i was wondering if the (ATI Mobility Radeon X1400 Native PCI Express x16) would be faster then the (Geforce FX 5900XT 8X AGP) thats in my Desktop?
I'm not an expert or anything but the PCI Express is the newer kind of slot that is supposed to have better performance than the AGP style. Video card used to use PCI slots and were later changed to mostly AGP slots because it worked better. Then the PCIExpress slot was develop and that is the current top style going.
The 5900XT is about 2x better than the ATi Mobility card. But, they use two different interfaces (and form factors). Why are you contrasting between cards for laptops and desktops?
The X1400 is probably around the same performance level of the 5900XT, irrespectrive of laptop, desktop, AGP, PCIe. The 1400 may only be a lower-intermediate mobile card, but it's two generations newer than the nVidia, and back with the FX series, gaming performance offered by nVidia was, shall we say, variable. In some games the laptop card may be slower, but never by a whole lot.
No, the fx5900xt scores double of what the x1400 gets in 3dmark05. We don't need conflicting performance statements here. Just leave it what I said in my last post and don't add anymore.
Really? Bearing in mind the FX5900 would have had a desktop CPU, desktop RAM and a desktop HDD, versus the laptop's slower CPU, slower (and less) RAM and a slow 4200rpm laptop HDD probably, I'm not so sure 3dmark is such a useful test. In games, an FX5900XT performs about the level of a 9700. an X1300 Pro, which would perform similarly to an X1400, can match an X700, let alone a 9700. Twice the speed? Rubbish.
Well, I guess that says everything about what you have to add then, yes? 3dmark is the industry standard for benchmarking and measuring a card's capabilities. There is nothing better. Tell you what, instead of basing your opinion on what it "should" or "most likely" is. How, about you look up some actual numbers (as I did) and get back to us, okay? And again, you're confusing yourself about the two cards and their environments/form factors. Who cares that the fx5900xt gets the unfair advantage of being able to work along with superior compents? That's just life, and thus, deal with it. A pc with a fx5900xt grossly outperforms a laptop with an x1400 mobility (keep in mind also, that just becaus it says "x1400" does NOT make it similar or in the same class as the X1k desktop cards.) Read up on the differences before you add anything else, please. This shouldn't continue until you understand everything above.
the 3dmark 05 gives better results for one card type and 06 prefares the other. so you might get a good mark compared to another card on one test and get mashed by the same card on the other. if thats not a bull**it way of comparing cards i dont know what is. if you want a true comparison you need to compare them in the real world with frames per second in games not doing thoeretical 3d mathmatical equasions. http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/graphics/charts.html
Tom's hardware guide, one of the most renowned sites for giving accurate results, often comment in their benchmarks, that 3dmark, despite being the industry's "standard benchmark", is purely synthetic, and not always accurate. The statement I made, sources data from Tom's Hardware. Too bad there isn't one easy graph to compare the two directly. Well, alright, but I've still yet to see any actual numbers. Come on, where are they? - that's not an actual number. Neither is that. There is plenty better than 3dmark, so much so, that you'd find Doom 3 and FEAR just as often, if not more often in Graphics benchmarks than 3DMark. Part of the reason for this is that 3dmark benches the whole system and produces an arbitrary (yes, relative, but arbitrary) score. Games, whilst they also use all of the computer's components as a test, typically just test graphics, when the detail is turned up. When loads of different cards all have similar scores, the graphics aren't being tested enough, and the CPU/RAM is the limiting factor. These situations are obvious. This one for example: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/graphics/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=519&model2=547&chart=200 However, other tests when the detail levels are higher, show where graphical ability shines: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/graphics/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=519&model2=547&chart=207 This one will do nicely. DJKO probably does because he asked about the graphics card, irrespective of other components. Whilst the desktop system may well be faster if that has, say an Athlon64 3700+ compared to a Celeron M380 (for example), that's irrelevant, since DJKO asked about the graphics cards and NOT the whole system. Read the question, and state FACTS not opinions. Despite my previous thoughts on 3dmark, I'd like you to show me the proof of your statement of "No, the fx5900xt scores double of what the x1400 gets in 3dmark05" - show me two images that prove what you said... listing the hardware that was used for the test. A Radeon X1400 is indeed, a laptop chipset. But Despite laptop graphics' performance, I suggested they performed at least on par with an X1300 series. The FX5900XT, while it was a relatively high spec card, is two generations behind the X1400, so is likely to lose a lot of its advantage. I can willingly accept that the FX5900XT is going to be faster in some instances, but nowhere near double.
My 5900XT Scores a 1079 3Dmark05........This card cant even play Company of Heroes or Oblivion......Even on The Lowest Settings its Still Unacceptable......Even if it Did Why Would you want to play it That Low Anyways......and thats the way it is.......The End.
Refering to My 5900XT.. here specs 128mb ram 265 bit mem 4 pipes 390c 700m - OC @ 418c 760m if you all want my system specs i can post em to
Lol if your initial question was - would the X1400 do it instead? I'd say I doubt it. May be worth giving it a go, but I wouldn't expect much...
Guys this isnt a personal bi*** session, so focus less on each other and try to help DJKO, the geforce fx 5900xt will most likly perform better than the x1400 if both computers have near the same in hardware. and secondly obilivion is a demanding game and i dont think u'll get to play it on anything less than 7600gt not sure about ati.
Isn't that really what i said? I'm not here to bitch either, I'm trying to help, but Jallan isn't making it very easy for me. I've expressed my scepticism about either card running games, but the FX5900XT would win out because of desktop hardware supporting it.
Don't stop yourself doing it though do you? - give it a rest, the guy's made his point, your attitude is just making this thread a waste of time.
DJKO my son is running oblivion with a fx5900xt graphics card and it runs not too badly, abet on low settings. perhaps you might be able to configure you computer slightly better c'mon guys how can he make his conputer faster ? actually my son has a 3,4 ghz p4 and 2 gigs of ram so i expect that helps out sammorris in my sig if i swapped my chip and board and put in a pentium 940 would it be faster or slower ? we put a 940 in the wifes and 3dmarked it and only our graphics seemed to keep us ahead ? waiting for my other son to build his but he's been a bit busy
