Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Whats wrong with the 9400gt?
Whats wrong with the 9400gt?
2009-07-25, 9:43 PM #1
So, my old agp computer failed. The motherboard no longer works on it, and has brown burn marks on it. The power supply is also damaged. Luckily, my parents have money at this time and went out and bought a new pc within a 400 dollar budget.

The new PC:
Mobo: Foxconn G31MXP-K
Intel Core Duo E8400 2.66 ghz 6MB L2 cache
2 gb of ddr2 (1333mhz)
GeForce 9400gt 1gb ddr 2 128bit
New PC case with 500w power supply.

I kept my original hard drives, as they still work perfectly (YAY).

I also got a portable external USB HD carrier, I use it to send large files from one computer to another. Such as uncompressed video.

So, up to now, no problems. I originally didn't want to buy the 9400gt because lots of reviews said it sucked, but up to now, its been performing ADMIRABLY.

I am running S.T.A.L.K.E.R at 1280*1024, with ALL things maxed out and I am getting on average 40-50 fps! (some times higher) Pretty good for graphics card that in one review reported 10-15 fps for stalker. I guess they were running at a MUCH higher resolution or something, but I can't run much higher because my monitor can't do any higher.

Before this I had a gefore 6200, 512 or 256 mb, which replaced my fx5200 when it failed. I was able to just BARELY run stalker with everything on low, and I had lots of compatability problems.

A tear came to my eye when I was able to smoothly run a "modern" game, with full graphics, and was amazed at all the eye candy I have missed out on!

I honestly don't know why people don't like this graphics card. The only other option I had was DOUBLE the price, but I obviously can't buy that. So I am satisfied with this card, I know some of the current games I will have to tone done a bit, but as it is, I am happy :).

I think the problem with a lot of gamers, is that they don't realize that their memory, and processor influence their graphics quite a lot. I have yet to overclock the processor (one article I read said he overclocked this one to 3.9 ghz, without aditional cooling. I'll be aiming for 3.2), and I don't know about overclocking the graphics card. Will have to see what can be done. So anyhow, what do you think of this graphics card?
Nothing to see here, move along.
2009-07-25, 10:28 PM #2
Midrange cards are... midrange cards..
2009-07-25, 11:31 PM #3
No, the problem isn't that gamers forget CPU and RAM. It's that you are somehow surprised that your terribly budget, 3 generation old 6200 was significantly slower than the 9400. The 9400GT still isn't that great, it's more of a budget card, but seriously. 3 generations of cards here.

STALKER isn't particularly modern, either.
2009-07-25, 11:49 PM #4
Originally posted by Tiberium_Empire:
Midrange cards are... midrange cards..

:downs:

2009-07-25, 11:58 PM #5
Is that your new thing? One smilie posts?
2009-07-25, 11:59 PM #6
It's a special smile post just for you.
Pissed Off?
2009-07-26, 12:17 AM #7
Daww, Thanks.
:D
2009-07-26, 1:00 AM #8
Sometimes I don't think the retards at massassi realize we're poking fun at them...or even beating it upside their heads with baseball bats.
D E A T H
2009-07-26, 1:22 AM #9
Originally posted by Cool Matty:
No, the problem isn't that gamers forget CPU and RAM. It's that you are somehow surprised that your terribly budget, 3 generation old 6200 was significantly slower than the 9400. The 9400GT still isn't that great, it's more of a budget card, but seriously. 3 generations of cards here.

STALKER isn't particularly modern, either.


Yes this is very true, but I guess what surprises me the most is that the card is doing far more than my expectations. I will test Left 4 Dead with it, should work... I guess. Will provide feedback on that tomorrow.
Nothing to see here, move along.
2009-07-26, 1:47 AM #10
Originally posted by Dj Yoshi:
Sometimes I don't think the retards at massassi realize we're poking fun at them...or even beating it upside their heads with baseball bats.


You, sir, are 100% correct.
Pissed Off?
2009-07-26, 1:54 AM #11
Pssst, I was sarcastic.
2009-07-26, 6:33 AM #12
I was thinking of a 9200 to replace my 6800, cheap but easily more powerful from what I hear, so it doesn't surprise me that a 9400 beats in 6200.

2009-07-26, 6:51 AM #13
My 4650 is running things just fine - replaced my (dead) 4870. However, I can't run everything max'd out anymore..damn big widescreen LCDs.. .(
woot!
2009-07-26, 9:32 AM #14
It all depends on what you find acceptable. I agree that even budget cards are providing a fair amount of performance nowadays. One of my spare computers has a 8500gt 512mb which is pretty similar to your 9400gt. It's not bad. It can definately run everything- just not at high resolutions or high detail.
My favorite JKDF2 h4x:
EAH XMAS v2
MANIPULATOR GUN
EAH SMOOTH SNIPER
2009-07-26, 10:57 AM #15
I've been running an 8600 GTS for like that past two years and can still run most games in roughly medium/high settings. I think perhaps that this more to do with every game developer nowadays not trying to outdo Crysis and stuffing in lots of post-processing effects rather than polys than it does with the card's abilities.
<Rob> This is internet.
<Rob> Nothing costs money if I don't want it to.
2009-07-26, 12:20 PM #16
Main reason why 9400GT gets hated on is that it's worse than the HD 4550 (main competitor) at both gaming and HD video playback, which is worse than the 9500GT and wayy worse than the 9600GT, both of which are / were pretty cheap relatively.

So it (was) more of a value thing. Wasn't cheap enough for the performance.

Gold: I expect it to net ~25fps average on L4D maxed out at 1280x, since my 4550 in my HTPC manages a little more than that (although it is OCd). If you play L4D on Medium you can surely hit 60fps+, since even my old 8500GT could do that. It's only when shaders are on high or very high that it starts choking.
一个大西瓜
2009-07-26, 8:07 PM #17
Originally posted by Pommy:
Main reason why 9400GT gets hated on is that it's worse than the HD 4550 (main competitor) at both gaming and HD video playback, which is worse than the 9500GT and wayy worse than the 9600GT, both of which are / were pretty cheap relatively.

So it (was) more of a value thing. Wasn't cheap enough for the performance.

Gold: I expect it to net ~25fps average on L4D maxed out at 1280x, since my 4550 in my HTPC manages a little more than that (although it is OCd). If you play L4D on Medium you can surely hit 60fps+, since even my old 8500GT could do that. It's only when shaders are on high or very high that it starts choking.


I'm getting much higher fps... between 30-45 (everything maxed out). I think this has to do mainly because of my ram and processor. It will however drop to around 15-20fps when there are a lot of shadows in view, but it has awesome performance.
Nothing to see here, move along.
2009-07-26, 8:09 PM #18
Stalker also has a damn good engine, The fact that an 8800GT can run it at all high and giving everything dynamic shadows along with all light sources being dynamic, and not lag is amazing to me, Source lags with one or two dynamic shadows.
2009-07-26, 8:33 PM #19
Originally posted by Tiberium_Empire:
Stalker also has a damn good engine, The fact that an 8800GT can run it at all high and giving everything dynamic shadows along with all light sources being dynamic, and not lag is amazing to me, Source lags with one or two dynamic shadows.


I will have to try it on my 4650...I can run UT2004 1920x1080x32 with everything max'd with FPS in the triple digits, so I might be alright.
woot!
2009-07-26, 8:36 PM #20
You should, Have you ever played it?
2009-07-26, 10:59 PM #21
I must say however, that I was terribly dissapointed with Left 4 Dead... no story line? It felt like playing Resident Evil, and the only objective is getting higher scores.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R is, well its fun, but the story feels weak, and does not encorage me to play it frequently.

Meh, I think I need a game with a good involving story, but not entirely linear.
Nothing to see here, move along.
2009-07-27, 1:08 AM #22
Please tell me both of you are running it modded, please.
2009-07-27, 1:35 AM #23
Originally posted by SF_GoldG_01:
I must say however, that I was terribly dissapointed with Left 4 Dead... no story line? It felt like playing Resident Evil, and the only objective is getting higher scores.


It's designed as an MP game.
Pissed Off?
2009-07-27, 2:51 AM #24
Originally posted by Tiberium_Empire:
Please tell me both of you are running it modded, please.


The story sucks... honestly.
The whole "you've lost your memory intro" has been overdone many times. Sure some of the missions are awesome, although sometimes too short, but it just gets really annoying when feel thats there more to do in the game and you can't find it. I also thought there were parties in STALKER. Ugh!

Maybe I'm just getting dissapointed with games alltogether. For instance, I found Republic Commando to be far more awesome than STALKER, although it would have been nice to have a different ending, and some other minor things.

Played Jedi Academy, didn't like it enough to keep it after I beat it.

Honestly is there any good games out there anymore? GTA IV is where I'm gonna place my money at, but it will be some days/weeks before I can try it out.

I'm feeeling stressed out. :psyduck: Can't seem to enjoy videogames anymore. :(
Nothing to see here, move along.
2009-07-27, 3:23 AM #25
Originally posted by Tiberium_Empire:
Stalker also has a damn good engine, The fact that an 8800GT can run it at all high and giving everything dynamic shadows along with all light sources being dynamic, and not lag is amazing to me, Source lags with one or two dynamic shadows.


I noticed that. The Source engine's new lighting (Left 4 Dead) is a little overrated. The L4D flashlights were very Stalker-ish except for that extremely subtle self-shadowing effect and never being able to see other character's light beams :rolleyes:. L4D is a lot easier with the flashlight (pretty much all the dynamic lighting in the game) turned off, with no more harsh HDR contrast, and just that stupid silhouetting distance fog.
if(GetLocalPlayerThing() != jkGetLocalPlayer()) call implode_universe;
2009-07-27, 6:15 AM #26
Originally posted by Tiberium_Empire:
You should, Have you ever played it?


I've played through STALKER and am a good way into Clear Sky, but I haven't played it since my 4870 died.
woot!
2009-07-27, 8:27 AM #27
Off topic, but how did your 4870 die?
一个大西瓜
2009-07-27, 12:50 PM #28
Originally posted by SF_GoldG_01:
The story sucks... honestly.
The whole "you've lost your memory intro" has been overdone many times. Sure some of the missions are awesome, although sometimes too short, but it just gets really annoying when feel thats there more to do in the game and you can't find it. I also thought there were parties in STALKER. Ugh!

Maybe I'm just getting dissapointed with games alltogether. For instance, I found Republic Commando to be far more awesome than STALKER, although it would have been nice to have a different ending, and some other minor things.

Played Jedi Academy, didn't like it enough to keep it after I beat it.

Honestly is there any good games out there anymore? GTA IV is where I'm gonna place my money at, but it will be some days/weeks before I can try it out.

I'm feeeling stressed out. :psyduck: Can't seem to enjoy videogames anymore. :(

But did you run it modded? The grand culmination of all stalker mods is nearly completion, and can be found here.
Mosin Nagant in STALKER? Yes please!

E: GTA4 won't work on that system.
2009-07-27, 1:01 PM #29
Originally posted by Tiberium_Empire:
Stalker also has a damn good engine, The fact that an 8800GT can run it at all high and giving everything dynamic shadows along with all light sources being dynamic, and not lag is amazing to me, Source lags with one or two dynamic shadows.


Stalker uses defered shading, which means it uses (most of the time) 4 geometry buffers, but has a lot of processing power when it comes to lights... Most source games do not use defered shading...

Your card (and mine, I got a 8800 too) is good at sending data back and forth.
2009-07-27, 1:49 PM #30
Originally posted by Pommy:
Off topic, but how did your 4870 die?


No idea. It did this:
[http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/3393/uhoh.jpg]

I will probably put it back in just to see if it was loose or something...there's no reason it should've died.
woot!
2009-07-27, 2:52 PM #31
The magic smoke escaped.

2009-07-27, 4:16 PM #32
My 4870 is so sexy. Runs everything at 1920x1200 everything maxed in all games except the Ghostbusters game with at least 60 frames. Source gets 150-250 frames, UT3 is schmexy as hell, and Fallout is just retardedly good looking.
D E A T H
2009-07-27, 4:27 PM #33
Originally posted by Dj Yoshi:
My 4870 is so sexy. Runs everything at 1920x1200 everything maxed in all games except the Ghostbusters game with at least 60 frames. Source gets 150-250 frames, UT3 is schmexy as hell, and Fallout is just retardedly good looking.


I KNOW .(
woot!
2009-07-27, 6:13 PM #34
Originally posted by Tiberium_Empire:
But did you run it modded? The grand culmination of all stalker mods is nearly completion, and can be found here.
Mosin Nagant in STALKER? Yes please!

E: GTA4 won't work on that system.


It might actually work... 15-20 fps.
Nothing to see here, move along.
2009-07-27, 9:18 PM #35
Originally posted by Dj Yoshi:
Sometimes I don't think the retards at massassi realize we're poking fun at them...or even beating it upside their heads with baseball bats.


I did it with a wiffle ball bat! *beastie boys*
"His Will Was Set, And Only Death Would Break It"

"None knows what the new day shall bring him"
2009-07-28, 12:20 AM #36
Originally posted by mscbuck:
I did it with a wiffle ball bat! *beastie boys*

Yeah you did. UP TOP! *barneystinson*
D E A T H
2009-07-28, 1:06 AM #37
Originally posted by SF_GoldG_01:
It might actually work... 15-20 fps.

Thats less "Working" and more "Barely running".
2009-07-28, 1:11 AM #38
Originally posted by Tiberium_Empire:
Thats less "Working" and more "Barely running".


My eyes are already used to this low of fps, so I won't notice the difference.
Nothing to see here, move along.
2009-07-28, 1:14 AM #39
Originally posted by SF_GoldG_01:
My eyes are already used to this low of fps, so I won't notice the difference.

Wow, fail.
D E A T H
2009-07-28, 2:10 AM #40
Originally posted by mscbuck:
I did it with a wiffle ball bat! *beastie boys*


I hope you're on the run, because the cops have your gun.
Pissed Off?

↑ Up to the top!