New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ati 128mb X300

post #1 of 50
1/5/06 at 12:04am
Thread Starter 
I'm planning on getting a dell 6000 with this video card and I'm wondering about its performance. When playing games is this really as bad as peaple say it is? Is the biggest problem with this its resolution? Is this like the difference between an wxga screen vs a wsxga? For lots of people a wxga screen is good enough. I'm not planning on playing lots of game but I'm just wondering.
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 50
1/5/06 at 12:07am
Warcraft 3 and Civ4 are the types of games it will run I'm sure. Any higher or FPS types generally not.

2D is fine.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 50
1/5/06 at 1:35am
if you are looking to game the 6000 is the absolute wrong system to get, You are much better off with the I9300 which can be upgraded to a 6800 Ultra or a 7800GTX.

it has nothing to do with the screen but more with the video card and the X300 uses the Hyper Memory which is really a combination of Shared system Memory and some dedicated memory
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 50
1/5/06 at 1:47am
BAH!

its not as bad as everyone says. I overclcock mine quite a bit, but it plays bf2 on medium settings at 1280*1024 just fine. If casual gaming is all your going to do, then it will suffice. Its nowhere near a nice video card, bgut it gets the job done. FYI, i get 1259 on 3dmark05.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 50
1/5/06 at 1:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. roboto
BAH!

its not as bad as everyone says. I overclcock mine quite a bit, but it plays bf2 on medium settings at 1280*1024 just fine. If casual gaming is all your going to do, then it will suffice. Its nowhere near a nice video card, bgut it gets the job done. FYI, i get 1259 on 3dmark05.
I disagree.

I've got an i6000d and I WOULD NOT get this for gaming. Go for the 9300 instead.

You'll also want to be careful of the monitor you get for it (Samsung = UGH!)
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 50
1/5/06 at 1:57am
It will play any game currently available,it depends how anal you get over wanting to play at super high resolutions or with all the goodies maxed out ,which it won't with the latest games,but hey its not an xps2 bought at xps2 prices.
I just finished FEAR on my D610 X300 64mb and while it didn't look as good as on my M70 it was still enjoyable to play.
As for screen res,go for WSXGA,IMO the best compromise of quality and readability,won't make any difference to games as you won't be playing many of them at the wxga native resolution anyway and from what I've seen from my sisters I6000 wxga screen,doesn't have very good viewing angles or brightness,compared to my M70 anyway
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 50
1/5/06 at 2:21am
It will play FEAR.. @ 640x480 with minimum settings around 20 FPS.

Thats pretty much all your gonna get with the new games.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 50
1/5/06 at 2:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by STi Sev
I've got an i6000d and I WOULD NOT get this for gaming. Go for the 9300 instead.
He says he's not going to play a lot of games, so unless he doesn't mind the size of the 9300, a 6000 should be fine for him.

I was also worried about gaming performance with my 6000, but it has exceeded my expectations. I'm playing through HL2 now, and it looks and runs great at low / medium settings.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 50
1/5/06 at 2:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForceCalibur
It will play FEAR.. @ 640x480 with minimum settings around 20 FPS.

Thats pretty much all your gonna get with the new games.


Thats crap,
I just ran the test settings this second,while downloading in the background at 1024x768 with everything set to minimum,texture filtering set to trilinear and got an average of 27 fps

No model decals or softshadows.

The I6000 has 128mb dedicated compared to my 64mb so I can't see how its gonna be 20fps
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 50
1/5/06 at 1:03pm
Thread Starter 
Thanks for all the responses. I'll stick with the 6000. Its proboboly been posted but the 9400 is now on the us site in small buissness.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 50
1/5/06 at 1:32pm
iwow i just looked at the 9400!!!! 7800 with duo!!!! boner!!!!

haha,

id go with i9300 if i could do it all over again, i think they are huge, but for about the same price as i paid for my specs (980$), i could get a much better screen and vc for 1200$

9300 for intense gaming
6000 for pacman and unreal 04 (:
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 50
1/5/06 at 2:01pm
Well dont listen to the people saying its bad for gaming, it really isnt.

i had to get a laptop a couple of months ago and chose the 6000. i went from the 6800 ultra in my desktop to the x300 in the 6000

anyway, i can play fear @ 1280x800 everything on full except shadows. @20-25fps. (4aa 4 af)

HL2 everything maxxed with 4AA 4 AF 1280x800 same fps. (indoors higher)

Its not as good as a 'proper' card naturally, but in buying the 6000 over the 9300 i saved nigh on £600

im not lying here, it can be a reasonable card. using the omega cats and overclocking netted me a 33-40% boost in performance over the stock speed.

1.6 @ 2.13

2gb 533

100gb 7200

64Mb x300

Audigy 2 ZS PCMCIA

dont get me wrong though, if they release a new card for it im buying
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 50
1/5/06 at 2:33pm
yup, I get 1834 on 3dmark05, its pretty decent for sub US$1000 notebook
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 50
1/5/06 at 3:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by chevyrulz099
6000 for pacman and unreal 04 (:

Ha!!! Ha!!! I love Pacman too & I think it's one of the all-time video game classics!!!
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 50
1/5/06 at 4:10pm
Just get the 6000, you'll be happy with it as long as you're not expecting 50+ fps in Doom3. I overclocked mine to 400Mhz core, 300Mhz memory and it plays everything I've thrown at it with no stuttering. I don't have any really new games, but Halo plays perfectly at 1024x768 on medium settings. Though I set it at 30fps instead of no vsyc so I get more stable performance.

It's definitely not the best mobile card, but it's 1000x better than integrated. And it's plenty for what I want to do, which is mostly light gaming and internet.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 50
1/6/06 at 12:42am
anyway, i can play fear @ 1280x800 everything on full except shadows. @20-25fps. (4aa 4 af) {QUOTE}


Getting a bit carried away with that comment,my M70 wont even do that.

Basically the difference between my D610 and M70 is,both running at 1024x768
D610 everything is at minimum and off at 30fps avg
M70 everything is at max and on except soft shadows and volumetric lights at 30fps avg,having said that,FEAR has a shitload of features to turn on compared to any other game I've played and probably why its such a resource hog when you start turning everything on.
Even overclocking,the X300 doesn't have the memory capacity,bandwidth,pipelines to be able to turn everything on and not stutter to a halt,just to try things out I overclocked my D610 to 400/300 and ran the testsettings in Fear at 640x480 with MOST things turned on and it struggled along at 11fps and looked like crap,so that would be one hell of a X300 if you get 20-25fps at 1280x800 with everything maxed,you do know there is 4 different control panels for quality settings?
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 50
1/6/06 at 4:30am
Did anyone try age of empires III on this ati 128MB? any fps result or playable without the lag?
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 50
1/6/06 at 7:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerryjoson
anyway, i can play fear @ 1280x800 everything on full except shadows. @20-25fps. (4aa 4 af) {QUOTE}


Getting a bit carried away with that comment,my M70 wont even do that.

Basically the difference between my D610 and M70 is,both running at 1024x768
D610 everything is at minimum and off at 30fps avg
M70 everything is at max and on except soft shadows and volumetric lights at 30fps avg,having said that,FEAR has a shitload of features to turn on compared to any other game I've played and probably why its such a resource hog when you start turning everything on.
Even overclocking,the X300 doesn't have the memory capacity,bandwidth,pipelines to be able to turn everything on and not stutter to a halt,just to try things out I overclocked my D610 to 400/300 and ran the testsettings in Fear at 640x480 with MOST things turned on and it struggled along at 11fps and looked like crap,so that would be one hell of a X300 if you get 20-25fps at 1280x800 with everything maxed,you do know there is 4 different control panels for quality settings?
hmm, well it did. just the shadows which killed it
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 50
1/6/06 at 7:28am
James_2k, you're telling me you ran F.E.A.R with that X300 of yours @ 12*8, all settings max except for shadows.. and at 4xTSAA/4xAF? You've gotta be kidding me.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 50
1/6/06 at 7:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhantran
Did anyone try age of empires III on this ati 128MB? any fps result or playable without the lag?

I'm just trying the demo of AOE III at the moment on a 64mb X300 and its pretty jerky over 800x600 which surprises me really,I would've thought one of these RTS games wouldn't have been very demanding,but obviously I was wrong.
This is the first RTS game I have tried,I don't find it very relaxing to play as there's so much going on everywhere at the same time that you have to be all over the place trying to control everything,I can see why people like them though.

I havent worked out how to get FPS from this game yet or whether you can on the demo at all,anybody?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home