7 réponses à ce sujet

[Gorath Alpha]

    What's the deal with Video Graphics Card Naming and Quality Levels?

I have used a longer article published in the Social Forums' DAO Tech Forum, edited to this somewhat shorter version.  The full article may be found at
http://social.biowar...58/index/519461, and it seems to need to be updated somewhat.

Although the confusion between what a "card" is, and what software is, seems more extreme (a couple of paragraphs about which have been edited out), we also see far too many new arrivals and even some moderately experienced PC users getting onboard video solutions confused with the real thing, actual video cards.

Here is a great long list of the many video cards that have been available:

www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php

I don't necessarily agree with the individual ranking placements, and have previously posted my own simplified rankings list based on the one compiled by NotTheKing.

Here's how to identify your current system's hardware:

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

All modern PC game packaging includes a System Requirements label describing the hardware needed to run the game.  When it comes to the video cards, their names include a performance marker in the form "n600" for those I refer to as Mainline Gaming cards.  An example of such a card is the late 2008 released Radeon HD 4670.  The HD 4 is the generation, and the "670" is the performance level.  Ordinary business graphics cards have the markers n300, n400, and n500.  They are much slower and less capable than the gaming cards.

compreviews.about.com/od/video/a/DeskVidSpec.htm

Geforces no longer use the "four digit" performance number naming system, and the newer cards' numbers have become so confusing that the only thing left to rely on is the "GTS" and "GTX" prefixes (GTS 450, GTX 550 for gaming quality, and upward from there).

Modern games do not offer support to low quality video devices built into the computer's mainboard chipsets.  These onboard (or "IGP") devices are not intended for game use.

Peripherally related to the errors made purchasing PCs that have no video cards at all, we also see a fairly frequent complaint from some people about the newness of their machine seemin (to them) to represent something special in regard to System Requirements mistakes.  There always have been, and always will be, multiple GRADES of computer quality being sold new at the same time by the same retailer.

The market for low quality, inexpensive PCs continues to exist, particularly for laptops,  of which few are adequate game systems.  The same goes for computer PARTS.  Just because a video card is "new" doesn't make it better than an older, higher quality part.

For the very best in game playing, there are High End video cards with performance markers such as n800, n900 (the nVIDIA company also has some GTX260/275/280/285, GTX460/470/480/560/570/580 numbered high end cards).

Shopping:   www.ehow.com/how_5743276_choose-gaming-graphics-card.html

[Gorath Alpha]

We had a new arrival who seemed to want to act surprised that a terrible, and quite elderly, 8400 GS wasn't good enough.

There hasn't been a major release of any high intensity game in maybe three years now that anything that poor was officially supported for. 

I can't recall whether the HD 4350 is any better than the 8400 GS, although I think that it is, but both were named officially as inadequate. 

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 06 novembre 2011 - 12:54 .

[Gorath Alpha]

The HD 6450 is a card designed for business charts, graphs, presentations, and spreadsheets, and handle those very well. It was not designed for games, and has a very low memory system bandwidth, so cannot handle the HD 1080p specification.

[Gorath Alpha]

Today, the subject is the nVIDIA Geforce GT 520. It's also just a card for charts, graphs, presentations, spreadsheets, and perhaps elderly games whose system requirements are more lenient than ME-2 is.

[Gorath Alpha]

To be totally redundant, within the official system requirements, Bioware wrote that support for Intel video products would not be afforded. Every time those awful chips come up in here again, I repeat that it is not my personal intention to offer support for something that bad, that the developers felt it necessary to specifically name, I will just repeat that in my opinion it is only electronic trash, and I have no interest in engaging in any level of debate about it.

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 07 janvier 2012 - 02:18 .

[Gorath Alpha]

Almost all of the Social Site's forums lost most of the membership's attention about nine or ten months ago, and remain poorly attended, other than those for ME-3, which will be released in about a week, on March 6th, 2012, stateside.

I have to guess that most of the questions from new arrivals are being caused by people actually more interested in the ME-3 sequel.  The fact that the video graphics requirements are lower for it, and the demo looks worse than ME-1 / ME2 tells me that the graphics have been coarsened to appeal more to console game players than PC owners, but whether ME-3's demo will work on your low quality hardware or not, ME-1 / ME-2 almost certainly cannot work properly on Intel's tinker toy video chips, for instance. 

There is almost no one to read and answer questions still visiting here. But the old archives have all of the answers, and Kloreep's FAQ sticky is right there waiting for you. If you are unable to research a problem, your questions are unlikely to get you answers, without the standard problem report information (see Pacifien's sticky in that regard).

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 01 mars 2012 - 05:16 .

[Gorath Alpha]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

Almost all of the Social Site's forums lost most of the membership's attention about nine or ten months ago (over eleven months ago as I pick up this quote), and the Tech Discussions, particularly, remain poorly attended, other than those for ME-3.

There is almost no one to read and answer questions still visiting here. But the old archives have all of the answers, and Kloreep's FAQ sticky is right there waiting for you. If you are unable to research a problem, your questions are unlikely to get you answers, without the standard problem report information (see Pacifien's sticky in that regard).

Things have not changed in the six to seven weeks since the comment I've quoted from above was posted, at least not for the better, as far as readers in here.  The ebb tide is about to arrive, when what few are visiting now will mostly spend the time outdoors, not in here.  Game forums are essentially a poor weather phenomenon, these Bioware Social ones being particularly affected in that way. 

There's a current "last gasp" of new arrivals lately, who come in wearing blindfolds and crashing into the walls here, stumbling over the furniture, and ignoring Pacifien's Guide Post: 

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/106/index/1537629

Please remove your blinders and put on your corrective eyewear, people! 

[Gorath Alpha]

This thread is about ranking real video graphics cards that were
designed for game playing.  It should be noted that Intel makes no cards
of any kind whatsoever, only integrated video chips of low quality.

Gorath Alpha wrote...

To be totally redundant, within the official system requirements, Bioware wrote that support for Intel video products would not be afforded. Every time those awful chips come up in here again, I repeat that it is not my personal intention to offer support for something that bad, that the developers felt it necessary to specifically name, I will just repeat that in my opinion it is only electronic trash, and I have no interest in engaging in any level of debate about it.