X1400 - The Gaming Card?

Hmm, I see a lot of people saying "you should have more to play any games" but when you consider that there's about a three year lag behind what hardware games require, let's take a look at some things.

Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Minimum Requirements
Windows 2000
512MB System RAM
2 Ghz Intel Pentium 4 or equivalent processor
8x DVD-ROM drive
4.6 GB free hard disk space
128mb Video Card with DirectX 9.0c compatibility
DirectX 9.0c (included)
DirectX 8.1 compatible sound card
Keyboard, Mouse

Half-Life 2

Minimum Requirements
1.2 GHz Processor
256MB RAM
DirectX 7 capable graphics card
Windows 2000/XP/ME/98
Mouse
Keyboard
Internet Connection

And even

Quake 4

Minimum Requirements
Windows 2000
Pentium 4 2.0ghz (or equivilent)
512MB RAM
8x CD-Rom drive
2.8GB harddrive space
100% DirectX 9.0c compatible 64MB Video Card

Now, clearly the X1400 has more guts then an X300 (which is supported by Quake 4). Could you expect cutting-edge performance from the X1400, probably not. But it's supposed to be in between the 6600 and the 6600gt

I just wanted to mention this because it seems like everyone believes you must have the X1900 to play games these days. I play a lot of Counter-Strike: Source, Battlefield-2 and World of Warcraft (albeit, not as graphic intensive) and really, the bottom line is that this card will do quite well for current games. Even considering Oblivion and Quake 4.

 

yes isnt a bad card, but it is not a high end card, and it isnt a low end card..it fits nicely in the middle...i game with an x700 playing BF2, with decent settings..getting around 30 fps.

Oblivion is by far the most graphics intensive game out right now, and even if they have minimum requirements at a 128mb video card, my 7800gtx SLI'd desktop cant run it maxed out.

pb,out.

 

x1400 is weaker than a 6600.

 

i agree with Meaker
the x1400 is weaker than any 6600

 

I played Oblivion on my X700 fine at 800x600, Medium settings. The X1400 will be able to do it at that, probably.

Chaz

 

x1400 from what i heard is actually worse in games than the x700. but it should be better for graphic rendering or so i heard.

 

The X1400 supports more graphics features than the X700, but isn't nearly as fast. The update to the X700 is the X1600. However, if you don't mind lower resolutions and reduced graphics quality, the X1400 will run every game out there.

 

I got an e1505 with x1400 and 1680x1050 display earlier this week, and since its going back for a screen issue... have been spending my waiting time installing game demos and stuff and seeing how the x1400 performs real world.

I can say that for 3d rendering work ala poser, etc... its incredibly fast with exceptional previews.... Ive built scenes that would stop my ole 600m ati 9000 machine cold... but this setup never breaks a sweat. Very pleased with its performance here.

On the game front, ive tried Doom 3, Battlefield II, and Fear... all played well, and in general played better at higher settings than at the auto recognized settings... for example battlefield II defaulted to 800x600, but it looked and played much better at 1280x800 with AA and dynamic shadows enabled.

Oblivion is the one game Id love to see how the x1400 performs with, but so far ive been unable to find a demo. From what I have played on it so far ive been quite pleased with the results... alot more than I thought I would.

 

Yes, that's correct. The X1600 is the replacement for the X700, and the X1400 for the X600. The X1400 is signifigantly slower than the X700 in games, although it won't have any problem with newer games at medium settings or so. Overall, the X1400 is a nice step up from the previous-gen X600.

Chaz