The Official DOOM 3 [H]ardware Guide thread.

bzguy

n00b
Joined
Aug 1, 2004
Messages
1
These benchmarks don't show us only the difference between 2 non-comparable systems :
you compare a XP3200+ & Nforce² system with 512Mb of ram & een Radeon 9800 Pro, High Quality 1024*768 NoAA 8xAF with a P4 3Ghz on a I875P with 1Gb of ram & a Radeon 9800Pro, Medium Quality 1024*768 NoAA NoAF. :eek:

Sorry to tell, but this seems like comparing a donkey and a horse, I can tell which one will be the fastest ! (look at the difference in ram and in quality level & no AF & 8 AF !)

I'd prefer to have a fair test of 2 really comparable systems ...
 

Tim

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 4, 2000
Messages
4,968
bzguy said:
These benchmarks don't show us only the difference between 2 non-comparable systems :
you compare a XP3200+ & Nforce² system with 512Mb of ram & een Radeon 9800 Pro, High Quality 1024*768 NoAA 8xAF with a P4 3Ghz on a I875P with 1Gb of ram & a Radeon 9800Pro, Medium Quality 1024*768 NoAA NoAF. :eek:

Sorry to tell, but this seems like comparing a donkey and a horse, I can tell which one will be the fastest ! (look at the difference in ram and in quality level & no AF & 8 AF !)

I'd prefer to have a fair test of 2 really comparable systems ...

The benchmarks are there to show you what your maximum playable resolution is going to be when playing the game. That's why it's a hardware guide and not a product review or tech article.

I'm sure once the game is finally launched, and it makes it into every reviewer's benchmark suite you will get your wish, but that was not the intention of the article.
 

Charles

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 1, 2004
Messages
486
Okay, this is my first post here, but you guys seem to know this kinda stuff pretty well.

Here's my specs:

Shuttle SB62G2
250W Silent X PSU
P4 2.4C @ 3.01
1024 PC3200
SB Audigy 2 ZS
Sony DRU120A DVD+RW
RAID0 2x 160 GB Samsung SATA (SP1614C)
Radeon 7000 (64 MB)
1. Scepter X7SV 17" Widescreen LCD/TV
2. KDS Rad-5C 15" LCD
Bose Companion 3 Speakers

I'm trying to decide between the Leadtek Winfast GeForce 6800 non-ultra ($280 off eBay including shipping + 31 dB noise fans as opposed to the regular 38 dB noise standard 6800 fans) and eVGA's Geforce 6800 GT ($399 + tax)

I'm worried about the following things:

1. Noise - I enjoy the peace and quiet of my current system. The only fan in it is the system fan and the PSU fan is pretty much silent (Silent X stuff is awesome). The Samsung drives are pretty much silent as well (I can't even tell when it's reading/writing unless I press my face up near the front of it) Likewise, my speakers and sound card provide really good sound and really good simulated surround (one of my friends actually asked me where I put my rear surround speakers). I would like to keep at least close to that with the new video card.

2. AA - I really like turning AA on in games. My LCD screens only have 12x7 and 10x7 resolutions. I know what you're thinking... a Radeon 7000 couldn't do AA in anything. You're right:p This is from playing on my friends' computers.

3. Price - No duh:p

In any case, I'm not exactly a hardcore gamer or a hardcore overclocker as you can see, but I do overclock the parts I have to safe levels (I've never seen my system temp above 49 degrees C even when doing heavy video editing/conversion) just to get appropriate value from what I buy.

As you may have noticed, my video card is very very old. It handles everything up to Call of Duty fine with max settings at 1280x768.

Unfortunately I want to play Doom 3. In fact I want to play it at High Quality with 2xAA/8xAF at 1280x768.

I'm not sure if the GeForce 6800 non-ultra will be able to pull this off... It seems to do High Quality NoAA/8xAF at 1600x1200 pretty well, but I don't know how much of a hit it will take with turning AA on (since I'm using LCD's cranking up resolution is not an option for me... AA is the only way).

I know that the GeForce 6800 GT will be able to pull off 1280x768 4xAA/8xAF with ease, but at what cost? There's about a $150-$180 difference between the non-ultra and the GT at market prices these days and that's a lot of money (I could get myself some pretty good high-end headphones for that). Take that plus the added noise to my system (what use is surround sound and creepy quiet corridors in Doom 3 if in the background there's a constant WHIRRRRHUMMBEEPBEEPHUM).

What do you all think? In the coming days if somebody with a Geforce 6800 non-ultra (overclocked as necessary) is able to play Doom 3 at 1280x768 2xAA/8xAF at playable framerates, please do tell me... it's a close call in my opinion.
 

mithong

n00b
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
37
im kind of worried, this guide says that the 9800 xt will be able to play 1024x768 high fine, but from what people with the game have been saying, they have to knock it down to 8x6 to make it a decent framerate
 

Jason711

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
5,975
mithong said:
im kind of worried, this guide says that the 9800 xt will be able to play 1024x768 high fine, but from what people with the game have been saying, they have to knock it down to 8x6 to make it a decent framerate

for some reason id tell ppl to suck one and go by the guide...
 

LordJezo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2003
Messages
471
Is it worth upgrading my video card?

Right now I have a Geforce 4 4400, an AMD 2100+ XP, and 512 megs of ram.

Would a video card do anything or do I need a complete system upgrade?
 

Smotpoker

n00b
Joined
Aug 1, 2004
Messages
2
I'm trying to decide between the Leadtek Winfast GeForce 6800 non-ultra ($280 off eBay including shipping + 31 dB noise fans as opposed to the regular 38 dB noise standard 6800 fans) and eVGA's Geforce 6800 GT ($399 + tax)

I have a Leadtek G4 Ti 4600. I've sent it back 4 times now. Whether it is Leadtek's or Nvidia's fault I dunno, but its been a real pain in my ass.
 

CrimandEvil

Dick with a heart of gold
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
19,670
Why are some of you so dead set with turning on AA? I read the article and they clearly state that it doesn't make much of a impact IQ wise unless your in a well light area (we all know thats going to be rare ;) ). So why the "need" for AA?
 

Qwertyman

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
2,744
CrimandEvil said:
Why are some of you so dead set with turning on AA? I read the article and they clearly state that it doesn't make much of a impact IQ wise unless your in a well light area (we all know thats going to be rare ;) ). So why the "need" for AA?
exactly, i wish people would read the article before posting sometimes.
 

Charles

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 1, 2004
Messages
486
I did read the article and I did see the section where it mentioned that AA is not a necessity... then again the article also did say you'd have a good playing experience with the minimum requirements... I will not have a good playing experience at 640x480 on an lcd screen with native resolution at 1280x768.

How do I know that? Because I don't like the look of the screenshots at that quality:p

Yes I know it looks different in motion.

Also, they said AA wasn't necessary just "crank up the resolution as high as you can go." Unfortunately I can't do that on an LCD screen as I stated in my post.
 

CrimandEvil

Dick with a heart of gold
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
19,670
:rolleyes: What are you talking about? You want a 6800 right? Then you'll probably be able to play at the native res of your LCD (judging by the rest of your specs) so why do you want to turn on AA when it isn't necessary again? Hell theirs no way you'll be able to play with the 7000 anyways so I'm totally lose on what your talking about.
 

trader28

n00b
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
35
Anyone know which would be the quicker card for Doom3? 9200SE or MX440 (640X480 Low Detail)
 

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
trader28 said:
Anyone know which would be the quicker card for Doom3? 9200SE or MX440 (640X480 Low Detail)
Most likely the MX440 is faster. It has > 2x the memory bandwidth and a higher core speed.
 

Charles

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 1, 2004
Messages
486
Perhaps I'm posting in the wrong place.

The only time AA isn't really needed is at 1600x1200 resolution. At 10x7 or 12x7, AA makes a difference.

Of course I use the term "needed" loosely. Doom 3 will look quite nice at 12x7 for the average user, but jaggies look really ugly. I am not asking you to judge what I deem to be "good looking" or not good looking. I established in my post that I wanted to have AA on, so don't contest that... that's what defines my dilemma.

If you're trying to convince me that I don't need AA, don't bother, my mind won't change about that. If need be, I'll wait for the next generation of cards to come along so I can blast through Doom 3/HL2 etc. with everything on ultra/4xAA/8xAF. If it's any less, why waste what could be an awesome gaming experience.

Sorry if this irks any of you. I'm the kind of person who, if given the chance to download some awesome movie that's supposed to be the "end all" for movies off the internet early in crappy quality as opposed to waiting a little longer and seeing it in all its glory on an IMAX screen or some sort... I'd wait.

If I can't play Doom 3 and have it look as good as it will ever look, then I'm willing to wait a little while for technology to catch up.

On the other hand, that might be the reason why I still have a radeon 7000 in my computer:p But once true cinematic-quality graphics are available for the computer, I'll be the first one to see them:)
 

Brackle

Old Timer
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
8,208
Charles said:
On the other hand, that might be the reason why I still have a radeon 7000 in my computer:p But once true cinematic-quality graphics are available for the computer, I'll be the first one to see them:)

Well there is graphics that are Cinematic quality...its called doom3 lol

DASHlT
 

trader28

n00b
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
35
Charles: no need to worry about irking, in fact the term "rats ass" was the first thing that came to mind
 

Tim

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 4, 2000
Messages
4,968
Charles said:
Okay, this is my first post here, but you guys seem to know this kinda stuff pretty well.

Here's my specs:

Shuttle SB62G2
250W Silent X PSU
P4 2.4C @ 3.01
1024 PC3200
SB Audigy 2 ZS
Sony DRU120A DVD+RW
RAID0 2x 160 GB Samsung SATA (SP1614C)
Radeon 7000 (64 MB)
1. Scepter X7SV 17" Widescreen LCD/TV
2. KDS Rad-5C 15" LCD
Bose Companion 3 Speakers

I'm trying to decide between the Leadtek Winfast GeForce 6800 non-ultra ($280 off eBay including shipping + 31 dB noise fans as opposed to the regular 38 dB noise standard 6800 fans) and eVGA's Geforce 6800 GT ($399 + tax)

I'm worried about the following things:

1. Noise - I enjoy the peace and quiet of my current system. The only fan in it is the system fan and the PSU fan is pretty much silent (Silent X stuff is awesome). The Samsung drives are pretty much silent as well (I can't even tell when it's reading/writing unless I press my face up near the front of it) Likewise, my speakers and sound card provide really good sound and really good simulated surround (one of my friends actually asked me where I put my rear surround speakers). I would like to keep at least close to that with the new video card.

2. AA - I really like turning AA on in games. My LCD screens only have 12x7 and 10x7 resolutions. I know what you're thinking... a Radeon 7000 couldn't do AA in anything. You're right:p This is from playing on my friends' computers.

3. Price - No duh:p

In any case, I'm not exactly a hardcore gamer or a hardcore overclocker as you can see, but I do overclock the parts I have to safe levels (I've never seen my system temp above 49 degrees C even when doing heavy video editing/conversion) just to get appropriate value from what I buy.

As you may have noticed, my video card is very very old. It handles everything up to Call of Duty fine with max settings at 1280x768.

Unfortunately I want to play Doom 3. In fact I want to play it at High Quality with 2xAA/8xAF at 1280x768.

I'm not sure if the GeForce 6800 non-ultra will be able to pull this off... It seems to do High Quality NoAA/8xAF at 1600x1200 pretty well, but I don't know how much of a hit it will take with turning AA on (since I'm using LCD's cranking up resolution is not an option for me... AA is the only way).

I know that the GeForce 6800 GT will be able to pull off 1280x768 4xAA/8xAF with ease, but at what cost? There's about a $150-$180 difference between the non-ultra and the GT at market prices these days and that's a lot of money (I could get myself some pretty good high-end headphones for that). Take that plus the added noise to my system (what use is surround sound and creepy quiet corridors in Doom 3 if in the background there's a constant WHIRRRRHUMMBEEPBEEPHUM).

What do you all think? In the coming days if somebody with a Geforce 6800 non-ultra (overclocked as necessary) is able to play Doom 3 at 1280x768 2xAA/8xAF at playable framerates, please do tell me... it's a close call in my opinion.


The non-ultra has only 12 pipes, so it's performance is hampered by that. Also, a lot of the non ultra's have only DDR1 (as the Leadtek you looked at is) memory, so that's yet another strike against it. So I wouldn't count on being able to do antialiasing if you plan on having the settings turned up high with a regular 6800.

As for the GT, there's where your other concerns come into problems. The GT is going to be loud. Maybe not loud to me, because including processor fans, I have eight fans in my rig. For you though, the GT may sound like a jet engine. Also, the GT is a two slot solution, which won't fit into your Shuttle system anyway. So I don't know how you're going to be able to pull this one off.
 

PadanFain

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
122
wormgerm said:
i was a bit pissed off that they did not use a 5900xt so sorry for this.
My specs
p4 2.4ghz
768mb pc2700
128mb 5900xt

How will it run?

Running a Barton 2600
512 kingston
128 5900 xt

Latest Nvidia drivers
Directx 9c

Running 1024 with medium settings

I have not tried any other setting so I dont know if it can be pushed higher. I just simply have not tried

because

It runs and looks beautiful. Atmospheric... Have had no problem with these settings.

Awesome so far
 

Brackle

Old Timer
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
8,208
PadanFain said:
Running a Barton 2600
512 kingston
128 5900 xt

Latest Nvidia drivers
Directx 9c

Running 1024 with medium settings

I have not tried any other setting so I dont know if it can be pushed higher. I just simply have not tried

because

It runs and looks beautiful. Atmospheric... Have had no problem with these settings.

Awesome so far

Good to see a 2600+ barton doin ok at 1024....makes me worry a lil bit less :p

DASHlT
 

Charles

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 1, 2004
Messages
486
Very good points:p Almost forgot about the two slot solution, but there are a number of vendors that produce single slot GT's. On the other hand, prior to the arrival of the new video cards, I was going to mod my shuttle case to fit a 9800xt ultimate edition in (9800xt with passive zalman heatsink) which would have had 0 noise problems.

too bad leadtek's 6800 GT happens to be one of them two slot cards... bah, so much trouble to mod shuttle cases.

I'm going to wait to see if anybody with 6800 non-ultras can manage 12x10, 12x7, or even 10x7 w/2xAA/8xAF. I have seen a couple posts from people who agree with me that AA does make a significant difference at resolutions that low.

Thnx for the response.
 

PadanFain

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
122
DASHlT said:
Good to see a 2600+ barton doin ok at 1024....makes me worry a lil bit less :p

DASHlT

Doing some work that is a little tough on the pc. Going to post some screens in a little bit so people can get a idea of the quality with those specs and at 1024 - medium setting with no aa
 

trader28

n00b
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
35
I have the Leadtek 6800 GT, if the plain 6800 has the same haetsin/fan then it is damn quiet, not 9800 pro with Arctic Cooling VGA Silencer quiet, but pretty damn quiet
 

PadanFain

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
122
Ok

These had to be jpgd (its blasphemy) so I could put them on Image Shack. The first one is lower quality because I did nothave the settings set to max for jpg. I am to tired to re-do it. The others are.

This is 1024 with medium settings. No aa

a 5900 xt

I am going to set it on high (have not even tried it yet) and update with those sometime tommorow. Curious to see the differences

Keep in mind these went from 2.25 meg tga files down to not even a meg jpg files

5474.jpg


1740.jpg


1741.jpg


1742.jpg


1743.jpg



This will be updated later with 1024 and the high setting to compare
 

Impulse

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 5, 2001
Messages
10,232
you should just wait 16 more months to play Doom 3 since you won't achieve always constant 60 fps with the current generation of cards, and I'm sure your eyes can detect that as well as they detect the jaggies while running full pace and aiming at a bugger in in a dark lit corridor with 3-inch long structure profiles...

Or you can settle and use some common sense. I'd just spend the money for a card that'll last a long while and play with the bloody volume turned up if the noise bothers ya... If it does, after a while your ears ignore the sound of the card anyway so unless you're wandering off to take a break I doubt it'd be disturbing. It beats the heck out of not being able to play the number of good games out there at all due to the 7000 you own...

What'd I'd really be concerned about is if the game actually supports the weird ratio that's present in your screen's native resolution, nevermind the fact that it may blur or whatnot unless that's not a really good (and costly) screen. I'm not familiar with the make or model.

That being said, if the 6800 nu 128MB could run it at a decent clip at 1600x1200 (at High Quality, as per the guide) it can certainly run it with a decent level of AF at nearly two res steps lower (what your LCD would run), don't think it's as dire as you make it out to be if you're that heavily concerned with the sound level.
 

Impulse

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 5, 2001
Messages
10,232
Great article by the way Kyle, very comprehensive and very useful... Not only for people looking at how they'll run Doom 3 specifically but for anyone considering a video card buy and wanting to know exactly what they're getting for their money.

Some may complain about not having a straight shootout between all the setups under the same settings but that's hardly realistic (looking at a $400-500 card giving you 150 fps instead of 100 at 800x600 doesn't really tell you a whole lot).
 

PadanFain

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
122
well after posting those

I was very curious what the difference in medium and high would be. Instead of waiting till tommorow I spent about 5 minutes checking it out.

There is for sure a difference. I can't speak for the downgraded jpgs I am going to post but in game... the high setting is crystal. The medium looks VERY good (no worries) but the high setting is noticable. Ultra must be insane

4583.jpg


4584.jpg


4585.jpg


4587.jpg


uh I blew his brain out :p

4589.jpg


1024 High setting - No aa

Awesome... but it took a toll on my fps :D

Goodnight

BTW those jaggies are not noticable to me in game, im not sure if it is a by product if the tga to jpg or what
 

{AreZ}

n00b
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
3
Ive already asked if me computer can run doom 3 and luckily i got thumbs up but would some1 be able to tell me what settings id be looking at id like to run it with all settings on medium at a resolution of around 1024 by 768, is this possible? heres my basic specs:

P4 2.8Ghz HT
Radeon 9600pro 128Mb
512 Ram 400Mhz

Thanks man
 

PadanFain

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
122
{AreZ} said:
Ive already asked if me computer can run doom 3 and luckily i got thumbs up but would some1 be able to tell me what settings id be looking at id like to run it with all settings on medium at a resolution of around 1024 by 768, is this possible? heres my basic specs:

P4 2.8Ghz HT
Radeon 9600pro 128Mb
512 Ram 400Mhz

Thanks man

1024 medium
 

Sdriver

n00b
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
1
Hey Bud,

Just curious - I'd much like 'High' at 1024 x 1280 - which is the native resolution of my 17" LCD. However, I've only got a MSI Nvidia FX5900 128mb (overclocked), not ultra. I do however have P4 2.6C @ 3.06 GHZ 800FSB, with 1GB of DDR400 RAM.

What are my odds doctor!

BTW, I'm in NZ and the game ships first thing tomorrow morning for us.. (as in 8 hours from now). When does yours arrive?
 

Impulse

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 5, 2001
Messages
10,232
Sdriver said:
Just curious - I'd much like 'High' at 1024 x 1280 - which is the native resolution of my 17" LCD. However, I've only got a MSI Nvidia FX5900 128mb (overclocked), not ultra. I do however have P4 2.6C @ 3.06 GHZ 800FSB, with 1GB of DDR400 RAM.

What are my odds doctor!
1024x1280? You mean either 1024x768 or 1280x1024 I'd guess...:cool: Doubt you'll be doing the latter at all, HQ on 1024x seems limited more by the amount of RAM on the card rather than it's actual speed tho it may be possible to do it on yours given what the Guide shows (depends on your personal treshold for FPS rate). An Ultra w/256 MB does 1024x768 at HQ with an average of 50 fps as per the Guide, so if you're happy with 30 fps it's plausible, just a guess tho...
 

arnemetis

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
4,014
Hey guys, I know I need to upgrade but college isnt free :( lemme know what this sorry thing can do, thx. xp 2800@2.2ghz(11x200), visiontek ti4400 128mb(stock is c275/r500,@285/560), 1gb corsair dualchan pc2700@stock, 2-2-2-5 timings.
 

Impulse

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 5, 2001
Messages
10,232
Anyone catch what version of the Forceware drivers were used to test the Nvidia cards? I'm flipping back and forth thru the article but I can't seem to find it, could've swore I saw said tidbit of data in the first few pages of the thread but it seems to be escaping me at the moment...
 
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
35
Well, I would just like to say Kudos to id for their superb job on D3. The one thing think that i always thought was innovative for gaming consoles was how much their games were optamized. Now computer games are starting to follow the same path, and wammoo!!!! They look exponentially better than games did just last year, even on a lower end system.
 

Legionosh

n00b
Joined
Jul 12, 2004
Messages
34
Geta said:
uh, sheesh right back at ya. what are you talking about, noob, multiplier...? Hear this, no I mean 476Mhz FSB. This is the correct way to put FSB, DDR. If I was using SDRAM @ 238Mhz, then yes. Were talking DDR, you know? 476Mhz is my FSB. Looks like your the boob, intel boi.

I am afraid YOU are wrong Geta. The 476 FSB you speak of is the DDR speed, which with the current memory (DDR) is FSBx2..so 238 is your FSB and your memory speed is 476. Period.

These are two different things (though they are related to one another since the DDR speed IS proportional to the FSB speed) and you cannot swap them around at will, lest you make yourself look like a fool or a newbie.

Unless of course you have an UBER system none of us have ever seen and your memory is running at a mind blowing 952MHz!!!!!!!!!! :eek:

What kind of a CPU do you have that can run at 476 FSB? I've never seen or heard of one..until yours that is. :confused:

(and yes the some intel chips run at speeds in excess of 400 FSB, but that's just a quad pumped bus..FSB x 4)

Because, DDR memory speed IS the FSB x 2. Say it with me : FSB x 2.

DDR speed does NOT equal FSB @ 1/2. Ever.

DDR speed equals FSB x 2 (unless of course you want to take into account the quad pumped Intel FSB/Memory fiasco, but you have an AMD chip if I remember correctly, and even in the intel camp it still is a solid equation).

CPU runs on the FSB speed, not the DDR speed.

Example: PC 3200 DDR400 Memory. Runs on a 200 FSB. PC2700 DDR 333 Memory. Runs on a 166 FSB...etc, etc. (I hope these 2 examples are enough).

If you need to know anything else feel free to ask, or to do some research. And if you do decide to try to debunk my statement, I hope you do better than you did the last time with the other guy. Because if your rebutle consist of statements like the one you posted you WILL be put in your place and owned (for lack of better word).

(And I may or may not have made a minor error somewhere in this post inmy haste to reply, but I think overall it is more or less correct).

End of discussion.

the word owned comes to mind. :p

legionosh@msn.com

Kevin
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2004
Messages
959
Geta said:
uh, sheesh right back at ya. what are you talking about, noob, multiplier...? Hear this, no I mean 476Mhz FSB. This is the correct way to put FSB, DDR. If I was using SDRAM @ 238Mhz, then yes. Were talking DDR, you know? 476Mhz is my FSB. Looks like your the boob, intel boi.


He keeps shoveling dirt out of the hole he is in ...LOL...

you have a career as a counter tard awaiting you somewhere...
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
54,107
Blad3 said:
Kyle....*bows* I'm not worthy...!


PLEASE answer this:

Do you *think* my current FX-51, 2Gb 3200 with a 6800ultra OC (450mhz) will be able to run doom3 at Ultra Quality @ a *higher res* than 1600x1200 (like your "ultimate system" can)???


An answer would be much appreciated....Sorry for another hardware Q - as if you haven't done enough already. :D


* It's NOT an OCed system btw.
You tell me when you try it.
 

Tim

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 4, 2000
Messages
4,968
theelviscerator said:
He keeps shoveling dirt out of the hole he is in ...LOL...

you have a career as a counter tard awaiting you somewhere...

Technically, there is some truth in both arguments. His front side bus is EFFECTIVELY 476MHz, but his actual front side bus is only 238MHz double pumped.

Most people that know about computers would only put the 238 MHz front side bus and assume that people would realize what the effective FSB would be.
 

Hounder

n00b
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
12
Hi folks. Wanted to say this is my VERY FIRST POST to the HardOCP forums. I've been a long-time reader and lurker, but just registered today. *looks around for applause, then decides to stop waiting* I'm waiting for D3 like everyone is. My system is killer, except for my video card which...isn't. I'm in the market for an upgrade but the top end cards (like the x800xt pe) just aren't out there to buy, at least as far as I can tell. I run an Athlon64 3200+ 2.0 stock with 2GB Kingston DDR 400, and a Radeon 9000 Pro 128MB vid card. Will I be able to run Medium, or will I be stuck at Low until I find a new card? What's everyone's general oppinion on cards right now? Go all out and hope it holds for a while, or compromise and wait?
 
Top