watercooled dual xeons alienware...NEEDS A NEW GRAPHIX CARD

2006-05-27 18:04:18

#1

ilyandor: Member; +31|6981|Phoenix, AZ

what is the best graphix card for about $400-500? for BF2?

my specs:

DUAL Intel XEON 3Ghz
1 Gig DDR2 RAM
Swiftech WATER COOLING system
ATI FireGL V1300 128Mb

2006-05-27 18:09:04

#2

CookieMonster117: Member; +0|6927

If you can spare $100 more id get a 7900GTX

2006-05-27 18:12:06

#3

mjw: The All Rounder; +22|7051|Rotherham, England

7900GTX or 1900XTX depending whether you like Nvidia or ATI.
I myself have 1900XT and let me tell you its damn good, but to be honest BF2 likes nvidia more than ati, but most other games look better on ATI if you ask me.

Or you could wait for vista and DX10 graphics cards at end of this year/ beginning of next year.

Last edited by mjw (2006-05-27 18:12:58)

2006-05-27 21:04:56

#4

.ACB|_Cutthroat1: No place like 127.0.0.1; +76|6988|Gold Coast,QLD,Australia

Up your ram to 2gb first , ok? ok

2006-05-27 21:12:10

#5

Jack Bauer: WWJD - What Would Jack Do; +26|6846

.ACB|_Cutthroat1 wrote:
Up your ram to 2gb first , ok? ok

Just what I was thinking.

2006-05-27 21:21:18

#6

XxUNDEROATHxX: =(1C4L)=underOATH; +52|6948|Chandler, AZ

Up your RAM, and get a 7900GTX....and then life will be good....

2006-05-27 21:54:18

#7

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7008

sadly, you'll have to send it to alienware to "upgrade" or it will void the warranty

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2006-05-27 23:34:04

#8

ilyandor: Member; +31|6981|Phoenix, AZ

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
sadly, you'll have to send it to alienware to "upgrade" or it will void the warranty

lol

OMFG i voided that warranty like 6months ago when i found out their customer "care" was worse than EA's...

"...send it to alienware..." LOL like to india? fuckin pakistan?

2006-05-28 00:51:52

#9

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7008

ilyandor wrote:
cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
sadly, you'll have to send it to alienware to "upgrade" or it will void the warranty
lol

OMFG i voided that warranty like 6months ago when i found out their customer "care" was worse than EA's...

"...send it to alienware..." LOL like to india? fuckin pakistan?

OMG NOZ!!!

lol anyways, get a good 7900gt at least. get at least and extra gigabyte of ram.

2006-05-28 10:23:43

#10

ilyandor: Member; +31|6981|Phoenix, AZ

thanks guys...lol some dudes like:

Yesterday 22:11:14 -1 watercooled dual xeons alienware...NEEDS A NEW GRAPHIX CARD yes please.. capitalize DUAL, XEON, and WATERCOOLING to make people feel inferior.....

i dont know...you guys see this?

Problems with the 7900GTX series:

At first they worked flawlessly, however after a couple of days they started exhibiting artifacts ingame. However it deserves to be said the 7900GTX's drivers themselves were flawless and the games played very smoothly.

See http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~mccasey … forebuyer/ for the corrupted ingame images for the first 7900 and see http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~mccasey/2nd7900/ for the second cards images.

Issues with the X1900XTX series.

Annoying driver issues, a lot of X1900XTX owners have reported of issues with the 6.3 and 6.4 Catalyst drivers on the net. On mine the 6.3 drivers if using DVI the display would have a seriously annoying little flicker, it wasn't noticable that much ingame but on sites like bf2s it was very noticable on its colours.
With the 6.4 drivers I got the same issues as well as on driver initialisation I would get a corrupted display on the monitor for a few seconds. (see http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~mccasey/_RW_0130.jpg)

I'm currently using the 6.5 beta catalyst drivers which give a bit of a performance hit over the 6.4 catalysts, however they work flawlessly without any of the issues mentioned above.

Here's the order in which I went, first to the current card I have (all PCI-E);

BFG 512MB GeForce 7900GTX OC -> Sapphire 512MB Radeon X1900XTX -> Powercolor 512MB Radeon X1900XTX -> Gainward Bliss 512MB GeForce 7900GTX -> Sapphire Radeon 512MB X1900XTX.

The reasoning behind going between the X1900XTX's was that maybe I just got a bad card. However the flickering issue is the same on all X1900XTX's on my machine. When I got another Saphhire card I tried the 6.5 beta's and noticed the issues were fixed so I decided to keep it.

Last edited by ilyandor (2006-05-28 10:24:18)

2006-05-28 13:22:39

#11

max: Vela Incident; +1,652|6859|NYC / Hamburg

ilyandor wrote:
what is the best graphix card for about $400-500? for BF2?

my specs:

DUAL Intel XEON 3Ghz
1 Gig DDR2 RAM
Swiftech WATER COOLING system
ATI FireGL V1300 128Mb

why??? i thought that you could run everything on high with decent framerates??? You said you didnt need 2 gigs of ram, and that you dual precious xenons would beat every gaming pc there is, even with you crappy firegl 1300. Why do you want to upgrade? dont your processors do the grafics for you?

geez, you shoulnt make contradictory statements in the same forum.

EDIT: here take a look at his second post in this forum http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=26409

Last edited by max (2006-05-28 13:35:41)

_{once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.}

2006-05-29 02:45:56

#12

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7008

i would go for xtx, if its driver bugs then its easy to fix... if its the card then its gonna take some time... i heard the back of the 7900 series cards gets REALLY hot.

to max: he made find that the new patch made the game laggy has hell, so a new gfx card would do him good

2006-05-29 03:51:50

#13

max: Vela Incident; +1,652|6859|NYC / Hamburg

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
to max: he made find that the new patch made the game laggy has hell, so a new gfx card would do him good

no... thank you inspector

the patch has not made the game slower for me, maybe even faster. I fven if it does make it slow, why doesnt he just lower the quality form ultra super high to medium levels? then he should be good again and not waste his money on a card that will be obsolete in 6 months (dx 10 cards should be out soon)

but seriously: if you want a 1900xtx i would take a 1900xt. they are easyly oced to xtx levels and cost a great deal less. But as far as i know BF2 is happyer on a nvidia chip, so you might want too consider a 7900gtx as well.

Last edited by max (2006-05-29 03:54:31)

_{once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.}

2006-05-29 03:58:35

#14

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7008

max wrote:
cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
to max: he made find that the new patch made the game laggy has hell, so a new gfx card would do him good
no... thank you inspector

the patch has not made the game slower for me, maybe even faster. I fven if it does make it slow, why doesnt he just lower the quality form ultra super high to medium levels? then he should be good again and not waste his money on a card that will be obsolete in 6 months (dx 10 cards should be out soon)

but seriously: if you want a 1900xtx i would take a 1900xt. they are easyly oced to xtx levels and cost a great deal less. But as far as i know BF2 is happyer on a nvidia chip, so you might want too consider a 7900gtx as well.

nvidia 7900 series are not good... ive got a 7900gt myself and it freezes when overclocked, even some 7900gtx's arnt overclocked and freezes. i suggest you get the 1900xt w/ a 3rd party cooler such as artic cooling or zalman

2006-05-29 04:11:36

#15

max: Vela Incident; +1,652|6859|NYC / Hamburg

jup agree. the 1900xt is really nice for bf2. i have one and like it. Also i havent found a need to buy an aftermarket hsf yet. When time progresses and i want to oc. maybe. But currently what difference does it make to run at 100 or 120 fps

_{once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.}

2006-05-29 19:12:46

#16

Janus67: Tech God; +86|6887|Ohio, USA

why did you get a server for gaming?

2006-05-29 19:20:00

#17

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7008

Janus67 wrote:
why did you get a server for gaming?

coz its uber fast according to him.

2006-05-29 20:05:53

#18

Janus67: Tech God; +86|6887|Ohio, USA

not when you get a FireGL card and 1GB of ram...

2006-05-29 20:16:19

#19

Maj.Do: Member; +85|7044|good old CA

why would u use a high end GPU on a server?

2006-05-30 01:06:17

#20

max: Vela Incident; +1,652|6859|NYC / Hamburg

Janus67 wrote:
not when you get a FireGL card and 1GB of ram...

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!

_{once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.}

2006-05-30 10:27:58

#21

AveryHawk: Member; +6|6986|Sacramento,CA

Janus67 wrote:
why did you get a server for gaming?

It wasn't configured to be a server, it is a "workstation" . Alienware makes some kick-ass
workstation rigs...... main differences in a nutshell...

Workstation Server
Dual Xeon/opteron Dual Xeon/opteron
1-4 GB of EEC memory 4+ GB of EEC memory
Runs Win XP pro or XP 64 Pro Runs Server 2003 or Linux,
Typically under 1TB of HD typically over 1TB of HD
Uses SATA Hard Drives Uses SCSI Hard drives
Can Have SLI Uses on-board graphics
Built for Stability for Graphics, CAD, Gaming Built to Serve Data and have multiple users connected

Please keep in mind these are not absolutes just "typical" differences.

2006-05-31 09:49:06

#22

slo5oh: Member; +28|6953

AveryHawk wrote:
Janus67 wrote:
why did you get a server for gaming?
It wasn't configured to be a server, it is a "workstation" . Alienware makes some kick-ass
workstation rigs...... main differences in a nutshell...

Workstation Server
Dual Xeon/opteron Dual Xeon/opteron
1-4 GB of EEC memory 4+ GB of EEC memory
Runs Win XP pro or XP 64 Pro Runs Server 2003 or Linux,
Typically under 1TB of HD typically over 1TB of HD
Uses SATA Hard Drives Uses SCSI Hard drives
Can Have SLI Uses on-board graphics
Built for Stability for Graphics, CAD, Gaming Built to Serve Data and have multiple users connected

Please keep in mind these are not absolutes just "typical" differences.

I totally agree that a "server" based system will have advantages over a "desktop" system. If you doubt this look at all the new "super gamer cases". They are all designed like a VERY good server case. The OP should have gone the AMD route instead of the intel route. I know the Xeon chips kick ass, but I doubt on a head to head it will compare with an operton. OPs system may be a dual Xeon, but most (all?) games only use 1 CPU. Sure you can argue that "background" apps will use the 2nd CPU leaving the entire 1st for your game, but background apps really do take VERY little CPU use. I know at idle my system sits between 99 and 100% CPU available all the time.
In short everyone will build what they want.
OP if you're having issues with the 7900 series just get youself a 7800gt. I'm pulling around 100fps with most settings on high at 1280x1024.

2006-05-31 10:14:32

#23

AveryHawk: Member; +6|6986|Sacramento,CA

slo5oh wrote:
AveryHawk wrote:
Janus67 wrote:
why did you get a server for gaming?
It wasn't configured to be a server, it is a "workstation" . Alienware makes some kick-ass
workstation rigs...... main differences in a nutshell...

Workstation Server
Dual Xeon/opteron Dual Xeon/opteron
1-4 GB of EEC memory 4+ GB of EEC memory
Runs Win XP pro or XP 64 Pro Runs Server 2003 or Linux,
Typically under 1TB of HD typically over 1TB of HD
Uses SATA Hard Drives Uses SCSI Hard drives
Can Have SLI Uses on-board graphics
Built for Stability for Graphics, CAD, Gaming Built to Serve Data and have multiple users connected

Please keep in mind these are not absolutes just "typical" differences.
I totally agree that a "server" based system will have advantages over a "desktop" system. If you doubt this look at all the new "super gamer cases". They are all designed like a VERY good server case. The OP should have gone the AMD route instead of the Intel route. I know the Xeon chips kick ass, but I doubt on a head to head it will compare with an operton. OPs system may be a dual Xeon, but most (all?) games only use 1 CPU. Sure you can argue that "background" apps will use the 2nd CPU leaving the entire 1st for your game, but background apps really do take VERY little CPU use. I know at idle my system sits between 99 and 100% CPU available all the time.
In short everyone will build what they want.
OP if you're having issues with the 7900 series just get youself a 7800gt. I'm pulling around 100fps with most settings on high at 1280x1024.

Good points! Like you stated processor choice is just that "Choice". We all make choices based on (hopefully) research, opinions of our friends/peers, and our own experiences. I for one have close friends that work for Intel and AMD in engineering capacities, most conversations I have with them require an NDA...(LOL). All the fan-boy comments tend to show the poster's ignorance rather than the qualities of the item in question. I am by no means a fan of either company as I have systems with both AMD and Intel. (more Intel at the moment).
slo5oh I do believe the Quake engine makes use of multi-processor setups and there are a couple of others that escape me at the moment. Where Intel has the advantage in the market is that on the 1st day of a new processor launch there is a solid stable motherboard to go with it, It is an Intel board, but it is stable. With AMD launch day there are a couple of boards available but they most always require a patch because AMD doesn't "FAB" their own boards. Does this make AMD worse than Intel? NO. does it make Intel better than AMD? No. Just different. All Processors should be a personal choice based on your needs not on what is trendy.

To all the people that were commenting about "gaming on a server". Our own Chuy was gaming on "Gibson" prior to putting it into service and I seem to recall all the Ohhhhss and Ahhhhs over how Kick ass it was or was going to be.... and the reason everybody was in "suck ass" mode? Thats right "Gibson" is an AMD box so the fan-boys could be appeased. Had it been a Xeon rig it might have gotten a welcome but a little chillier...
well enough of my soap box.....

BTW... ( New rig= dual Xeon 5080(Dual core HT 3.73ghz) 8gb of FB-DIMM memory and a 7900GTX)
Reason for choice.... A great deal

Last edited by AveryHawk (2006-05-31 15:32:32)

2006-05-31 20:57:05

#24

ilyandor: Member; +31|6981|Phoenix, AZ

thanks for all the CLEVER, NICE and INFORMED people here, i learned a lot. by the way, i will post the benchmark tests soon, so all y'all dual xeon haters can shut up...and L E A R N

2006-05-31 21:44:42

#25

Janus67: Tech God; +86|6887|Ohio, USA

I will wait and see how it compares to an FX60 or just a dual-core opteron 170 that is oced.

BF2S Forums watercooled dual xeons alienware...NEEDS A NEW GRAPHIX CARD

.ACB|_Cutthroat1 wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

ilyandor wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

ilyandor wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

max wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Janus67 wrote:

Janus67 wrote:

Janus67 wrote:

AveryHawk wrote:

Janus67 wrote:

slo5oh wrote:

AveryHawk wrote:

Janus67 wrote:

Board footer