Intel Modern IGP (X3000, X3100, X3500)

My mate's X1900XT-X couldn't play Assasins Creed at all, with an X2 4200+, so something's a weak link there, I think it's his CPU rather than the GPU.

 

Well, the X1800XT gets about 35FPS average with medium-high settings. And that's using a 2.4GHz AMD X2. Even a 7600GT can handle it decently with 1024 res. Keep in mind that 1024 and 1280 res look much better on a smaller monitor.

 

I use centre-scaling most of the time on my monitor so I see it as you'd see with a monitor of whatever appropriate size, just blackness around the edge, looks fine, but is tiny!

12,759 in 06 stock with HD4870. Not bad for a dual core CPU...

 

Hmm, that's interesting. I've never used that or heard of that in my life. Is it part of the ATi features or is it a feature of the monitor? I know my 24" monitor can do a few things the 17" can't. And tiny? I've done some serious hardcore gaming on the 17" and the size is more than adequate. The 24" only improves on the overall experience due to its higher res. I've never had a single problem on a smaller monitor

Whose machine is it and please give the full specs if possible

EDIT: That's also a bit disappointing to see, considering I get about 12,500 with my system. Is this due to the "nvidia optimizations"? Or is the system limited in some way? I'd have expected more like 14-16k.

 

it's in catalyst control center, you can map the resolution 1:1 pixels wize leaving a black border around the image. Doesn't seem to impact performance.

It's both, ATI cards, specifically the HD4870s score low in 3dmark, and regardless of GPU power, 3dmark06 has a cap of around 14,000 for CPUs as powerful as mine anyway, you need a quad to break 15.

 

And that's why 3D Mark isn't a good indicator of real world performance. Developers have only just started to do games for dual core after more than a decade of single core. Games will move to quad within a year or two when quad cores are more common. Right now only new builders are really buying into them. I know many people who are more than satisfied with their Core 2 Duos.

Did you get an HD 4870 now or what? I'm confused

One is in the plans for me very soon. Maybe a few months? My parents' PC might get pimped out with a new X2 and the 8800GTS. Though maybe not. The 8800GTS is still very sweet.

 

Yeah, an HD4870 - the typical score for the card with an overclocked quad core CPU is 16,000 and 14,000 with an HD4850, versus the 16,000 for the 8800GTS G92 and 19,000 with a GTX280. nvidia just score higher in 3dmark, and always have.

 

So it might be alright to compare like ATi to ATi but not ATi to Nvidia. I've seen the benchmarks and I know which is not only the better bang for my buck by far but sometimes the faster card. ATi is handing Nvidia their ass this time around. It's refreshing.

 

It is indeed, in some games the GTX260 gets very close to the HD4870 or beats it by a slight margin, but overall it's pretty clear the HD4000 series is better off.

 

Yeah, but I don't really feel like $400 and $600 to get a performance increase that means next to nothing. The 4870 already outpaces my card by a fair bit. I'm glad its lasted me so far. But I probably should have just gotten an 8800GTS 640MB to begin with. Even so, I paid about 1/3 of the price for the G92 than I did for the 8800GTX. Any difference in performance is negligible. I'm just glad I scooped it up when I did.

Also, a good alternative to a 4870 might be to get an SLI board and a second 8800 as its even cheaper now. Wouldn't that give me comparable performance or better? I certainly have the CPU power to back it up.

 

SLI? No thanks. Not only is the graphics power from a single card guaranteed, rather than relying on good SLI scaling, but SLI motherboards... ugh.

 

Eh, SLI boards seem to be hit and miss. I had no real issues with my 680i but it was unimpressive and looked somewhat ugly. It would probably be cheaper to just get the 4870 anyway

 

They are very hit and miss. It's not just the incompatibilities (780i especially) but also poor long term reliability.

 

What's so wrong with the 780i and 680i aside from poor quality control? I thought that if you got one that worked right, it was a good motherboard.

 

The S-ATA control failures, and the data corruption?

 

Hmm, I never had mine long enough anyway. I never ran into any problems like that. I heard the 790i is supposed to be really good. Though if it's on the same hardware and BIOS, it might still have the same problems.

 

The 780i was the notorious one, not so much news on the 790s, it could be fixed, but I would think it unlikely. I put it down to not as many people buying them now, people have wised up, and in light of the G84 fiasco I think the public opinion of nvidia may be waning a bit.

 

Yes the 8600GTS, while a step above the 7600GT and noticeably faster, was not a big enough step up to warrant the nearly $200 price tag at release. You could just get a 7900GS or X1950Pro for cheaper and have a faster card. I heard the 8600GTS was actually quite a bit faster than those two in Oblivion. I think that's an isolated case though.

 

I seem to remember spotting that the 8600GTS performed sometimes better, sometimes worse than my X1900XT. Given how cheap those cards became after the launch of the 8800s though, the 8600GTS hardly seemed worth it.

 

Yeah, the 8600s in general were underperformers compared to even previous gen mid range cards.

I assure you the cases where it got better performance were few and far between. The X1900XT is still a way faster card by a longshot.