how does the x1400 stack up against 9800 pro?

i'm just wondering how the x1400 stacks up against a desktop version of 9800 pro

how much worse is it?

can some one also tell me how much better the x1400 is over a desktop radeon 9000 pro?

also, in YOUR OPINION, what new games can the x1400 play if you care NOTHING [as in no aa, no ff (hahah i doubt x1400 can do aa and af anyway) in low res like 800x600 or 1280x800, low texture, no shadow, etc...] about graphics quality?

i like to play games for their plot and their innovation so not really too centered on graphics presentation that 99% computer nuts that go and get dual 7950x2

 

I'm not really sure... But I'd imagine the x1400 is MUCH better. The 9800 is like, 4 years old now and extremely aged. So I'd say that the x1400 is probably 2-3 times faster. But thats a guess. If the x1400 is actually much faster than my x800 xt, then i'd say more like 5x faster than the 9800.
The thing about better graphics is... it helps draw you into the story more... But doesn't make up for a lack of story.

 

there is no chance in hell that a poor little x1400 will be better then your x800xt

my bro has an 9800 and i've seen what it can do so i'd be pretty happy to have a x1400 thats comparable to the performance of an 9800

 

i don't think so, the 9800 is an 8 pipeline card, the x1400 is a 4.

 

I think the x1400 could play anything at low res, no AA AF, low settings. even oblivion and FEAR at great fps's. the x1400 is a midrange card, and i think you are underestameting it, it could play fear at med settings fine. on somthing like HL2 you could probably turn on AA and alittle AF as long as your not at too high of a res.

 

The Radeon 9800 Pro may be old, but it was an incredible card for its time, since its predecessor, the 9700 Pro, was already a huge leap. The 9800 Pro was a remarkable refresh, and has aged exceptionally.

The X1400's performance is comparable to a desktop 9600XT. At least, if you go by 3DMark05. I know this sounds like an unreasonable comparison, but remember that the Mobility Radeon X600 wasn't actually a speed demon either. This does sound about right, as the 9600XT was a great card in its day, too.

The X1400 murders the desktop 9000, by the way, and will run anything on the market. Don't expect AA or AF for more modern games, but it'll definitely play any game you throw at it for at least a little while.

 

9800 mobility was slightly faster then the go6600 and x700 mobility, which are i believe about a third faster then the x1400 if memory serves me from when i was looking at an x7000 machine

edit: k i didnt see his post until i entered this, which makes my response seem pretty sad. hes right though, when looking at graphics cards, the important thing is that the second number is the more important one, as it denotes performance level, while the first tells its age

 

thanks for all your replies

so would you say the x1400 performs at around 70-80% of 9800?

do you think it would run new games like C&C3, huxley, cysis, at lowest setting (i know requirements not out, just want to know your opinions based on your experience) if i had a C2D 2.0 ghz and 2gb of 533 ram (wish i had the devil's ram)?

 

X1400 is closer to about 60%-70% of the 9800 Pro. When enabling AA or AF, the 9800 leaves it in the dust.

I honestly couldn't tell you about those games. Theoretically, I expect it'll play them, but you can't quote me. It's just too early to tell.

 

ok thanks

i think i can live with that

 

Whatever about C&C3 - its probably pretty scalable - I wouldn't be holding high hopes for playing Crysis on an X1400 range, the way I see it, playing that game on anything other then decent hardware will ruin the experience.

 

haha

you're probably right, i guess we're in the same boat eh?

anyone know how will x1400 will run for huxley? that's the one game i REALLY want to play

 

i have a 9800xxl in my desktop. It's a little bit faster than a 9800pro but a little bit slower than a 9800xt. My graphics card contains 128mb of ram.

I can play normal halflife 2 very good at the res of 1280*1024 with 6X AA, 8X AF and VS on. All settings on high and waterreflections at landscape only. I play hl2 with 30fps.

I play san andreas at 1280*1024 with 4X AA and shadow settings to off.
When i put shadow settings to high i have to lower the resolution to 1024*768.

Fear i playable with all settings to high, res to 800*600 and 2XAA.
When i put my res to 1024*768 and AA of then it is for most time playable with 30 fps but sometimes the fps drops to 22.

 

that's good to hear

i'm upgrading from an radeon 9000 (yea, its ****ty but my dad won't allow me to buy upgrades cause he's afraid i'll game and he doesn't want me to game in university)

i've played games on the radeon 9800 on my bros computer and it's nice to know i wouldn't have to play all games at lowest setting on the x1400 so i'm pretty happy

but man, i wish i was allowed to build a desktop rig. with a budget of $1400 i bet i could build a system thats at least 3 times the gaming power of the x1400

thanks all

 

the x1400 wont touch or start crysis. Heck Ill be lucky If I can play crysis on my x1600. But most other modern games youll be fine.

 

i guess it cysis on the ps3

or is it xbox 360?

ah i'll get it when it comes out

 

im buying a laptop and want to know what is the better card the 256MB ATI MOBILITY™ RADEON® X1400 HyperMemory or the 256MB NVIDIA® GeForce™Go 7300 TurboCache thanks

 

There's currently no console version of Crysis planned.

The X1400 because its cheaper and faster.

P.S. In future it would be helpful if you could read the stickies and/or do a search first because this question is answered in them and it has also already been asked at least 20 on these forums.

 

Don't count these parts out just yet.

Remember that Far Cry'll run on anything faster than an Intel IGP. That means that at the time it came out, the market was saturated with GeForce 4 MXes, and they can all run it.

It'd be stupid of them not to make the game scale down well. Even Doom 3 plays on an All-in-Wonder Radeon 8500DV, which is much slower than a regular Radeon 8500.

 

Yeah but when Far Cry came out, Geforce 4MX cards were still decent for mid range. I used a Geforce 4MX to play Far Cry and it looked decent enough.

However, when Crysis arrives somehow I do not think an X1400 card will be considered anything other then very low end...

Crysis will not scale down well, and it shouldnt have to. Plenty of games don't scale down well - look at the likes of BF2 for example. Looks and runs like absolute crap even with minimum spec. Didn't stop it flying off the shelves. Crysis is a serious game for serious gamers. Most people won't want to bother trying to play it and ruin the experience by trying to run it on crappy cards. I know I certainly wouldn't and won't.

 

Well, a game that doesn't scale well is just bad coding. I mean, games like HL2 run on Intel GMA950's and still look great. If Crysis doesn't run on midrange, then they obviously don't care about optimising their code.

 

hl2 and crysis have use differences. With hl2 everything you see is static, the crytech engine uses many more psychics. Not only for people but trees too. When you shoot on trees you'll see them move naturally for example.

 

True, but thats the reason for the PC gaming (proposed) downfall. Games always require evermore exspnsive hardware to play. For instance oblivion, on xbox its beautiful right out of the box, but you need a serious pc to make it look like that. At least that is what the people at g4 keep saying.

Now from the system requirements I saw for crysis its going to be a tough game to play; and thats where I saw that I may not be able to play it. ALthough a well coded game like the Unreal tournament series can look amazing and still be playable on extra low end gpu's. I used to play ut2004 on a intel extreme graphics 2 with little to no lag. I also game at below 1gb of ram usage, while the less graphic appealing bf2 has me at 1.4gb+ with everything maxed and all the eyecandy. Now thats a well coded game.

I guess we will have to wait and see if the same can be said about crysis. But then again it is next gen gaming....

 

It makes no business sense either, the best selling PC games (such as WOW, Sims 2 and Half Life 2) run on integrated graphics.

 

Yeah thats a feat, I thought I was stretching the limits with the intel extreme graphics. You can have a beautiful and powerfull game with efficient coding. Allowing some to max settings for mind boggling eye candy and effects; while still allowing joe somebody to run on his gma950 or ati 200m IGP. That makes the game more marketable, especially since the gma950 can use up to 128mb of ram. But I ues next gen will be leaving everyone but the high end guys in the dust, with some mid range trying to hang on to low settings. The really sad thing is that the x1400 is a nice card.

If this is the fiuture I may be switching over to console gaming....cause I cant afford new hardware every year, much less explain the costs to my wife. XBOX 360 platinum edition here I come.

 

Man that is WAY to extreme.. Right Crysis is gonna be a huge leap forward in games when it comes out..but so was FEAR just a year ago and the X1400 can run FEAR very very well between med and max settings. Crysis is gonna be tough on a system but not "much" tougher than FEAR. I believe, like FEAR, the gpus will suffer only when the eye candy is turned up vhigh but it will look very well and run fine on the likes of a X1400 at just below med settings. And Crysis will be just as demanding on the System specs as it will on a GPU so if someone has a X1400 backed up with a good system they should be fine!

 

Crysis is not only leap above FEAR, but a much, much bigger one then FEAR was over the previous bench setters at the time. Crysis is huge, and in a sense, its the jump from Doom to Quake all over again in terms of advancement and tech.

Everything in Crysis is not only much more advanced then current games, but features so much more interactivity that it's easy for Crytek to say that Crysis features more tech in one model then an entire previous game.

It's possible we'll be proved wrong but I still think that running Crysis on an X1400 would be like trying to run Doom 3 on the GMA 900 - possible, but just so not worth it.

Have you ever played FEAR at low settings? I have, and it looks pathetic, in fact, you'd be forgiven for mistaking it for a title from 1998 running in software mode. Is this how anyone wants to actually experience Crysis? I don't think so...

 

I wonder if Crysis would run on an X1600 256mb.

 

I don't see why not. I mean, I'm sure it will run technically on an x1400, but at such a level that retards the experience.

The X1600 is vastly superior to the X1400 and as such, I'm sure you'll get away with running it at something that looks somewhat pleasing to the eye. With that though, you'd need a good dual core cpu and 1.5gigs of ram I'd imagine.

Minimum requirements have never really been an issue for me but Crysis, I'm looking forward to that list almost as much as I am to the game itself. Strange, but true...

 

i don't agree with you guys on consoles being better

i mean once GPUs get so powerful that they can render photorealistic games, then there'd be no use for console games

cause you can't get more real then real, once an insanely powerful GPU comes out, consoles will die, though i don' imagine that to happen soon.

EDIT: cysis to me puts too much emphasis on being realistic, i mean who's really going to care that the leaf will now be translucent while previously it wasn't?

i really liked HL2 because it had innovative (ex. had to use air drums to lift bridge) that made you think about how to use the environment to help you through the game and also the different modes of play (the air boat and car as well as fps) and it had a pretty good plot.

i think that people are just putting too much emphasis on must have all eye candy on to fully enjoy a game when there are so many other aspects of games that make them fun.

anyway, i'm looking forward to huxley more then cysis

 

Completely agree with you! A great card by value's standards, but brought to it's knees by poor coding!

And I'm getting a Wii for chrissie, so I might too ditch the PC gaming sector. It really is losing all it's advantages over console games.

 

I think you're being way too romantic about Crysis. The jump from Doom to Quake added an entire dimension. Somehow I don't think Crysis is going to be 4-D.

Crysis isn't going to be a huge evolutionary leap any more than Far Cry was. Most of the technology on display can be achieved on modern hardware, and most of it is a logical progression from existing games.

For example, the bushes moving when you walk through them is nothing new. Far Cry had nets hanging from the rafters that'd float forward when you walked through them, then slump back down.

Destructable terrain has been around for ages, too. A modern example is Serious Sam II, which had parts where you could mow down scenery with automatic weapons. An older example would be Red Faction.

Crysis is evolution, but it's not revolution. I watched the demo and I'm impressed, but this isn't anything that can't be scaled down, and it would be foolish of them not to make it scale down.

More than that, remember how HL2 was originally supposed to have HDR, but it didn't appear until Lost Coast? And remember how in the years leading up to Doom 3's release, we were all amazed by how the game looked and pretty sure our computers weren't going to handle it? The programmers, if they're talented like the ones at CryTek seem to be, can always heavily optimize, and have multiple render paths.

I worry more about being able to run Unreal Tournament 2K7 than Crysis, but all we've seen of that one thus far are bullshots.