Official X1400 Screen Shot Thread!!!

Added:

ET: Quake Wars (A little more intensive that i expected, but still playable. You can tone down the res, and up the graphics to medium, but i like the High Res.)

Quake 4: Runs really good, max Res, Medium graphics, and multiplayer graphics dont effect your preformance badly.

 

So whats your quake: ET performance like & screenshots.

edit: oK i saw them. It seemed to bounce a lot though, maybe its my drivers i dunno but here was my fraps 1280x800 all lowest.

2007-08-03 14:32:02 - etqw
Frames: 1677 - Time: 83861ms - Avg: 19.997 - Min: 4 - Max: 40

 

they are on the first page. But the game was very playable to me. Even when in firefights, the FPS did not drop too much. But one thing about this game, is upclose the game looks terrible, but in the distance, the game looks pretty good IMO.

 

Hummmm.... Didnt you say that you were using Cat. 7.2?? Because i used 7.5, maybe that is the difference. But again, because of it being a BETA, the BETA will be harder to run... From past experience... Anyways, i bet when the game comes out, it will be easier.

 

I will be posting some STALKER screenshots tomorrow morning.

 

Added:

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

 

I just tried out STALKER. The object or full dynamic lighting is what brings X1400 to its knees even at minimal settings.

The game is playable with static lighting at medium settings but with anisotropic filtering off.

It's a shame though. Full dynamic lighting looked amazing, but the game was running at 5fps.

 

Yeah, i could not get over 6 FPS even when i was overclocked to the FULLEST!!! it did look nice though.

Oh and i got Supreme Commander, and i will upload some screenshots soon.

 

Anyone try company of heroes?

 

Also IIIm3, let us know how the Bioshock demo plays. I just started downloading it, but it's coming in quite slow.

 

Time for Bioshock!

Info
x1400 - 513/445 - Catalyst 7.2

Settings
1024x768 - Low Settings

Fraps
2007-08-21 16:45:41 - Bioshock
Frames: 6025 - Time: 366920ms - Avg: 16.520 - Min: 9 - Max: 28

UPDATE: Lowering the resolution to 800x600, turning textures to low, and updating my drivers to catalyst 7.8 for that test yielded constant 27FPS average and no dips below 15. (reverted back to catalyst 7.2 after because I need it for CS:S/C&C3)

Comments
Absolutely amazing game. Very playable at 15+ FPS, >15 seems to be too choppy to accurately shoot your gun in intense battle... but otherwise fine. Probably want to set the game to 800x600 which would increase stability more. You also have the option to lower the settings more but I did not. I could not stop taking screenshots throughout the demo because it looks so good

Screenshots

 

Impressive shots ! Such a beautiful game !

 

Those are absolutely dreadful shots! As in, some of them are about 10fps

I have to run it on my Go7400 at 640x480 to acheive solid fluid 25-50fps range, I'd say you have to do the same.....I did find it playable dipping to 21/22fps but going down as far as 15 and 10fps with an average of 16 cannot be an enjoyable experience....

 

Well I played through the whole demo without dying once at that framerate. The only time it really dipped to that 10-13fps level was right before the medical pavilion where sirens were flashing, the water was steaming, and I was trying to fight multiple splicers with a machine gun blaring, and had all my hacked bots flying around causing chaos in the background....that was the only point where I realized it was getting too choppy and I probably needed to lower the resolution or settings more which I pointed out in my comments. Also i'm not the only one to say this... if you take a look through the other bioshock threads others have mentioned they were surprised they could play an FPS so well at just above 15FPS. Again, I tell it like it is if I didn't notice it up until all hell broke out then other first-time players won't notice it either.

 

UGGHHHHHH Im glad i did not download that demo... That looks like it brought your computer to your knees... Ill let my desktop play that (Dual 8800 Ultra's!!!) At the moment im downloading MOH:Airbourne ill let you know. And ill run CoH in a couple of hours, im in my dorm right now, and im still moving in.... kind of...

 

Time for MoH: AA!

Info
x1400 - 513/445 - Catalyst 7.2

Settings
800x600 - Lowest Possible Settings

FPS
~26 average

Comments
Same engine as bioshock (Unreal Engine 3), and for some reason everything on this engine just feels so good even below 30 fps, just basing this on my experience with Bioshock and now the MoH: AA. Of course its hard to run and doesn't offer a great deal of flexibility but its good to know I can run it.

Pictures

""Probably want to set the game to 800x600 which would increase stability more. You also have the option to lower the settings more but I did not.""

 

Well... Link... What is with your computer.... I got more FPS that you do... maybe its just the situation that im in... but i was getting on average 2-4 FPS higher than you on Bioshock. Maybe its just my luck

 

nice pics of the MohA

 

Time for Lord of the Rings Online!

PART 1

Info
x1400 - 445/440 - Catalyst 7.2

Settings
1280x800 - Low - 2x AA

Fraps
2007-08-30 13:07:30 - lotroclient
Frames: 14224 - Time: 282848ms - Avg: 50.288 - Min: 20 - Max: 66

Taken 90% outside.

Pictures





PART 2

Info
x1400 - 513/440 - Catalyst 7.2

Settings
1280x800 - High - 2x AA

Fraps
2007-08-30 13:39:17 - lotroclient
Frames: 6176 - Time: 211564ms - Avg: 29.192 - Min: 14 - Max: 61

This one was taken 60% outside and 40% inside. That would explain the higher FPS compared with low settings which was only taken outside. Also GPU was overclocked for HIGH settings test.

Pictures

 

I was wondering how well supreme commander would do on the x1400? Anyone have any screens on that one?

 

ok here is Supreme Commander.

Info
x1400 - 513/445 - Catalyst 7.2

Settings
1024x768 - Low

Fraps
2007-08-30 17:38:10 - SupremeCommander
Frames: 11279 - Time: 436632ms - Avg: 25.831 - Min: 15 - Max: 31

Pictures

 

I have supreme commander, but i never have enough units to show that the game is REALLY intensive, so i have always held off on the screenshots. But im about to start this massive battle so ill post some more added to links. And Link, for the next couple do you think that you could put them on the first page and just edit your post with i believe it was Command and Conqueer? It makes it a little easier. And then just post on the last page what you added.

 

what about Far Cry guys i really want to see if this card is really equivelant of mine. in FEAR it seems so...

 

I would install far cry but when i do it tells me i have to live in the united states.... which i do...

 

Wow, that's pretty funny. ATi is awesome by the way.

 

Strangehold Demo

x1400 - catalyst 7.2 - 513/445

Not sure what in-game settings were as I had no choice in configuration.

2007-09-17 11:21:35 - Retail-Stranglehold
Frames: 3511 - Time: 239009ms - Avg: 14.689 - Min: 8 - Max: 30

 

how did u get that running?? I have the official dell drivers and windows vista but all I get is a black menu screen and an error when I click new game (screenshots below)

 

So what is the problem, the x1400 will 100% run it on high but the question is how well.
If you cant run the freeware ad could you try the demo it's almost same.

Btw its ubelieavable that x1400 is only clocked 100mhz higher than the extremely weak x1300 but it performs by a large amount better.

x1400 is better or equal to

8400m G
2400 HD
and of course the go 7400

Yes the newer generation card are not better at all than x1400!

x1400 mobility is trully a wonderfull card.

 

sorry guys abit off topic but what version of CCC are you all using for your x1400? i just updated to 7.9 and suddenly my laptop's monitor won't off when i close the lid.. any idea what to do? thanks alot

 

Pro Evolution Soccer 2008 Demo

x1400/catalyst 7.9

800x600 medium

58-61 gameplay







640x480 high

48-61 gameplay











playable with vsync off for high, just a few frame dropped on 'busier' area around the pitch

 

i think i got 7.8

no way, the x1400 cant be equal to a 8400, i dont get any higher than 20 frames on oblivion, the 8400 could almost max it im sure!

IIIM3 did you ever reply my pm? srry my inbox was full, icleaned it out

 

your dreaming 8400m G is a entry card and no it will not handle oblivion on max not even 8600 GS can do that

 

eriiously? wow, my friends pc maxes bliv on a 8600gs

 

I dont think you considered the resolutionof the laptops screen....

i can max out oblivion too in 640x400 but if i run it on 1280x800 or higher than it's like 2FPS

8600GS can probably max it out with 1280x800 without AA and AF and lightning around 40FPS


regarding 1600x1200 or higher it is unplayable with 8600GS on max but now we are not talking about 8600GS but 8400m G

there are three types of 8400

I assume this card is to replace go7300/7200.
8400m G = performance simmilar to x1400 probably worse in dx 9 games

Capable follower of go 7400
8400GS = performace above x1400, difference is very noticable on same settings probably 50% better

new card intend to give maximum graphics power on 13"3 inch laptops
8400GT= underclocked 8600GS performance in a level with x1600/go 7600 probably better in newer games

i hope this have cleared out what i have meant

 

oops i wasnt! my bad, i cant stand anything below 1280x800, my native res is 1440x900 on my 17"

 

I was reffering to that when you play games

high resolutions require = more ram, but more importantly more powerfull GPU(higher busbandwith, more streamprocessors/shaders)

 

I have this video card on my dell, I think it blows chunks.

 

well heres what i get from my X1400 (fulls specs in sig)...

Im using the Vista Catalyst 7.9 Drivers from Game AMD. Also i am using the ATI Modder Tool from DriverHeaven.

i get a mixture of fram rates playing Guild Wars but they are good.

All screenshots are tested at 1440x900 (native) res. All settings are maxed except shadows is turned off. AA is also off for the first 3; the last 3 AA is on at 4x.

First Screen i had about 40 fps (AA off). Link

Second (AA off): about 30 fps. Link

Third (AA off): 60 fps. Link

Fourth (AA 4x): 40 fps. Link

Fifth (AA 4x): 28 fps. Link

Sixth (AA 4x): 25 fps. Link

 

Have you guys tried HL2 Episode 2 yet?

I am not much of a gamer, but I really like the HL2 series. I will be elated if I can play Episode 2 reasonably well. My Thinkpad have done almost everything I asked it to do without a hitch. I sure hope she can handle this one.

My spec:
Thinkpad T60
15.4 widescreen
2.0 Ghz T7200
2 GB RAM
ATi x1400 stock driver
120GB HDD

 

Time for Unreal Tournament 3! (Beta Demo):

Info
Catalyst 7.2


Settings



FRAPS
(20 mins of fragging /w 8 BOTS)
2007-10-12 23:35:14 - UT3Demo
Frames: 6320 - Time: 408016ms - Avg: 15.489 - Min: 8 - Max: 23

(1024x768 - lowest settings)
2007-10-13 00:36:00 - UT3Demo
Frames: 13137 - Time: 325005ms - Avg: 40.420 - Min: 1 - Max: 63

Pictures

 

I'll post some HL2 Orange Box stuff screenshots tomorrow when I'm more awake. Team Fortress 2 is absolutely fun.

 

Link I think in fairness those shots are showing more of what the X1400 can't do instead of what it can....some shots sub 20fps idle, ouch. Though to be fair, regardless of the FPS being so low, it's alot more then I would have expected from an X1400. It would be interesting to see Go7400 comparison,in the very latest games the 64-bit bus is killing it far more evidently then it was in titles like fear, half life 2 etc.

 

(1024x768 - lowest settings [default, 50/0/0])
2007-10-13 00:36:00 - UT3Demo
Frames: 13137 - Time: 325005ms - Avg: 40.420 - Min: 1 - Max: 63

In all fairness though it could do 1024x768 , vivid post processing, 65/2/2 at about ~23FPS in online play (28 while running around, 19 while shooting etc) which is what I played at. Didn't look quite as good as the ~15FPS in the screenshots where I played vs bots but even that was quite playable. I actually should have took my online play setting screenshots as that was more accurate of playable settings/appearance, ill do that next time I had already taken the screenshots earlier though.

I swear anything over 14-15+FPS is playable for single-player on the Unreal Engine 3, and even just over ~20FPS is just fine for multiplayer also. Its a lot better than the half-life or quake engines where you need ~30+FPS to be competitive. Its not like im posting screenshots of what the x1400 can't do, all my previous screenshots before page 7 were of settings over ~30+FPS, I just feel with the unreal engine 3 anything over ~15 is just fine.

 

Can anyone post images from the full Bioshock, please? (and the framerates?)
Please also post a GPU-Z screenshot from the card.

I could only try the demo. (1280×800 max. graphics: ~6 fps :-(, 800×600: max. graphics ~12 fps)
Thanks.

 

Sry I don't have the full bioshock but I did the bioshock demo on page 6. I think I will transfer everything to page 1 to make it easier.

 

so you think the x1400 could handle bioshock at 1440x900 medium settings?

 

Post a GPU-Z screen. I don't think it will handle but it depends on the clock and memory type.

 

No. The only resolution settings that render Bioshock at 25-35fps (I won't say playable, because everyones different, but I'll instead give figures) on an X1400 would be 800x600 low, maybe the odd medium.

I can only play it 1024x768 medium-high with my ddr2 8600GT, which is vastly more powerful then the X1400. On my old Go7400 I could only get 20-40fps running at 800x600 lowest options. The 7400 is a bit weaker then the X1400, but not by a huge margin, maybe +-8FPS (roughly) depending on game, its most apparent in newer games.

 

damn, well i should be getting a 7500 gtx soon so i could handle it then right? specs in sig

 

Time for Hellgate: London!

Info
x1400 - 513/445 - Catalyst 7.2

Settings


FRAPS
2007-10-19 13:30:27 - HellgateDemo_sp_dx9_x86
Frames: 6530 - Time: 327028ms - Avg: 20.137 - Min: 11 - Max: 63

Notes
The difference between lowest settings and max settings was only about ~5FPS.

Pictures