Should I get an X1800XT?

fornowagain · 22 Apr 2006 at 15:31

egt said:
Fornowagain, link please.

That benchie isn't with an x1800 @ 16XHQAF either

It says what its on. And the link is my house address. I just thought you as you like charts you might like mine.

egt · 22 Apr 2006 at 15:42

Review of "chuck patch" with a x1800 512mb HERE

fornowagain · 22 Apr 2006 at 15:58

2006-04-22 15:54:12 - Oblivion
Frames: 2845 - Time: 44493ms - Avg: 63.943 - Min: 36 - Max: 110

X1900XTX @ 1280x960 HDR+4AA+8AFHQ Indoors.

I'm suprised how bad their results are, I'm just glad mine playable.

welshtom · 22 Apr 2006 at 16:07

egt said:
Nice how you need ppl to latch on to in an effort to get out of your unfortunate predicament how the heck do we know he's running the same details as you pretend you're using? + he's on a x1900.

Up to now, you've claimed that you use max details, 16XAF, 4XAA+HDR and FPS rarely dropped below 35.

Again: (with an x1800)

Maybe those guys are fibbing, eh?

What cpu is this with EGT in the graph?
Maybe they arent running a good enough cpu? Esp with dual core optimisations in all drivers nowadays.
just a thought?

Tom

egt · 22 Apr 2006 at 16:12

fornowagain said:
2006-04-22 15:54:12 - Oblivion
Frames: 2845 - Time: 44493ms - Avg: 63.943 - Min: 36 - Max: 110

X1900XTX @ 1280x960 HDR+4AA+8AFHQ Indoors.

I'm suprised how bad their results are, I'm just glad mine playable.

Mine was unplayable using 16X high quality AF. Running it with 8XAF now and it's improved a fair bit. I'm still not bothering with HDR+AA because i can hardly tell the difference anyway. I demand smooth gameplay with my x1900xtx

egt · 22 Apr 2006 at 16:14

welshtom said:
What cpu is this with EGT in the graph?
Maybe they arent running a good enough cpu? Esp with dual core optimisations in all drivers nowadays.
just a thought?

Tom

It was with a AMD3500, welshtom. Don't get me wrong, i'm chuffed with my card, and i do believe it has the edge over the 7900GTX IQ wise, but i find exomis's exagerations and childish behavior annoying

Darkwave · 22 Apr 2006 at 16:20

welshtom said:
What cpu is this with EGT in the graph?
Maybe they arent running a good enough cpu? Esp with dual core optimisations in all drivers nowadays.
just a thought?

Tom

I'm using a single core S754 3400+, pretty rubbish by current standards of dual-core and dual-channel memory but with enough speed just to keep up with the latest games.

I think that egt's link proves one thing: Benchmarks can be inaccurate.

egt said:
Mine was unplayable using 16X high quality AF. Running it with 8XAF now and it's improved a fair bit. I'm still not bothering with HDR+AA because i can hardly tell the difference anyway. I demand smooth gameplay with my x1900xtx

Yep, and three other people with your card are getting 32fps+ in huge resolutions. I think it's obvious where the problem lies here, and it's not with them or their computers.

You demand smooth gameplay, do you? I am assuming your minimum fps in Oblivion does drop below 72fps, which means it's not smooth. Since Oblivion is not a fast-action shooting game like Battlefield 2 etc. I am perfectly happy with ~35fps average and 28fps as at the very least.

Oh, but that's right... Your X1900XT-X, despite other X1900 owners saying it should be able to, cannot play at more than 20fps for some reason with these graphics settings. So you just call everyone a liar instead of trying to find out why. :rolleyes:

egt · 22 Apr 2006 at 16:27

Exsomnis said:
Oh, but that's right... Your X1900XT-X, despite other X1900 owners saying it should be able to, cannot play at more than 20fps for some reason with these graphics settings. So you just call everyone a liar instead of trying to find out why.

Stop dragging other ppl into this, i'm saying that you're spreading misinformation...that means you. I don't think anyone in their right mind believes that you are getting rarely below 35FPS in outdoor areas with max settings,16XHQAF and 4XAA+HDR on your mediocre performing x1800.

Darkwave · 22 Apr 2006 at 16:32

egt said:
Stop dragging other ppl into this, i'm saying that you're spreading misinformation...that means you. I don't think anyone in their right mind believes that you are getting rarely below 35FPS in outdoor areas with max settings,16XHQAF and 4XAA+HDR on your mediocre performing x1800.

If this post doesn't reek of seething bitterness then I don't know what does.

Look, I am getting this performance at 1280x960, people with your card are getting the same performance with the same settings at 1620xWhatever widescreen resolutions.

My performance is well within the performance range of this graphics card, in fact it'd probably be a lot better if my CPU wasn't so old. So, how is the X1800XT mediocre? We can't all borrow mummy's purse to buy an X1900XT-X to make ourselves feel big by calling other people's graphics cards inferior. :rolleyes:

The rest of us have to make money and spend it on other things, not just penny sweets and FHM.

The fact is, three people get my performance on your card in 1620xWhatever resolution. I am playing in 1280x960, which by modern standards is low resolution gaming. These results make sense, your card performing at <20fps does not.

egt · 22 Apr 2006 at 16:40

Exsomnis said:
My performance is well within the performance range of this graphics card, in fact it'd probably be a lot better if my CPU wasn't so old. So, how is the X1800XT mediocre? We can't all borrow mummy's purse to buy an X1900XT-X to make ourselves feel big by calling other people's graphics cards inferior. The rest of us have to make money and spend it on other things, not just penny sweets and FHM.

Childish insults and twisting words to suit your argument again i see :rolleyes:

The x1800 is a decent card, but your benchmarks are mediocre in comparrison to other x1800 scores i've seen.

Darkwave · 22 Apr 2006 at 16:41

egt said:
Childish insults and twisting words to suit your argument again i see The x1800 is a decent card, but your benchmarks are mediocre in comparrison to other x1800 scores i've seen.

It's CPU-limited, a bit heavily too, so what do you expect? :rolleyes:

I'm not sure what your point is since everyone knows synthetic benchmarks mean little in terms of real-world performance anyway, seems to me like you're just trying to get into a willy waving contest now.

egt · 22 Apr 2006 at 16:45

Exsomnis said:
It's CPU-limited, a bit heavily too, so what do you expect?

I expect you to stop spreading misinformation, but from you, thats not going to happen :rolleyes:

Darkwave · 22 Apr 2006 at 16:45

egt said:
I expect you to stop spreading misinformation, but from you, thats not going to happen

*Yawn.*

Finished trolling yet?

egt · 22 Apr 2006 at 16:53

Exsomnis said:
*Yawn.* Finished trolling yet?

I've found many holes in your arguments, others can too but you call that trolling :rolleyes:

Finished lying yet?

Camalot · 22 Apr 2006 at 17:00

Exsomnis said:
*Yawn.* Finished trolling yet?

Ignore him, loads of kids like him online lol

Nice screenshots, showed my mate this thread he has same card and gets avg 32fps as well. Just dont reply to him again no matter what his reply is, he just tryin to provoke you into a reply, so dont feed the boy.

Anyway, on topic, im gonna get a X1800XT (not sure if 256/512 yet). Read nothing but praise from the cards.

But they stopped making them or ?

LoadsaMoney · 22 Apr 2006 at 17:02

If you can stretch get the x1900, if not then get the x1800 its still a fantastic card.

Darkwave · 22 Apr 2006 at 17:03

Camalot said:
Ignore him, loads of kids like him online lol

Nice screenshots, showed my mate this thread he has same card and gets avg 32fps as well. Just dont reply to him again no matter what his reply is, he just tryin to provoke you into a reply, so dont feed the boy.

Anyway, on topic, im gonna get a X1800XT (not sure if 256/512 yet). Read nothing but praise from the cards.

But they stopped making them or ?

I think I'll take your advice and pay no more mind to him, I'm being just as bad as him by taking the bait really and should've stopped a long time ago.

Anyway, on topic... They do still make them, and they can still be found quite cheap on this site. Wether you want 256MB or 512MB is up to you, it really depends on the games you play.

Oblivion, for example, doesn't really utilise 512MB of video memory. Games like Call Of Duty 2 and Quake IV, on the other hand, require it for their highest texture settings etc.

And like LoadsaMoney said; If your budget can fit an X1900XT, I would go for one of those. My budget for graphics was £200 when I bought this X1800XT, so it was the best choice for me at the time.

easyrider · 22 Apr 2006 at 17:03

Street said:
I'm in the process of deciding whether or not to upgrade to an X1800XT.

I've currently got an X850XT@PE and its starting to struggle running games such as Oblivion at decent settings. Is the X1800 a decent enough card or is it not much or a performance boost over my X850 and would an X1900 be a better option?

I'm hoping this card will see me through the rest of the year at least without struggling too much in games...

Cheers

If you have the funds I would go for the faster x1900 series card.Depending on what resolutions you play at too is also a factor to take into consideration.

The x1800 is a good card but overshadowed by the x1900.

I think you will be dissapointed with the x1800 as you will have to turn some in games settings down in oblivion to get good framerates.

If your gonna upgrade get a x1900 for oblivion

Camalot · 22 Apr 2006 at 17:05

LoadsaMoney said:
If you can stretch get the x1900, if not then get the x1800 its still a fantastic card.

I could stretch to the card but bit worried about spending so much on one grfx card !

For example i have a w/s monitor 1400x900 res, you dont see these cards benched at them res's so what bench should i look at? Cant really see a x1900 being that much quicker than x1800 256 at that res.

Darkwave · 22 Apr 2006 at 17:06

easyrider said:
I think you will be dissapointed with the x1800 as you will have to turn some in games settings down in oblivion to get good framerates.

He should be fine. I have little trouble running it maxed, and he mentioned that his friend plays it maxed with the same card. Was actually trying not to bring this point up again just in case it started another argument, but oh well let's hope it doesn't.

Camalot said:
I could stretch to the card but bit worried about spending so much on one grfx card !

For example i have a w/s monitor 1400x900 res, you dont see these cards benched at them res's so what bench should i look at? Cant really see a x1900 being that much quicker than x1800 256 at that res.

I've not even tried Oblivion in above 1280x960 on my card, but I think that 1400x900 would give it a heart attack in the settings I play in. :eek:

You would definitely be turning things down a bit to get that res on it, but it depends on your budget really and how much you feel is a sensible amount to spend on a graphics card. If you can justify buying the X1900 then you would be better off with it.