Nvidia 8600GT ffxi problems

[alt]

Its hardly feasible to judge a companies performance based on a game that is years old built originally for the PS2, and ported over to the PC for DirectX8... Not to mention on an operating system that is utter crap atm. I'm hardly an Intel fanboy, i've owned multiple processors and graphics cards from both Intel and AMD, and NVIDIA/ATI. However no matter which was you cut it, Intel is outperforming AMD at the moment. That will remain to be seen however, if AMD ever releases their new line of processors. I believe the codename is Barcelona?

Anyhow, i'm running a 8800GTS 640MB, C2D E6750, and FFXI runs amazing. Zero lag in Whitegate (waiting to try out dynamis). However i'm using Windows XP Pro. Like others have said, I think all these issues stem from the combination of 8 series nvidia cards, vista, and ffxi.

I would recommend ditching Vista. Have no idea why people buy it. It has a pretty interface, but it still has way to many bugs in it.

[Casey_]

I have an 8600GTS with XP and it works flawlessly in ffxi except for a peculiar flickering problem on Wyvern's wings {hurricane wyverns}.

8600GTS more or less is the same as an 8600GT, but with more pixel pipelines and a better clock rate

I have an asus nforce4 chipset board with an amd 64 processor for reference

I have these http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp_163.69.html drivers installed.

this is the link for 32 bit vista drivers of the same type

http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x86_163.69.html

64 bit http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x64_163.69.html

That's about all i can offer. really.

edit: added mobo+cpu

[Don Katsu]

Everyone that has told me they are using an Intel processor and the game runs fine is on XP. So far the only people that I have heard of this game running flawlessly on Vista are using an Athlon Processor or an ATI card. It's strange but I'm thinking that it just might be the combination I'm running of Intel, Nvidia, Vista... I dunno. But AMD, nVidia and Vista I went into dynamis at 2048x2048 settings and didn't lag at all.

I should have kept that AMD system...

Doh <.<

[Vyvian]

Yeah, a lot of people seem to think Intel processors are faster right now, but every time I have to put it to the test the equivilantly priced AMD machine has always been faster for me. Vista drivers by themselves won't cause the lag, it would be a combination of vista and a machine that can't handle vista that will kill your performance, if anything does.

[Skyylya]

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1 ... 685,00.asp

This is just one of the reviews of the last couple months, but every different company reviews the same. The reason people say that the intel's blow the AMD's out of the water is because they do.

In most cases the lower end e6600 perform as good as the highest end AMD fx-62.

AMD's are a tad cheaper, but there really is no contest when it comes to performance 99% of the time.

[Grandcross]

Get the Q6600!

[Vyvian]

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014685,00.asp

This is just one of the reviews of the last couple months, but every different company reviews the same. The reason people say that the intel's blow the AMD's out of the water is because they do.

In most cases the lower end e6600 perform as good as the highest end AMD fx-62.

AMD's are a tad cheaper, but there really is no contest when it comes to performance 99% of the time.

The FX-62 isn't the fastest AMD chip, but I am familiar with what you are referring to. I've found however that despite benchmark results, that a 6000+ performs much faster than an intel chip of the same price, if you want to compare regardless of price then yes Intel has the fastest chip. When the fastest AMD chip is down to $245, and the fastest Intel is $1060 I wouldn't call that a "tad" cheaper, however.

[Grandcross]

Thats an old benchmark, try this one here.

[Skyylya]

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014685,00.asp

This is just one of the reviews of the last couple months, but every different company reviews the same. The reason people say that the intel's blow the AMD's out of the water is because they do.

In most cases the lower end e6600 perform as good as the highest end AMD fx-62.

AMD's are a tad cheaper, but there really is no contest when it comes to performance 99% of the time.

The FX-62 isn't the fastest AMD chip, but I am familiar with what you are referring to. I've found however that despite benchmark results, that a 6000+ performs much faster than an intel chip of the same price, if you want to compare regardless of price then yes Intel has the fastest chip. When the fastest AMD chip is down to $245, and the fastest Intel is $1060 I wouldn't call that a "tad" cheaper, however.

Well, there is a significant difference between the intel quad core extreme's that are still around 1000 and the AMD fx-62's which are like 400-500 (?). As far as i know AMD still has no quad core and the technology of their chips is still less than intel's on the dual core. Yes if you're looking at chips of equal cost the performance gap lesson's but still with intel on the upside, but if you are looking at equal tier then intel wins every time still, albeit at a tad more expense.

Still though, an e6600 or q6600 can perform at or higher than the top tier AMD's especially if you know how to put a 15-20% overclock on it.

[Vyvian]

FX-62 is only $155.99 on newegg, but this is an older processor; also this processor starts slow and only really shows its worth when you tweak with overclocking it. (I've read several reports of overclocking from 2.8 to 4.0 GHz).

Benchmark scores aren't very reliable when earlier posts in this same thread indicate a worse performance when the only difference was when their processor was Intel instead of AMD.

I just base my opinions based on all the machines I have to build/order/set up for people. Typically the AMD machines are faster than Intel machines out of box, even with lower quality chips. Probably our difference of experience has to do with whether or not we overclock the chips, which I don't do.

But in the end, I'd hope a processor that costs 5x its competitor is vastly faster. (QX6850 is $1150, and a 6400+ is $245)

[Don Katsu]

But in the end, I'd hope a processor that costs 5x its competitor is vastly faster. (QX6850 is $1150, and a 6400+ is $245)

In terms of performance
5000+ ~= E6420

Price
5000+ $79.99
E6420 $189.99

Intel Motherboards are not cheap either.. I don't know. Is there even anything out there that requires more power than a Q6600/E6700?

[Don Katsu]

could be that intel sucks for gaming as i've said in the past?

that and ALL things with anything foxconn on it need to be shot and killed. HP products suck, burn them with fire

Oh and my system is not an HP just have a shitty motherboard lol

[Skyylya]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819103861
400+ dollars, is the one that I was looking at, you were looking at the even lesser quality x2.

In a lot of cases the processor speed isn't even the biggest difference. I'd say one of the most notable differences is the available L2 cache of the intel's that isn't available in the AMD's. information that you use almost constantly is accessed much faster on intel chips than on amd chips simply because it can store more without having to re-acquire or re-compute those processes.

I can pick an e6320 that costs just as much as that amd 64 that you posted and it would run better, even though it's got half the cache of the slightly more expensive and much higher quality e6600 that has the 4mb L2 cache.

There are a lot of factors that go into the benchmarkings but one of the important things is that when you or most people try one over the other they are probably changing a lot more than just the CPU. When companies like this review and do benchmarks everything is the same except for usually the mobo which they get as similar as possible and of course the CPU, everthing else, ram, gpu, hdd etc.. is the same which gives them mroe credibility as far as i'm concerned. benchmarks aren't the end-all be all but they are unbiased and show which chips have the better performance when stacked equally against each other.

AMD's are cheaper, nobody I think denies that, but you get what you pay for I guess. I prefer the stability/quality of the intel's vs. the ghz of the AMD

[Skyylya]

But in the end, I'd hope a processor that costs 5x its competitor is vastly faster. (QX6850 is $1150, and a 6400+ is $245)

In terms of performance
5000+ ~= E6420

Price
5000+ $79.99
E6420 $189.99

Intel Motherboards are not cheap either.. I don't know. Is there even anything out there that requires more power than a Q6600/E6700?

best CPU to get for your money is the e6600 conroe chip. There's no point in getting a quad core or anything higher than the e6600. Sure you can overclock the lower "E's" but i think the e6600 is the lowest that features the 4mb L2 cache over the 2mb of the lower series and higher than the usual 1mb on amd's. and one of the better mobo's to get is the asus line with the intel p35 chipset. One of the most stable combinations and you can get both for around 300 give or take and never feel bad about it.