238 réponses à ce sujet

[Creesen]

tag

[bzombo]

after suffering through playing with my integrated card, which did work, my wife bought me the card in my sig for christmas. now everything looks great and moves faster.

[Gorath Alpha]

I wanted to add a chronological list for comparisons of the two major 3D companies' gnerations

Generational steps on the ladders

             ATI             nVIDIA 
2003     9n00            Ti-4n00
2004     Xn00            FX 5n00
2005     x1n00           6n00
2006     HD 2n00       7n00
2007     HD 3n00       8n00
2008     HD 4n00       9n00 + 2n0
2009     HD 5n00       1n0
2010                       Fermi (March)

When video cards were much simpler to design, the cycle really was very close to two generations annually (1998 through 2002).  From about when the above chart starts, that had slipped to become more or less an annual upgrade in the fall of the year, and nVIDIA typically would meet their announced release date, while ATI would be late. 

Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 24 février 2010 - 11:36 .

[Gorath Alpha]

Interestingly, it doesn't seem that the marketing gimmick of loading down a low quality video card with a veritable ton of cheap VRAM got my "official" attention, so I am adding that via an edit above.  However, what is happening is that big RAM amounts "look good" to the noobs, whether it means anything or not, and when it's something such as the 8400 I've just been asked about, anything more than 256 MBs is literally a scam, given today's games. 

When you have a large display screen with a very fine screen resolution, you need a lot of VRAM, but you also need great memory bandwidth and high core speed, plus high RAM speed, to deal with the high resolutions involved. 

G

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 13 février 2010 - 05:41 .

[Neogrifon]

I have an ATI Radeon HD 4350 ... the game should work fine with it ... but Im having a little problem ... I cant see my screenshots in-game on player profile ... it apears as gray squares rather then the sc itself ... is it a video card problem or any configuration problem?

[Gorath Alpha]

An HD 4350 does beat the minimum, although not by any great margin.  It's intended for use in business, with charts, graphs, presentations, and spreadsheets.  These Bioware games happen to have very low official minimum video requirements (and I don't agree with what were the named minimums for DA : O).. 

There's a lot of conflicts between this game and various video card drivers.  I have had the feeling, unsupported by any hard data, that Geforce drivers have seemed more guilty than Radeon drivers.  That could very well relate instead to the poor sales totals during 2007/2008 of Radeons compared to Geforces.  Although 2009 has "belonged" to ATI by comparison, it's been a year of depressed spending in an economy that's been in a severe repression, so ATI hasn't sold the numbers of new cards its leading position might have earned it otherwise. 

Hmmm?  Off the path there, sorry! 

Don't discount the likelihood that ATI's engineers have produced a less-acceptable video driver for you.  Try the newest you can get direct from AMD / ATI first, and see if that helps. 

I keep forgetting, when it was out of service so long, that the SEARCH is available again, so why not use the key word screenshots to look at some older threads to see about previous cures, since I have nothing specific for you?

Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 14 février 2010 - 01:08 .

[OfTheFaintSmile]

So which company should I buy from in for the future, Nvidia or ATI? Are they both similar or will one have features coming out that the other will lack?

Modifié par OfTheFaintSmile, 13 février 2010 - 10:36 .

[Gorath Alpha]

I have some concerns with the business ethics of one of them, and that makes remaining unbiased at least somewhat difficult.  Right now, primarily due to the very belligerent attitude of nVIDIA's CEO, they are involved in lawsuits against Intel that may represent the difference between a good future for the company, or a very limited one.  In order to hedge their bets, they have greatly widened the scope of what their next generation of GPUs amounts to, throwing Fermi at least six months behind where it might have been. 

They have also severely limited the price-cutting for their now-aging lines of video cards, to the extent that at levels other than the very top, they haven't had many locked in spots in the lists of value leading parts. 

However, they had jumped way out ahead of ATI three years ago, and really sold very many cards during the two years that they had the large advantage.  In other words, they have a huge war chest of cash reserves to lean on  when the inevitable hard times arrive for them.  At some price points, they do still have some excellent hardware to sell. Toms Hardware has a regular feature in which they compare the performance of various cards to their average cost, and name the best for the buck winners. 

There are still some good Geforces in the ranks of those high value parts, although right now, ATI is ahead, but in these hard economic months, it's not translating well into big sales numbers for them.  They also ran into what are called "yield" problems with their newest HD 5n00 cards.  These were designed for a new, extra thin electronic die wafer, and their producer had way too low a success rate at first, keeping the cards from reaching large production run numbers until winter. 

You tell me what your budget is, what your preferred screen resolution is, and if Toms hardware hasn't already pointed you on your way, I'll name something for you (probably a Radeon!).

Gorath

[OfTheFaintSmile]

I was also leaning towards a Radeon card, especially now that they are shipping with Directx11 support. I'll go check out Toms Hardware and see what they say



Thanks Gorath! (excellent thread, btw)

[Gorath Alpha]

Gorath Alpha wrote...
Oops! .. made a DUPE when intending an edit!

Sorry! 

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 14 février 2010 - 01:04 .

[geddyx12112]

So would a Radeon 4650 run well?

[Gorath Alpha]

Although it's getting slightly long in the tooth, it's still a good value, and will still perform nicely when matched to a balanced system. The HD 4670, for only a slight additional cost, is a still better choice in frames per dollar.

www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-card,2521-2.html

That's the article about the "best value" choices, and still names the HD 4650.

Supplies are now very good for the replacement of the 4670, although it costs closer to $100 (HD 5670). Initially, the yields from the new 40 mm wafers was less than great, and the cards sold as fast as they reached the retailers.

P. S. 2-17-10:  at some point after posting the above, three days ago, and yesterday, I've added the HD 5600 pair (there will be a 5650, surely) to the main list, in the opening message.  I haven't done the same for the longer list that has the cards brioken out more individually. 

Gorath

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 17 février 2010 - 09:59 .

[Tyrax Lightning]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

Although it's getting slightly long in the tooth, it's still a good value, and will still perform nicely when matched to a balanced system. The HD 4670, for only a slight additional cost, is a still better choice in frames per dollar.

www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-card,2521-2.html

That's the article about the "best value" choices, and still names the HD 4650.

Supplies are now very good for the replacement of the 4670, although it costs closer to $100 (HD 5670). Initially, the yields from the new 40 mm wafers was less than great, and the cards sold as fast as they reached the retailers.

Gorath

With all due respect, wouldn't a Graphics Card with a 256-bit Memory Interface be a wiser choice? Why settle for 128-bit?

[Gorath Alpha]

For everyone out there with a hardware interest, that is a good question, and the answer is actually one of those "it depends" things. If you have medium quality display screens, which for LCDs, average 1280 by 1024, you probably have no immediate need for more than 128 bit memory systems. Right now, that size (that number of total pixels) doesn't need any more than 256 MBs of VRAM to service today's games.

Games are going to change, and when Dx10 / Dx11 become common, larger texture blocks are likely to become used in games at the high end, and for that, we will need at least 256 bit video cards. Larger screens with sharper grained resolutions are going to become more reasonably priced. We will need 256 bit cards, and upward, as these changes occur.

However, while we are using our current hardware, we have to make some mental calculations about where we need to budget our upgrades. The fact that Dx10 is now three years old, and so far hardly any games use it is a tipoff. If I bought something three years ago that was intended for Dx10, by today, it is really getting obsolete, and falling behind the development curve!  (And yet, because I help various friends and relatives with upgrades, and new builds, I do end up doing just that for some of them, against my advice that they are wasting funds that could go elsewhere.  Right now, I am shopping for a three year old card, NIB, a Geforce 8800 GT, that I have had go through here, but not when any current game "nneded" it back in 2007 or whenever it was). 

If I'm seeming to straddle the fence here, you have the right picture!  I do have mostly 256 bit video cards, I think, but a couple of my PCs are getting older, and so are the cards in them.  I have more high end CRT type displays than the flat panel LCD type, and can run some fine-grained resolutions on those. 

G

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 18 février 2010 - 12:14 .

[Tyrax Lightning]

Cool! Then I can confidently stand by my new puder build Graphics Card. It should last my whole puder build, even if it has to overclock later if I can figure out how to do that. I'm stuck on an ancient years old VGA Monitor that's max Res is 1280 x 1024, but after my puder build, when my funds recharge, i'll eventually get a new Monitor with better max Res. My 256-bit Memory Interface might come in handy then.



I see some people having display &/or graphics problems at high Res that are solved by lowering the Res, & I wonder if they were attempting to run high Res on 128-bit Memory Interface & the Memory Interface might be bottle necking on the load. So I made sure to go for 256-bit Memory Interface.



( & I do remember your aid in the Graphics Card research & info. Many thanks again!)

[AzureSky769]

I know everyone, including me, hate integrated video cards. I mean, let's face it, they suck. But seeing as I only have a laptop, and I am never going to be able to replace my graphics card in this computer, and I don't have the money to go buy a new, powerful one, I have to stick with what I got.

I know I'm not the only one out there who uses integrated graphics cards, so I just thought maybe you should add this one to the list?

I'm using an Intel GM45 integrated graphics card. I believe it's the GMA X4500 HD series. And this card works. It allows me to play the game at decent settings, with lag in more congested areas, but still runs.And other than actual software issue relating to the game (bugs, glitches) I haven't had too many problems so far. So, I know it'll be at the very bottom of your list, but if this is a thread to show which graphics cards can play this game, I figured I'd throw it in. Again, I realize it's not an officially supported graphics card, but it does work with the right computer setup. I guess I'm fortunate to have one that works.

Consequently, I had a question. Like I said, I do have some lag especially when there are a lot of people/enemies on screen, if I lower my screen resolution, would that help lag? My default is 1366x768 which is what I'm running the game at, I was wondering if I lower it a little if it would help.

And please... no "get a new graphics card/computer" or "your graphics card sucks" comments, please. I realize my graphics card sucks. Thanks.

Modifié par AzureSky769, 18 février 2010 - 04:48 .

[Tyrax Lightning]

I'm no fan of Laptops, but grudgingly admit not everyone has room in their rooms for a PC. & sometimes there's a need for the portability.



Similarly, I love Axes, but grudgingly admit that Axes can't solve all.



Lowering your Res should be of some help, since it would relieve processing load off both the IGP & the RAM.

[Almuadin]

I have been wondering: Is a Nvidia 9400 GT (1 GB and DDR2) card a good choice for this game? Because, I can get it to work in the 1084x res, but can't get to the 1400 one without getting choppy graphics. So, is there a graphic card out there that beats this one and is small enough to fit in a HP slimline computer? (And, of course, for it to have a not so high price)

I'm asking this because I kinda want to get a card to play with good fps without sacrificing much texture details.

[Gorath Alpha]

Almuadin wrote...

I have been wondering: Is a Nvidia 9400 GT (1 GB and DDR2) card a good choice for this game? Because, I can get it to work in the 1084x res, but can't get to the 1400 one without getting choppy graphics. So, is there a graphic card out there that beats this one and is small enough to fit in a HP slimline computer? (And, of course, for it to have a not so high price)

I'm asking this because I kinda want to get a card to play with good fps without sacrificing much texture details.

The 9400 GT is a bordeline zone card.  It's a three year old design formerly named 8500 GT.  That year the 8600 GT was the primary nVIDIA Mainline Gaming card, but it wasn't really well placed in its class, and the 9600 GT is a far better medium card.  The 9500 GT is just the prior year's 8600 GT.

Bioware and EA named a "pie in the sky" daydream as a minimum Geforce, officially.  The 6600 GT is pretty bad, but that 9400 GT technically is better (more shader units).  Unofficially, I believe that the Geforce 6800 GS is actuaklly the PRACTICAL choice that they should have named.  Your 9400 is not as good as that.  It would be my estimation that your card would need to be set to run in 1024 by 768 resolution in order to avoid any slowdowns, and even that wouldn't be enough in a real furball, with a lot of onscrees mobs. 

Both ATI and nVIDIA still produce "Low Priofile" cards for your little case.  The Radeon is the HD 4650 (don't get mixed up and get a 4550 or 4350), and the Geforce is the 9600 GT already mentioned, and last time that I checked Newegg, they had both, although the Radeon was the better value of the two, lower priced for the performance.  The 9600 GSO costs less, doesn't perform as well, and is not as commonly found in stock. 

P. S.  I didn't mention the GT240, because I don't know about Low Profile for that one.  I believe it's about equal to that 9600 GSO. 

Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 19 février 2010 - 10:15 .

[Almuadin]

Alright, thanks for the quick reply. I'll try to get my hand on either one of them, depending on the local store's supply.

EDIT: Oh, wait. I checked and saw that the Nvidia one had DDR3 and the Radeon one had DDR2. So, should I aim for better DDR or just go for the Radeon one?

Modifié par Almuadin, 19 février 2010 - 10:11 .

[Gorath Alpha]

Almuadin wrote...

Alright, thanks for the quick reply. I'll try to get my hand on either one of them, depending on the local store's supply.

EDIT: Oh, wait. I checked and saw that the Nvidia one had DDR3 and the Radeon one had DDR2. So, should I aim for better DDR or just go for the Radeon one?

Usually, a DDR3 card will have the performance edge (HD 4670 rather than HD 4650, if the 4670 Low Profile is readily available.  The 9600 GT is (I believe) somewhat quicker than the HD 4650, while the 9600 GSO is slightly less quick.  If available in Low Profile, the HD 4670 will be the fastest of all four, I think.  I've just looked, and the replacement for the 9600 GT isn't pictured in any Low Profile version at Newegg, and I don't think that it performs as well as any of them other than the GSO. 

Last fall, Newegg had a low profile version of the "Low Power Draw" 9800 GT, which was the barn burner in that narrow format, but probably would require a slight upgrade to the power supply, perhaps to the cooling system also, as well as costing about $40 more than the average prices for the five referred to here so far.  The HD 5670 is DDR3, but not Low Profile (not yet), and like the Low Power 9800 GT, might want 320 / 350 watts and up, while the others should all work with the 280 watts or so that a low profile case's PSU offers.  (I haven't marked the HD 5670's Amperage demands in memory; it could be a real economy power sipper what with the new 40 nm die wafers it is made on, but it costs about the same as that Geforce 9800 Low Power.)

Gorath

[maxernst]

I'm not sure what's available in low profile, but the cards like the 9800GT, and the Radeon 4850 and 5670 are coming down to around $100. I'm running the Radeon 4850 on my own machine and playing at 1680x1050 quite happily.

[Tyrax Lightning]

I got curious about these 'low profile' cards, & found this one: SPARKLE SX98GT512D3L-NM GeForce 9800 GT 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready Low Profile Ready Video Card.

Might wanna run it by Gorath because I don't know squat about low-profile Graphics Cards.

[Gorath Alpha]

Sometimes I will supplement the remarks I add as comments to these threads / articles with PMs.  I have done that with regard to the 9800 GT Low Profile card(s).  I would worry about power because the typical slimline box doesn't have ATX-class power from a smaller power supply, and the slimline box doesn't have comparable cooling air flow for a (comparatively) powerful video card. 

Incidentally, Tyrax. you mentioned some kind of FAQ about power supplies yesterday, I think.  I checked, and there was already about as much information on those in the primary PC Hardware Basics article, as I know about them, with the exception of the names for quality brands, and I have added those now.  

Gorath
-