Can any X800 Pro owners answer this?

[TheWumpus]

I know the ATI X800 series is more CPU dependent than the NVIDIA counterparts (you need a fast processor to really make the card fly). I have an AthlonXP 2700+ and I've read that your processor is going to slow down the X800 card until you get at least to the 3000+ speeds. But I didn't realize what a difference it could make.

I'm running countertrike source at 1280x1024 2x antialiasing and getting between 30 and 70 fps (average is about 45). Dropping to a lower resolution gains me only 2 or 3 FPS overall so I prefer this resolution. Bumping it up to 1600x1200 loses me about 5 FPS so I stick with 1280x1024 as a nice medium resolution.

From the benchmarks I've read though, pairing the X800 Pro up with an AthlonXP 64bit 3200+ would more than DOUBLE my frame rate. That's pretty serious. What I'm wondering, and just want to make sure of, is if any other X800 users are using a lower or mid end processor are experiencing similar performance reductions due to this.

 

[DjBourgeoisie]

I get over 100 fps with this system (non 64bit)

 

[cadaveca]

I know the ATI X800 series is more CPU dependent than the NVIDIA counterparts (you need a fast processor to really make the card fly). I have an AthlonXP 2700+ and I've read that your processor is going to slow down the X800 card until you get at least to the 3000+ speeds. But I didn't realize what a difference it could make.

I'm running countertrike source at 1280x1024 2x antialiasing and getting between 30 and 70 fps (average is about 45). Dropping to a lower resolution gains me only 2 or 3 FPS overall so I prefer this resolution. Bumping it up to 1600x1200 loses me about 5 FPS so I stick with 1280x1024 as a nice medium resolution.

From the benchmarks I've read though, pairing the X800 Pro up with an AthlonXP 64bit 3200+ would more than DOUBLE my frame rate. That's pretty serious. What I'm wondering, and just want to make sure of, is if any other X800 users are using a lower or mid end processor are experiencing similar performance reductions due to this.

It's more about the bandwidth of your system..***nning your system with a 400mhz bus inceases speed not only @ the processor, but between the processor and mem, and between the mem and AGP bus. It's the 3200mb/s of a 3200+ compared with the 2100mb/s of pc2100, or 2700mb/s of pc2700 that really makes the difference.
then you can get into the actual timings inside the memory itself...

want a quick FPS boost? set the texture quality in you ATI control panel to "quality", instead of "high quality".

 

[Helevitia]

Looks about right to me.

I get 50-80fps @ 1024x768 4xAA/16xAF

Asus A8V
AMD64 3500+
1GB Mushkin PC3200 running @ 2326
Asus X800 XT PE

 

[cadaveca]

i get about the same as you, helvitia, with the pc in my sig.
try the ATI 8.07 drivers..give a real good preformance boost, if you haven't already. Using my vidcard, the 8.07, and some tweaking, i can get my 9800pro to score higher than a x800 with catalyst 4.9, in 3dmark05.

 

[mutt]

Looks about right to me.

I get 50-80fps @ 1024x768 4xAA/16xAF

Asus A8V
AMD64 3500+
1GB Mushkin PC3200 running @ 2326
Asus X800 XT PE

is it only me that thinks fps like that with his system is pretty bad?

i have a simular spec with a x800 pro. i dont think source is that great if it can only produce that amout of fps, i was expecting more from valve.

 

[MrMan16]

I have a 2500+ and I get more FPS than that, though I have 16 active pipelines, so thats probably why. Ill get around 100 fps or something, with everything on the highest settings with full antialiasing, and about 93 FPS on the stresstest, (everything on high, with that 1280x1024) And im bottlenecking it prettybad. I really think its because I have the extra pipelines though = \

 

[mutt]

i really think their is some driver issues with ccs, iv seen loads of post about how low the fps are on x800 cards

i just hope they fix it, im a little pissed off

 

[MrMan16]

is it only me that thinks fps like that with his system is pretty bad?

Wow, that IS bad. I dont think its the source engine, I think it may be your PC for some reason....spyeware? drivers?

 

[Helevitia]

hmmm, I am positive that my system is running at optimal performance. I don't have spyware, I have no viruses, I am running the cat4.9's and I get 6181 in 3Dmark05 when I overclock my video card to 545/583. This also gets me 60-100 fps in CS:S. Remember, I am running with 4xAA and 16xAF. You guys sure you aren't telling a little fib?

 

[Concept]

I know the ATI X800 series is more CPU dependent than the NVIDIA counterparts (you need a fast processor to really make the card fly). I have an AthlonXP 2700+ and I've read that your processor is going to slow down the X800 card until you get at least to the 3000+ speeds. But I didn't realize what a difference it could make.

I'm running countertrike source at 1280x1024 2x antialiasing and getting between 30 and 70 fps (average is about 45). Dropping to a lower resolution gains me only 2 or 3 FPS overall so I prefer this resolution. Bumping it up to 1600x1200 loses me about 5 FPS so I stick with 1280x1024 as a nice medium resolution.

From the benchmarks I've read though, pairing the X800 Pro up with an AthlonXP 64bit 3200+ would more than DOUBLE my frame rate. That's pretty serious. What I'm wondering, and just want to make sure of, is if any other X800 users are using a lower or mid end processor are experiencing similar performance reductions due to this.

I have an A64 3200+/x800Pro.

It's (mostly) a myth. While there will be some improvement it certainly won't be double what you've got now.

I run everything maxed out, 6xAA 16xAF, 1280x1024 and get 80fps on average in the VST and consistently around 70fps in CS: Source (both alone and in servers).

 

[cadaveca]

hmmm, I am positive that my system is running at optimal performance. I don't have spyware, I have no viruses, I am running the cat4.9's and I get 6181 in 3Dmark05 when I overclock my video card to 545/583. This also gets me 60-100 fps in CS:S. Remember, I am running with 4xAA and 16xAF. You guys sure you aren't telling a little fib?

http://www.aoaforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27153

here's some proof for ya...you'll see screenshots of my scores, as well as quite a few x800 scores.

cadaveca how are you getting a higher score with your 9800 compared to the X800's?

 

[Concept]

hmmm, I am positive that my system is running at optimal performance. I don't have spyware, I have no viruses, I am running the cat4.9's and I get 6181 in 3Dmark05 when I overclock my video card to 545/583. This also gets me 60-100 fps in CS:S. Remember, I am running with 4xAA and 16xAF. You guys sure you aren't telling a little fib?

That's an impressive 3D Mark 05 score, but I'd think you should be getting slightly higher fps (between 120-130) in 1024x768 with your setup.

I average at 90fps in CS: Source at 1024x768 on mine.

 

[bizzy420]

uhh i dont think anyone get 100fps CONSTANT in cs source. especially with smoke and 20 ppl running around gunning.


ofcourse anyone can get 100fps looking at a wall.

 

[Concept]

90fps average on CS: Source in 1024x768 for me was based on a quick go checking out the maps a few minutes before I posted using fraps.

I easily maintain 1280x1024 regularly in 70fps on busy servers (bar lag of course). Judging previous benchmarks tests on the net I'd expect the XT to reach higher to be honest.

 

[bizzy420]

concept, so u using aa and af? dx9 or dx8 path? u got a amd64/x8000 right? mind taking any screenies with people( more than 1 person)shooting showing 90fps? maybe 2-3 screenies different maps showing your 90fps average.

 

[Milo 7]

yeah i would like to see some screenshots to

with heavy action going on, and fps on

 

[bizzy420]

shit if you get a AVG of 90fps with heavy action, i'd pick up an xt right now.

 

[Nex321]

People are lying, I'm waiting for my 4.3 ghz tomorrow and I'll give you the result then.


Note: 4.3 ghz equals an FX-53 or even better in 32 bit

 

[poseyjmac]

shit if you get a AVG of 90fps with heavy action, i'd pick up an xt right now.

no one does

 

[Helevitia]

That's an impressive 3D Mark 05 score, but I'd think you should be getting slightly higher fps (between 120-130) in 1024x768 with your setup.

I average at 90fps in CS: Source at 1024x768 on mine.

OK, you got me thinking that my system might be running CS:S slower than it should be. It was. I have vsync enabled and it causes that huge of a drop. But I get a very ugly stutter/tear without it and the game is perfectly playable with it on. Just to give you some numbers.

VST:
87 - Everything Max(6xAA/16xAF, reflect all), vsync on
87 - no AA/AF, vsync on
125 - no AA/AF, vsync off

In Game:
50-80 - Everything Max(6xAA/16xAF, reflect all), vsync on
90-150 - no AA/AF, vsync off

 

[bizzy420]

People are lying, I'm waiting for my 4.3 ghz tomorrow and I'll give you the result then.


Note: 4.3 ghz equals an FX-53 or even better in 32 bit

yo NEX, can you explain to me, for example i heard that a AMD 2ghz is fast as a p4 2.8. than you said a 4.3 equals a fx53. so AMD has lower clocks, but is a faster processor? i dont understand. why is the performance on AMD's that much better?

 

[Asus]

yo NEX, can you explain to me, for example i heard that a AMD 2ghz is fast as a p4 2.8. than you said a 4.3 equals a fx53. so AMD has lower clocks, but is a faster processor? i dont understand. why is the performance on AMD's that much better?

A car can go 100MPH but if it doesn't haul much then what work is it doing?

There is two basic parts to CPU performance. IPC or how much it can do per cycle and Freqency, how often it cycles.
Performance = IPC x MHz

Intel does less, more often.
AMD does more, less often.

Confused?

 

[Kazuki_Fuse]

That highly confused me, to the point where i started bleeding out the ear.