• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Well tickle me pink and call me impressed! ATI 3650!

Soldato
Joined
7 Aug 2004
Posts
10,987
As titile, some time ago I sold my 8800GTX as I hardly ever play games now, so got me a 256mb ATI 3650 for dual monitors, vista etc, video and 2d stuff. Today however I got abit curious to see how this £50 graphics card would run anything half challenging.

So I install Oblivion, set it to 1920x1200 with details on high for EVERYTHING, then to make it more funny I enabled HDR lighting, thinking haha this is going to be hilarious........

The joke was on me, here I was running around the world of oblivion at, at least 50+ fps, iv no idea of the actual amount but it was way beyond the point of playable, and infact a highly enjoyable experience. Running as fast as iv ever seen oblivion run on an xbox 360 for example, only here there was a lot more detail in the graphics :eek:

Wanna play games other than crysis ? Then spend £50 on your graphics cards folks.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Jan 2006
Posts
24,945
Location
Chadderton, Oldham
As titile, some time ago I sold my 8800GTX as I hardly ever play games now, so got me a 256mb ATI 3650 for dual monitors, vista etc, video and 2d stuff. Today however I got abit curious to see how this £50 graphics card would run anything half challenging.

So I install Oblivion, set it to 1920x1200 with details on high for EVERYTHING, then to make it more funny I enabled HDR lighting, thinking haha this is going to be hilarious........

The joke was on me, here I was running around the world of oblivion at, at least 50+ fps, iv no idea of the actual amount but it was way beyond the point of playable, and infact a highly enjoyable experience. Running as fast as iv ever seen oblivion run on an xbox 360 for example, only here there was a lot more detail in the graphics :eek:

Wanna play games other than crysis ? Then spend £50 on your graphics cards folks.

Try with with 4xAA, 8xAA and then 16xAA.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Dec 2005
Posts
4,054
Location
Halifax W'Yorkshire
Hehe glad your impressed with your card.

I know what you mean, some times i think there trying to rip us off with the biggest expencive cards, i remember when i had a 7800GTX 256mb which cost 340 pounds, then it broke so i sent it back and cause where i baught it from they said it could be up to 3 weeks, so i baught a nvidia 6600 for 20 pounds in the mean time, not even a GT nor did it even require any power, it just used the power from the pci-e slot, and it ran games just as good if not better than the 7800 lol :p
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Jan 2006
Posts
24,945
Location
Chadderton, Oldham
Hehe glad your impressed with your card.

I know what you mean, some times i think there trying to rip us off with the biggest expencive cards, i remember when i had a 7800GTX 256mb which cost 340 pounds, then it broke so i sent it back and cause where i baught it from they said it could be up to 3 weeks, so i baught a nvidia 6600 for 20 pounds in the mean time, not even a GT nor did it even require any power, it just used the power from the pci-e slot, and it ran games just as good if not better than the 7800 lol :p

Well thats odd it must have been broke for the whole time you had it as a 7800 beats an old 6600 by miles.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 Aug 2006
Posts
5,207
I'm finding more and more, that spending less money on a gfx card has far more impressive results in the price/performance ratio when compared to those that are very expensive. For example, being able to overclock it, being able to replace it without any guilt when something new gen creeps round the corner. And I still think my best two ever purchases gfx card wise were the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro and the X1950XT.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
7 Aug 2004
Posts
10,987
Try with with 4xAA, 8xAA and then 16xAA.

Whats the point ? It looks great as it is, 1920x1200 certanly does not need AA, I can't see jaggys unless I press my nose up against the monitor and look properly, If im playing the game then I wont be looking at things like that now will I ? If your just benchmarking a game and not playing then fine turn them on.

Hell I never even ran AA on my 8800GTX, no need.

Play the game, dont see how it runs :)

Well thats odd it must have been broke for the whole time you had it as a 7800 beats an old 6600 by miles.

I think someones upset there expensive gfx card plays games just as well as 'cheapo' graphics cards ;):p
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Jan 2006
Posts
24,945
Location
Chadderton, Oldham
Whats the point ? It looks great as it is, 1920x1200 certanly does not need AA, I can't see jaggys unless I press my nose up against the monitor and look properly, If im playing the game then I wont be looking at things like that now will I ? If your just benchmarking a game and not playing then fine turn them on.

Hell I never even ran AA on my 8800GTX, no need.

Play the game, dont see how it runs :)



I think someones upset there expensive gfx card plays games just as well as 'cheapo' graphics cards ;):p

You were telling people to just get a £50 card, and a lot of people still like to sue AA/AF at this high res IMO.

I remember people saying at 1680x1050 you did not need as much AA as at 1280x1024 or 1440x900 but when I got a 22" monitor I came to realise what a load of rubbish that was.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Jan 2005
Posts
3,349
Location
South West
I remember people saying at 1680x1050 you did not need as much AA as at 1280x1024 or 1440x900 but when I got a 22" monitor I came to realise what a load of rubbish that was.

I couldn't understand that either, my Dell has about as near pixel pitch as my old 17" LG, just more pixels, so of course I'm still gonna see jaggies, since the screen is pretty much just wider.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
7 Aug 2004
Posts
10,987
You were telling people to just get a £50 card, and a lot of people still like to sue AA/AF at this high res IMO.

I remember people saying at 1680x1050 you did not need as much AA as at 1280x1024 or 1440x900 but when I got a 22" monitor I came to realise what a load of rubbish that was.

well get a dell 24" and at that res I don't think its needed at all to play the game,I am of course talking about playing it at max settings and enjoying it,not worrying about if its got aa or not,Its got a lot better iq than an xbox 360 at 1080p,but again it matters not ,as gaming is about enjoying the game
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2003
Posts
20,158
Location
Woburn Sand Dunes
well get a dell 24" and at that res I don't think its needed at all to play the game,I am of course talking about playing it at max settings and enjoying it,not worrying about if its got aa or not,Its got a lot better iq than an xbox 360 at 1080p,but again it matters not ,as gaming is about enjoying the game

i cant agree. you certainly need less for the same percieved image quality, but to say you need none at all is wrong in my books. i generally always use 2xAA or better if i can get away with it, and thats on a 24" monitor.

out of interest, how does it perform with more demanding games?
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
7 Aug 2004
Posts
10,987
i cant agree. you certainly need less for the same percieved image quality, but to say you need none at all is wrong in my books. i generally always use 2xAA or better if i can get away with it, and thats on a 24" monitor.

out of interest, how does it perform with more demanding games?

Meh 2AA vs non is so little difference I cant REALLY tell unless I look specifically, its jaggies at that res are WAY less than on any console.

Well iv not tried it on anything else yet, but for my 8800GTX the hardest games to run in list of most difficult 1st:

1) Crysis
2) Oblivion
3) UT3/Supreme Commander
4) Most other games

So id imagine that anything equal and below oblivion in terms of complexity it will run just fine, at 1920x1200 im still amazed, especially with 256mb video ram

EDIT: From distance memory im really quite sure that its running better on the 3650 than it did on my x1900XTX
 
Associate
Joined
4 Nov 2007
Posts
2,376
Location
Scotland
EDIT: From distance memory im really quite sure that its running better on the 3650 than it did on my x1900XTX

that's what i was thinking. my x1950gt only gets 25fps or less. they must have done some great optimisation on the card or something.
 

Aod

Aod

Soldato
Joined
7 Oct 2004
Posts
8,662
Location
London
i'm very upset about this. i've got an 8800GTX and i only get about 27fps in oblivion outside at 1680x1050 without AA on. :(
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Sep 2007
Posts
5,740
Location
from the internet
I think what this may actually go to show is that the CPU (in this case his being a 3.6GHz quad) actually has more of an impact than meets the eye (or in our case, the framerate counter). This coming from a guy who has a stock E2140 (crappy motherboard, no clocking for me :() with an 8800 GTS 320 who often feels the stutter quite bad in UT3 and other games.
 
Associate
Joined
25 Jul 2007
Posts
1,728
Location
Essex
I have not found AA to be important on 1600x1200 on my 20" monitor

I think AA at high res is the cherry on the cake not the cake itself - lighting and textures are the main thing
 
Back
Top Bottom