Which graphics card?
Friday, January 9, 2004 by deesh | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Do these high end graphics card make a big impact on your desktop? I mean, does a WB skin, Window FX or all Stardock products look different than what it does with my GeForce 2 card? If yes, then can anyone recommed a budget card that can achieve the experience?
Thanks vey much!
Thanks vey much!
 |
|
Page 3 of 4 | |
|
|---|
The DJ
Reply #42 Saturday, January 10, 2004 1:45 AM
Reply #42 Saturday, January 10, 2004 1:45 AM
What are you talkin about? Both cards are basically the same price. And show me the performance difference in DX9 benchmarks. They're basically neck and neck in the link you showed me.
The DJ
Reply #43 Saturday, January 10, 2004 1:49 AM
I hear ya--I'm no ATI fanboy. Up until now, everything has been Nvidia, but now I got a 9600XT. The reason being for the latest DX9 games ATI really comes out on top.
Reply #43 Saturday, January 10, 2004 1:49 AM
| #38 by IPlural - 1/10/2004 1:42:00 AM Kona don't worry about me... I don't take it personal in the leat, preferences in Hardware and such is a silly thing to be worked up about...ATI verse nVidia is about the same thing as MAC verse PC in the end... |
I hear ya--I'm no ATI fanboy. Up until now, everything has been Nvidia, but now I got a 9600XT. The reason being for the latest DX9 games ATI really comes out on top.
IPlural
Reply #44 Saturday, January 10, 2004 1:49 AM
Reply #44 Saturday, January 10, 2004 1:49 AM
the link above shows totally different results than those you posted DJ...
hell I don't care, people buy what they want, I wouldn't spend $500.00 on any video cards unless it was a Graphics Engine personally... and then only if I went back into Mechanical Design and was running Unigraphics, AutoCAD, Catia or some other serious applications....
hell I don't care, people buy what they want, I wouldn't spend $500.00 on any video cards unless it was a Graphics Engine personally... and then only if I went back into Mechanical Design and was running Unigraphics, AutoCAD, Catia or some other serious applications....
IPlural
Reply #45 Saturday, January 10, 2004 1:52 AM
Reply #45 Saturday, January 10, 2004 1:52 AM
If I went ATI it would be the 9700 or 9600 same with the FX I went with the 5700 little over $200.00 I'm happy, though the drivers on the CD sucked 
go figure
go figure
The DJ
Reply #46 Saturday, January 10, 2004 1:58 AM
Reply #46 Saturday, January 10, 2004 1:58 AM
Yeah I wouldn't spend over $200 right now, with the next gen. cards and PCI express (replacing AGP 8X) in the near future. Plus with the 9600XT I got (will get) Half Life 2 for free.
IPlural
Reply #47 Saturday, January 10, 2004 2:07 AM
Reply #47 Saturday, January 10, 2004 2:07 AM
I'm looking at the 9800: Comanche 4: 44.45 and the 5950: 57.40 but you go and look up Jedi Knight TSE and you get: 180.2 and 160.70... it flip flops back and forth and the pricing isn't that much off. but
here is pricing on the nVidia 5900 http://bjorn3d.pricegrabber.com/search_gen.php/topcat_id=1/form_keyword=FX%252B5900/manuf_sort=/form_page_id=5/ut=040490d99128b6e3
here is the pricing on the ATI 9800 http://bjorn3d.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=704418/ut=040490d99128b6e3
here is pricing on the nVidia 5900 http://bjorn3d.pricegrabber.com/search_gen.php/topcat_id=1/form_keyword=FX%252B5900/manuf_sort=/form_page_id=5/ut=040490d99128b6e3
here is the pricing on the ATI 9800 http://bjorn3d.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=704418/ut=040490d99128b6e3
IPlural
Reply #48 Saturday, January 10, 2004 2:10 AM
I think, Ghost Recon, the new release fot he Army Game version 2.? and some other things...
I would love to have the 9800 with 256 or the 5900 or 5950 with 265... but...
Hell I walked out with a display and card for under the store price for either of those cards
Reply #48 Saturday, January 10, 2004 2:10 AM
I think, Ghost Recon, the new release fot he Army Game version 2.? and some other things...I would love to have the 9800 with 256 or the 5900 or 5950 with 265... but...
Hell I walked out with a display and card for under the store price for either of those cards
DesignCaddy
Reply #49 Saturday, January 10, 2004 2:01 PM
Reply #49 Saturday, January 10, 2004 2:01 PM
im not gonna get in the middle of you two.. i've always used ati cards and i'm on a radeon 8500 right now.. my work machines have used nvidias and i've found them to be fast but not be as 'user friendly' as the radeons. they are more picky.
IPlural
Reply #50 Saturday, January 10, 2004 2:16 PM
Reply #50 Saturday, January 10, 2004 2:16 PM
Without a doubt it really depends on the system configuration and what pleases the person using it
oh, BTW, nothing to get in the middle of, no fiend no fowl here in the least. I find it hard to put much out emotionally over stuff like hardware and such.
I've been part of a strategic team in product development for 2 mbit 10 mbit and 11 mbit Spread Spectrum Radio and Microwave Wireless BRouters, Routers, and Bridges, working in conjunction with AT&T Lucent, Clarion, KarlBridge, and Proxim in the past and know how numbers and such always get twisted and skewed to fit the purposes in the desired direction. So in the end it will always boil down to user satisfaction being the mean point to bench mark anything with.
It was always a point of contention between us (myself and all the others) about not using the true Ethernet traffic being passed as the actual speed indicator instead of including the overhead and garbage so they could claim T-1 and above speeds.
A T-1 is not 1.2 mbit as advertised, instead it is 1.0 at best, the rest is wrappers, ack/nak, rip/sap and other trash which means noting as an indicator of true speed... neat how that works
oh, BTW, nothing to get in the middle of, no fiend no fowl here in the least. I find it hard to put much out emotionally over stuff like hardware and such.
I've been part of a strategic team in product development for 2 mbit 10 mbit and 11 mbit Spread Spectrum Radio and Microwave Wireless BRouters, Routers, and Bridges, working in conjunction with AT&T Lucent, Clarion, KarlBridge, and Proxim in the past and know how numbers and such always get twisted and skewed to fit the purposes in the desired direction. So in the end it will always boil down to user satisfaction being the mean point to bench mark anything with.
It was always a point of contention between us (myself and all the others) about not using the true Ethernet traffic being passed as the actual speed indicator instead of including the overhead and garbage so they could claim T-1 and above speeds.
A T-1 is not 1.2 mbit as advertised, instead it is 1.0 at best, the rest is wrappers, ack/nak, rip/sap and other trash which means noting as an indicator of true speed... neat how that works
voo
Reply #51 Saturday, January 10, 2004 2:45 PM
Reply #51 Saturday, January 10, 2004 2:45 PM
5700 & 5950 Review
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/88/
9800 XT Review
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/96/
Bad thing about NVIDIA card's now i dislike, is they are like the size of hovercraft's.
Someone mentioned 5800 Ultra... they will or are a collectors item!
Always are, usually by the time its made theres atleast 3 - 6 new drivers out by the time the cards are shipped.
As for NVIDIA as one or two keep saying "SUCKS d00d"
id only say NVIDIA are great for nForce2 but nForce3 which is still to mature which unfortunately has no SoundStorm :/
The reason 3D cards these days have so much power well the top of the range line, for people who want to run their games with 4 - 6xFSAA 8 - 16 xAF 1280x1024 and higher resoloutions, these cards are just a waste of money when people dont use FSAA & AF.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/88/
9800 XT Review
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/96/
Bad thing about NVIDIA card's now i dislike, is they are like the size of hovercraft's.
Someone mentioned 5800 Ultra... they will or are a collectors item!
| #45 by IPlural - 1/10/2004 1:52:12 AM though the drivers on the CD sucked |
Always are, usually by the time its made theres atleast 3 - 6 new drivers out by the time the cards are shipped.
As for NVIDIA as one or two keep saying "SUCKS d00d"
id only say NVIDIA are great for nForce2 but nForce3 which is still to mature which unfortunately has no SoundStorm :/The reason 3D cards these days have so much power well the top of the range line, for people who want to run their games with 4 - 6xFSAA 8 - 16 xAF 1280x1024 and higher resoloutions, these cards are just a waste of money when people dont use FSAA & AF.
DesignCaddy
Reply #52 Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:36 AM
Reply #52 Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:36 AM
so does AGP 8x now mean we're gonna see 512mg video cards in a couple months?
deesh
Reply #53 Sunday, January 11, 2004 3:54 AM
Reply #53 Sunday, January 11, 2004 3:54 AM
So does this all mean that a good graphics card is needed while gaming. It would not really impact the visual experience of stardock products?
DesignCaddy
Reply #54 Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:21 PM
Reply #54 Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:21 PM
yes, deesh. any card that gives you 16k to 32k colors and at least 1024x768 resolution will show you the majority of the graphics on here in their correct form, 1024x768 res is becomming a standard. all new computers that i can think of, say from Dell or HP, come with video cards that are at that new standard. even if you build a computer yourself, most motherboards out there come with built-in video cards that are at that standard.
when your video is rendering graphics is where you start to see the limits of a card. Games render graphics, and programs used to BUILD the graphics you view on here use rendering. as a general rule, the more video memory your card has the more rendering it can handle. things like desktop x, i believe, and object dock definitly, will render graphics and require a bit more processing power by your card. most 'packaged' cards top out at 32megs of video memory. this is fine for anything on this site, and is good for some games. but if your object dock seems to drag or is real choppy, this is your video card hitting its max (or your refresh is too low but that's another story). more rendering power would make it run smoother.
a lot of new games comming out now however, are geared towards poeple with powerful graphics cards. for example, Knights of the Old Republic i noticed requires at least 32 megs of video memory, and recommends 128 megs on a top of the line card (it says NVIDIA GeForce2/3/4 or Radeon 8500-9800) to make it run properly. thats a lot of rendering, and that game needs a LOT of video processing power!
programs like photoshop and vector drawing programs like 3d studios max, illustrator, or autocad will also need a lot of rendering power also.
these guys talking about which card is better are comparing them on a developer or gaming level - where the rendering is done. simply viewing the material is not an issue on most equipment.
/end tutorial
when your video is rendering graphics is where you start to see the limits of a card. Games render graphics, and programs used to BUILD the graphics you view on here use rendering. as a general rule, the more video memory your card has the more rendering it can handle. things like desktop x, i believe, and object dock definitly, will render graphics and require a bit more processing power by your card. most 'packaged' cards top out at 32megs of video memory. this is fine for anything on this site, and is good for some games. but if your object dock seems to drag or is real choppy, this is your video card hitting its max (or your refresh is too low but that's another story). more rendering power would make it run smoother.
a lot of new games comming out now however, are geared towards poeple with powerful graphics cards. for example, Knights of the Old Republic i noticed requires at least 32 megs of video memory, and recommends 128 megs on a top of the line card (it says NVIDIA GeForce2/3/4 or Radeon 8500-9800) to make it run properly. thats a lot of rendering, and that game needs a LOT of video processing power!
programs like photoshop and vector drawing programs like 3d studios max, illustrator, or autocad will also need a lot of rendering power also.
these guys talking about which card is better are comparing them on a developer or gaming level - where the rendering is done. simply viewing the material is not an issue on most equipment.
/end tutorial
DesignCaddy
Reply #55 Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:25 PM
Reply #55 Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:25 PM
if i'm wrong on any of those points, someone please feel free to point them out.
Essencay
Reply #56 Sunday, January 11, 2004 2:03 PM
Reply #56 Sunday, January 11, 2004 2:03 PM
Screen Resolutions
640x480
800x600
1280x1024
1600x1200
Why the jump to 1280x1024 instead of 1280x960? I know that 1280x960 is readily available, but seems like most everyone uses 1280x1024 which slightly stretches images horizontally.
640x480
800x600
1280x1024
1600x1200
Why the jump to 1280x1024 instead of 1280x960? I know that 1280x960 is readily available, but seems like most everyone uses 1280x1024 which slightly stretches images horizontally.
kona0197
Reply #57 Sunday, January 11, 2004 8:03 PM
I am running object dock on a 4 mb onboard video card. never had any problems for months.
Reply #57 Sunday, January 11, 2004 8:03 PM
| when your video is rendering graphics is where you start to see the limits of a card. Games render graphics, and programs used to BUILD the graphics you view on here use rendering. as a general rule, the more video memory your card has the more rendering it can handle. things like desktop x, i believe, and object dock definitly, will render graphics and require a bit more processing power by your card. most 'packaged' cards top out at 32megs of video memory. this is fine for anything on this site, and is good for some games. but if your object dock seems to drag or is real choppy, this is your video card hitting its max (or your refresh is too low but that's another story). more rendering power would make it run smoother. |
I am running object dock on a 4 mb onboard video card. never had any problems for months.
EventHorizon
Reply #58 Sunday, January 11, 2004 9:53 PM
Reply #58 Sunday, January 11, 2004 9:53 PM
64mb of shared RAM for video here (256 total)... really drags the system down if you're running more than one memory intensive prog.(i.e. Photoshop and Word) And playing Age of Mythology while running other progams? Not gonna happen.
DesignCaddy
Reply #59 Monday, January 12, 2004 11:19 AM
Reply #59 Monday, January 12, 2004 11:19 AM
shared video baaaad.
Kona i'm really impressed with that 4mg video.. 4mgs is like, the origional voodoo 3dfx overlay card.. a good 8 years old
Essencay, 1280x1024 is in the same proportion as 1024x768.. if its stretching for you, your refresh is off or your screen is misaligned. i can only go from 1024x768 to 1280x1024 on this machine (nvidia..) but when i get home i'll back myself up.
Kona i'm really impressed with that 4mg video.. 4mgs is like, the origional voodoo 3dfx overlay card.. a good 8 years old
Essencay, 1280x1024 is in the same proportion as 1024x768.. if its stretching for you, your refresh is off or your screen is misaligned. i can only go from 1024x768 to 1280x1024 on this machine (nvidia..) but when i get home i'll back myself up.
kona0197
Reply #60 Monday, January 12, 2004 12:01 PM
yeah get this. I can play DVD's on it and Red Alert 2 as well with no drop in performance. Must be the Pentium 3 processor doing alot of work. It is a Intel 810 onbaord Video card and it can go as high as 1024x768 but stuff that small hurts my eyes trying to read so I keep it at 800x600
[Message Edited]
Reply #60 Monday, January 12, 2004 12:01 PM
| Kona i'm really impressed with that 4mg video.. 4mgs is like, the origional voodoo 3dfx overlay card.. a good 8 years old |
yeah get this. I can play DVD's on it and Red Alert 2 as well with no drop in performance. Must be the Pentium 3 processor doing alot of work. It is a Intel 810 onbaord Video card and it can go as high as 1024x768 but stuff that small hurts my eyes trying to read so I keep it at 800x600
[Message Edited]
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 3 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Reply #41 Saturday, January 10, 2004 1:45 AM