What graphics card is best for me? How to upgrade for X3?

[Ruivo]

Hello.. I got a bit misleaded by x3 system requirements at the sysreq sticky.. where it says that with a 128mb vga, 1.7ghz cpu and 512mb i'm able to run the game.. I've been able, yes, to finish the game.. but even though all the lod was set to low, i still got massive loading times between sectors, specially the ones like argon prime, where it takes almost 2 minutes to enter.

I can run X2 with all lod at high (except shadows) with no problems.. I have a Athlon XP 2000+ running at 2.1ghz, 512mb ddr333 and a GF FX5200 128mb 64bit.

I'm going to get a new 6600GT 128mb/128bit, and increase my system memory to 1gb ddr333. And with this i'm pushing my budget as far as i can, so i won't be able to upgrade my cpu, or mobo anytime soon..

My question is, with these upgrades will i be able to play X3 as smoothly as i play X2?

thanks

[CBJ]

Hello.. I got a bit misleaded by x3 system requirements at the sysreq sticky.. where it says that with a 128mb vga, 1.7ghz cpu and 512mb i'm able to run the game.. I've been able, yes, to finish the game.. but even though all the lod was set to low, i still got massive loading times between sectors, specially the ones like argon prime, where it takes almost 2 minutes to enter.

You've not really been misled. Those are the minimum requirements, so you should expect minimum performance with those specifications.

Anyway, the new graphics card will certainly help quite a bit, and the extra memory may smooth out things like sector transitions a bit, but your processor is still going to struggle. I'm afraid your question is impossible to answer, not least because we don't know how smoothly your system runs X2. The processor load in X2 was still pretty heavy, though, so I would say X3 performance probably wouldn't be too far off.

[Ruivo]

Yeah, the CPU runs X2 very smoothly, the only issues with performance i have in X2 is with the memory, the fps drops significantly when i'm fighting multiple enemies, like khaak in heavy systems like argon prime. The CPU also runs games like flight simulator 2004, and World of Warcraft with heavy AI load with an average of 25-30 fps, which is perfect for me.

What i really wanted to know if it's i'm going to get a significant boost in loading times with the memory upgrade, and if i'll be able to run the game with full lod, at a resolution of 1024x768 (max my monitor handles ), and little to no AA and AS, with the 6600GT. Or maybe even a 6800XT 256/256.

thanks

[CBJ]

Yeah, the CPU runs X2 very smoothly, the only issues with performance i have in X2 is with the memory, the fps drops significantly when i'm fighting multiple enemies, like khaak in heavy systems like argon prime.

That has nothing to do with memory. The additional load in those situations are on the processor, graphics card and sound card.

The CPU also runs games like flight simulator 2004, and World of Warcraft with heavy AI load with an average of 25-30 fps, which is perfect for me.

Those games are not running a complete living universe in the background. Performance in other games is completely irrelevant I'm afraid.

What i really wanted to know if it's i'm going to get a significant boost in loading times with the memory upgrade...

It will certainly help if you play for a long time at a single session as with more memory there will be less swapping of data to disk. You won't notice any difference when you first start the game as the data still has to be loaded at least once.

...and if i'll be able to run the game with full lod, at a resolution of 1024x768 (max my monitor handles ), and little to no AA and AS, with the 6600GT.

I don't think you mean LOD as that's automatic. I assume you mean the quality settings, in which case that card will be a big improvement over your FX5200. However I can't guarantee it will be able to handle every maximum settings, nor that it will be smooth in every situation as above a certain point the processor is the bottleneck not the graphics card.

...Or maybe even a 6800XT 256/256.

I wouldn't bother with that card. If you are looking for a step up from the 6600GT then try the 7600GT; it is one generation less out of date and would certainly perform well enough never to be a bottleneck with your current processor.

[Ruivo]

yeah, lod i meant level of detail, or quality settings.. I've done some research on some graphic cards, and basically the best thing i could find that fits my budget is the 6800XT. I've found a 7600GS, but it has 128bit of memory bus and only 540mhz of memory clock, in comparassion with the 256 memory bus and 1ghz of memory clock of the 6800XT i've found.

I'm considering in saving my money for a little while longer to get the 6800XT cuz it has 256bit memory bus, and 256mb of memory, while the 6600GT only has 128bit.

Right now the biggest limitation i have is my mobo, that has no pci-e slot. I'm doing this upgrade right now only so i can play X3, so it's temporary. i'll get a new mobo with an athlon X2 5200 as soon as i get a better paying job so.. no point doing any further upgrades right now

Thanks for the help

[gunman127]

Buy Intel.

Check anywhere, the Core2Duos annihilate AMDs current lineup.

This may mean a new motherboard and RAM too, but that also means you get PCI-E and all the goodies that run in it.

[Ruivo]

From what i can afford, i've planned on getting an Asus m2m sli, with an athlon 64 x2 3800+, 1gb of ddr2 and a Xfx 8600gt 256mb. I'm studying the possibilities of getting all those upgrades, instead of a simple AGP vga upgrate.. it may take longer than i first expected though.. a couple of months at least.

The core2duo is indeed more powerfull than most cpu's that AMD can offer right now.. but that's way out of my budget, even a year from now.

[pjknibbs]

Couple of things there: firstly, if this is a temporary upgrade purely to play X3, getting an X2 is pointless--the game is single threaded and won't take advantage of the second core on an X2. For roughly the same money you could get a single core 3800+ which is actually clocked 20% faster than the dual-core 3800+, and would thus run an app like X3 faster.

Secondly, the difference in price is not as great as you think. An A64 X2 3800+ is about £45. The cheapest Core 2 Duo is the new E2140--clocked at 1.6GHz, that costs just £52. I would guess the performance of the two CPUs would be similar, and the E2140 would give you the advantage of being able to upgrade to a faster Core 2 when you could afford it.

[Vitez]

Hello all!
I finally started to upgrade my PC (not a big upgrade, only for X3 ). So, I bought a 3Ghz processor, and was thinking of buying +1Gb ram. But before I do so, I would like to ask: Will X3 run (relatively) smoothly with this: 3Ghz, 2Gb ram, ATI Radeon 9600 (250mb)? Thank you!

(My current results with the benchmark demo:

Video settings during benchmark:
Screen resolution: 1024 x 768 * [32]
using shader profile: 2.0
Antialias Mode: NONE
Anisotropic Mode: NONE

Graphic & Shader settings
Texture quality: high
Shader quality: high
High quality bumpmaps: enabled
Environment map: enabled
Postprocessing: enabled
using 16bit vertex format: no

Framerates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scene 00 13.3 average fps 8.0 minimum fps 20.0 maximum fps
Scene 01 13.4 average fps 3.0 minimum fps 28.0 maximum fps
Scene 02 15.4 average fps 10.0 minimum fps 25.0 maximum fps
Scene 03 18.0 average fps 6.0 minimum fps 50.0 maximum fps

Overall average framerate: 15.0 fps

and

Video settings during benchmark:
Screen resolution: 1024 x 768 * [32]
using shader profile: 1.1
Antialias Mode: NONE
Anisotropic Mode: NONE

Graphic & Shader settings
Texture quality: medium
Shader quality: low
High quality bumpmaps: disabled
Environment map: disabled
Postprocessing: disabled
using 16bit vertex format: no

Framerates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scene 00 23.6 average fps 20.0 minimum fps 34.0 maximum fps
Scene 01 15.1 average fps 7.0 minimum fps 30.0 maximum fps
Scene 02 27.0 average fps 17.0 minimum fps 36.0 maximum fps
Scene 03 31.3 average fps 19.0 minimum fps 57.0 maximum fps

Overall average framerate: 24.2 fps
)

[CBJ]

Adding extra memory probably won't make much difference as your graphics card is more likely to be a limiting factor than memory.

While you are here, please shorten your signature as it exceeds the number of lines allowed by the forum rules.

[Vitez]

Adding extra memory probably won't make much difference as your graphics card is more likely to be a limiting factor than memory.

May I ask what do you recomend? (Something not to expensive)?

[CBJ]

You presumably have an AGP slot, so I suggest something like a Radeon X1950Pro or, if you can't afford that, then perhaps a GeForce 7600GT. Either way you'll still be one generation behind the latest cards but two generations newer than the one you currently have.

[The Wolf]

I agree. Before I upgraded to a 512 mb sapphire x1950 pro, I had an old 128 mb Radeon 9600 pro in this system. The rest of my computer is probably somewhat comparable to yours. (3.0C GHz p4, 1.5gb PC3200 ram, audigy 2 soundcard)

I'm not sure how much of a jump there is between the 128mb and 256mb variants of the 9600, but I did notice a large jump in graphics performance afterwards.
Where I used to run oblivion in mid to low detail @ either 800x600 or 1024x768 on a 19" CRT, I can now run it at max @ 1920x1200 on a 24" LCD

As for X3, not sure what the benchmarking would say as the option is greyed out, but I'm currently running it at max without any major issues. With World in conflict's benchmark test though:

Resolution: 1920*1200
Detail Level: High
Average fps: 10
Min fps: 5
Max fps: 24
TotalFrames: 602
I'm sure i'll be doing a little graphics tweaking with that game once I get further than the first couple of missions.

Depending on your budget, the x1950 is $172.99 USD on www.newegg.com

[Vitez]

Uhmmm. I was searching a bit and (since I don't know too much), I would like to ask that is the ATI Radeon X1650 (450MHz, 512MB DDR3 1300MHz, 128-bit, 8X AGP) close to the sapphire x1950 (the x1650 costs half as much as the x1950)? Or, in other words: will X3 run good with full graphics with it?
Thanks!

Spoiler

Show

Sorry to bother you guys so much, but I would really like to run X3 on full graphs, withouth spending half of my pocket money . And thatnks for every answer!

Oh and I've been thinking about other video cards too (please help me chooose ): [/url]http://www.arukereso.hu/videokartya-c31 ... 8989-28420[/url]
its in hungarian but the main things are there.
Thank you again![/url]

[pjknibbs]

Depends how you define "close". Most of the benchmarks seem to show the 1950 being around 50%-100% faster than the 1650, but I can't find one specifically comparing how X3 performs between those two cards.

[The_Abyss]

Personally, I'd take the hit now and go for the 1950. The 1650 is always going to be significantly slower as it is only 128bit, and importantly, it does not have the number of vertex shader pipes that the 1950 enjoys, a feature which is very important for this generation of card and X3.

The 1950 will also allow you to keep the card and play upcoming games an awful lot longer than a 1650 would. A good example of this is that a 1950 will pretyt much play every game out now in decent quality, whereas a 1650 is already struggling in many.

[Pitchblack01]

I have a x1650 and my computer has 512 ram, if i upgrade to 1.5 Gigabytes of ram will my loads be shorter, as they currently take 5 or more minuets to go through a gate.

[mattstint]

Personally I'd say get a 8800GT. Near GTX performance at a fraction of the cost.

You do not want to be buying any ATI card unless you're REALLY strapped for cash, in that case save your money and wait til you can afford an 8800 GT.

[The_Abyss]

I'd almost agre, with the proviso that as good as the 8800GT is, the ATI 3xxx is going to be released in a couple of weeks and could be just as good.

[Krusade]

Given what the 2xxx series was like I'm not hopeful for ATI