Curse

Ba5sKing · Aug 28, 2006, 09:14 PM // 21:14

http://www.visiontek.com/store/catal...products_id=85 thats the url and the actual name is XTASY RADEON X800 128MB PCI-E.

Specifications
• XTASY™ ATI® Radeon® X800
• 392 MHz VPU Core
• X16 PCI Express®
(Not Compatible with Conventional PCI)
• 128MB Graphics DDR Memory
• 256-bit Quad Channel Memory Architecture
• Memory Clock: 350MHz (700MHz DDR)
• Dual 400MHz DACs
• API Support: FULL DirectX® 9.0, OpenGL® 2.0
• Connectors: VGA, DVI-I, TV-OUT
• HDTV Output

Features at a Glance
• 12 Super Charged Shader Pixel Pipelines
• 6 Geometry Engines
• SMARTSHADER™ HD
• SMOOTHVISION™ HD
• 3D Floating Point Textures
• Multiple Rendering Targets
•VIDEOSHADER™ HD

Thx in advance,

Axel

gabrial heart · Aug 28, 2006, 09:18 PM // 21:18

Yes. The x800 is a very nice card. Make sure you have a pci-e slot first!

Alias_X · Aug 28, 2006, 11:33 PM // 23:33

Will definitely run GW.

Mustache Mayhem · Aug 29, 2006, 12:21 AM // 00:21

it's not gonna be very good.. get the 800xl with 16 pixel pipelines (the 12 pixel pipeline versions are crap)- it makes a big difference

here it is.. was 130 bucks on tiger but looks like sold out

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...?Sku=A177-3046

Ba5sKing · Aug 29, 2006, 05:53 PM // 17:53

what about the XTASY RADEON X9200 64MB i have that but am having difficulty to get that to even work at all. should i just ge tthat one to work or buy a new one?

Apocrypha · Aug 29, 2006, 06:49 PM // 18:49

The 9200 is MUCH different from the X800. You probably want to upgrade.

To Mustache, it will run it with max settings all the time, what more can you ask for? My X550 can with no AA and the X800 is much better. Not saying the XL is a bad idea, just unneccesary.

Ba5sKing · Aug 29, 2006, 09:41 PM // 21:41

so is the 9200 better or the 800 for GW?

johan the destroyer · Aug 29, 2006, 09:57 PM // 21:57

x800 is DEFINITELY better all-around than a 9200. However, if you have PCI-e and want a card, but are on a budget, I would say, dont get an x800 from Visiontek (I have had bad experiences with video cards from them), but get an x800 with 512 MB of memory. It may take a little searching but I saw one on tigerdirect.com a little while ago for $100, so thats definitely your best bet.

Mushroom · Aug 29, 2006, 10:28 PM // 22:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ba5sKing

so is the 9200 better or the 800 for GW?

When it comes to ATI cards, it is rather easy to tell which is the better. Just look at the part number.

From the 7000 to the 9000, each higher card was that much better then the one before it. And the same goes for the most part in the 9000 series. The 9200 is better then the 9100, the 9500 is better still, and the 9800 was the best. However, this is somewhat misleading, ince the 9500 was nothing but a downclocked 9800.

When you step up to the X series, you start all over agian. A good X300 is better then a 9550 (about equal in most ways to the 9800), and an X500 is better then a 9800. Then each card that is higher then that (x1300, X1400, all the way to X1900) is better and faster then the card before it.

However, I would not settle for 128 MEG onboard. The best "bang for the buck" in ATI seems to be the 1300. One of the hottest cards out last year, you can pick up a 512 MEG X1300 for around $115-120 nowadays.
However, it also depends on what kind of card your motherboard supports. The 7000-9000 generation were for either PCI or AGP slots. The X series is for PCI Express slots.

awesome sauce · Aug 30, 2006, 01:02 AM // 01:02

I would pay some extra money and go for the xl. I got this one a few weeks back for $130 after rebate.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814161165

It runs GW on absolute max with 4xaa, and most resolution my monitor can get with 50-150 fps. Plus its got a huge fan so it stays cool.