PDA

View Full Version : X800 or X800 Pro?



Buckaroo12
04-19-2005, 07:25 AM
Just wondering about people using these cards, I'm looking at upgrading in the near future and wanted to know what the difference is between these two cards other then the $200 price difference! All replies greatly appreciated!

sobolan
04-19-2005, 07:58 AM
answer: X800XL...

Chivas
04-19-2005, 12:05 PM
I'd also check out the Nvidia 6800GT OC if your getting a top end system. With this card you will be able to run Water=3.

BelaLvgosi
04-19-2005, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
I'd also check out the Nvidia 6800GT OC if your getting a top end system. With this card you will be able to run Water=3. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's all very very relative, with a single gt on a good machine (system specs mean a lot to this discussion!), fps will be about same as on a previous generation top end card running water=2, so all of the fps advantage goes away for better eye candy.
For the price, the x800XL is a much better selection than the pro, or even the 6800, because some $100 is still a lot.

On a side note, why everyone goes for the bfg gt oc? About any 6800 can reach the same 370 core with standard cooling. Does it have higher 3d voltage than normal as the ultra (would seem to be a good reason to buy it then, as most 6800gt over clocks well beyond 400mhz usually only fail because of that)?

bolillo_loco
04-19-2005, 03:02 PM
well firstly you must ask yourself what games do you play the most. If it is this game then stay away from ATI cards for now. Nvidia cards have consistently been out performing ATI cards for the past year and a half when it comes to running any of the IL-2 series games. I do not know if it has been longer than that because prior to a year and a half ago I did not dable into computers. To back up my claim I will post one of many bench marks that I have seen where ATI and Nvidia cards are compaired to each other.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/2004-27gpu2_24.html

PF_Coastie
04-19-2005, 04:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
well firstly you must ask yourself what games do you play the most. If it is this game then stay away from ATI cards for now. Nvidia cards have consistently been out performing ATI cards for the past year and a half when it comes to running any of the IL-2 series games. I do not know if it has been longer than that because prior to a year and a half ago I did not dable into computers. To back up my claim I will post one of many bench marks that I have seen where ATI and Nvidia cards are compaired to each other.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/2004-27gpu2_24.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

crazyivan1970
04-19-2005, 04:20 PM
Hang on...let me join Coastie on that one:

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

LuckyBoy1
04-19-2005, 04:49 PM
There's more to it than just the video card. This game is very CPU and RAM dependant as well. Post your diagnosis over at Community Help forum for your best upgrade advice. If you need instructions, see Luckyboy's Guide For Complete Users.

bolillo_loco
04-19-2005, 07:03 PM
yes I would agree that there is more to it than the video. I can get more FPS in my PIV with a 5200 ultra than I can with my PIII with a 6800GT. I get bored sometimes and swap out vid cards in my computers and test them out.

coastie go ahead and laugh all you want the bench marks do not lie. nvida gives ati the smack down on open gl games and in return ati gives nvidia the smack down on direct x games. just so happens that this game favors open gl.

PF_Coastie
04-19-2005, 09:16 PM
Loco, I really did not feel like going into this, I will sum it up.

Those tests are such ****. I can show you several tests where ATI smacks Nvidia with this game.

This game has so many things that can be tweaked. I do like to see this game used in comparisons for cards because it shows how intense this game is. But In my opinion, it should not be used because there are just too many variables in setup.

I promise you I can tweak an ATI system to match and probably beat an Nvidia system.

We all know this game was built for Nvidia cards. So, That means that more than likely the standard ATI settings in IL2 setup are likely a "best guess" by Olegs team.

One of about another 100 things is drivers. The Cat 4.12's used for the test had a few problems with the game as did the 4.11, 5.1 and 5.2's. The 5.3's are the drivers of choice by me right now(not including my current set of betas). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Here is an exerpt from page one of the xbit article:
"In all cases we only adjusted those settings which are accessible to any user; we didn€t change games€ configuration files, though it was possible in some cases, because an ordinary user is unlikely to be into editing various CFG or INI-files. The maximum graphics quality settings were selected in each game, the same for graphics cards on ATI€s and NVIDIA€s GPUs."

I know for a fact that using the standard x800 series settings will not give best performance with the newer cards. It also says they use "standard AI setting" in the CCC which will hinder performance on the new series of cards(with some drivers).

There are just too many variables to trust these type of comparisons for this game.

Ask, Hunter_82 who has tried every card imaginable with this game.

The bottom line is that ANY of the high end cards will get you nearly identical numbers after all is said and done.

As for the original poster: I am sorry for this partial hyjack. My recommendation is for the X800XL also. It is the best bang for the buck right now IMHO.

Good Luck!

Buckaroo12
04-20-2005, 07:19 AM
Hi again,

thanks for all the replies.

As for my current system, it goes like this:
Athalon XP 2600+
Gigabyte GA7N400L Motherboard
1.3 Gig's of RAM
Audigy 2 Sound Card
ATI 9600SE Video Card

With this setup I'm getting frames in the mid 20's (Black Death Track) with everything on perfect settings water=2!

Urufu_Shinjiro
04-20-2005, 08:34 AM
ok, I'm starting to get frustrated, I've seen several people post about running perfect with cards in the range of 9500 to 9600se's. I have a 9550 overclocked from stock 250mhz to 470 (yes it's stable, shocked me too) with a 3200+ athlonxp , a gig of corsair value ram running at 2.5 3 3 5, and onboard sound, the system is tweaked and trimmed and lean and mean. I get 16 min 87 max and 30.1** ave. in bd track with excelent water=2 and everything else in conf.ini maxed at 1152x864x16 aa 8xt3 af 16x. When I go to perfect, effects=0, shadows=0, water=2,aa 2xt3 af2x, even reduce lighting and draw distance and object detail and I can't get more than 15 ave. in bd and when I go to a map like with coral reefs and such my frames drop to like 5-10. I really don't get it, I've followed coasties ati settings advice but no go. Can anyone help me on this?

P.S. sorry for the thread hijack, I just thought you might have something for me as you had pefect running on a 9600se, I'll repost this in community help as well.

Buckaroo12
04-20-2005, 06:11 PM
No prob on the hijack! I should've mentioned I'm only running perfect in 1064 resolution!

Buckaroo12
04-24-2005, 11:51 AM
Thanks for all the replies guys!

I grabbed the X800XL, and popped in Coasties settings

results: using the same settings as before (perfect, water=2, forest=1, medium clouds, 1064 by 768 Resolution) I increased my FPS from 20 Average in the Black Death track to an average of 31!!!!! My frames in Regular game play have tripled and I couldn't be happier. Water doesn't seem to produce a noticeable hit on this card but forest is still a frame eater! I know my CPU is the bottleneck now so that will be the next big upgrade!

Worf101
04-27-2005, 09:58 AM
Coastie, here's my system:

AMD Athlon 64Fx-53
HIS Excalibur X800 XT PE with IceQ II Cooling
Asus A8V Deluxe VIA K8T800 Pro Chipset ATX AMD MB
1 Gig of OCZ 3500 unbuffered Ram
2 Western Digital 74 Gig Raptors in Raid 1
DVD ASUS 16X DVD
DVD+/-RW PLEXTOR|PX-712A
CPU FAN Thermaltake Silentboost K8
Cooler Master Wave Master Case
Antec NeoPower 480 Watt PSU
SB Audigy 2Z Platinum Sound Card
Dell Ultrasharp 2005FPW 20.1 Wide Flat Panel

I downloaded and read your Perfect files for the 9800 and saw you were getting an X800 XTPE in the future. Did you get it and if so how did you adjust it differently than what's contained in the present download?

Da Worfster

TheStriker_p51d
04-27-2005, 12:00 PM
6800 gt. better for less price

LEXX_Luthor
04-27-2005, 10:20 PM
I just got 9800Pro and get in cockpit ~40 fps Perfect 1280x960x32 with 2x AA and 2x AF, water=1, everything else max. Using new Cat 5.4 drivers. Not flying over big cities like Berlin though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

When I try 1600x1200 (not offered in game menu) the game does not start. I guess my monitor does not support 1600x1200 in FB, but it does running old DOS Fortran programs designed around 1995 Trident 2MB (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif) video card. Weird.

Only problem I have, is losing single pixel Dots against high resolution terrain below. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hunter82
04-28-2005, 05:59 AM
you should be me running at 1600X1200 trying to id AC near the ground on a 21" lcd lol Not a pretty site.... I may be needing glasses or stop drinking beer while playing...not sure yet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I just got 9800Pro and get in cockpit ~40 fps Perfect 1280x960x32 with 2x AA and 2x AF, water=1, everything else max. Using new Cat 5.4 drivers. Not flying over big cities like Berlin though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

When I try 1600x1200 (not offered in game menu) the game does not start. I guess my monitor does not support 1600x1200 in FB, but it does running old DOS Fortran programs designed around 1995 Trident 2MB (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif) video card. Weird.

Only problem I have, is losing single pixel Dots against high resolution terrain below. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif