Same old.......either and x1900xt or 7900gtx

fornowagain · 26 Apr 2006 at 18:40

Just to add, reboot into safe mode before you run DC. Stops any drivers being restored. The "chuck patch" is a complete set of modified 6.3 drivers (runs on its own, no 6.3/6.4 drivers required), no point using 6.4's at all if you want to play Oblivion. Just get the CCC (or CP )+WDM+patch, save yourself the download. Couldn't see much difference performance wise from chuck to 6.4 on mine.

Darkwave · 26 Apr 2006 at 18:58

fornowagain said:
Just to add, reboot into safe mode before you run DC. Stops any drivers being restored. The "chuck patch" is a complete set of modified 6.3 drivers (runs on its own, no 6.3/6.4 drivers required), no point using 6.4's at all if you want to play Oblivion. Just get the CCC (or CP )+WDM+patch, save yourself the download. Couldn't see much difference performance wise from chuck to 6.4 on mine.

I forgot about safe mode entirely, I never bothered.

I thought that the Chuck patch was purely a hotfix, though, and not a stand-alone driver. I could easily be wrong.

Personally, I just install the chuck patch "over" the 6.4 Catalysts, and click "no to all" when it wants to over-write newer files.

fornowagain · 26 Apr 2006 at 19:09

Exsomnis said:
IPersonally, I just install the chuck patch "over" the 6.4 Catalysts, and click "no to all" when it wants to over-write newer files.

T'other way around, "yes to all". If you put the patch over the 6.4's you "want" it to over-write the newer files, just to be clear, they are older 6.3's. Otherwise, yeah that will work, may leave some stuff floating around, won't hurt. Just not much point on a clean install. I always put the new drivers on a ghost-clean XP install on a small partition. If they bench ok I'll stick them on my game install. Saves a lot of time if they're rubbish. Chuck+CP+ATItool runs just fine with nothing else, good for benches, no .net et al.

kevpuk · 26 Apr 2006 at 19:50

DOH.....methinks I will be busy......

kevpuk · 28 Apr 2006 at 11:28

OK, arrived and installed

Here are my benchies so far.....1900XT @ stock, CPU as per sig :

3D Mark 01 - 27208 (26470)
3D Mark 03 - 17459 (16793)
3D Mark 05 - 10698 (7979)

figures in brackets were the best my 7800GT achieved, after over-clocking

'01 was really just for fun...... :cool:

Well pleased with the '05 score....haven't got round to the '06 benchie yet....to be continued.....good scores ? Yet to start oc'ing the card....

Darkwave · 28 Apr 2006 at 11:29

kevpuk said:
3D Mark 01 - 27208
3D Mark 03 - 17459
3D Mark 05 - 10698

[vader] "Impressive, most impressive!" [/vader]

kevpuk · 28 Apr 2006 at 13:46

kevpuk said:
OK, arrived and installed

Here are my benchies so far.....1900XT @ stock, CPU as per sig :

3D Mark 01 - 27208 (26470)
3D Mark 03 - 17459 (16793)
3D Mark 05 - 10698 (7979)

figures in brackets were the best my 7800GT achieved, after over-clocking

'01 was really just for fun......

Well pleased with the '05 score....haven't got round to the '06 benchie yet....to be continued.....good scores ? Yet to start oc'ing the card....

3D Mark 06 - 5599 (4012)

Seems OK to me....gonna have to wait until this evening before I can try overclocking a little

......damned work !

Darkwave · 28 Apr 2006 at 13:54

kevpuk said:
3D Mark 06 - 5599

Damn, I'm jealous.

BTW, update your sig!

LoadsaMoney · 28 Apr 2006 at 13:56

Yes thats what i did, said yes to the overwrite when installing the chuck patch over the top of the 6.4's, as it was obvious the 6.4's were newer as they came out after the chuck patch.

Enjoy the new card it will be a cracker.

Darkwave · 28 Apr 2006 at 13:57

I did "no to all" on over-writes (6.4 Catalyst then Chuck patch), I wonder if it would make a performance difference to do it the other way.

LoadsaMoney · 28 Apr 2006 at 13:59

It may do, as i doubt it will be working, as if you said no to the overwrite, then it would'nt have installed, it would have just left the newer file there.

As said both cards are on par, so either would have been a cracker, the differences are just as has already been pointed out, GTX is dearer, cooler, quieter, and uses less power, x1900 is hotter, louder, uses more power, cheaper, but performance is the same, apart from being able to use AA+HDR at the same time which Nvidia cards can't do.

Darkwave · 28 Apr 2006 at 14:01

Yeah I'm just wondering if the files it wanted to overwrite with were optimised better than the files in the Cat 6.4s.

Might be worth investigating later if I have nothing to do.

kevpuk · 28 Apr 2006 at 14:36

Early indications are that I am very impressed with the card......

Should point out that the benchies were each run 1 after the other, with only a ciggie brak or similar between......does this affect the scores ? I thought I read somewhere that benchies are best run off a fresh boot....?

Anyhow, will get round to updating my sig later, want to check what happens with a modest OC on the x1900XT first

One other point, seems the cooler on the card has a Sapphire sticker (!) over the 'default' image.....kinda thought that the cooler would not have a sticker on it, although I understand that many board makers use the totally stock reference cooler.....

Darkwave · 28 Apr 2006 at 14:38

Pretty much all manufacturers simply slap a sticker on a reference cooler, you'll find a lot of Nvidia partners do the same too (I know eVGA do, and I think MSI do.) You should put a VF900-CU on that monster anyway, see how high it'll OC and how low the temps will drop.

kevpuk · 28 Apr 2006 at 14:45

Exsomnis said:
You should put a VF900-CU on that monster anyway, see how high it'll OC and how low the temps will drop.

Do these coolers really impact the temps loads, or are we talking just a little quieter, a little cooler.....not too sure on doing such things - what about warranty issues ?

Darkwave · 28 Apr 2006 at 15:00

kevpuk said:
Do these coolers really impact the temps loads, or are we talking just a little quieter, a little cooler.....not too sure on doing such things - what about warranty issues ?

Well I don't know about on an X1900, but from what I've read, they knock the temps on an X1800 XT down from 80ºc to 60ºc at load and from 60ºc to 40ºc when idle. That's a pretty amazing difference in my opinion, as I tend to worry a bit about temps above 65ºc. They're also immensely quiet, the quietest air cooler out right now I think, and can't be heard at all unless you put your head in the case.

Edit: Removing the stock cooler will void your warranty, but most people would just recommend sticking it back on if you ever need to send it back, as nobody would notice. If you're the honest type though, or not comfortable with hardware mods, I'd stick with the stock cooler as it's not bad.

squiffy · 28 Apr 2006 at 15:09

kevpuk said:
Do these coolers really impact the temps loads, or are we talking just a little quieter, a little cooler.....not too sure on doing such things - what about warranty issues ?

It will depend on case cooling, as stock cooler exhausts air out of the case. So if your existing case temps are quite high (with little air circulation) the stock cooler could be in fact better. But in a well ventilated case the 900 should be superior.

Zalman 900 at max (2500rpm) is quieter than the 1900XT when it spins up during gaming. I personally haven't had a massive decrease in GFX temps, although I'll try FEAR out (Vsync off seems to cook GPU more than with it on) and see what I get. I used to get 81-85 in FEAR with stock.

Replacing stock HSF and fitting Zalman is easy, 30 mins should do it.

kevpuk · 28 Apr 2006 at 15:14

...goes off to find prices......

sounds like a good 'un, depending on the fiddliness factor ! Easy, or hair-pulling ?

kevpuk · 28 Apr 2006 at 15:15

squiffy said:
Replacing stock HSF and fitting Zalman is easy, 30 mins should do it.

DOH, question already answered....

Darkwave · 28 Apr 2006 at 15:20

If you do buy one of those coolers, see if it comes with thermal paste too. They usually do, but it's not great stuff, so you might want to see how much it is for a 3.5g tube of Arctic Silver 5 too.