How's EQII on Geforce 9800GX2 1GB?

[Larsbohnstedt]

<p>Hey all, considering getting new pc.</p><p>Has anyone out there seen how the game runs on NVIDIA's Geforce 9800GX2?</p><p>The machine I'm looking at with this card is a <b>Core2Quad QX9650 12MB 4x3,00GHz</b></p><ul><li><b>Gigabite P35 motherboard</b></li><li><b>Corsair 8 GB XMS2 DDRII PC6400 RAM DualChannel</b></li><li><b>Scythe KAMA cross silent cooler</b></li><li><b>1.5 TB harddrive </b></li><li><b>Corsair 550w power </b></li><li><b>2 x extra 120mm coolers</b></li></ul><p>It's a bit costly and I'm cheap so would appreciate any advice / input. Thanks.</p>

[quasigenx]

Sorry, no advice for you myself. I would just say that conventional wisdom regarding EQ2 at the moment is that an uber graphics card won't out perform an older one by much. Also, you're better off with the highest raw Ghz available on the CPU, even if it's fewer cores. Both of these are related to how the EQ2 engine works - high dependency on CPU versus GPU, and no substantial multi-threading on the rendering end.

[Cusashorn]

<p>This thread belongs more on the technical help forum if anything.</p><p>Your computer sounds quite impressive. It's better than mine in just about every way.</p><p>I use a GeForce 9800, myself. I don't know if it's a GX2 or what. I bought it about a year ago.</p><p>Anyways. If you're planning on playing with only 1 gigabite of ram, you'll have some problems with graphical lag issues. Not too much, but Qeynos Harbor would devastate your computer.</p><p>I would suggest at least moving to 1.5 gigs or just 2 gigs outright. I'm running at that, and I only get a little bit of graphical lag during raids when I pan the camera over to show all the other players.</p>

[Apocroph]

As was said before, you're better off going with core power than GPU power.  EQ2, thus far, does not make heavy (read: effective) use of GPU resources, so honestly, anything past a GeForce 7 isn't gonna give you a cost-effective improvement in performance.

[Larsbohnstedt]

<p>Thanks for the posts so far.</p><p>What bothers me with my current computer is not being able to use complex shader performance without fps dropping to 5 - 10 in most zones. Without complex shader, I get 15 - 25 in most zones and can do groups in high quality with few to no issues.</p><p>However, I sometimes see posts where people are talking about 40 - 60 fps and it does feel like I'm missing out.</p>

[quasigenx]

<cite>Larsbohnstedt wrote:</cite><blockquote>However, I sometimes see posts where people are talking about 40 - 60 fps and it does feel like I'm missing out.</p></blockquote> I have yet to see someone claim 60fps on high/extreme without turning off a bunch of the options that make high/extreme look so good. I think the best bang for the buck would be to get a 3Ghz processor that can overclock to 4Ghz easily. The new Core 2 Duos can do that, I hear, with stock cooling.

[Miladi]

<cite>quasigenx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Larsbohnstedt wrote:</cite><blockquote>However, I sometimes see posts where people are talking about 40 - 60 fps and it does feel like I'm missing out.</blockquote> I have yet to see someone claim 60fps on high/extreme without turning off a bunch of the options that make high/extreme look so good.<b>I think the best bang for the buck would be to get a 3Ghz processor that can overclock to 4Ghz easily. The new Core 2 Duos can do that, I hear, with stock cooling.</b></blockquote>You're probably thinking about the E8400 or something along those lines. Probably a much better chip than nearly anything out there and only about $200 at NewEgg. Definitely a better price option than the $1500 QX line.BTW, to the OP, your Gigabyte motherboard probably takes PC8500 DDR2 memory seeing as how its a P35 line, so why [Removed for Content] it with 8GB of PC6400 memory? That memory only runs at 800FSB whereas the PC8500 runs at 1066.

[Besual]

Just some notes:For the 8GB RAM you have to run the 64bit version of a XP / Vista or one of the server versions of windows. The 32bit version of XP / Vista can only use a bit more then 3GB RAM.EQ2 is a single threat program -> will only use one core. If you don't plan to run tons of other programs in the background (or multi-box on the same computer) a dual core CPU would be good enough.

[Albrig]

<p>PC 6400 memory works the best because of the lower latencies. DDR2 is also a very established, reliable, memory technology - it's gotten as far as it can go.</p><p>Intel's architecture also works the most efficiently (and the stability side) if you have a FSB no faster than 400*4. It's not the rating of it, it's how much you've got of it in your PC that counts the most and the OS that makes use of it.</p><p>The most important thing to realise is that memory like PC8500 (~1200) or DDR3 (1800) have really nasty timings. Only overclocking skills will negate that. If you don't have'em or the budget, don't get'em.</p><p>And besides, DDR2 memory at PC6400 is so cheap that 8Gb of it costs less than £100 and they're super-fast to begin with with no OCing required.</p>

[Kotomi]

At this point for EQ2, it's generally faster CPUs, more memory (up to about 4 GB) and faster harddrives that will give you a performance increase. Until they rewrite their shaders to use the graphics hardware available today you won't see much of an increase from a new graphics card.

[Albrig]

<cite>Kotomi wrote:</cite><blockquote>At this point for EQ2, it's generally faster CPUs, more memory (up to about 4 GB) and faster harddrives that will give you a performance increase. Until they rewrite their shaders to use the graphics hardware available today you won't see much of an increase from a new graphics card.</blockquote><p>A faster CPU - wrong wrong and wrong again. Every single CPU I have tried/seen at 3Ghz and higher is not going to make EQ2 a different experience than a 2.2-2.8Ghz one. Unless you've got shadows off and lighting and specular off, you don't like towny areas or Very High detail water. Which leaves you with a game that is nothing like the EQ2 it suggests all by itself. You know if SoE is demoing Kunark without shadows in the moving demonstrations OR GROUPS, wake up to reality! (come on, upgrade that 8-core HP ProLiant G series server!)</p><p>Fast HDD - wrong wrong and wrong again. Even in Raid configurations, if you want to see differences of 1sec more than insta-load and waiting 2-5 sec, be my guest (on my Raid 0 Seagate Barracuda, 32Mb cache, it takes 2 sec in ANY zone. Normal configurations and a cheap Hdd is about 5sec give or take. Once the Zone is loaded anyway, if the HDD is being used to update the zone terrain or geometry and not main memory, then this is once again a game engine problem.</p><p>Graphics card - they're not being used even a 1/5th their capability, for what they are capable of - if you want to see what a GPU like either ATI or nVidia's is capable of with a quad core CPU, go look at Unreal 3 at maximum detail in 1920x1200 and >60fps (with 12 players each side and no visible slow down). This tells you REALLY what your PC is capable of (Crysis is nothing in comparison to it in terms of multiplayer capabilities and certainly beyond LOTRO even in dx10 book 13 status if you ask me).</p><p>SORT THE EQ2 ENGINE OUT PLEASE!</p>

[Gaige]

<cite>Cusashorn wrote:</cite><blockquote>I use a GeForce 9800, myself. I don't know if it's a GX2 or what. I bought it about a year ago.</blockquote><p>The 9800 wasn't out a year ago.  His post also says he is going with 8GB of ram, the 1GB of ram is on the videocard itself.</p><p>To the OP:  I'd go with a 9800GTX instead of the 9800GX2 as EQ2 hardly benefits from SLi and even has issues with SLi a lot of the time and that is all the 9800GX2 is, also the 9800GTX actually has faster clocks than the 9800GX2.</p>

[Albrig]

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Cusashorn wrote:</cite><blockquote>I use a GeForce 9800, myself. I don't know if it's a GX2 or what. I bought it about a year ago.</blockquote><p>The 9800 wasn't out a year ago.  His post also says he is going with 8GB of ram, the 1GB of ram is on the videocard itself.</p><p>To the OP:  I'd go with a 9800GTX instead of the 9800GX2 as EQ2 hardly benefits from SLi and even has issues with SLi a lot of the time and that is all the 9800GX2 is, also the 9800GTX actually has faster clocks than the 9800GX2.</p></blockquote><p>Well if you can afford a 9800GX2, don't NOT get it because EQ2's game engine says no.</p><p>On Vista 64bit, 8Gb memory (pagefile disabled) and of course the 9800GX2, LOTRO in dx10 ultra high detail will give you 60-90fps. If you have a 3.3Ghz Quad Core Intel, some have reported 90-120fps (though I'd have to see proof that to be honest - 60fps is a constant 90% of the time for me, peaking to 90fps on the rare occasion). I don't think LOTRO makes use of more than 1-core I don't think could be wrong.</p><p>Well anyway, EQ2's game engine shouldn't be making the decisions around here.</p><p>Silly mistake to do really.</p><p>I have to give back the 9800GX2 tomorrow <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>