Goddamn 7800GT/X

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: n7
Well buck, i'm not sure what your problems were, but nVidia does tend to have crappy drivers.

It seems they keep getting worse & worse...or certainly not better anyway.

As opposed to whose..?

 

[BenSkywalker]

You would be making a bad guess, I have dual 2005fpw's.

You have a very low resolution slow monitor and you are expecting what....? You think that drivers are going to speed up your processor or make your display any good for high end gaming? That isn't going to happen.

 

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

You would be making a bad guess, I have dual 2005fpw's.

You have a very low resolution slow monitor and you are expecting what....? You think that drivers are going to speed up your processor or make your display any good for high end gaming? That isn't going to happen.

What are you talking about? Maybe you should read the posts before posting .

1. 1680x1050 is not low resolution and it has 16ms response time
2. Where did i say drivers should speed up my processor?
3. Sharky extreme lists the 2005fpw as their lcd for "Monthly Extreme Gaming PC Buyer's Guide". Not to mention that alot of gamers on these forums choose the same.

I dont know what crawled up your butt, but if you arent going to post anything helpful, go away.


*edit*
I forgot to mention that i have a sony g500 21" crt, and i prefer gaming on a 2005fpw.

 

[imported_Rampage]

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

You would be making a bad guess, I have dual 2005fpw's.

You have a very low resolution slow monitor and you are expecting what....? You think that drivers are going to speed up your processor or make your display any good for high end gaming? That isn't going to happen.

What are you talking about? Maybe you should read the posts before posting .

1. 1680x1050 is not low resolution and it has 16ms response time
2. Where did i say drivers should speed up my processor?
3. Sharky extreme lists the 2005fpw as their lcd for "Monthly Extreme Gaming PC Buyer's Guide". Not to mention that alot of gamers on these forums choose the same.

I dont know what crawled up your butt, but if you arent going to post anything helpful, go away.


*edit*
I forgot to mention that i have a sony g500 21" crt, and i prefer gaming on a 2005fpw.

Dont mind him.

I know CRTs suck. Which is why I dont have to go around trying to prove it to everyone.

:heart: 2005FPW

 

[Sonikku]

:heart: :heart: :heart: Sony FW900

 

[Spacecomber]

NM, need more coffee before I post.

Space

 

[BenSkywalker]

1. 1680x1050 is not low resolution

It wasn't years ago, for the hardware you are talking about it is. There isn't much use in buying a top tier video card for a low res monitor. Some benches to look at. Why spend the money on a 7800GTX with a monitor that has such low resolution capabilities?

2. Where did i say drivers should speed up my processor?

If you are hoping drivers are going to make a larger impact in terms of performance in relation to the x800xl you had previously. The 7800 is overwhelmingly CPU bound at lower resolutions- newer drivers aren't going to help this situation out too much.

3. Sharky extreme lists the 2005fpw as their lcd for "Monthly Extreme Gaming PC Buyer's Guide".

I never said it was horrible by LCD standards- I said it was low res and slow both of which are true when talking about a high end gaming display.

I dont know what crawled up your butt, but if you arent going to post anything helpful, go away.

First off, you didn't start this thread- I am posting on topic and certainly won't be going away based on your suggestions. Besides that- I was responding because you made the comment that you were hoping to see an improved situation with newer drivers. You have an extremely limited display; don't get your hopes up to see any big improvements anytime in the future.

I forgot to mention that i have a sony g500 21" crt, and i prefer gaming on a 2005fpw.

That at least handles mid level resolutions. Run your games on that with settings put to 1920x1440 4x AA/16x AF and compare you XL to your GT and you will see a much larger difference in performance then what you are seeing now. That will have a much larger impact on relative gaming experience then any newer driver is going to.

 

[Gumbico]

my 7800gt is pumping everything i could ever ask of it at 1680x1050. no complaints at all.

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

You would be making a bad guess, I have dual 2005fpw's.

You have a very low resolution slow monitor and you are expecting what....? You think that drivers are going to speed up your processor or make your display any good for high end gaming? That isn't going to happen.

What are you talking about? Maybe you should read the posts before posting .

1. 1680x1050 is not low resolution and it has 16ms response time
2. Where did i say drivers should speed up my processor?
3. Sharky extreme lists the 2005fpw as their lcd for "Monthly Extreme Gaming PC Buyer's Guide". Not to mention that alot of gamers on these forums choose the same.

I dont know what crawled up your butt, but if you arent going to post anything helpful, go away.


*edit*
I forgot to mention that i have a sony g500 21" crt, and i prefer gaming on a 2005fpw.

FWIW the 2005fpw has 12ms response, the 2001FP has 16.
And also FWIW, I :heart: my 2005fpw for gaming, it is the best monitor I've ever owned.

 

[Soccerman06]

Ahh losers and your puny Dell screens, my massive 23" IBMer can do 25x20 and it only weighs in at 75lb. Its 20" wide, 24" deep and can easily manage whatever you throw at it. I dont even think that that manygames can even run at 25x20, not to mention have playable fps (even on SLI 7800GTX).

Too bad the comp I play games on uses a 9800XT which can barely run 16x12 with playable fps. I dont use the one in my sig because Im in college right now, 300 miles away from it, and I cant afford $50 a day to cool the beast.

 

I never said that i was hoping for a big gain on performance with nvidia drivers. I upgraded from my x800xl for games like dod:s and cod2 (and future games as well).
A couple of questions for you (being serious).

Do you compete in pc games? (ie counterstrike,quake3,etc)
What are your gaming specs?
Have you played COD2 demo or DOD:S?

 

[imported_Rampage]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

1. 1680x1050 is not low resolution

It wasn't years ago, for the hardware you are talking about it is. There isn't much use in buying a top tier video card for a low res monitor. Some benches to look at. Why spend the money on a 7800GTX with a monitor that has such low resolution capabilities?

From your enthusiast standpoint you might have a fighting chance of getting people to believe 1680x1050 is "low resolution".

I think it would without a doubt not be considered "low res" by anyone, even us enthusiasts (besides yourself).

Low res is still VGA. Many people had to play Doom3 in VGA, so I dont know if 16x10 is "low res" on your scale, how exactly you explain 640x480 gaming, which many more people do than you would assume.. they just arent generally the enthusiasts.
I could understand 800x600 being considered low res as well, 1024x768 is pushing the idea of "low res", 1280x1024 is an easy to classify mid res.

If you called 1280x1024 low res, I would smack you.
But I guess I will have to since 1680x1050 is low res in your mind.

16x10 is low res to you, so 1920x1200 must be mid res, and 2048x1536 must be high res.. or something!
I totally disagree with the idea that 1680x1050/1600x1200 is "low res".

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: southpawuni

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

You would be making a bad guess, I have dual 2005fpw's.

You have a very low resolution slow monitor and you are expecting what....? You think that drivers are going to speed up your processor or make your display any good for high end gaming? That isn't going to happen.

What are you talking about? Maybe you should read the posts before posting .

1. 1680x1050 is not low resolution and it has 16ms response time
2. Where did i say drivers should speed up my processor?
3. Sharky extreme lists the 2005fpw as their lcd for "Monthly Extreme Gaming PC Buyer's Guide". Not to mention that alot of gamers on these forums choose the same.

I dont know what crawled up your butt, but if you arent going to post anything helpful, go away.


*edit*
I forgot to mention that i have a sony g500 21" crt, and i prefer gaming on a 2005fpw.

Dont mind him.

I know CRTs suck. Which is why I dont have to go around trying to prove it to everyone.

:heart: 2005FPW

That is because you have never owned a good CRT. Proud owner of an Iiyama Vision Master Pro 450

1920 x 1440 / max. 75 Hz .. 640 x 640 / max. 180 Hz

Still would like the Dell and retire the CRT (it is > 7 years old).

 

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: southpawuni

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

You would be making a bad guess, I have dual 2005fpw's.

You have a very low resolution slow monitor and you are expecting what....? You think that drivers are going to speed up your processor or make your display any good for high end gaming? That isn't going to happen.

What are you talking about? Maybe you should read the posts before posting .

1. 1680x1050 is not low resolution and it has 16ms response time
2. Where did i say drivers should speed up my processor?
3. Sharky extreme lists the 2005fpw as their lcd for "Monthly Extreme Gaming PC Buyer's Guide". Not to mention that alot of gamers on these forums choose the same.

I dont know what crawled up your butt, but if you arent going to post anything helpful, go away.


*edit*
I forgot to mention that i have a sony g500 21" crt, and i prefer gaming on a 2005fpw.

Dont mind him.

I know CRTs suck. Which is why I dont have to go around trying to prove it to everyone.

:heart: 2005FPW

That is because you have never owned a good CRT. Proud owner of an Iiyama Vision Master Pro 450

1920 x 1440 / max. 75 Hz .. 640 x 640 / max. 180 Hz

Still would like the Dell and retire the CRT (it is > 7 years old).

I have a sony g500 sitting behind me on the floor collecting dust because its not as nice as my 2005fpw's IMO. It supports resolutions up to 2048 x 1536 @ 75Hz. Lets not turn this into a pissing match, as we all know, its personal preference.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: buck
I have a sony g500 sitting behind me on the floor collecting dust because its not as nice as my 2005fpw's IMO. It supports resolutions up to 2048 x 1536 @ 75Hz. Lets not turn this into a pissing match, as we all know, its personal preference.

i think you're missing the point here.. what he is trying to say is that at "lower" resolutions, you won't see much difference between an x800xl and 7800gt in most games. since your crt supports much higher resolutions, you could run at "higher" res where the 7800 could stretch it's legs and offer much superior performance to an x800xl.

until the "next gen" games hit where the target system specs are higher, you're just not going to see much performance difference in this gen and last gen's high end cards (and this often applies to dual gpu setups as well) unless you run very high res/aa/af.. that's just common sense.

it's not about whether your lcd is better or worse than your crt, simply that (realtive to your crt) your lcd supports "low" resolutions.

 

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: buck
I have a sony g500 sitting behind me on the floor collecting dust because its not as nice as my 2005fpw's IMO. It supports resolutions up to 2048 x 1536 @ 75Hz. Lets not turn this into a pissing match, as we all know, its personal preference.

i think you're missing the point here.. what he is trying to say is that at "lower" resolutions, you won't see much difference between an x800xl and 7800gt in most games. since your crt supports much higher resolutions, you could run at "higher" res where the 7800 could stretch it's legs and offer much superior performance to an x800xl.

until the "next gen" games hit where the target system specs are higher, you're just not going to see much performance difference in this gen and last gen's high end cards (and this often applies to dual gpu setups as well) unless you run very high res/aa/af.. that's just common sense.

it's not about whether your lcd is better or worse than your crt, simply that (realtive to your crt) your lcd supports "low" resolutions.

That comment was directed toward gsellis. As far as bens point. I got it, but what he failed to understand is that I dont want to game above 1680x1050, that is the resolution that i want. I upgraded to the 7800gt for gaming in that resolution. I would like to see someones screen shots of day of defeat source in a higher resolution (high for ben) like 2048x1536 with playable FPS with details turned up.

And btw, 1680x1050 is not a lower resolution in the gaming arena for newer games like cod2 and day of defeat source. If i was just playing older games, i would not have upgraded my video card. Half life 2 and day of defeat source get completely different FPS for the same res/details.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: buck
I have a sony g500 sitting behind me on the floor collecting dust because its not as nice as my 2005fpw's IMO. It supports resolutions up to 2048 x 1536 @ 75Hz. Lets not turn this into a pissing match, as we all know, its personal preference.

No worries buck.

BTW, if you go to iiyama's US site, those many 40" LCDs in the PIDS section are ours. And the 46" looks great doing 1080p HDV with a X800 Pro (hey, it was the top of the line card at the time we were working on it.)

 

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: buck
I have a sony g500 sitting behind me on the floor collecting dust because its not as nice as my 2005fpw's IMO. It supports resolutions up to 2048 x 1536 @ 75Hz. Lets not turn this into a pissing match, as we all know, its personal preference.

No worries buck.

BTW, if you go to iiyama's US site, those many 40" LCDs in the PIDS section are ours. And the 46" looks great doing 1080p HDV with a X800 Pro (hey, it was the top of the line card at the time we were working on it.)

:thumbsup:

If only money werent an object......

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: buck
I have a sony g500 sitting behind me on the floor collecting dust because its not as nice as my 2005fpw's IMO. It supports resolutions up to 2048 x 1536 @ 75Hz. Lets not turn this into a pissing match, as we all know, its personal preference.

i think you're missing the point here.. what he is trying to say is that at "lower" resolutions, you won't see much difference between an x800xl and 7800gt in most games. since your crt supports much higher resolutions, you could run at "higher" res where the 7800 could stretch it's legs and offer much superior performance to an x800xl.

until the "next gen" games hit where the target system specs are higher, you're just not going to see much performance difference in this gen and last gen's high end cards (and this often applies to dual gpu setups as well) unless you run very high res/aa/af.. that's just common sense.

it's not about whether your lcd is better or worse than your crt, simply that (realtive to your crt) your lcd supports "low" resolutions.

That comment was directed toward gsellis. As far as bens point. I got it, but what he failed to understand is that I dont want to game above 1680x1050, that is the resolution that i want. I upgraded to the 7800gt for gaming in that resolution. I would like to see someones screen shots of day of defeat source in a higher resolution (high for ben) like 2048x1536 with playable FPS with details turned up.

And btw, 1680x1050 is not a lower resolution in the gaming arena for newer games like cod2 and day of defeat source.

And the day is neigh where the LCDs will smoke CRTs and then some. The big hint is in the X1800 with dual DVI at higher res (not sure that the 7800 line matches it - the very sparse info on the dual DVI stepup has yet to be tested - next week maybe?)

Me too on the high-res captures. I think maybe some 5MP captures with a fast digital camera are in order as I am not sure that screen capture is keeping up with the framerates. The HL2 HDR capture in the AT article looked like the color was blown out (although disagreed with the comment poster that the darker one looked better - too much watching Hollywood and the dark and wet sets.)

- Sorry, drifted the thread.

 

[gsellis]

cevilgenius - What drivers, what resolution, what application? So far, there is nothing here to help you. Throw us a friggin bone.

 

Originally posted by: gsellis
cevilgenius - What drivers, what resolution, what application? So far, there is nothing here to help you. Throw us a friggin bone.

He doesnt have one, just ranting i think.

 

[xtknight]

1680x1050 is going to give the 7800GTX a real workout with 16xAA/8xAF, especially on BF2/FEAR/CoD2/etc. Just look at the benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2451&p=8
1600x1200 4x AA and the 7800GTX is getting only 53.4 FPS in BF2 Demo.

I don't know about you, but if I wanted to play BF2@1680x1050 4xAA, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be using an X850 XT PE, let alone an X800 XL.

 

[BenSkywalker]

I never said that i was hoping for a big gain on performance with nvidia drivers. I upgraded from my x800xl for games like dod:s and cod2 (and future games as well).

DoD:Source is CPU limited @1600x1200. CoD2 benefits more from a larger memory amount then a more powerful GPU. Drivers will not solve either of these issues nor will they make the comparison between a 7800GT and a x800xl look much different.

Do you compete in pc games? (ie counterstrike,quake3,etc)

In terms of on a 'pro' level? No- unless you are one of the top few in the world there is nothing for money in it in terms of being worthwhile(under $100K a year excluding a very small handful).

What are your gaming specs?

Huh? You mean my gaming rigs specs? AXP 3200+, 1GB, R9800Pro- been waiting for any manufacturer to release a board with decent IQ to build a new gaming rig and haven't had too hard of a time waiting as the games that have been coming out have been shockingly bad(ie- Battlefield2, HL2- not shockingly bad but mediocre at best which was a huge let down given the hype, D3, DoD and the like) at least in terms of those with demanding graphics. Oblivion looks like it will make me try and find a board that doesn't make me gag with how bad the IQ is, but considering that ATi has gotten even worse since the extremely poor R9800Pro and nV is now comparable I don't have much hope. Rounding out my gaming rig ATM- FP2141SB-BK, Audigy2 ZS, Sennheiser HD580s.

Have you played COD2 demo or DOD:S?

Haven't tried COD2 yet- not terribly interested. I like my games to last a bit longer then four hours so the first one turned me off quite strongly to the series. When the game is released and I see some reviews I'll consider it. DoD is yet another considerably sub par release from Valve.

From your enthusiast standpoint you might have a fighting chance of getting people to believe 1680x1050 is "low resolution".

Anand doesn't even bother to bench the high end boards with that low of a setting most of the time anymore. 1600x1200 is the minimum. Think what you will, I am certainly not alone.

16x10 is low res to you, so 1920x1200 must be mid res, and 2048x1536 must be high res.. or something!

16x12 is low, 19x12 is mid, 20x15 is high. Oddly enough, I haven't found a newer game that my system can't run at high resolution that is enjoyable(shooters are in an enormous rut and strat games are far less intensive). Really hoping that some of the games on the horizon change that perspective.

I totally disagree with the idea that 1680x1050/1600x1200 is "low res"

You would probably disagree that LCDs are painfully slow too, at least I would hope that you do given your display choice.

I have a sony g500 sitting behind me on the floor collecting dust because its not as nice as my 2005fpw's IMO. It supports resolutions up to 2048 x 1536 @ 75Hz. Lets not turn this into a pissing match, as we all know, its personal preference.

If you ever pick a good CRT you may change your mind

That comment was directed toward gsellis. As far as bens point. I got it, but what he failed to understand is that I dont want to game above 1680x1050, that is the resolution that i want.

You wasted your money then- that is the point.

1600x1200 4x AA and the 7800GTX is getting only 53.4 FPS in BF2 Demo.

There is an 8.9FPS running 16x12x4 in BF2 w/4x AA between a 7800GT and x800xt- there is a 17.6FPS difference running 20x15 w/o AA and 11.3 w/AA. The lower the resolution goes the less of a performance difference there is going to be between a 7800 board and the prior generation. Its' largest advantage is at the highest settings by a considerable margin.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

16x12 is low, 19x12 is mid, 20x15 is high. Oddly enough, I haven't found a newer game that my system can't run at high resolution that is enjoyable(shooters are in an enormous rut and strat games are far less intensive). Really hoping that some of the games on the horizon change that perspective.

1. 1600 X 1200 isn't low by any definition used by the overwhelming majority of users. If you must specify a low, then 1024 X 768 is far more accurate.

2. 1900 X 1200 is a widescreen resolution and should not be used as a median of the 4:3 resolutions you mentioned. A more accurate statement would have been to compare all 4:3 ratios for your low, mid and high resolution. For instance, 1024 X 768, 1600 X 1200, and 2048 X 1536.

3. 75Hz refresh on a CRT is too low. I am not sure if any CRT's are able to handle 2048 X 1536 @ 85Hz or higher, but I know that would be a requirement for me and many users. In addition to that, the low refresh rate kills image quality for these eyes and also makes the display noticably dimmer.

Have to keep in mind that many gamers also use 800 X 600 at times, though that number is probably lower. I would say the majority of users out there tend to use the 4:3 ratio of 1024 X 768 and the 5:4 ratio of 1280 X 1024, which I personally hate. People who game in 1600 X 1200 are in the minority, though not as much as the extreme few who run at 2048 X 1536...

Widescreen is a another animal altogether. Especially since widescreen is 15:9, 16:9 or 16:10... Widescreen is relatively loose in defination. I personally game widescreen, and I love it.

 

[K0ldFuz1on]

I just got one yesterday, and it is making a huge difference. On the other hand, I went from a P3 600 mhz, oc'ed, with a geForce 2 MX, and 512 ram, to an Athlon 64 3800 X2, with the geForce 7800 GT, and 2 gigs of ram, so I cant compare it to anything modern.