39 réponses à ce sujet

[Tyrax Lightning]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

Anyone who equates VRAM amount with much of anything is probably wrong.  Only a high end card can use more than 256 MBs.  The typical Mainline, medium power gaming cards have 128 bit memory systems, which gives them only a moderate memory bandwidth, which limits the amount of VRAM that they can pass onward to games. 

There is some overlap at the border zone between Medium and High End, where the RAM's speed and the graphics chip's core speed are high enough that the High-Medium cards can work with 512 MBs sometimes, although not always..   therefore, when you have a large display with lots of oixels to juggle, you need to get two things -- the high end performance, and the large amount of VRAM.

Gorath
-

That post peaked my interest. I got advised a Graphics Card upgrade by other Forumites here. This one:

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814102864

It says it has GDDR5 Memory & 1GB Memory Size, but Memory Interface of 128-bit. Is 128-bit Memory Interface anywhere near '512 MBs' of power, or was the '512 MBs' referring to Memory Size?

[Mrcoffee55]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

Mrcoffee55 wrote...

http://cyri.systemre...lab.com/srtest/

Best webpage to test if your PC has the right specs

Please, PLEASE  do the entire world a favor, and forget you ever heard of that ridiculously inaccurate joint! 

They are wrong so often, they are simply a horrible joke! 

Of that type place, the Game-o-Meter at YouGamers is at least decent. 

Thank you.

Gorath
-

Thanks for the heads up, been using that page to test my rig on a few games. 

[Skydiver8888]

EJ42 wrote...

I have a Radeon HD 5870 paired with a QX9650, and the game runs acceptably if I drop it down to 1024x768 at low settings.

uhhh...did you mistype your card?  Because the radeon 5870 is pretty much top of the line...I have one with an asus p6t mobo and an intel i7-920 processor and can run every game I have on the highest settings.  I'm not sure DA even raises the temperature, lol.

EQ2 probably taxes it the most, but can still run that on "extreme" quality just fine.  WHILE raiding with 23 other people....

[Gorath Alpha]

Like the HD 4670, the HD 5770 is a High-Medium card with good (as long as the partner follows the ATI reference design and technical specifications) RAM and good core speeds.  Although a 128 bit memory system will normally mean that the bandwidth available will restrict the card to a max of 256 MBs pass-through for gaming purposes, with the sizes of textures in use today, these two outperform the usual Mainline cards, such as the HD 4650.  They can offer 512 MBs often enough to make that amount worthwhile. 

By the time game developers are regualrly using really huge texture models that our current extra-large VRAM amount cards could already handle, we will be using a combination GPU plus multi-core CPU on the same die (2012 for ATI), not individual video cards any longer.  I need to research how this will affect the movement of texture blocks in and out of video RAM some time between now and then, of course. 

Large amounts of RAM are used by manufacturers today as a "CON", attracting the noobs when it has generally far less affect that they suppose, since it's being added so often to very slow, very narrow bandwidth 64 bit business level video cards. 

Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 05 janvier 2010 - 04:01 .

[EJ42]

Skydiver8888 wrote...

EJ42 wrote...

I have a Radeon HD 5870 paired with a QX9650, and the game runs acceptably if I drop it down to 1024x768 at low settings.

uhhh...did you mistype your card?  Because the radeon 5870 is pretty much top of the line...I have one with an asus p6t mobo and an intel i7-920 processor and can run every game I have on the highest settings.  I'm not sure DA even raises the temperature, lol.

EQ2 probably taxes it the most, but can still run that on "extreme" quality just fine.  WHILE raiding with 23 other people....

There is no way you're getting more than 240 FPS at anything higher than 1024x768, and that is simply unacceptable.

[Zethell]

If you have an older card than the X850 then you're probably using an AGP slot, and to get a new graphics card with PCI-E slot, that would mean that you would have to buy a new motherboard as well..



And that would also mean, that you'd have to get a new CPU, since getting a motherboard with PCI-E and a compatible port for your CPU (which i'm just guessing is old too íf you use AGP) is nearly impossible nowdays.



Anyways, what i'm saying is, upgrading to a PCI-E card like the HD 4800 series or 5800 series, could be.. VERY expensive.



If you're looking for a cheap upgrade, get one of these...



ATi Radeon HD 3650 512MB DDR2

ATi Radeon HD 4650 1GB DDR2



More than enough to run Dragon Age: Origins maxed out, if you have the CPU & RAM for it.

And you wouldnt have to upgrade everything else, just to get a new graphics card.

[Zethell]

EJ42 wrote...

Skydiver8888 wrote...

EJ42 wrote...

I have a Radeon HD 5870 paired with a QX9650, and the game runs acceptably if I drop it down to 1024x768 at low settings.

uhhh...did you mistype your card?  Because the radeon 5870 is pretty much top of the line...I have one with an asus p6t mobo and an intel i7-920 processor and can run every game I have on the highest settings.  I'm not sure DA even raises the temperature, lol.

EQ2 probably taxes it the most, but can still run that on "extreme" quality just fine.  WHILE raiding with 23 other people....

There is no way you're getting more than 240 FPS at anything higher than 1024x768, and that is simply unacceptable.

I max this game out, with my HD 3870, Fraps says i have 120 FPS with Full AA and 1680x1050 Resolution.
Other specs are Phenom2 QuadCore @3.0ghz and 4gb DDR2 ram, underclocked to 333mhz.

[Gorath Alpha]

Zethell wrote...

If you have an older card than the X850 then you're probably using an AGP slot

ATi Radeon HD 3650 512MB DDR2
ATi Radeon HD 4650 1GB DDR2

More than enough to run Dragon Age: Origins maxed out, if you have the CPU & RAM for it.
And you wouldnt have to upgrade everything else, just to get a new graphics card.

The entire Xn00 generation was PCIe, although only the X700, X800, and X850 had the very latest Dx9.0"b" pixel shaders (the minimum for DA: O).  The X800 / X850 were available all along as *BOTH* AGP and PCIe.  The X600 was a variation of the Radeon 9600 from the year before, as were all of the cards from X1050 to 9550.  Look at the little history of the 9600 to X300 to 9550 to X1050, AGP to PCIe to AGP, back to PCIe. 

The HD 3850, just as is the case for 90% of all "n800" High End video cards, requires a larger than stock power supply, and extra cost.  Attempting to use it with the base PSU is just asking for way too much trouble. 

Gorath
-

[EJ42]

Zethell wrote...

EJ42 wrote...

Skydiver8888 wrote...

EJ42 wrote...

I have a Radeon HD 5870 paired with a QX9650, and the game runs acceptably if I drop it down to 1024x768 at low settings.

uhhh...did you mistype your card?  Because the radeon 5870 is pretty much top of the line...I have one with an asus p6t mobo and an intel i7-920 processor and can run every game I have on the highest settings.  I'm not sure DA even raises the temperature, lol.

EQ2 probably taxes it the most, but can still run that on "extreme" quality just fine.  WHILE raiding with 23 other people....

There is no way you're getting more than 240 FPS at anything higher than 1024x768, and that is simply unacceptable.

I max this game out, with my HD 3870, Fraps says i have 120 FPS with Full AA and 1680x1050 Resolution.
Other specs are Phenom2 QuadCore @3.0ghz and 4gb DDR2 ram, underclocked to 333mhz.

So you're saying your system fails to run it at an acceptable framerate, like I mentioned before?

[Tyrax Lightning]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

Like the HD 4670, the HD 5770 is a High-Medium card with good (as long as the partner follows the ATI reference design and technical specifications) RAM and good core speeds.  Although a 128 bit memory system will normally mean that the bandwidth available will restrict the card to a max of 256 MBs pass-through for gaming purposes, with the sizes of textures in use today, these two outperform the usual Mainline cards, such as the HD 4650.  They can offer 512 MBs often enough to make that amount worthwhile. 

By the time game developers are regualrly using really huge texture models that our current extra-large VRAM amount cards could already handle, we will be using a combination GPU plus multi-core CPU on the same die (2012 for ATI), not individual video cards any longer.  I need to research how this will affect the movement of texture blocks in and out of video RAM some time between now and then, of course. 

Large amounts of RAM are used by manufacturers today as a "CON", attracting the noobs when it has generally far less affect that they suppose, since it's being added so often to very slow, very narrow bandwidth 64 bit business level video cards. 

Gorath
-

So... Is this card a good advisement, & can it give me good performance for at least a couple of years? (Doesn't have to be top-end since i'm not rich, but I want it to be at least buff & able at handling DA:O if possible.) This Graphics Card is the most expensive part of the new build & I need it to work well.

Many thanks for your intel.

[Gorath Alpha]

When I give advice here, I tend to expect there to be a desire to economize, and don't typically bring in my own personal style into things, but I prefer last year's high end, so I'm only now getting HD 4850 and/or 4870 cards (sorry about the typo there I've fixed in edit), at prices far more to my liking than those cards sold for a year ago.  That gives me more options for more situations.  I chose to keep PCs all around my old house, with the exception of bathrooms, and so far, the kitchen. 

I enjoy tinkering with my systems.  Playing games on them gives them a reason to exist, so my games versus the hardware situation is from the opposite direction than it is for most game players. 

At any given time, there are a minimum of four operable and in-place PCs I can use, all on my own (wired) LAN.  But there are some elderly PCs I occasionally get out and displace another one, to play an old game on the same hardware that it was designed for.  There are actually five "stations" with UPSes and LAN connections.  It would be expensive as can be to have more than one of them right up to date with this year's best parts; in order to have even one that current, I'd have to let at least two pass up  their own upgrades.  

So, I seldom buy Mainline video cards like those I typically suggest to folks as being affordable.  Three our of five of my displays are still large CRT devices, not flat panel LCDs.  I have a lot more access to very high resolutions because of those, and I want to take advantage of it.  When I install my 4870, I will move a 3870 to a machine that has an X1950, and move that to one that has an X850 XT-Platininum. 

As long as you are only dealing with medium resolutions, the HD 5770 is just fine, but how does its cost compare to my HD 4870?  I haven't checked, because it's the HD 58xx cards(59xx ?) that  I'll use a year from now. 

G

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 05 janvier 2010 - 05:06 .

[Skydiver8888]

EJ42 wrote...

Zethell wrote...

EJ42 wrote...

Skydiver8888 wrote...

EJ42 wrote...

I have a Radeon HD 5870 paired with a QX9650, and the game runs acceptably if I drop it down to 1024x768 at low settings.

uhhh...did you mistype your card?  Because the radeon 5870 is pretty much top of the line...I have one with an asus p6t mobo and an intel i7-920 processor and can run every game I have on the highest settings.  I'm not sure DA even raises the temperature, lol.

EQ2 probably taxes it the most, but can still run that on "extreme" quality just fine.  WHILE raiding with 23 other people....

There is no way you're getting more than 240 FPS at anything higher than 1024x768, and that is simply unacceptable.

I max this game out, with my HD 3870, Fraps says i have 120 FPS with Full AA and 1680x1050 Resolution.
Other specs are Phenom2 QuadCore @3.0ghz and 4gb DDR2 ram, underclocked to 333mhz.

So you're saying your system fails to run it at an acceptable framerate, like I mentioned before?

lol, the truth comes out.

240 FPS?  that's your level of "acceptable".  I see.  Hsve fun playing BG2 or WoW then.  My level of acceptable is 60 FPS, since my old 30-something eyes can't really tell a difference past that, anyway.

[Tyrax Lightning]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

When I give advice here, I tend to expect there to be a desire to economize, and don't typically bring in my own personal style into things, but I prefer last year's high end, so I'm only now getting HD 4850 and 4970 cards, at prices far more to my liking than those cards sold for a year ago.  That gives me more options for more situations.  I chose to keep PCs all around my old house, with the exception of bathrooms, and so far, the kitchen. 

I enjoy tinkering with my systems.  Playing games on them gives them a reason to exist, so my games versus the hardware situation is from the opposite direction than it is for most game players. 

At any given time, there are a minimum of four operable and in-place PCs I can use, all on my own (wired) LAN.  But there are some elderly PCs I occasionally get out and displace another one, to play an old game on the same hardware that it was designed for.  There are actually five "stations" with UPSes and LAN connections.  It would be expensive as can be to have more than one of them right up to date with this year's best parts; in order to have even one that current, I'd have to let at least two pass up  their own upgrades.  

So, I seldom buy Mainline video cards like those I typically suggest to folks as being affordable.  Three our of five of my displays are still large CRT devices, not flat panel LCDs.  I have a lot more access to very high resolutions because of those, and I want to take advantage of it.  When I install my 4870, I will move a 3870 to a machine that has an X1950, and move that to one that has an X850 XT-Platininum. 

As long as you are only dealing with medium resolutions, the HD 5770 is just fine, but how does its cost compare to my HD 4870?  I haven't checked, because it's the HD 58xx cards(59xx ?) that  I'll use a year from now. 

G

Did I find the right 'HD 4870' match? Found 2 matches on NewEgg, one is a FIERCE $170ish bucks, & this one that looks like a competitor for my current selection:

Current pick: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814102864
HD 4870: http://www.newegg.co...-849R-_-Product

Your HD 4870 suggestion is of interest. It doesn't have DirectX 11, but it's got 256-bit Memory Interface, & is currently as of the time of this post seriously less painful in cost. How important is DirectX power anyway?

This HD 4870 says it's 'open box' & has no reviews. This concerns me, yet it's cost could significantly increase the chances of my puder building budget succeed at gettin my new puder built.

Once again, many thanks for your intel & advice. If Bioware ever holds a 'Poster of the Year' contest, i'll remember your name!

(My apologies to the TC about my posts here, I solemly swear i'm not trying to be a thread hijacker & I sincerely hope this Graphics Card intel is helping you with your endeavors. /bow)

[Gorath Alpha]

Look at the 512 MB HIS Card here    www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx

With a 256 bit memory system, it would always be able to use the full 512 MBs of VRAM, and if tou aren't planning on a 24" and upward high resolution display as well, it's a very good balance of power and cost at the exact same $155 price point as the 5770. 

Game developers are about two years behind hardware designers, sometimes three, and in the case at hand, about four for DA: O's graphics, I think.  Dx11 won't be a factor for at least two years, and then will arrive gradually. 

Dx10 is just now arriving in the latest games. 

Regarding thread hijacking, you are correct, and a move to local PMs from here forward is probably in order both for our discuusion, as well as the argument about what constitutes Max Settungs. 

G

[EJ42]

Skydiver8888 wrote...

EJ42 wrote...

Zethell wrote...

EJ42 wrote...

Skydiver8888 wrote...

EJ42 wrote...

I have a Radeon HD 5870 paired with a QX9650, and the game runs acceptably if I drop it down to 1024x768 at low settings.

uhhh...did you mistype your card?  Because the radeon 5870 is pretty much top of the line...I have one with an asus p6t mobo and an intel i7-920 processor and can run every game I have on the highest settings.  I'm not sure DA even raises the temperature, lol.

EQ2 probably taxes it the most, but can still run that on "extreme" quality just fine.  WHILE raiding with 23 other people....

There is no way you're getting more than 240 FPS at anything higher than 1024x768, and that is simply unacceptable.

I max this game out, with my HD 3870, Fraps says i have 120 FPS with Full AA and 1680x1050 Resolution.
Other specs are Phenom2 QuadCore @3.0ghz and 4gb DDR2 ram, underclocked to 333mhz.

So you're saying your system fails to run it at an acceptable framerate, like I mentioned before?

lol, the truth comes out.

240 FPS?  that's your level of "acceptable".  I see.  Hsve fun playing BG2 or WoW then.  My level of acceptable is 60 FPS, since my old 30-something eyes can't really tell a difference past that, anyway.

Pffft!  I can't help it if you want to settle for less than the absolute best.

Don't you have a new 3D 240Hz TV with shutter-glasses setup?  How are you supposed to get dual 120Hz 3D framerate out of a crappy computer setup?  We need like...quad-crossfire with Radeon HD 5970s!