Here one for you, I went from a ATI Radeon X600 128mb card to a Nvidia
GeForce 8400 with 256mb card and now my desktop performance for Windows Aero
went from 3.7 to 3.5. Anyone ever see this. Its like I wasted my money on a
new card.
PaulM;459018 Wrote:
> Here one for you, I went from a ATI Radeon X600 128mb card to a Nvidia
> GeForce 8400 with 256mb card and now my desktop performance for Windows
> Aero
> went from 3.7 to 3.5. Anyone ever see this. Its like I wasted my money
> on a
> new card.
Don't take those scores too seriously, the formula that generates teh
values it, to say the least, a mystery. A simple upgrade to your
graphics driver may increase/decrease it. Even if it is a TurboCache
card it is faster than the X600, you did the right thing.
You can compare 2 systems with virtually the same hardware and the
baseline scores for each component can vary wildly.
The above link assumes you're in the USA. If not, click the International
Driver link on the same page.
It's also important to fully remove the old ATI drivers BEFORE changing
cards. ATI normally supply a utility to do this: it can be found under
Add/Remove Programs and if memory serves it's called 'ATI removal tool' (or
something like that).
If you're already changed the cards over without fully removing all ATI
software, you'll have to reverse the process:
Uninstall the nVidia drivers
Remove the nVidia card and put your old one back in
Run the ATI removal tool
Swap the cards back and install the latest ForceWare drivers.
I have an 8800GTS with 640MB and that has Graphics and Gaming Graphics
scores of 5.9, so I think yours should definitely be scoring more than 3.5
"PaulM" <Paul@paulsxp.com> wrote in message
news:OLa7SrH$HHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Here one for you, I went from a ATI Radeon X600 128mb card to a Nvidia
> GeForce 8400 with 256mb card and now my desktop performance for Windows
> Aero went from 3.7 to 3.5. Anyone ever see this. Its like I wasted my
> money on a new card.
>
>
"PaulM" <Paul@paulsxp.com> wrote in message
news:OLa7SrH$HHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Here one for you, I went from a ATI Radeon X600 128mb card to a Nvidia
> GeForce 8400 with 256mb card and now my desktop performance for Windows
> Aero went from 3.7 to 3.5. Anyone ever see this. Its like I wasted my
> money on a new card.
>
>
The 8400 isn't very fast.
It does play media well.
You need to be careful with video cards as they vary in speed depending on
who made them and what you use them for and the amount of on board memory is
not a guide to speed.
dennis;459052 Wrote:
> "PaulM" <Paul@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:OLa7SrH$HHA.5360@xxxxxx
>
> The 8400 isn't very fast.
> It does play media well.
> You need to be careful with video cards as they vary in speed depending
> on
> who made them and what you use them for and the amount of on board
> memory is
> not a guide to speed.
While these are all true statements, the 8400 is still quite a bit
faster than the X600 (especially many of the gutted OEM X600s Dell was
shipping in 2005-2006).
"bob_c_b" <bob_c_b.2x9yj1@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:bob_c_b.2x9yj1@no-mx.forums.net...
>
> dennis;459052 Wrote:
>> "PaulM" <Paul@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:OLa7SrH$HHA.5360@xxxxxx
>>
>> The 8400 isn't very fast.
>> It does play media well.
>> You need to be careful with video cards as they vary in speed depending
>> on
>> who made them and what you use them for and the amount of on board
>> memory is
>> not a guide to speed.
>
> While these are all true statements, the 8400 is still quite a bit
> faster than the X600 (especially many of the gutted OEM X600s Dell was
> shipping in 2005-2006).
>
I don't find my 8400 to be fast but its in a notebook so it may well be
slower than a PCIe card.
I have tried overclocking it and can get a vista score of 4 from it but it
gets hot and the fan runs more.
I admit that I have never had an X600 but I didn't notice the 8400 being
faster than the X300 card in my MCE machine.
Somewhere like tomshardware.com may do useful comparisons.
The X600 falls between the 9600xt and 9800SE in overall performance, it
is most definitley a media card and not a gamers solution. That said,
just having DX10 compliance is usually worth a point in WEI.
One thing would counter all of this, there are some really low end
8400s with 64bit memory bus and DDR1/slow DDR2. That kind of card would
take a beating in the WEI, but if it is a reference 8400 it should be at
least marginally better than the X600.
"bob_c_b" <bob_c_b.2xa0m1@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:bob_c_b.2xa0m1@no-mx.forums.net...
>
> The X600 falls between the 9600xt and 9800SE in overall performance, it
> is most definitley a media card and not a gamers solution. That said,
> just having DX10 compliance is usually worth a point in WEI.
>
> One thing would counter all of this, there are some really low end
> 8400s with 64bit memory bus and DDR1/slow DDR2. That kind of card would
> take a beating in the WEI, but if it is a reference 8400 it should be at
> least marginally better than the X600.
>
>
> --
> bob_c_b
Here is a weird one!
Under WEI, with a 128MB ATI Radeon Sapphire 9550 card, I get "Graphics-
desktop performance for Aero: 4.1
"PaulM" wrote:
> Here one for you, I went from a ATI Radeon X600 128mb card to a Nvidia
> GeForce 8400 with 256mb card and now my desktop performance for Windows Aero
> went from 3.7 to 3.5. Anyone ever see this. Its like I wasted my money on a
> new card.
>
>
>
>
> PaulM;459018 Wrote:
>> Here one for you, I went from a ATI Radeon X600 128mb card to a Nvidia
>> GeForce 8400 with 256mb card and now my desktop performance for Windows
>> Aero
>> went from 3.7 to 3.5. Anyone ever see this. Its like I wasted my money
>> on a
>> new card.
>
> Don't take those scores too seriously, the formula that generates teh
> values it, to say the least, a mystery.
>
Actually nothing about Vista can be taken seriously. It is a toy operating
system after all.
> You can compare 2 systems with virtually the same hardware and the
> baseline scores for each component can vary wildly.
>
See above.
>
lower score 
Linear Mode
