Oblivion and E1505 w/ X1400

When I bought my E1505, I heard a lot of people say that it's decently capable of playing Oblivion with the X1400. Well, I just tried it, and I have to say that's it's not true. I've overclocked my card by about 25% and my 3DMark06 score is one of the highest anyone has gotten with an X1400.

The maximum frame rate I could get in Oblivion on my notebook was 30fps. I mean that's the absolute maximum: 740x480 resolution, about 10 feet view distance, almost no texturing, and polygons simplified so much that trees are single rectangles even when you're standing right in front of them. That's like graphics from 20 years ago... and I get 30fps.

The good news though, is that if I completely max out the graphics settings, the frame rate only goes down to 15fps - at 740x480. Unfortunately, 15 fps is just below playable. If the X1400 were twice as fast as it is, then I would say that its completely capable of playing Oblivion, but as it stands, its just below the threshold.

 

did you reformat/reinstall your OS?

did you defrag?

what was your 3dM score?

 

Mmmm I suppose it really depends on what you consider playable, though my co-workers E1505 gets a bit better performance than what your saying. Its not really a twitch game and its responsive enough, though I suppose it really comes down to your own personal idea of what is and is not acceptable.

 

Yeah, I reinstalled the OS.

I don't think hard disk performance has much to do with the 3DM score.

My 3DM 06 score was 978, on the first and only run.

 

u overclocked it and got that? id figure the x1400 would make sub 1000 with stock clocks

 

Apparently my score is the highest published in their database.

 

Oblivion is written very ineficently. i dont even think the graphics are that good. stupid ports from xbox to computer!

 

Since when was Oblivion a port? and its not written ineffeciently its just an incredibly power hungry game.

 

i've also heard that the amount of ram plays a big role on how the game performs.

 

The x1400 is an incredible bad graphics card. Look at this review

http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=2766&p=8

 

If one is intending to try to play the latest and greatest games at full resolution with settings on high, then yes, people are going to be disappointed. Oblivion espeically is extremely taxing even on desktop systems, so there's no surprise at its performance here. But I'd still not call it a bad card considering there are numerous reports of people being able to play titles like Doom 3 pretty well on medium settings, some even on high. Also, many people are using the Omega drivers which provide way more oomph than the standard Catalyst driver, which seems to fluctuate in quality from version to version. For playing games that have been on the market a while already, the card's great. Sure, I'd definitely prefer an nVidia option (though the equivalent 7300/7400 doesn't exactly run any better) or the higher pipe count of the X1600, but the X1400 even with its meager 4 pipelines will get by quite nicely if its limitations are understood. And it's still way better than the Intel GMA900/GMA950.

 

I don't know about Doom 3, but I just tried HL2 Episode One. The framerates are decent at 1280x800 but if I set it down to 720x480 I can get excellent fps. With all the gfx settings maxed out, 4xAA, 4xAniso, and full HDR, I get 40 to 70 fps depending on where I'm looking. 720x480 is kinda low, but the 4xAA really makes up for it.

Whats interesting is that HL2's fps, like Oblivion's, varies very little with changes in the graphics options - a factor of less than 2 between absolute best and absolute worst. Each single setting has almost no effect on fps - HDR on vs HDR off is only like a 10% fps difference, same with no AA vs 4xAA. Anyone know why it does this?

Resolution though, does affect fps pretty much proportional to the # of pixels.

 

i think it was written very ineffiecently becuase the graphics are not that good for the amount of performance it demands. i am very picky on my graphics and oblivion has been a big disapointment in my opinion. i thought it was originaly written for Xbox 360 then made for computer, but i only thought this because it is made for xbox and the game feels very much like a xbox game.

 

As a mini-hijack, when running Oblivion have people noticed a big difference between 1 gig of RAM vs. 2 gig of RAM when using the x1400? How about 1.83 Duo vs 2.0 Duo? Or 5400 rpm vs 7200 for the HD? Do these changes make much difference or is the bottleneck the GPU?

 

Oblivion does in fact depend a lot on your CPU, and it likes processors with lots of cache (i.e., the Core Duo). A Core Duo is an excellent processor to run Oblivion with - I'd go for a T2500 because the price drops are now going in to effect - you get a good price/performance value out of it. The T2600 does not carry such a large pricetag as before but I'd still be hesitant to recommend it. Unless you are rendering or encoding, you probably wouldn't notice a difference between a T2500 and a T2600.

2GB of RAM makes a difference in the latest games, Oblivion is no exception. I'd always take more RAM and a lesser processor over the opposite.

I agree. Oblvion is a poor console port from the xbox 360, which does not offer the experience that a PC does. Unfortunately, this is all reflected in Oblvion, as it is just as limited in terms of gameplay, graphics, and sound as the xbox is.
Definitely feels like an xbox game.

 

Yeah that review also only has the 7800 Go scoring 3800 in 3d05. That's terrible. Even an Acer 8204 pulls 4100 with the X1600 and we all know that the 7800 kills an X1600

 

Try setting your cpu setting on high, helped my grafics for FEAR a lot i get a 800X600 screen and around 35 frams a second and since my cpu's set to high i get amazing clarity and since i have a dual 2.0GHZ cpu one cpu runs at around 30-35 persent while the other runs at 50-65 persent

 

The CPU actually makes a big difference in Oblivion; the Core Duos fare especially well. Having a dual-core processor increases performance by about 20%.

 

The X1400 is junk, i made a previous thread about this same issue. It seems that a lot of people on this board that have never owned a X1400 claim it as a "capable" gaming card,when it is far from it. My HL2/CS:S is on medium-low settings with Omega Drivers, and that is probably the easiest "new" game out on GPU's. When it boils down to it, you are VERY limited to the games you can play, and even if you are able to run any newly released game, your FPS will be so low and the graphics will look so crappy that it will ruin the whole point of buying a new game with new technology and graphic engines. The X1400 is for someone who wants to play StarCraft, Diablo 2, etc.

 

The x1400 is an incredible bad graphics card.

the link u posted was using some high resolutions. im sure if it was using like 1280x720 or something it would be more than 14fps.

 

My 3D Mark06 was 1087 without any overclocking, but average 3D Mark06 points are between 900-1000.