# We really understimate the Geforce 8500GT and Geforce 9400GT



## RockmasteR (Aug 10, 2007)

Hello all, today I got a Geforce 9400GT and I was really surprised of it's performance 
It's a really great performance budget card for the gamers that don't want to be bankrupted just to play Video Games  U can get this card for less than 70$, this is the games that I already tested on my new Card :

- Need for Speed Carbon : 1024 x 768, All settings High layable at 35 fps

- Test Drive Unlimited : 1024 x 768, all High (HDR off) : playable at 37 fps

- Quake 4 : 1024 x768, all settings MAX : Playable at 50+ fps

- Guitar Hero III : 1024 x768, all settings Max : Playable at 60 fps

I'll keep this Thread updated as soon as I test more games 

feel free to ask any question about the Vcard


----------



## af3 (Jun 18, 2008)

I am glad you took the time to post this information about the 9400GT's performance. 

Would you say the budget cards in the 9000 series out perform the budget cards in the 8000 series? I currently use a 8600M GT in my laptop and am considering building a new low profile PC.

Also, I am not a moderator but I think this may be the wrong section for this discussion... but I'm not completely sure. :4-dontkno


----------



## RockmasteR (Aug 10, 2007)

Hey there 
I'll be posting these games tests soon : NFS Undercover, Crysis, Bioshock, Spider-Man 3, Kane & Lynch
as for the Question, the 9 series Budget Cards are same or better than the 8 series budget, for example 9400GT has the same specs of the 8500GT but the Core Clock and Memory Clock of 9400GT is a bit better, as for the 9500GT it's even better than the 8600GT DDR2 version.


----------



## RockmasteR (Aug 10, 2007)

UPDATE:

- NFS undercover : 1024 x 768 High and Medium, playable at 35 fps

- Crysis : 800 x 600 High and Medium, playable at 45 fps

- bioshock : 800 x 600 high and Medium, playable 50 fps

- Spider-Man 3 : 1024 X 768 Medium, or 800 x 600 High, playable at 30 fps

- Kane & Lynch : 1024 X 768 High settings (Medium shadows, no AA), playable at 35 fps

- Dead Space : 1024 x 768 High settings, Medium Shader no AA, playable at 30 fps

and let me just add that Dead space is an incredible game, and works like a charm
on a Geforce 9400GT 

If you can think of a game that I can test I'll see if I have it and I'll test it...


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

yea not everyone needs a high end video card (exclude me I have a GTX 260) some just want to be able to play the game!

I think its great that you didn't need to break the bank to be able to play the newest games RockmasterR


----------



## RockmasteR (Aug 10, 2007)

yes, indeed  and I don't regret it 

two more games tested :

- Bionic Commando Rearmed : 1024 x 768 (Graphics are full at defaults and can't be changed), playable at 60 fps

- Medal of Honor Airborne: 800 x 600 All High, playable at 35 fps (WOW!!)


----------



## af3 (Jun 18, 2008)

What would be sufficient for someone who only plays Source Engine games such as Half-Life Deathmatch: Source, Garry's Mod, Half-Life 2: Deathmatch and so on? I occasionally play Quake 4 and want to be able to try Farcry & Farcry 2...

EDIT: I run games on 640x480 because I play computer games on a TV with a gamepad lol


----------



## RockmasteR (Aug 10, 2007)

Far Cry 2 has an engine close to Crysis engine, so a 8500GT and 9400GT will run the game with no problem at all.

UPDATE:

2 more games tested :

- Sega Rally : 1024 x 768, High settings (AA off), playable at 35 fps (if AA turned on, playable at 30 fps)

- The Witcher: 1024 X 768, High Settings (AA off, shadows medium), 
playable at 37 fps


----------



## af3 (Jun 18, 2008)

What about the 8400GT?

What is the difference between the GT GS and GTX GTS GOO?


----------



## RockmasteR (Aug 10, 2007)

there is no 8400GT, only 8400GS,
the GS series is less powerful than the GT series
the 8400GS is not for games, cause it has a turbocache technology, it means the video memory in it is not dedicated, it's shared, so not good.
and its memory interface is 64 bit, waaay too slow.
so don't rely on a 8400GS

and this is the power order (from best to worst) :

Ultra
GTX
GX2
GTS
GT
GSO
GS

here is a comparison table for the Nvidia series :
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/132

Hope that Helped :smile:


----------



## af3 (Jun 18, 2008)

Great, thanks! That saves me hours of studying the comparison charts at nVidia's site. How about the ATI cards?

EDIT: I did find this link:
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/131
but would still like your opinion... :wave:

I think this comparison chart would be more helpful with prices ranges included... :grin:


----------



## RockmasteR (Aug 10, 2007)

I never had an ATI card, and I think that Nvidia is way better with handling games than ATI. but that's my opinion (Check the Memory interface for the High End Cards in Nvidia like the 8800GTX it's 384 bit, and the latest card by Nvidia the GTX 280 it has 512 bit!!!!!!!
but ATI has a maximum interface of 256 bit) so maybe ATI cards could be cheaper, but for games I always go with Nvidia


----------



## af3 (Jun 18, 2008)

Well, I had an ATI x1600 PRO once and it had some bugs to do with transparency and desktop overlays causing major FPS drops.

When it comes to my 8600M GT, the TV Out support was dreadful when using the drivers supplied by Dell, but the latest forceware package from nVidia's site and me forcing an installation/selection of the 8600GT chip, the problem was resolved.

Symptoms included an oversized output with a "zoomed in" appearance, and the resize control was not responding to my clicks. That's Dell for you, I guess. So at this point, either brand does not seem to matter to me. I like more speed and stability for my dollar, as should anyone else…

Sorry that this has turned into a shoot-the-breeze post. :3dunce:


----------



## RockmasteR (Aug 10, 2007)

I know what u mean 
for 63 to 70$ u can get a Geforce 9500GT, it's like the Geforce 8600GT DDR2 version, it's cheap and it's more powerful than the 9400GT

check it here : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814261031

or for 50 to 60 $ u can get a Geforce 9400GT 

Check it here : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127388


UPDATE:
New Games Tested:

- Jericho : 800 x 600 High Settings, (AA off), playable 32 fps

- Tomb Raider Legend : 1024 x 768, high settings ( next gen off), playable 
at 40 fps (if AA off
playable at 60 fps)

- Tomb Raider Aniversary : 1024 x 768, high settings, playable at 40 fps

- World in Conflict : 1024 x 768, high and Medium, playable at 32 fps (game Benchmark)


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

I'd have to definitely say that you have that chart for the quality of cards but its more tlike this

GX2 (2 video processors)
Ultra
GTX
GTS
GT
GSO
GS


----------



## af3 (Jun 18, 2008)

Interesting results RockmasteR. I would be interested to see how Half-Life 2 or Counter-Strike Source runs.


----------



## RockmasteR (Aug 10, 2007)

Half-Life 2 has an old engine, but the game looks great, so on a Geforce 9400GT or 8500GT the game will run on 1024 x 768 and all high settings at more than 60 fps, even the 8400GS will run the game at max settings



New games Tests coming soon (on a Geforce 9400GT of course :tongue: )


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

yea I've started playing half life 2 again since I just became a Game Tech 

with full everything including AA at 16x I get around 46fps at 1280 x 1024


----------



## RockmasteR (Aug 10, 2007)

UPDATE:

- NFS ProStreet : 1024 x 768, high settings (World FX and Shadows, 
Medium), playable at 40 fps

- Command & Conquer 3 Tiberium Wars : 1024 x 768, Full settings (AA off), 
playable at 30 fps

- Red Alert 3 : 1024 x 768, high and Medium, playable at 30 fps

- Gears of War : 1024 x 768, High and Medium Settings, playable at 35 
fps

- The Club : 1024 x 768, Medium settings, playable at 35 fps, or 800 x 
600, high settings, playable at 40 fps

- Half-Life 2 Episode One : 1024 x 768, full settings, playable at 35 fps 
(if AA off, playable at 50 to 60 fps)

- Half-Life 2 Edpisode Two : 1024 x 768, Full settings (AA off), playable 
at 40 fps

- Pro Evolution Soccer 2008 : 1024 x 768, High Settings, playable at 60 fps


----------



## Aus_Karlos (Mar 10, 2007)

RockmasteR said:


> UPDATE:
> 
> - NFS undercover : 1024 x 768 High and Medium, playable at 35 fps
> 
> ...


Dont forget most users will have monitors with a display settings of 1440x900 , 1280x1024 and 1680x1050. 
These cards will really struggle at high resolutions. Try testing it out on 1280x1024 which is the most common resolution for a 19" monitor (Or is it 1440x900).


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

1440 x 900 is for wide screen 19" monitors

1280 x 1024 is for full screen 19" monitors


----------



## RockmasteR (Aug 10, 2007)

my monitor don't handle resolution above 1024 x 768 :laugh:

I'm getting a 15 inch Monitor I think it'll handle a 1280 x 1024
I'll try them when I get it later today...

Cheers


----------



## Aus_Karlos (Mar 10, 2007)

RockmasteR said:


> my monitor don't handle resolution above 1024 x 768 :laugh:
> 
> I'm getting a 15 inch Monitor I think it'll handle a 1280 x 1024
> I'll try them when I get it later today...
> ...


Cool post back your results. 

I haven't set my resolution lower than 1680x1050 in 5 years.. lol


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

19" and above support 1280 x 1024 resolutions


----------



## Tiber Septim (Feb 9, 2006)

Mcninjaguy said:


> 19" and above support 1280 x 1024 resolutions


My very old (about 5 years)17" has a native res of 1280 x 1024, that's the lowest I've played in years.

I currently run at 1440 x 900 because that is the native res of my current monitor.
I find that running any game at a resolution lower than the monitors native looks terrible, I can't bring myself to do it. :4-dontkno


----------



## jrockpunk1 (Dec 11, 2007)

I think I should make a point and say that for me, when I've played cod4, a 1024x720 res with 4xAA is just about as good as 1680x1050 res with no AA.


----------



## Valdeam (Nov 24, 2008)

I haven't had a 15" monitor in over 5 years! lol

Valdeam


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

my only monitor is I've had for whenever my family has had a computer was usually 19"


----------



## Tiber Septim (Feb 9, 2006)

If anybody is interested, have a read: Native Resolution.


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

an lcd is a progressive scanning device right? like 720p?


----------



## Tiber Septim (Feb 9, 2006)

The 720 refers to the vertical resolution, so that would vary from monitor to monitor, but yes, currently most CRT's, all LCD's and most HDTV's use progressive scanning.

If what you are trying to say is that progressive scanning is good at upscaling without losing much quality, yes, you are right it is far better than interlaced upscaling.
But if the resolution you are upscaling to isn't a perfect multiple then you can get some nasty distortions.
For example, playing a game at 800x600 on a 1600x1200 monitor would be fine.
However, playing a game at 1024x768 on a 1280x1024 monitor might look funny.


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

yea its all about the numbers and if the divide into each other by 2's


----------



## RockmasteR (Aug 10, 2007)

I got a used monitor today LG Studiovison 45V and it's max res is 1024 x 768 :upset: :laugh: but it's better than the stupid LiteOn Monitor I had :grin:


----------



## af3 (Jun 18, 2008)

What is the optimum resolution to output to a TV? 640x480 seems clearer than 720x480, 800x600 and 1024x768.

I wish my TV out would just run pixel-per-pixel NTSC instead of an emulated signal.


----------



## Tiber Septim (Feb 9, 2006)

If you mean a CRT TV, then 640x480, though it could be slightly higher due to vertical blanking.


----------



## RockmasteR (Aug 10, 2007)

I'm just concerned about the temp of my Vcard! as I said b4 it's a passive heating, so no fan, and when I exit a game the temp could reach to 80 degrees C. I was just wondering what is the max temp that this card could handle!
I hope I'm not pushing it to the limit!! :tongue:


----------



## Tiber Septim (Feb 9, 2006)

I wouldn't worry too much, most modern GPU's can operate safely up to temps of about 100C - 110C.

Wouldn't hurt to pop in an extra fan if you can though.


----------



## Aus_Karlos (Mar 10, 2007)

yeah just mount a fan on there.. My 9800GX2 can get upto 90c on Crysis but i try not to go over that. 115c is the cards limit before it throttles down.


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

My GTX 260 gets to around 78C (+ or - a few degrees) on full load playing Crysis


----------



## FlatoutRacer (Jan 23, 2009)

and also which version are u guys talking about the 1gb or 512mb one? im getting a inno3d one!


----------



## -WOLF- (Jan 17, 2009)

What about say 8800 Ultra and 9800 Ultra and then a lower 6800 Ultra?


----------



## pharoah (Aug 28, 2006)

those cards are ok for lower resolution monitors.try a monitor like mine with 1680x1050res,or one even higher.then you will see why they make higher end video cards.let me add im not trying to slam your results.just a simple observation.


----------



## RockmasteR (Aug 10, 2007)

yes you are right about that, the value cards are not recommended to players that has a monitor of a high resolution


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

I love my GTX 260 (overclocked by 25%) and I would never like to have a budget card


----------



## RockmasteR (Aug 10, 2007)

lol but please remember that not everyone can get a high end card :laugh:
and the GTX 260 is 350$ in here!! so it's a back breaker :tongue:


----------



## -WOLF- (Jan 17, 2009)

One 4870X2 is better than one 280GTX and Two 4870X2 is better than two 280GTX. If I had the money for sure I would buy a 260 or 280 or 4850X2 or 4870X2. I also wonder if the video card industry is reaching it's diminishing returns. I mean both Nvidia and ATI have the most powerful cards on the planet and ATI is finally better than Nvidia after like 15 cards. How much better can the cards get, or need to get? by 2020 will we have Nvidia 480GTX Ultra 4 GB with like 16,000 Stream Processors and then even the latest Intamdtel 16 Core 5GHZ processors will not be enough to match it..... Computers can get more powerfull sure but how powerful is too powerful?


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

see you've got the wrong questions there 5niper Wolf

the computers won't be too powerful, they'll be right on track with research of newer way to use it and applications that are way more complicated.

I personally think that right now the best blockbuster games are just gettig into the real stride of innovation 

also if you'd be wrong to have video card with 16,000 processing units it'll depend on the company

Nvidia uses Unified processors where each processor can do three jobs nad they're more powerful than ATI's processors

but ATI uses more processes each with a specific job

so for like Nvidia having 16,000 processors would be around 1terabyte video card.

about3 years ago I thought a 256mb video card was uber fast and within 3 years the world has quadropled it.

Me personally I know that technology doesn't grow in a linear line. It grows exponentally.
so in about 3 - 4 years we'll have 4 -8gb video cards and 16 core cpu's manufactured for the consumer market because right now its already possible in labs but its just not financially feasible for companies to make them yet. and the actual technology to manufacture smaller chips hasn't been implemented into the factories


----------



## -WOLF- (Jan 17, 2009)

Ah yeah, one TB Video Card memory, that is actually an amasing deduction, and equally amasing of what a card that would be eh?

But I know what you mean, when I had a Pentium 2 333 MHZ I thought that was ok, then I got this PC with a Pentium 4 2.0 GHZ and I thought it was the fastest PC ever. That was in 2002. Now we got all this quad core stuff and w/e. Pretty soon I'll be able to say to my kids "Back in my day the average PC was only 6 Teraflops fast and we could only have 8 GPUs" And they will say "oh comon, pop, everyone knows 16 GPU's and 32 Teraflop PC's are the way to go now, get with the times, this isnt 2018 anymore"

But the 4870X2 is still more powerfull than the 280 GTX. Bwahaha


----------



## Tiber Septim (Feb 9, 2006)

Actually this is a very interesting time in technology. In my opinion, I would be far happier if new architecture, rather than improvements over old architecture was brought to the consumer market.
For example, Silicon Photonic CPU's. 
Eventually, they will reach a physical limit of how small they can create features on a chip using photolithography. They can use tricks to push feature sizes way beyond what was previously thought possible, for example, fabricating in a vacuum so that the deep UV light is not blocked by air. Or immersion lithography. 
However, they will eventually hit a limit (I think the same thing happened with 56K modems).

Or cloud computing could become mainstream and all we would have is basic I/O hardware (monitor, mouse, keyboard, speakers), all the while our games and programs are being run on machines I can't possibly even imagine right now.


----------



## -WOLF- (Jan 17, 2009)

Wow uh *** did you say? I hardly understood you, I mean I could read the words and imagine what they could mean but I really don't know the terms you used. But I get your point. Microarchetechutre will only get so small. I don't know about Silicon Photonic CPU's but I do know about hafnium and Itanium processors.


----------



## -WOLF- (Jan 17, 2009)

Oh and love the Oblivion and the Fallout reference in your name and description.


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

Tiber Septim, I kinda don't undertand the terms but I was thinking if they could stack transistors in CPU's a couple high in stead of being on flat serface then that would be awesome.

I think you were referring to that with "immersion lithography"

kinda like umm, layers of silicon chips surrounded by a vacuum and the way they send signals is by light?


----------



## RockmasteR (Aug 10, 2007)

someone here mentioned Fallout 3 
I got the game it's really great 
but I'm a bit confused, you could be a great man or a bad a** 
I'm in the mission from the first village (where the bomb is)
so what do you think guys? should I blow the bomb or just defuse it LOL!!!
CONFUSED!!!!


----------



## Tiber Septim (Feb 9, 2006)

Immersion lithography is when the chip is lithographed underwater to improve the resolving power of the lenses.

Silicon photonic CPU's, however are very interesting. And if Intel is to be believed, they could be out by the end of this decade.
Here's some info about them:


> Looking beyond the realm of copper, Intel has announced it has developed a new silicon-based avalanche photodetector (APD) for use in optical communication devices. Publishing its results in the journal Nature Photonics, the new APD can achieve a record setting gain-bandwidth product (GBP) of 340 GHz; a representation of the device’s maximum bandwidth and amplification.





> With modern processors featuring a growing number of integrated cores, with hundreds of cores possible in the future, the problem of how to get data in and out of these cores arises. Traditional communication methods will likely face bandwidth limitations in the future, as even the restriction of just how many copper pins can possibly be placed on a chip could become a problem. Silicon-based optical communication could be used instead of electrical communication to connect these cores in a feasible manner. According to Justin Rattner, Intel’s CTO, "These fundamental scientific advances made by our silicon photonics team give me confidence that for decades to come, we will have the communications and I/O bandwidths to match the continued increases in computing performance provided by Moore’s law. "





> The new silicon-based avalanche photodetector technology is just a part of the technology required to make silicon-based photonics a mainstream reality though. Aspects requiring development include the generation of a light source, being able to guide that light selectively within the silicon, encoding and decoding the light, detecting the light, intelligently controlling the device and lastly, being able to package the photonic device. Intel had already announced its success with developing the first continuous-wave silicon laser and the first gigabit speed silicon modulator. As for when we should see these new products hit the market, Justin Rattner stated back in 2007, "Well, it’s possible that by the end of the decade we’ll have silicon photonic products in the market. If it’s not 2010, maybe 2011, but I think we are close now. "


Source.


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

Interesting to say the least TIBER!

can you imagine the new games of the future! 

it'll be like Johnny Mnemonic or thew Matrix. hook up a sensory plug to the brain stem and away you'll go. There will have to be extreme limitations on the games though since the games will so vivid that I doubt you'll be able to play them without a lot of training first. 

340 GHZ doesn't sound so far fetched, I was reading a lot of science fiction novels earlier and technology going by bounds and leaps seems reasonable to me.

can you post the website I'd love to have a read through.

well its too bad that a good budget card like a 9400GT will be obsolete in about 3 years but then again I'm happy how fast technology grows. 

Stagnation is the death of imagination
and when my time comes 
I will end it with a dream
my dream and my hope
I'll pass this dream to the minds of youth
The youth will walk so far

-ME!


----------



## -WOLF- (Jan 17, 2009)

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdh4TqWFfX4
That about sums up the future of gaming


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

I'm just wondering how shut the game off its nano technology?


----------



## af3 (Jun 18, 2008)

How good is this card? (my budget choice) ::4-dontkno
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133239

I'd rather have nVidia over ATI. I have heard bad things about ATI, more specifically their respective driver software.

I don't play next-generation latest-and-greatest games.


----------



## Tiber Septim (Feb 9, 2006)

It's okay. Not bad for a budget card.
What games were you planning on playing?


----------



## -WOLF- (Jan 17, 2009)

Okay? that card is excellent for any game!
And you can always go SLI


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

@5niperWolf
ahh yes but SLI isn't worth not for the near future really either. The performance gain isn't worth getting another card and some games are slower because of it.

one more thing, to get reall performance out of SLI you'll need a really nice motherboard that supports both cards running at 16x. A lot of motherboards run SLI at 16x - 4x and 8x - 8x.

but for a budget card thats probably one of the best to get


----------



## af3 (Jun 18, 2008)

Tiber Septim said:


> It's okay. Not bad for a budget card.
> What games were you planning on playing?


Primarily:
Unreal
Unreal Tournament
Unreal Tournament 2004
Doom 3
Quake 2 (R1Q2)
Quake 3 Arena (Generations Arena Mod)
Quake 4
Half-Life Deathmatch: Source
Deathmatch Classic
Postal 2
Rigs Of Rods (Ogre Engine)
Cube 2

Nothing too high-end seems to attract my attention. By the way, based on my list can anyone recommend a modern game?


----------



## RockmasteR (Aug 10, 2007)

you won't have any problems running these on 9600 GT in max settings 
I see that u prefer 1rst person
well I can recommend :
Call of Duty 4
Bioshock
Mirror's Edge
F.E.A.R (It's a bit old now, but a great game)
Left 4 Dead
Crysis
FarCry 2
all the games that I mentioned will run well on Geforce 9600 GT
I can run Crysis on my Geforce 9400 GT with no problems


----------



## pharoah (Aug 28, 2006)

RockmasteR said:


> you won't have any problems running these on 9600 GT in max settings
> I see that u prefer 1rst person
> well I can recommend :
> Call of Duty 4
> ...


i can agree with that i had a 9600gt,and it run all those games decently.


----------



## -WOLF- (Jan 17, 2009)

Crysis Warhead, FEAR 2 and DOW2 and Portal


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

Portal on max settings on near that since its not a very graphically intense.

whats DOW2 again?
the rest is probably medium settings


----------



## Tiber Septim (Feb 9, 2006)

-Unreal Tournament 3
-Fallout 3 (though it has a bit of Role Playing to it)
-Deus Ex 3 (when they finally release it)

@Mcninjaguy, DOW2 is Dawn of War 2. Strategy game.


----------



## -WOLF- (Jan 17, 2009)

How about COD WaW? Frontlines Fuel of War?
Battlefield 2 or 2142?
Nah you can run crysis on high.


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

I very much doubt you can run crysis on high with a 9600 its not possible even with overclocking


----------



## -WOLF- (Jan 17, 2009)

Yeah my friend runs it on high with a stock 8800GTX at 32 FPS. And 9600 is a very powerful card so yeah it's possible


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

a 8800GTX is a lot more powerful than a 9600 GT

A 9600 GT only has 64 processors

a 8800 GTX has 128 processors

so a 8800 GTX has double the processing power

specs for 9600
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/reviews/2008/02/nvidia-9600gt-review.ars

specs for 8800GTX
http://www.megagames.com/news/html/hardware/nvidiagf8800gtxgtsspecs.shtml

just because a card is a higher series doesn't mean its more powerful than its predecessors. Get your facts right 5niper Wolf. 

They're very different cards 
if you want the best the second number should have an 8

the exception is GTX series which are extremely powerful cards


----------



## af3 (Jun 18, 2008)

I am using a Radeon HD 2400 which has an unstable frame rate in Unreal when I crank up the 3D enhancements in Catalyst.

Is there a low power card that performs well or am I destined to put a 650w Corsair supply into my system?

UT3's screenshots look intimidating. Games with sharp learning curves and I don't get along. Potions in the quick bar, bah! Pass the BFG, I'm goin' in!


----------



## RockmasteR (Aug 10, 2007)

ATI HD 2400 is very low end card, it has 64 bit interface
anyways, the 9600 GT needs at least 500 W and more than 24 A under the 12 V
so 650 W should be fine considering the other components


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

a 9600 will be a very nice card but yea get a 650w quality PSU


----------



## -WOLF- (Jan 17, 2009)

Yes my facts were correct, the 9600GT isn't better than a GTX but it is still excellent, you can run Crysis on with 1 or 2 setting on high, I recently saw someone with a dual 7300GT running with half on high. And why is the 650W so normal? what about overclocking? what about future upgrades? SLI? why not get an 800W or more? sure it's more expensive but it leave more options.


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

I totally agree with you 5niper Wolf

you should get a 850w PSU for future upgrades and the corsair is really cheap

Corsair 850w 
single rail @ 70a
$140
after rebate $120
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139009


----------



## af3 (Jun 18, 2008)

The 2400 is pathetic. In dual screen mode (LCD + SDTV) the Windows desktop feels a bit sluggish. It works, but not too well.

I was comparing some 8600 and 9600 cards and 9600 seems to have more streaming processors. Are these taken advantage of by every game?

I don't think I'll be playing any DirectX 10 games any time soon...


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

doesn't matter if its DX 10 or not the more processors the faster the game just like having a dual core CPU is faster than a single core CPU


----------



## RockmasteR (Aug 10, 2007)

yes the 9600 is better than the 8600, the 9600 is nearly close to 8800
but I think the 9600 will need more power than the 8600.
8600 will still run all your games at high settings, it'll run Crysis on high med settings with a good resolution, but I still recommend the 9600 as it's not that expensive and its a good performer too


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

again with the 9600 you need to run it on a 650w PSu with around at least 38amps on the main line


----------



## af3 (Jun 18, 2008)

So, from what I gather the 8600 is safer in terms of power demands.


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

yes a 8600 is saafer in power demands but not nearly as powerful as the 9600


----------



## -WOLF- (Jan 17, 2009)

wouldn't underclocking make them use less juice?


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

yes but it will use less juice but it still has a lot more processors than the 8600GT


----------



## Jamsers (Jun 26, 2008)

DUDES!!! nice, 9400 GT is actually pretty cool

BTW, i hav 15" monitor native resolution 1024x768 :sigh:

anyways, dat means im satisfied wid 800x600 no anti aliasing, besides, since im just below native resolution, i get free anti aliasing!http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_6.html(scroll to the bottom)

so, question, shud i get 9400 GT or HD3450?

tnx for help in advance....:grin:


----------



## RockmasteR (Aug 10, 2007)

well if you want to stick with the low-med cards like those 2 cards, maybe you want to stick with Nvidia, I don't trust ATI for gaming, never had ATI
I have a Geforce 9400 GT and I'm satisfied with it's budget performance, I like to spend money on games better than Video Cards


----------



## af3 (Jun 18, 2008)

It looks like one like me would be fine with this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133250
and maybe not even have to replace my stock 305w Dell PSU. Am I wrong?

However, I would put one of these in just to be safe:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139008

I like older games, and plan on spending a ton of time in UT2004 and Q3A.

Can one overclock a 8600GT such as the one above and achieve better frame rates if one needed to, or is it not recommended?


----------



## RockmasteR (Aug 10, 2007)

I don't trust a PSU with a 350 or 305 W to power a PCIe card and especially a GDDR3 like the 8600 GT and even a 400 W PSU is not a big change

try to get at least a 500 W PSU with 24+ A under the 12V for that card


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

that corsair will be right at the fence for being sufficient power supply


----------



## Wrench97 (May 10, 2008)

This will power the 8600GT nicely> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817703015

I have seen problems with the Dell 375w XPS supply and the 8600GTS so I think you would be pushing the 305w for sure.


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

I second Wrench's decision

why would you trust anything from dell anyways?


----------



## -WOLF- (Jan 17, 2009)

I have started to wonder, is it possible to have DUAL PSU? have like 2400W power or something? and can the PSU go above 1200W?


----------



## Wrench97 (May 10, 2008)

5NIPER_WOLF said:


> I have started to wonder, is it possible to have DUAL PSU? Yes but it is not a good Idea one in some cases can pick up voltage levels from the second and try to raise or lower it's own accordingly thus overloading the other makes for big smoke at times
> have like 2400W power or something? and can the PSU go above 1200W?
> Yes I would not use this one but they are made> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817101033


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

that 2000w PSU is kinda crappy

it has 6 rails all at 20A that would have trouble running any card PCI-E

this 1200w PSu with a single Rail at 90A is the way to go
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817703012

what you really want for power consumption of any high end system is to have a single rail in it. compononents can pull whatever from large pool of power instead of some components which pull a lot of power and others that don'tt all have the same lower amperage.


----------



## Wrench97 (May 10, 2008)

Think I said that in pc kind of way:grin:


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

wrench97 said:


> Think I said that in pc kind of way:grin:


SHMAAAA? 
what do you mean?


----------



## Wrench97 (May 10, 2008)

I didn't want to call a $600 Supply a piece of junk so pc = *I would not use this one *but they are made


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

I would call that 2000w PSU a piece of garbage but it can be used as a footstool!


----------



## Wrench97 (May 10, 2008)

I wouldn't disagree but that's not *P*olitically *C*orrect:grin:
You have to say something like it doesn't live up to expectations and may cause other problems if the flames get to high:grin::grin:


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

whatever I know its a really bad PSU for that terrible waste of money.


----------



## -WOLF- (Jan 17, 2009)

I would use it to gloat to mah friends. "My PSU is bigger than yours!"

If properly made, would that 2kW PSU work well?

Another thing I am wondering, is it possible to have 5 or 6 GPUs? (Dual Tri or Dual Quad or so)

Like Four ATI 4870X2 or 6 Geforce 280 GTX? etc etc


----------



## Wrench97 (May 10, 2008)

I think the AMD spyder platform will support 4 in xfire but 4 x2's would be a joke as your friends would laugh at how slow your system is for the amount of money you spent.
as for the psu just buy a 1000hx corsair and paint 2500 in it they'll never know the difference.


----------



## Wrench97 (May 10, 2008)

I think the AMD spyder platform will support 4 in xfire but 4 x2's would be a joke as your friends would laugh at how slow your system is for the amount of money you spent.
as for the psu just buy a 1000hx corsair and paint 2500 in it they'll never know the difference.


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

if the 2000w PSu had a single rail at around 160A then it would definitly be worth it because you could run 2 systems if you made a custom case to hold both of them


----------



## -WOLF- (Jan 17, 2009)

wrench97 said:


> I think the AMD spyder platform will support 4 in xfire but 4 x2's would be a joke as your friends would laugh at how slow your system is for the amount of money you spent.
> as for the psu just buy a 1000hx corsair and paint 2500 in it they'll never know the difference.


I don't understand, how will the system be slow just for spending alot of money?

And what about super SLI with like 6 280GTX or something


----------



## pharoah (Aug 28, 2006)

i think he was talking about bang for the buck.


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

bang for buck not worth it


----------



## pharoah (Aug 28, 2006)

Mcninjaguy said:


> bang for buck not worth it


yeah i absolutely agree.why does anyone need all that.when my gtx260 is playing current games maxed out,and maintaining a good frame rate.


----------



## Wrench97 (May 10, 2008)

If you put 4 GTX295 cards in SLI and Spend what about $2500 in cards and power supplies
What are you going to pick up maybe 35FPS if that and some games will slow down, plus they haven't made a CPU yet that could keep up with 4 cards so most of the time the GPU's will be wailing for the CPU to process data.


----------



## pharoah (Aug 28, 2006)

i know thats thats right some games dont work well with sli,or crossfire.


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

I''m thinking maybe today or sometime soon about getting a new motherboard

my current m2n SLI deluxe doesn't support PCI-E 2.0 

I have a AMD system so I was thinking something along the lines of getting a Phenom II later on. I know I know its not intel but for now I just want a motherboard that allows me to use the full potential of my overclocked GTX 260 and something for the future

if you're gonna get a GTX 295 just get 1 of them. seriously what is they have memory bandwidth of around 210 gb/s

thats ridicously fast. I remeber when crysis came out, well the software was really pulling ahead of what a consumer could buy. now its the hardware's turn to pull ahead.

GTA 4 properly uses quad cores I think its the first game to really properly use quad cores.

For a $2500 system this is what I'd spend

1000w PSU $200
2 nd or 3rd best GPU $300
a core i7 around $400
6 gb of DDR3 ram at 1333mhz $200
sound card $50
motherboard $300
Case $100
Heatsink & thermal paste $70
750gb HDD $100
Keyboard $30
Mouse $100
Speakers $50
monitor $250
OS $100

Total = $2300

plus 13% tax (Canadian) = $2599

that'd be my system it would probably be less than that though

with a cheaper Mobo and the cheapest i7 and just overclock it like a beast


----------



## -WOLF- (Jan 17, 2009)

OK No with 4 GPUs and a quad core system what you get is like 350FPS, and I was talking about not best bang for buck, just best in the planet. Period. Yeah GTA4 Runs well on dual/tri core but is optimised for quad core like crazy. PC Gamer said 9800 is recommended for GTA4.

And for $2500 (CDN) I would buy the best quad core processor, maybe an Itanium based proc or something, 8 GB of ram, 2 4870X2 and NZXT Khaos case with a 30" monitor and a huge sound system, 1200W PSU.
And can't you set your SLI or Crossfire system to use a certain amount of cards for certian games?


----------



## -WOLF- (Jan 17, 2009)

Oh and when will GDDR6 and PCI-E 3.0 and USB 3.0 be released?

--Which also leads me to another question; why isnt there GDDR(or higher or DDR4) ram? not video ram but regular ram?


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

DDR4 would be really expensive and DDR3 is just getting a hold on the market now. DDR3 ram can be twice as fast as DDR2 ram and what slows downyour system won'tbe the DDR3 ram it'll most definitly be the CPU or GPU


The highest FPS you should be getting is what your monitor supports and if its too high there'll be stuttering too.

One GTX 295 is more than enough the next one will be a waste of your money

its worth the money to buy one really good card then two lower cards that cost a $100 less


----------



## -WOLF- (Jan 17, 2009)

Lol you changed your avatar. I hate it when people answer one question. 
295 GTX doesent exist. 290 doesent either.


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

GTX 295 and yes there is no GTX 290 but I never mentioned that, take google and use it

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814143167


its twice as fast as my GTX 260

do you not know about nvidia's newest card architecture?

oops ohh yea PCI-E 3.0 eh?

I would think end of 2009 beginning of 2010 maybe later depending on the economy


----------



## pharoah (Aug 28, 2006)

yeah there is a 295 its a dual gpu card.


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

I change my avatar quite a bit 

I was using that cat avatar for while before January


----------



## pharoah (Aug 28, 2006)

Mcninjaguy said:


> I change my avatar quite a bit
> 
> I was using that cat avatar for while before January


yeah cat avatars were real popular around here for a while.


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

When were they real popular?


----------



## pharoah (Aug 28, 2006)

oh its been a while id say about a year ago.seems like everyone had a cat avatar then.hardware team mod thematt got it started i think.<dont quote me on that lol.

here is a link to the thread when it all got started.

http://www.techsupportforum.com/f68/cats-as-avatars-191507.html


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

well I wanna start the doggy avatar trend

its been posted
http://www.techsupportforum.com/f36/doggy-avatars-for-all-344971.html#post1962999


----------



## pharoah (Aug 28, 2006)

ok lol
:grin:


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

I don't see any doggies where's your doggies?


----------



## pharoah (Aug 28, 2006)

i will find an egyptian style dog avatar.:grin:


----------



## -WOLF- (Jan 17, 2009)

What about USB 3.0? Why 295 and not 290? chronology skip?
2x as powerful as the 260 but what about the 280?
Yeah you changed your avatar again, I don't even know how to upload an avatar here, it never works


----------



## Tiber Septim (Feb 9, 2006)

As for the 295, instead of 290, they usually do that with dual cards. For example, there is also a 285 card.
They are also re-naming the old 9 series cards to GTS120, GTS130 and GTS150.
The next series cards would be the GTX3xx I guess, but no official word on those yet.

The USB 3.0 specification was released by Intel and its partners in August 2008, according to early reports from CNET news. Products using the 3.0 specification are likely to arrive in 2009 or 2010. It has a transfer rate of 5.0 Gbit/s (625 MB/s), compared to USB 2.0 transfer speed of 480 Mbit/s (60 MB/s).


----------



## -WOLF- (Jan 17, 2009)

AHH everyone is changing their avatar *Hides behind Tiber and hopes he doesen't change his*

Why are they renaming the 9xxxx series? it's alot eeasier to say and remember than GTSRIOEWUFKLJAS1209382083 and stuff....


----------

