How well do you guys think a 9600se will do on hl2

[BoRn[nBk]]

I recently got a 9600se for 80 bucks i overclocked it and i saw a major performance increase i went from the stock 325/195 to 390/255 clock and i orginally scored 1700 on 3dmark03 with the overlocking i went too 2600 on 3dmark03 so how well do you guys think the card will preform on HL2?? think i will be able too play it at 1024/768 and still have above 35 fps?

 

[Lateralus]

depends on cpu as well

but with those hideous scores on 3dMark03, i'd ssuspect not a good CPU, 80 bucks could of been saved for a major overhaul

 

[BoRn[nBk]]

my cpu is a 1600+ rite now next week im getting a barton 2700+ but i still think the graphics card is hella better then my FX5200

 

[Jimlad]

To be honest, I'm not quite sure why you consider asking people what they "think" will work, will be very productive. Nobody knows how well your computer will run it - there's barely enough information to tell you how well it'll run current games. Wait until the game is out. As much as some people would like to think it, this forum isn't the fountain of all knowledge, so you're not going to get a sensible answer (i.e. anything other than a guess) until Valve release HL2 or at least a benchmark.

 

[The_Nexus]

far cry will gove you a "reasonable" preformance test run-download the demo and give er a rip

 

[BoRn[nBk]]

well i would just like peoples opinions on things and as performance goes on games im currently playing i get 60 fps on COD at 1024x768. i also get 80 fps on Battlefield 1942 at the same res i get 50 fps on Pain killer at 1024x768 and i get 35-44 fps on doom 3 thanks too some of tweaking of my own by extracting all the packed files on doom 3 directly into the folder so it isnt compressed before doom 3 ran like garbage intel i did that it was playable but it wasnt so if you people havent done that too doom 3 DO IT AND ENJOY HIGHER FPS! ON IT! and on farcry i get 40-60 fps depends where i am on the map but 40 is the lowest it gets at high water quilty and high lighting quailty the rest is set at medium and running at 800x600

 

[PlagueX]

Well I run with a 1800+ Amd XP But soon I will update it to a 3200+ "Newcastle" 64bit amd.
I also run with a geforce 4 ti4200, also to be replace. But not before november.
I will all cost about 4000 Danish Crowns. That is about 700-800 US dollars, and that includes a new motherboard too.
I WILL run halflife 2 at whatever cost!.

 

[Yellonet]

Suck Edition cards will not perform well. You'll probably have to disable pretty much all of the eye-candy to get a reasonable FR. But nobody really knows unless they tested the game with that card.


- Yellonet

 

[Axyon]

This belongs in the Hardware forum, and optimally, in the sticky thread... but we'll leave it at this for now.

 

[Kyorisu]

Just imagine the people running on DX6/7 hardware and don't worry about it a 9600 se should peform quite adequate for HL2. Howether, in the long run it could be a very bad choice. There a GFX cards significantly faster than the se out there it's all about the size of your wallet.

 

[Asus]

The 9600SE will perform actually pretty well in HL2 but only 'OK" in other games. Not a bad deal for 80$ at all, especially since it's a DX9 card.

 

[Rhalle]

The truth? It will perform terribly. I have a 9600se and a 9800pro. I bought a 9600se for the downtime when my old 9700pro fried itself and I had to RMA it. The 9600se is an awful card, and it will perform poorly, even with any moderately advaned game. Get a 9600xt or a refurb 9700pro/9800/9800 pro if you can afford it; I haven't looked in awhile, but the price is probably below $200 by now. 9800 pro with a decent processor scores 5-6k on 3d2003, which isa 2-3x perfomance increase over 9600se. Upgrade if you can; you'll be astonished at the difference that the hardware can make.

 

[westie]

I think you should have saved a little and gone for 9800/9800PRO it will be better in the long run.

 

[Radcliff]

Ultimately, I have heard that HL2 will autodetect your hardware, and adjust your system settings for you, but that remains to be seen. Doom 3 does the exact same thing, and does a horrible job at it, but that's another subject altogether.

As for whether or not I think your 9600 Pro will stack up, I believe it best to find out for yourself, as there are rarely any 2 systems that are *exactly* the same. I have a 2600+ AMD XP with 1.5GB RAM and Radeon 9600XT, and at times my PC will run my games like crap, other times it will run them great. There are several deciding factors besides CPU speed.

What RAM do you have, and how much?

How many programs do you typically have running in the background?

Is this a fairly new install of Windows? (Games tend to run better on fresh installations from my experience.)

Answer these questions, and you'll probably come up with the most likely answer. Also remember that 3dmark is not a very reliable benchmarking tool, the best way to benchmark would be to find the most graphically intensive game you have, and find out how to display the framerates. Some games (like UT2004 for example) will do an outright graphics test (it's like a timedemo in Quake 3) and display the results in the console, inside a file, or inside a separate window. I suggest you test some of your games and see how good they do. The newer, and the more graphically intensive, the more reliable the benchmark will be in comparison with HL2.

 

[Sonduren]

YOUR CARD SUCKS AND WIIL PLAY HL2 AT ONLY Medium quality and Low Res.SE=Sucks my balls edition ...NEVEr get those cards .......Also the thing that kills u is that its stripped down to the 64bit mem which kills u ...i say return it and get a beta one for HL2. Overclocking will only give u a mabey 3-5 frame boost. so youll get 20fps on medium quality low Res.

 

[B.Calhoun]

Umm i got a question.

Whats the 3Dmark03 or whatever? ive seen alot of people posting their scores and just wondering if you guys could give me a link or explain what exactly it is....and could you let me know whats a good score on it?

 

[Nex321]

Download it here: www.futuremark.com

Run the test and see what scores you get

 

[B.Calhoun]

http://www.futuremark.com/download/?pcmark04.shtml

this it?

 

[JimmehH]

http://www.futuremark.com/download/?3dmark03.shtml

 

[JFry]

Well I run with a 1800+ Amd XP But soon I will update it to a 3200+ "Newcastle" 64bit amd.
I also run with a geforce 4 ti4200, also to be replace. But not before november.
I will all cost about 4000 Danish Crowns. That is about 700-800 US dollars, and that includes a new motherboard too.
I WILL run halflife 2 at whatever cost!.

$700-800 seems rather steep to me. I got a athlon 64 3200+ and a nice mobo (nforce3 chipset) for about $200 at newegg, and I'm sure it'll run hl2 easily. I'm guessing newcastle is top of the line, but do you really think it'll be worth the extra $500-600?

 

[BoRn[nBk]]

well wouldnt there be a law suit if the card didnt perform worth a damn on ATI's part for putting the HL2 on the box and a free voucher and Right on the box it says PREFERD GRAPHICS CARD FOR HALF LIFE 2

 

[Rhalle]

Valve has a deal with ATI is all. ATI puts it on all their cards' boxes, I imagine. It will work, but it will probably run smoothly on low settings-- or maybe medium at a low resolution, since hl2 will demand a lot of hardware to look anywhere near its best. Anyone will need a x800 to really max out the settings, I'm sure; and not a lot of people who play games have $500 to drop on just a graphics card, a price you cold almost get a whole bargain computer for...

 

[Kyorisu]

As I said before imagine the people running on DX 6/7/8 hardware thats plenty slower than a DX 9 card thats for sure. I know the radeon 9600se is the slower make for more casual users, but it should perform fine on HL2 just as long as CPU and Ram are sufficent.

 

[Dead-Inside]

SE (Sucky Edition) is really the crappiest cards there are. Generally perform 50% or less. I don't know what they did to the cards.