+ at 2.7Ghz
1gb PC3200 RAM
SATA hard drive
Leadtek 6800GT @ ultra speeds

So forget 85fps - figures like that are for bragging rights only, and forget
800x600.

 

[Lars-Erik Østerud]

Iain Dingsdale skrev:

Why do you want 85fps? The human eye is incapable of distinguishing anything
higher than 60, and 40 is plenty smooth enough. It really depends on the

Are you sure. I have tested a simple thing. Stading in the middle of
the room and turning fast round i Half-Life. Looks smooth and good on
85hz, didn't look good at all in 60hz. Of course I use VSYNC so the
FPS rate reflects the monitor refresh (else I get image tearing).

Also I tested a LCD-monitor. Yuck! Did look smooth at all, jerky!

rest of your system - cpu ram etc. The 6600GT is a good midrange card but it
wont get you your pointless 85fps! will be playable though

My Ti4200 today gives me 85hz ALWAYS - Except in HL2 (get 42 and 24
sometimes there, and I can't use AA). I play at 800x600@85hz. In all
other games I can use Quincunx AA as well and still get >85 FPS.

I have looked at the 6600GT cards. They got to be better that 4200

 

[Iain Dingsdale]

Iain Dingsdale skrev:


Are you sure. I have tested a simple thing. Stading in the middle of
the room and turning fast round i Half-Life. Looks smooth and good on
85hz, didn't look good at all in 60hz. Of course I use VSYNC so the
FPS rate reflects the monitor refresh (else I get image tearing).

Also I tested a LCD-monitor. Yuck! Did look smooth at all, jerky!

If it looks jerky, there is no way its actually giving a constant 60fps.
1/60th of a second is a tiny amount of time. At the end of the day, even if
it is noticeable in some tests, it wont be in gaming. I play doom 3 at
1280x1024, ultra high detail, full AA etc and get 45ish fps. This looks more
than fluid enough and in a gameplay situation this looks as smooth as the
80ish fps i get with lower detail and res. I know what i'd rather have,
considering it doesnt stutter at 45fps.
Its all about getting constant framerates. 85 fps is all well and good, but
if it drops to 5 during heavy action then its pointless. Movies are 24fps
and no one complains about them looking jerky!

 

[Lars-Erik Østerud]

Iain Dingsdale skrev:

If it looks jerky, there is no way its actually giving a constant 60fps.

Might be the LCD screens poor refresh. Anyway. 60hz on a CRT monitor
is awful because of the flickering from the monitor. And to have a
good picture without image tearing you need VSYNC. So then with a max
of 85hz on my CRT monitor games would lock at 85 or 42.5 FPS, and
since 42.5 is too low I need 85. Not much way round that really :-(

1280x1024, ultra high detail, full AA etc and get 45ish fps. This looks more
than fluid enough and in a gameplay situation this looks as smooth as the

Yes, I agree, Half-Life 2 look good enough at 42FPS (which I get
sometimes, most times I do get 85 as well). But then I need to disable
AA and some details. So I need a faster card to enable at least 2x AA
and still be able to get 85 FPS - or at least a minimum of 42.5 FPS

if it drops to 5 during heavy action then its pointless. Movies are 24fps
and no one complains about them looking jerky!

But movies have "motion blur" so that is not quite comparable

 

[Iain Dingsdale]

Iain Dingsdale skrev:


Might be the LCD screens poor refresh. Anyway. 60hz on a CRT monitor
is awful because of the flickering from the monitor. And to have a
good picture without image tearing you need VSYNC. So then with a max
of 85hz on my CRT monitor games would lock at 85 or 42.5 FPS, and
since 42.5 is too low I need 85. Not much way round that really :-(


Yes, I agree, Half-Life 2 look good enough at 42FPS (which I get
sometimes, most times I do get 85 as well). But then I need to disable
AA and some details. So I need a faster card to enable at least 2x AA
and still be able to get 85 FPS - or at least a minimum of 42.5 FPS

Hmm thats a good point - i didnt realise anyone was still using CRTs these
days!
What resolution do you use at 85hz? If its 1280x1024, say, then you'll be
able to drop it to 1024x768 and up the refresh to 100hz possibly...

 

[DaveW]

Al the newer AGP video cards will run on the P4PE, but since your board is
limited to 4X AGP speeds the newer video cards which run at *X will be
limited to half speed.

 

[Iain Dingsdale]

Al the newer AGP video cards will run on the P4PE, but since your board is
limited to 4X AGP speeds the newer video cards which run at *X will be
limited to half speed.

Thats assuming they saturate the agp 8x bus, which they dont come close to
doing. Performance hit yes, but only a minor one

 

[Darius]

So forget 85fps - figures like that are for bragging rights only, and

forget 800x600.

It might just be that he fries his eyeballs and gets a headaches running
1024x768 @ 60hz.

Best reason ever to buy an LCD, it is so easy on the vision - save your poor
eyes!

- Michael (Darius)
"There can be only one."

 

[Lars-Erik Østerud]

Darius skrev:

It might just be that he fries his eyeballs and gets a headaches running
1024x768 @ 60hz.

On CRT, yes, that's the reason. On LCD in just looked poor and jerky.
They say v-refresh doesn't matter on LCD, but 85 did look better that
60 (more smooth movement), but still nott good compared to CRT :-(

Best reason ever to buy an LCD, it is so easy on the vision - save your poor
eyes!

I know, I almost needed glasses and had a headache at work (I', a
programmer) but after they bought me an LCD everything got OK again

 

[Lars-Erik Østerud]

Iain Dingsdale skrev:

What resolution do you use at 85hz? If its 1280x1024, say, then you'll be
able to drop it to 1024x768 and up the refresh to 100hz possibly...

Hehe, it's 800x600 My CRT is old an manages 1024x768@75,
800x600@85 and 640x4xx@100. So the middle way was 800x600 then.

And that work OK for old HL games and BF1942, running smooth with 2x
AA (actually Quincunx) at stable 85 FPS. It's HL2 that the problem,
even at 800x600 it gets to slow if I enable any kinf of AA on it :-(

 

[Lars-Erik Østerud]

Iain Dingsdale skrev:

Thats assuming they saturate the agp 8x bus, which they dont come close to
doing. Performance hit yes, but only a minor one

Does it have much to say if you have 128 or 256 MB on board RAM
(the 6600 comes with both). On old game I guess 128 is enough, but
would Half-Life 2 benefit from 256MB on board on the video card?

 

[Robert Hancock]

What resolution are you using? I mainly use 800x600 (yep, that's low,
but then my monitor gives 85hz), and only need a card that can hold 85
fps with 4x AA in 800x600 (most cards are tested at 1024x768 now).

Will a 6600GT card keep up with 85fps at 800x600 w/4x AA in HL2?

Will a cheaper card do this as well? Does the P4PE slow down the card
beacuse of the missing AGP 8x support (the P4PE is only 4x right)?

That must be a pretty bad monitor if it can't do 85Hz at 1024x768.. I
think a new monitor might be at least as worthwhile as a new card

 

[Iain Dingsdale]

Iain Dingsdale skrev:


Hehe, it's 800x600 My CRT is old an manages 1024x768@75,
800x600@85 and 640x4xx@100. So the middle way was 800x600 then.

And that work OK for old HL games and BF1942, running smooth with 2x
AA (actually Quincunx) at stable 85 FPS. It's HL2 that the problem,
even at 800x600 it gets to slow if I enable any kinf of AA on it :-(

In which case, dont bother replacing your 3d card just now, buy a new
monitor!

 

[Iain Dingsdale]

Iain Dingsdale skrev:


Does it have much to say if you have 128 or 256 MB on board RAM
(the 6600 comes with both). On old game I guess 128 is enough, but
would Half-Life 2 benefit from 256MB on board on the video card?

Half life 2....maybe not, 256mb is only really good for games with massive
textures like doom 3 on ultra detail settings...but then again the memory
bandwidth of the 6600 probably isnt enough to make use of it properly.

 

[Lars-Erik Østerud]

Robert Hancock skrev:

That must be a pretty bad monitor if it can't do 85Hz at 1024x768.. I
think a new monitor might be at least as worthwhile as a new card

Huyndai DeluxScan 17 (from 1995 or 1996

New monitor is on the list, but first the LCD must be better and
faster refresh/update, the TN panels are fast, but have to bad picture
(brighter at bottom than at top, to low viewing angle), the VA panels
have perfect picture, but they are to slow (need less "ms" first