238 réponses à ce sujet

[Gorath Alpha]

We seem to have a sizable influx of new arrivals who have never gamed on PCs coming in, so a list of Video Cards by how well they will handle a shader-intensive game probably will be useful.  Technically speaking, this is not "MY" list at all.  NotTheKing started in back in 2005, when OpenGL still had some adherents among game developers.  That is no longer true today.  I'll edit off a lot of pre-Dx9 entries, like the GF4s, FXes*, and their ilk, and add notes to the Xn00 cards that don't qualify for Dx9.0"B", which is the minimum.

The rest of the Xn00 Radeons, from X700 to X850, will only run with low textures because Dx9.0"C" is the primary shader used for higher quality textures.

(Starting from Fastest, through Minimum Capability)

- ATI Radeon HD 5900 series
- nVIDIA Geforce GTX 480
- ATI Radeon HD 5800 series
- nVIDIA Geforce GTX 470
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX275 - 280 - 285 - 295 - 460 and 465
- ATI Radeon HD 5700 series
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX260
- ATI Radeon HD 4800 series
- NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250
- NVIDIA GeForce 9800 series
- NVIDIA GeForce 8800 series
- ATI Radeon HD 5600 series
- ATI Radeon HD 4700 series
- NVIDIA GeForce 9600 series
- ATI Radeon HD 3800 series
- ATI Radeon HD 4600 series
- ATI Radeon HD 2900 series
- ATI Radeon X1950 series
- ATI Radeon X1900 series
- NVIDIA GeForce 7900 series
- ATI Radeon X1800 series
- ATI Radeon X850 series     ( ATI Official Minimum Card )
- NVIDIA GeForce 7950
- NVIDIA GeForce 7950 GX2
- ATI Radeon X800 series
- ATI Radeon HD 3690  
- NVIDIA GeForce GTS 240
- NVIDIA GeForce 7800 series
- NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS
- NVIDIA GeForce GTS 220, GT 230 
- ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT
- ATI Radeon HD 3650  
- NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT
- NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra
- ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro 
- NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GS
- NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT
- ATI Radeon X1650 XT
- NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT
- NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GS
_____________________

IMO, the cards below that line aren't actually good enough to run DA: O properly.

- NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Vanilla (PCI-e version, 256 MB)
- ATI Radeon X1650 Pro
- ATI Radeon X1600 XT
- NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT   <~ This is the (nVidia) Official Minimum (disagree)
- NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GS
- NVIDIA GeForce 6800 ( AGP version, 128 MB )
- ATI Radeon X1600 Pro (256 MBs, Max usable VRAM)
- ATI Radeon X1300 XT (renamed X1600 Pro)
- NVIDIA GeForce 6800 XT
- ATI Radeon X700 series
- NVIDIA GeForce 8500 GT
- ATI Radeon X600 XT   *
=========================  Very Low Quality & on downward from here

- NVIDIA GeForce 6600
- ATI Radeon X600 Pro  *
- ATI Radeon X600 Vanilla  *
- ATI Radeon X1550 (renamed X1300, slightly retuned), should not have been named as supported
- ATI Radeon X600 SE  *

Suffixes, from Good to Awful

ATI Suffixes: XTX > XT > XL > Pro > GTO > Vanilla > GT > SE > Hyper Anything

nVidia: Ultra > GTX > GT > GS > Vanilla > LE = XT  > VE > TC = TE (Turbocache, any variety)

PLEASE, take notice of the intermixed generations of cards, showing that "new" doesn't mean very much when the card isn't the fastest and most expensive that you can buy. 

If Dragon Age: Origins tells you it cannot detect a supported video card, it usually is telling you about an Intel video chip (really crappy), or a very old video card, such as a Radeon 9700, or Geforce GF4 Ti-4200.  . 

* Simply because NTK's list had included them, some cards that cannot handle the Dx9.0b SM3 shaders were still included, like the X600-downward Radeons, marked with the asterisks.  This list was originally created by NotTheKing, and maintained from 2005 to 2008.  All onboard solutions, business grade cards, and all of the atrociously bad Geforce FX cards  just had to be removed! 

Note: neither NTK nor I have included multi-graphics setups such as Crossfire and SLI.  The original SLI was problematic, and it has always been a poor economic value.  For much less than the cost and complexity of two cards together, make the move to the next rung upward on the performance ladder. 

Many game developers have begun describing the video cards that a given game supports in terms of grouped "series" of cards from the Vanilla through the GTX or XTX, and that simplified form is what I use at the top end in order to make the listing more concise.  There will be a longer, harder to use list, eventually, in the "Laddesr" post, suitable for an informational use, but it really isn't terribly necessary. 

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/58/index/575571

It should be noted that there is now a "trio" of hardware component reference articles. with one on the Basics of gaming system performance information for the new gamer, and another article restrcted to only the video card component's basic technical information, including links to more extensive coverage.  Those two are to be found right here: 

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/58/index/509580

and here for the one on Video Graphics Adapters:

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/58/index/519461

It is not my intention to dwell on low end junk, but interestinghly enough, Bioware did so when publishing the video card requirements for Mass Effect 2.  I didn't agree with the designated minimums, and had to add some crap they overlooked, but it looked a lot like this: 

Video Card = 256 MB (with Pixel Shader 3.0 support). Supported GPU Chips: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GS or greater; ATI Radeon X1650 XT or greater. Please note that NVIDIA GeForce 6200, 7100, 7200, 7300, 7400, 7500, 8100, 8200, 8300, 8400, 9200, and 9300; ATI Radeon X1300, HD 2400, 3100, 3200, HD 3450, HD 3470, HD 4200, and HD 4350 are below minimum system requirements. Updates to your video and sound card drivers may be required. Intel  and S3 video devices are not officially supported in Mass Effect 2.

P, S.  What do you all think about pressing this idea on the developers?

Iit does seem to me that a far better way for publishers / distributors to state the System Requirements would be in terms of some appropriate benchmark number, since the naming, particularly from nVIDIA, is so totally worthless as a guide to the ordinary PC owner. 

Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 21 novembre 2010 - 11:18 .

[ZootCadillac]

Good list..

I may, when I've got bored of playing the game ( or tired of DLC content not working because the servers won't authorise it ) run a few benchmarks on the cards I have lying around which are...

Radeon
X600XT ( yeah I know, won't work, I also have a an ati 9800XT agp too but it's not worth building a system to try this out when I suspect the shader model 2.0 will just fail )
X800GT0
X800XL
X850XT
X1950XT
and Nvidia
7950GT
7950X2
2x factory o/c xfx 8600GT
2x factory o/c xfx 8800GTS
9800GT

It may make for interesting comparisons if I test them all on the same rig. Project for the near future I think.

(yes, I used to be a bit of a graphics freak but I've simply grown out of all that now, well, nearly, I ordered this http://www.ebuyer.com/product/176631 on Friday

Modifié par ZootCadillac, 08 novembre 2009 - 05:30 .

[RavinXX]

Might I suggest adding ATI Radeon HD 3200? It's an onboard laptop card and I'm running the game at what I call "playable speed" at medium settings. No AA, 1024x600 resolution and both graphical and texture settings at medium. I get anywhere from 15-20 fps (at least, that's what fraps told me) with 2GB's of DDR2 400MHz ram, and an AMD Turion X2 Processor @ 2.0Ghz running Vista 32-bit. You might wanna add it too the very low quality and downwards though because some might not find it playable.

[Gorath Alpha]

ZootCadillac wrote...

Good list..

I may, when I've got bored of playing the game ( or tired of DLC content not working because the servers won't authorise it ) run a few benchmarks on the cards I have lying around which are...
X600XT ( yeah I know, won't work, I also have a an ati 9800XT agp too but it's not worth building a system to try this out when I suspect the shader model 2.0 will just fail )
X800GT0  {check !}
X800XL  {check !}
X850XT  {check -- mine's a Platinum}
X1950XT (I never had that one, just the "Pro")
and Nvidia
7950
7950X2
2x factory o/c xfx 8600GT
2x factory o/c xfx 8800GTS
9800GT

It may make for interesting comparisons if I test them all on the same rig. Project for the near future I think.

(yes, I used to be a bit of a graphics freak but I've simply grown out of all that now, well, nearly, I ordered this http://www.ebuyer.com/product/176631 on Friday

My newest is an HD 4850, but I'm still running an X850 XTP in the old XP 3000 PC that handles LAN support, like file and partition image backup.  Right this minute, I'm visiting here with a "Middling Old" PC that I play Arcanum on from time to time (Duron 900, Geforce FX 5200, 256 MBs of RAM, I think, and I forget what old sound card is in it).  

P. S. It's my list, and 25 FPS is my cutoff.  No IGPs make the cut

Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 08 novembre 2009 - 05:36 .

[ZootCadillac]

Gorath Alpha wrote...


My newest is an HD 4850, but I'm still running an X850 XTP in the old XP 3000 PC that handles LAN support, like file and partition image backup.  Right this minute, I'm visiting here with a "Middling Old" PC that I play Arcanum on from time to time (Duron 900, Geforce FX 5200, 256 MBs of RAM, I think, and I forget what old sound card is in it).  

P. S. It's my list, and 25 FPS is my cutoff.  No IGPs make the cut

Gorath
-

I suspect you are like me and  can't find it in your heart to throw stuff out.
I'll have to find something that is an acceptable bench test with DA:O and try all thos cards out on a mid system (5200x2 4gb ram medium res) and post some results. At least it might give some people who are having problems, or waiting to buy, an idea of what they should expect from their system in comparison.

I must admit that some of the problems people are having are baffling, it seems that even people with almost identical systems are having opposite experiences with this game. It's seriously flawed IMO.

[Azelas]

<3 my GTX280

[pavachan]

My friend's PC has a Geforce 9600gt, and for him it runs at around 40 fps with everything maxed, 1024*768 (that's his native res), 2xAA, and 8x Anisotropic forced though the control panel.

[Gorath Alpha]

pavachan wrote...

My friend's PC has a Geforce 9600gt, and for him it runs at around 40 fps with everything maxed, 1024*768 (that's his native res), 2xAA, and 8x Anisotropic forced though the control panel.

That one was a slight de-tune of the 8800, and thus, quite good for "Medium" when new.  What's interesting in context here regarding this list is that it either wasn't on the original I was editing from 2008, or I accidentally cut it out, maybe to move it somewhere while disagreeing with the original compiling author, NotTheKing.  I'll have to put it in where NTK had it, for now, I suppose. 

P. S.  One of the things I've never been in favor of that ATI was often guilty of has been re-branding the same old junk and re-describing it as it it was new (X1050, 9550, X1550, etc.)  The past two years, that had been almost the only thing that nVIDIA has been doing, before releasing the GT220 and GT240 (one low-medium, one mid- medium when new).  All of the 100s, I believe, are recycled 9n00 names, which in their own turn had been mere updates to the 8n00 cards, so that the GT120 is actually an 8600 GT, which spent a year being referred to as the 9500 GT. 

I was reluctant to include the 9n00s here, save that because of the thinner die wafers, they had increased overall performance, and decreased power requirements.  I haven't added the 100s, through the spring of 2010.


Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 12 juin 2010 - 01:35 .

[elgato2067]

My Radeon 4870 XT is getting 45 fps when my character standing still and 55+ fps when there is activity (running, fighting etc) going on. I'm running at 1600x1200@85Hz with 16xAA, 16xAnisotropic. I have also enabled adaptive anti-aliasing at the quality setting. All the video settings are forced with Catalyst (with its A.I. mode disabled).

[JironGhrad]

I've got a Radeon X1650 Pro (AGP) and it runs around 40 fps @ 1680x1050 with either of the following configurations: AA off and other settings set to high, or AA 2x, graphics on medium and textures on high

[inisldr]

I ghave 2 gts 8800 in sli, running at 1680/1050, full everything and getting 40+fps. Pretty cool game.

[Gorath Alpha]

JironGhrad wrote...

I've got a Radeon X1650 Pro (AGP) and it runs around 40 fps @ 1680x1050 with either of the following configurations: AA off and other settings set to high, or AA 2x, graphics on medium and textures on high

I am somewhat surprised an X1650 is doing that well at that resolution!

P.  S.  (In edit)  The closest thing that I have to that 1650 is the X1600 Pro I have in the primary loaner box here (I could probably have left it without a card, since its MB came with an HD 3200 IGP, one of the better onboard chips at the time that system was built for a grandkid, whose mother got all high-handed and wierd, so he ended up not being able to keep it). 

This next is IMPORTANT.

It's the only card I have with the so-common "Big RAM Scam" layout.  Like any Mainline card (admittedly very low on that scale when new), it has only a 128 bit memory system, and a resulting narrow memory bandwidth.  It is limited to a max of 256 MBs of VRAM to pass to today's games, so half of the 512 MBs onboard is literally wasted.  The big RAM numbers appeal to the noobs, but it has almost no real meaning at all.  

The important shopping crieria are core speed, RAM speed, memory bandwidth, and shader unit count.

Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 13 février 2010 - 05:54 .

[JironGhrad]

it's the native resolution of my monitor (22" LG) I've noticed a little slowing since I've reached the forest (I'm now level 16 so fairly far into the game) but nothing causing any noticeable concern... *shrugs* from what I recall the X1650 was a downclocked X1900 chip so perhaps mine only just missed becoming an X1900... On that same note though, my system temp @ load is in the mid-80s Farenheight so perhaps the temperature helps, I should also perhaps note that I've got the final 512mb edition

Modifié par JironGhrad, 09 novembre 2009 - 07:46 .

[ZootCadillac]

needs a bump

[Gorath Alpha]

ZootCadillac wrote...

needs a bump

Until there is a working search, it really does . .

Gorath
-

[MrFish]

You'll want to slip in the ATi HD 5870 somewhere between the 280 and the 295 (it actually beats the 295 in a few situations). Those cards are on low supply so it doesn't matter right now but it is missing off the list, and also add the ATi 5000 series for reference too around the GTX260 mark (a tad above would hint at a newer series for reference).

[FedericoV]

I've got a Radeon 5850 and it's working wonders at max specs + 1680*1050 res.



As far as I know the ATI 5800 series beats the GTX285 in almost every situation (at least, that's what most of the reviewers are saying).

[Gorath Alpha]

MrFish wrote...

You'll want to slip in the ATi HD 5870 somewhere between the 280 and the 295 (it actually beats the 295 in a few situations). Those cards are on low supply so it doesn't matter right now but it is missing off the list, and also add the ATi 5000 series for reference too around the GTX260 mark (a tad above would hint at a newer series for reference).

I thought that I'd wait until most of them are added to the VGA charts at Toms Hardware, and then see how they work in Fallout 3.  The only place I break out individual cards from a series is close to the minimums, especially when any minimum splits through a series, the way (IMO) the proper Vista minimum X1650 XT does, and the Geforce 7600 GT does the same.

Gorath
-

[Jalida]

Yahoo! I'm finally in the top 3 of video cards.

[Tannedhide]

My GTX 295 (which for some reason I can't find on the list) is at 60fps (vsync'd) I'd say 95% of the time dropping to mid 40s when you have a cutscene with 5 or 6 people in it. That's at 1920 by 1200, full whack, 8AA and forced 16AF.

[MrFish]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

MrFish wrote...

You'll want to slip in the ATi HD 5870 somewhere between the 280 and the 295 (it actually beats the 295 in a few situations). Those cards are on low supply so it doesn't matter right now but it is missing off the list, and also add the ATi 5000 series for reference too around the GTX260 mark (a tad above would hint at a newer series for reference).

I thought that I'd wait until most of them are added to the VGA charts at Toms Hardware, and then see how they work in Fallout 3.  The only place I break out individual cards from a series is close to the minimums, especially when any minimum splits through a series, the way (IMO) the proper Vista minimum X1650 XT does, and the Geforce 7600 GT does the same.

Gorath
-

I guess that's not a bad point.  I think I grabbed their rankings off Guru3D but given the supply of 40nm parts is shockingly low (40% yield yay!) there aren't that many floating around for people to buy.  I suppose from an overall perspective it'd be happier as a series existing above the 295 listing as their single GPU cards, losing when the 295 gets an SLi bench (yeah because we all love SLi...). 

I'm very surprised TomsHardware has no results right now.  Also that fallout benchmark looks like its throttelling.  It's not going to give you a particularly good view of new high-end cards any more.  Off the top of my head I'm not sure what will, but if this game is as threaded as I hear I may give it a go to try and make a DA benchmark. 

[DigitReaper]

I've just odered this one here  www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp to replace my GeForce 6200, what do you think that will rank?

[dragoaskani]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

JironGhrad wrote...

I've got a Radeon X1650 Pro (AGP) and it runs around 40 fps @ 1680x1050 with either of the following configurations: AA off and other settings set to high, or AA 2x, graphics on medium and textures on high

I am somewhat surprised an X1650 is doing that well at that resolution!

Gorath
-

Dragon age tends to bottleneck at the cpu much more then the gpu don't ya know? (overall of course)

[Gorath Alpha]

MrFish wrote...

Gorath Alpha wrote...

I thought that I'd wait until most of them are added to the VGA charts at Toms Hardware, and then see how they work in Fallout 3. 

Edit - added (I want to use something that should be putting a similar type of load on PC Systems, and of everything Toms is offering, that looks closest.)

The only place I usuakky break out individual cards from a series is close to the minimums, especially when any minimum splits through a series, the way (IMO) the proper Vista minimum X1650 XT does, and the Geforce 7600 GT does the same.

I guess that's not a bad point.  I think I grabbed their rankings off Guru3D but given the supply of 40nm parts is shockingly low (40% yield yay!) there aren't that many floating around for people to buy.  I suppose from an overall perspective it'd be happier as a series existing above the 295 listing as their single GPU cards, losing when the 295 gets an SLi bench (yeah because we all love SLi...). 

I'm very surprised TomsHardware has no results right now.  Also that fallout benchmark looks like its throttelling.  It's not going to give you a particularly good view of new high-end cards any more.  Off the top of my head I'm not sure what will, but if this game is as threaded as I hear I may give it a go to try and make a DA benchmark. 

Personally, I almost never have any video cards I've purchased for myself in the mid-range, and never at all in the low end ranks.  However, I am on a fixed income, and have managed to have working computers scattered all over my house to keep track of, so I always wait until the next generation is in wide distribution to get my new upgrade (recent HD 4850 purchase), after its price drops. 

So far, I have been running this game mostly on an older high end card that is now equal to a medium one (Radeon X1950), although I ran a few tests with my HD 3850 card in my bedroom (where I need to do something better about something to sit on other than the edge of my bed).  I don't have an X1650 of any kind, although there is an X1600 Pro somewhere "loose", not installed anywhere.  It was going into a cousin's PC, but she changed her mind at the last minute, and I couldn't get her money back for her -- she ended up taking an older card I'd used in the past, and a used DVD drive, so we called it even, and I hope someone else from among family & friends needs it before it's totally and completely obsolete. 

DigitReaper wrote...

I've just odered this one here  www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp to replace my GeForce 6200, what do you think that will rank?

We already covered that.  I don't waste the space for 200s, 300s, 400s,  or most 500s.  because they are all way too slow.  The "600" in the name tells you whether or not it's a Mainline game card, and "800"-upward for Maxing out a game.  Your next choice, also from Tiger, was much MUCH better (HD 4650). 

A very interesting series of message threads pointed an accusing finger at Low end hardware causing Mass Effect 2 (January, 2010) to ignore the keyboard when the frame rate dips below 10-12 FPS.  All the more reason to avoid low quality video cards! 

Also, the only way anything from Intel ever joins this reference is if it is actually competitive, and not just more of their usual crap.  Clarkedale is still only a GMA 3000, slightly improved, and attached to the same package as the CPU, but they are supposed to start showing off a "Sandy Bridge" in 2011 that supposedly is something useful, and is integrated into the CPU, not the chipset.

dragoaskani wrote...

Dragon age tends to bottleneck at the cpu much more then the gpu don't ya know? (overall of course)

So far, I'm not getting any indication at all of any particular bias, although I have said many times that the official requirements overstated the demands for CPU power, and underestimated the demands for video power.

Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 02 mars 2010 - 06:06 .

[dragoaskani]

Well my response is due to the fact that its not properly using quadcore cpu's as shown by people having to do workarounds to get the game to access the extra cores. This by definition makes the game more cpu bound since the majority of people playing it on pc will never visit these forums and never know the workaround. As always forum users tend to be less then 1% of a games community overall.