238 réponses à ce sujet

[lordmangafee]

Wouldn't you know that's the last paragraph I skipped? lol, thx Gorath. Well, I am glad that they are pushing out one more before they move on. Is that on good authority? They have been such a standard for me for so many years.

nubScott, the low end 200's are good.

[Gorath Alpha]

lordmangafee wrote...

Wouldn't you know that's the last paragraph I skipped? lol, thx Gorath. Well, I am glad that they are pushing out one more before they move on. Is that on good authority? They have been such a standard for me for so many years.
nubScott, the low end 200's are good.

I don't trust them a lot; I just don't like the "third" name business for the same thing.  I don't get the reasoning as anything other than a scam.

From 1997 or so until 2005, I relied on nVIDIA heavily.  They screwed me over with those nasty FXes, though, and I haven't trusted them since.  Both of the stories I've read about the venture into super computing instead of chipsets and GPUs were published at reputable tech sites, with Anand Tech having the most informative article.  No one has really named any timeline, other than myself, I don't think. 

After March, it will still be 18 months out for ATI's combo CPU / GPU prototypes, I think.  I don't recall if any similar Intel information is out there.  nVIDIA has / had time for three more 10-11 month generation releases in the time before it faces competition so inexpensive by comparison that only the professional market (Quadro) remains.  The next two and a half years will be very interesting! 

Gorath
-

[Gorath Alpha]

nubScotty wrote...

Thanks for the post I was assuming my Geforce 8500GT was fairly good as it ran Bishock/Oblivion with fairly high graphics without issue but this game I have to run on absolute lowest settings to play smoothly.  Playing at 1680x1050, guess I need a new graphics card any recomendations for mid-top line graphics card?

Sorry that I never responded directly.  I agree that the 8500 GT wasn't truly awful, like an 8400 GS is, and given the rather lenient grphics engine in DA:O, I would have though the easiest route for you to have followed would have been to lower the resolution to 1280 by 800, or whatever medium resolution matches that pretty well in pixel count. 

An 8500 GT just isn't a high end card, and 1680 by 1050 is far too many pixels for it to have to handle! 

Gorath
-

[Imbreum]

HI. I was wondering if you could comment on Zotac GeForce 9400 GT Video Card - 1024MB DDR2, PCI Express 2.0, DVI, VGA, Synergy Edition before I purchase a new video card in order to play this game.



I don't see it in your list.



http://www.tigerdire...7643&CatId=3669



Thank you in advance.

[andrex198]

no i have a ATI Radeon 2600 HD XT and it works wonders

[grizzlymalibu]

What you guys think about a GTS 250?

[Gorath Alpha]

Imbreum wrote...

HI. I was wondering if you could comment on Zotac GeForce 9400 GT Video Card - 1024MB DDR2, PCI Express 2.0, DVI, VGA, Synergy Edition before I purchase a new video card in order to play this game.

I don't see it in your list.

http://www.tigerdire...7643&CatId=3669

Thank you in advance.

I never mention business graphics cards or onboard video chips.  They start off too weak for games and only get worse.  There were no new Geforce 9000s.  All of them, were merely Geforce 8000s, renamed to make it seem as though nVIDIA had something new other than the 260 through 295.  Yours is actually an 8500 GT, the same card as that last comment of mine covered.   The 250 and downward are more of the same, save that they were 9000s that already had one name change before. 

Mainline Gaming cards have the "n600", never any less than that. 

Tom's Hardware always runs a new article about once every month or two in which they name various cards at various price points as having the best value in terms of FPS per dollar, and the Radeon HD 4670 (under $70) is always showing the very best value when you look at the entire year backing down from now.  There isn't a 5600 Radeon to replace it yet, that I know about. 

andrex198 wrote...

ATI Radeon 2600 HD XT and it works wonders

The "XT" then was like the "70" is now, and "Pro" was like "50".

AFAIK, the Geforce 250 is a renamed 9800, which was a renamed 8800, so it's pretty old by now.

Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 30 novembre 2009 - 06:35 .

[Jab0r]

They start off too weak for games and only get worse.

That depends, really.

nVidia Quadro chipsets aren't designed for gaming, but even the laptop versions can run a lot of stuff just fine with the right drivers. Probably wouldn't get DA running on a 110M, but I wouldn't be surprised if it ran on one of the higher-end cards.

[Gorath Alpha]

You are confusing "Production" cards with those needed to do charts, graphs, presentations, and spreadsheets, which are basically the same as the best of the onboard video chips, and have performance numbers in their names such as n400, n450, and n500.



G

[Jab0r]

That would explain it. Thanks for the clarification.

[grizzlymalibu]

So I have a GTS 250 Superclocked so basically I can say I have a 9800 gtx? Is that correct? Im waiting on my game to get here just ordered it a 2 days ago off ebay, Will I be able to run the game at max? Also I didnt do my research before buying the game and I got the standard edition, is there a huge downfall to the SE over the CE? ty

[Gorath Alpha]

I really am not well impressed by much of anything that nVIDIA has been doing lately with these frequent and unnecessary name changes.

www.maximumpc.com/article/news/nvidia_geforce_250_rebranding_complete

But it does appear that I was remembering this particular farce of theirs accurately. 

Gorath
-

[Gorath Alpha]

RoudyRogue wrote...

I got the game today and tried to download it. It downloaded fine but when I tried to run it, it said that I didn't have a supported video card.

I have an ATI Radeon 9550/1050 series with 128 MB Memory.

Shouldn't that be better than the one recommended?

You and I already had this conversation, in someone else's thread (well, it turned out to be your own thread, after all) about your PCs, yesterday, and you had already been told that it wasn't going to work.  You must have Dx9.0"b" or a still higher SM3 pixel shader. 


Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 05 décembre 2009 - 12:36 .

[Shadesofsiknas]

Im running the HD 4850 on max settings with no problems. What do you guys think of this card?

Im buying the Old Man a 4650 for xmas, I was going for something different but he needs VGP any thoughts?

[JironGhrad]

You should spring for the 4850 that you have rather than sticking him with a 4650... the x8xx is a gaming card where the x6xx is a mid-line card.

Modifié par JironGhrad, 05 décembre 2009 - 01:36 .

[Gorath Alpha]

JironGhrad wrote...

You should spring for the 4850 that you have rather than sticking him with a 4650... the x8xx is a gaming card where the x6xx is a mid-line card.

I suspect, however, that the anagram "VGP" used actually means "AGP", so the HD 4650 & HD 4670 are the tops to aspire for.

Regarding the HD 4850, I have one, myself, and I like it.

Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 05 décembre 2009 - 01:52 .

[JironGhrad]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

JironGhrad wrote...

You should spring for the 4850 that you have rather than sticking him with a 4650... the x8xx is a gaming card where the x6xx is a mid-line card.

I suspect, however, that the anagram "VGP" used actually means "AGP", so the HD 4650 & HD 4670 are the tops to aspire for.

Regarding the HD 4850, I have one, myself, and I like it.

Gorath
-

Yeah if he needs AGP that's quite correct. But really, instead of sinking more money into AGP a better investment would be a PCI-E motherboard/GPU package.

[Aghix]

JironGhrad wrote...

Gorath Alpha wrote...

JironGhrad wrote...

You should spring for the 4850 that you have rather than sticking him with a 4650... the x8xx is a gaming card where the x6xx is a mid-line card.

I suspect, however, that the anagram "VGP" used actually means "AGP", so the HD 4650 & HD 4670 are the tops to aspire for.

Regarding the HD 4850, I have one, myself, and I like it.

Gorath
-

Yeah if he needs AGP that's quite correct. But really, instead of sinking more money into AGP a better investment would be a PCI-E motherboard/GPU package.

agree. AGP is ANCIENT now, there is no use in dumping money into outdated tech that wont be supported or where card will be made for much longer. its pretty much obsolete

[Shadesofsiknas]

Thanks guys. Yeah I meant AGP. There was a 3800 series card available would this be better than the 4650 seeing as the x8xx means a gaming card?

[Gorath Alpha]

Shadesofsiknas wrote...

Thanks guys. Yeah I meant AGP. There was a 3800 series card available would this be better than the 4650 seeing as the x8xx means a gaming card?

The performance code "n800" and upward are what you want for high settings and high resolutions, although in its day, the HD 3870 was overshadowed by nVIDIA's 8800 GTS.  For pure speed at medium resolutions, the HD 4670 is very close to the HD 3870, and the HD 4770 (not offered currently in AGP) is faster than a 3870.  ATI had been making incremental performance steps from generation to generation while leading the speed race, but between their Geforce 7950s and 8800s, nVIDIA made a much greater leap up the scale, and ATI chose not to even field any "3900" in response that year, rather than having it immediately whipped as soon as it arrived. 

While ATI has continued its incremental progress one more generation (HD 4000s), and made a corresponding "Leap" this year with their HD 5000s, nVIDIA has had other worries to fret about in its long range viability planning, and literally skipped over the 9000s (repeat of the 8000s with new names), and also over the low end of the 200s (again, repeating, from 9000s).  The year 2012 will probably represent the beginning of the end for high powered discrete video cards, when AMD's APUs begin appearing. 

Gorath
-

[Shadesofsiknas]

That helps Gorath, thanks. I hate going out to buy something having no idea what Im buying or if it is what I need.

[Gorath Alpha]

You're very welcome, of course!

[Xaltar81]

Great thread. I'm running a Radeon 5850 all maxed at 1080p with forced max AA and AF all settings on quality and I don't see any low FPS problems anywhere in the game. I am using a weak CPU though that is bottlenecking my system horribly, an Athlon 64 x2 5050e. I would be getting the same bench scores on a 4850 possibly even a 4770 seeing as my CPU is throttling the card.



I just mention this for those people with older CPUs looking to upgrade their graphics cards. If you have a dated CPU it WILL throttle new generation high end cards to the point where you would have been better off buying a new CPU and a slightly lower spec GDX card,



I have a Phenom II x4 965BE on order that I am waiting for,,,, Using my HTPC cpu in the mean time.

[Brother Abner]

This is a great thread (bump!). Having no clue about what the video card numbers meant, I suspected my x600 256MB would not quite cut it. I was very disappointed that the configure screen did not say anything, and then I got the failed to detect... message and no DAO! The tip to look at Tom's Hardware helped a ton, especially when I found this article (http://www.tomshardw...-5970,2491.html). I picked my price (<100$) and then picked the 9600 GT 512MB.

[JironGhrad]

I've got a little useful note for those saddled with an AGP slot and not-quite-as-old hardware elsewhere. The HIS 1GB Radeon 4670 Gorath and I were discussing earlier is a sweet card and it has a $25 rebate until 31st Dec. Dramatically improved the framerates over the X1650 Pro I had before (despite it running fine before that).