Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Which video card do you use?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Which video card do you use? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Which video card do you use? - 6/22/2003 8:44:19 PM   
Blunderbuss

 

Posts: 178
Joined: 6/22/2003
From: Consett, NE England
Status: offline 		Some of the newer strategy games use powerful 3D graphics engines (eg. C & C Generals). I was wondering what sort of card is necessary to play that sort of game at a reasonable speed. The minimum specification given on the back of a game's box is rarely a realistic guide to what is needed.

So, what type of card do you use, and has it ever struggled to adequately display a particular game?

I'm using a Radeon 9000LE (don't laugh! I didn't know much about computers when I bought this PC), and so far it's been alright. Then again, the only up-to-date game I've bought is Rise of Nations.
Post #: 1
- 6/22/2003 9:18:09 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		Having seen recent games, and having seen the cards on friends computers, if you didn't start sweating profusely when you were examining the cards you might get, you have not found the cards you will likely need.

My latest viewed card, was a Radeon 9800 Pro. Cost my friend well an obscene amount of cash heheh (quite a few hundred). Of course in 6 months this card will have lost 1/3 the price in all likelihood.

All the games I have seen recently (whether the game sucks or not) will play best (read it will suck otherwise) on machines with cards that are sooooooo much more than the average boring wargame (read adequate for die hard wargamers that prefer Steel Panthers) will require.

Which is to say, if you are a stick in the mud like me, save your cash for games like I play. If you are into the latest 3d real time stuff and shooter games or online stuff, get ready to need more video card power (but then I suppose that comment is hardly a shock eh).

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 2
- 6/22/2003 9:47:01 PM   
Voriax

 

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Well, I use a GeForce 2 GTS. Haven't yet encountered a game it didn't run. Although there probably are such games in the FPS genre..last one of those I played was Return to Castle Wolfenstein and that ran quite well.

Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 3
- 6/22/2003 10:27:45 PM   
Blunderbuss

 

Posts: 178
Joined: 6/22/2003
From: Consett, NE England
Status: offline 		I do intend to upgrade at some point, but there is no way I'm going to shell out £300+. In fact, I think I'll give it at least another ten months and then buy the best card available for under £100.

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 4
- 6/23/2003 7:14:06 AM   
BrubakerII


Posts: 538
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Adelaide Australia
Status: offline 		I like Voriax am using a Geforce2 though mine the Asus Pro version. Despite the feeling you can get from reading magazines, I would think 75% or more people out there still have a Geforce 2 based card in their machines hence the reason many games still work okay on them; most developers design with the 'common' man in mind.

I think Les's advice is good in that if you simply wish to play 2d strategic type games your current card is fine. If you want to view the latest realtime and FPS code around you do need to think about upgrading. Personally I wouldn't buy a topline card at this point - I would wait another 6 months. With the changes in both processor designs and the new Nvidea release on the horizon things are about to start moving a whole lot quicker. For my money I would be looking at a Radeon 9500 or a Nvidea Ti4200 based card. These are mid priced, have a solid history of driver updates, and have been around long enough to sort the bugs out. In fact, because I am on holidays, I think I might go and price one of the buggers myself :)

Brubaker

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 5
- 6/23/2003 9:12:33 AM   
Huskalator

 

Posts: 212
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		GeForce 4 Ti 4400

I bought it just for Morrowind, which was stupid to do, but it has come in handy for many of my other games like IL-2 so it was a good purchase in the end.

_____________________________

SW Episode 2:Good movie, bad love story

Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so.

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 6
- 6/23/2003 9:36:04 AM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6793
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline 		ATi Mobility Radeon 7500


Geforce 2 Ultra 64 meg on my other machine

_____________________________


(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 7
- 6/23/2003 11:27:07 PM   
sandman20

 

Posts: 848
Joined: 7/8/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		GeForce 4 Ti4200 128 Mb.
Quite good & cheap average card nowadays and I haven't had any problems with it so far.

_____________________________


(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 8
- 6/23/2003 11:45:34 PM   
Wallenstein

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 1/19/2003
From: Austria
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Deep Breakfast
[B]GeForce 4 Ti 4400

I bought it just for Morrowind, which was stupid to do, but it has come in handy for many of my other games like IL-2 so it was a good purchase in the end. [/B][/QUOTE]

I bought my Ti 4200 for the same reason and haven´t played a graphic-intensive game since then.:(

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 9
- 6/24/2003 1:03:17 AM   
Blunderbuss

 

Posts: 178
Joined: 6/22/2003
From: Consett, NE England
Status: offline 		Hey, Deep Breakfast. I play IL-2 Sturmovik as well (offline only). I was actually surprised at how good it looks on my PC. It looks about ten times better than Combat Flight Simulator 2 :mad: (I hate that game).

The only time I've really noticed my video card struggling is when I tried a demo. version of Unreal 2: The Awakening. The explosions really slowed it down. I'm not all that bothered, because I wouldn't actually buy the full game.

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 10
- 6/24/2003 1:07:06 AM   
Paul Wykes

 

Posts: 267
Joined: 3/4/2001
From: UK
Status: offline 		A tear always wells into my eyes when people talk about system specs and graphics cards.

I have a lowly TNT2 32MB. Fine for SPWAW etc, but stuggling at any of the newer titles. Looks as I`ll even be struggling with CL with this card.

This coupled with my humble 400Mhz means I need to do some serious upgrading soon.

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 11
btdt - 6/24/2003 3:00:12 AM   
Reddog

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 3/6/2003
From: OZ
Status: offline 		Ive been there too paul-TNT2 16 Mb HERE - New computer now on the way tho G4 TI4200 128 512 RAM -YEEHAAAA Games here i come.

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 12
- 6/24/2003 7:23:49 AM   
BrubakerII


Posts: 538
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Adelaide Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wallenstein
[B]I bought my Ti 4200 for the same reason and haven´t played a graphic-intensive game since then.:( [/B][/QUOTE]

Wallenstein I think you have a good year in store for you then ;)

Brubaker

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 13
- 6/24/2003 5:29:59 PM   
LarkinVB

 

Posts: 1887
Joined: 10/9/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Radeon 9500 Pro does deliver the best performance for the buck ratio. Since I rarely play 3D games I will stick with my Geforce MX 440 for a while.

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 14
- 6/25/2003 7:53:45 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by LarkinVB
[B]Radeon 9500 Pro does deliver the best performance for the buck ratio. Since I rarely play 3D games I will stick with my Geforce MX 440 for a while. [/B][/QUOTE]

The latest version of DirectX is DirectX 9.

It has features that enables game designers to improve graphic effects on ALL games.

Matrix is currently producing a bunch of 2D games

I checked on the CL forum. DirectX 8 is required but the designers will use some of the features of DirextX 9 to improve the graphics.

Only players with DirectX 9 will see these graphics.

To use DirextX 9 you need one of a latest video cards - unless you can downoad an update for your card.

Ergo, the latest video cards will soon be required for 2D games.

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 15
- 6/25/2003 8:04:16 AM   
BrubakerII


Posts: 538
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Adelaide Australia
Status: offline 		This is true Joe though it is also true that very few current cards can actually utilise dx9 features. I still think you are better off buying a fully diectx8.1 compatible card for around $350 Aud than to buy a $800 Aud card that cannot fully be utilised yet. Also in order to get the very best performance from a top line card you need a mother board capable of handling the bus speed, 8x AGP etc. So a $800 card purchase might well turn into a 1500$ upgrade :eek:

Second best is sometimes the most viable choice.

Brubaker

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 16
- 6/25/2003 9:15:29 AM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		Actually I have DX9 on a system using a mediocre card (or at least the talk implies it is medoiocre hehe).

I have a PCI 32 meg Radeon 7000 on a more or less adequate system.

But I must comment, my main groan when buying new anything, seems to mirror what Bruebaker said. A new item, easily escalates into a massive upgrade. One part needs this in order to run that, so you can employ the other thing.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 17
- 6/25/2003 10:35:56 AM   
Ian Packham

 

Posts: 1247
Joined: 3/1/2003
Status: offline 		I rarely upgrade individual pieces. My strategy is to purchase a rig with specs close to the top end and keep this rig for 3 years then purchase a completely new rig. This has worked so far - I purchased my first rig in 1997, second rig in 2000 and now I will purchase again in 2003.

The problem with upgrading individual parts is that the machine will become imbalanced - some parts are fast, other parts are slow. You need to design your rig so that there is synergywith no bottlenecks that hamper the data flow.

So talking about video cards as a separate item is somewhat meaningless. You dont place a 6 liter V8 engine into a Beatle chassis - the poor thing will fall apart.

So design your rig with the correct amount of RAM, video card, HD space etc that reflects upon the speed of the CPU and motherboard.

Personally I buy rigs that have six months old technology - you get great specs without paying premium prices.

In Spetember I plan to buy;
P2.8Gig (200mhz) (to be overclocked)
motherboard with 200Mhz FSB
512MG DDR RAM (anything more is excessive)
Radeon 9700 64MG
40Gig 10,000RPM HD

I will keep my existing DVD player, floppy drive, sound card, mouse, keyboard etc so helping keep the cost down.

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 18
200 FSB???? - 6/25/2003 5:30:20 PM   
moore4807


Posts: 1089
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Punta Gorda FL
Status: offline 		I dont think they even sell 2.8Ghz with less than 333 FSB. I understand the overclocking aspect but since you cant overclock more than 33%-66% of the hertz (think heat...) then why not spend the extra $50-100 and get the 533/800 FSB. Its really not worth the aggravation for the small increase in speed (you can get 3.06Ghz by my quick mental math) and still only be pushing a 400 FSB.

The motherboard makes all the difference to me...

by the way GeForce3 TI4200 128mb card....

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 19
- 6/25/2003 7:38:13 PM   
Frank W.

 

Posts: 1958
Joined: 10/18/2001
From: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
Status: offline 		ATI radeon 8500 LE.

fine card, still seems to be enough for all
games i play. i have a 1400 mhz. celeron
and 512 MB of infineon value ram.

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 20
- 6/25/2003 9:24:13 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		Hot tips to improve your computer.

Find a well enough incomed youngster (someone working a real job between 17 and 25 works best). Best if you find a single person as well.

Become friends by being useful in non computer capacities (I choose to employ woodworking skills).

Next and most important, keep pace with their computer upgrades.

When he upgrades attempt to look pathetic using equipment he thought was lousy 2 years ago.

Hey it will not do your pride any good, but hmm it didn't hurt to get a new sound card out of his box of cards he could care less about hehe :)

After all, he is only able to sit in front of one computer at a time. He won't need that "old" card he had for all of 4 months.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 21
- 6/26/2003 1:24:57 AM   
Blunderbuss

 

Posts: 178
Joined: 6/22/2003
From: Consett, NE England
Status: offline 		Unfortunately, I don't know anyone who falls into that category. When the time comes for an upgrade I'll probably have to send my PC off to one of several computer shops that have sprung up here in recent months.

I think my system IS unbalanced. The video card and hard drive don't really match up to the processor and memory in terms of quality. I don't know the difference between a good motherboard and a poor one.

Anyway, here it is:-

Medion MD5000 motherboard (Max Memory 1 Gb)
P4 2.66 Ghz (533 Mhz Front Side Bus)
512 DDR RAM (333 Mhz)
Seagate 60Gb HD at 5400 RPM
Radeon 9000LE 64 Mb

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 22
Re: 200 FSB???? - 6/26/2003 7:01:06 AM   
BrubakerII


Posts: 538
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Adelaide Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by moore4807
[B]The motherboard makes all the difference to me... [/B][/QUOTE]

This is certainly the best advice I could give as well. If nothing else buy a top line MB because everything else can be upgraded around it if need be. A good MB is somewhat futureproof - if that is possible in this industry :( - at least compared to other items. It is certainly true also that a good MB will make lesser items seemingly perform better. Too often you can buy a whole system quite cheaply but they will use the cheapest possible board that their 'advertised' processor will run on and the whole system becomes a dog!

Brubaker

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 23
Re: 200 FSB???? - 6/26/2003 9:40:42 AM   
Ian Packham

 

Posts: 1247
Joined: 3/1/2003
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by moore4807
[B]I dont think they even sell 2.8Ghz with less than 333 FSB. I understand the overclocking aspect but since you cant overclock more than 33%-66% of the hertz (think heat...) then why not spend the extra $50-100 and get the 533/800 FSB. Its really not worth the aggravation for the small increase in speed (you can get 3.06Ghz by my quick mental math) and still only be pushing a 400 FSB.

The motherboard makes all the difference to me...

by the way GeForce3 TI4200 128mb card.... [/B][/QUOTE]

Actually we are talking about the same chip - the new Pentiums run at 200MHz but the channels are quad pumped to arrive at 800MHz FSB. So I will be buying the P2.8Gig 800 FSB.

I don't overdue my overclocking so as not to shorten the lifespan of the chip. Both of my previous chips (P200, P667) were both overclocked by 12.5% and both still run fine (I sold my old P200 to a friend and its still going strong). So if I overclock again by about 12.5% then I will end up with 3.15Gig - which is close to the top release of 3.2Gig but saving myself $400.

Intel wont be releasing a faster P4 chip than 3.2Gig. Their next release will be the 64bit P5 which will debut at 3.4Gig later this year.

I might consider a 128MB video card, but definitely not 256MB which is completely unnecessary and makes no difference to performance.

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 24
- 6/26/2003 10:12:04 AM   
Ian Packham

 

Posts: 1247
Joined: 3/1/2003
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Blunderbuss
[B]Unfortunately, I don't know anyone who falls into that category. When the time comes for an upgrade I'll probably have to send my PC off to one of several computer shops that have sprung up here in recent months.

I think my system IS unbalanced. The video card and hard drive don't really match up to the processor and memory in terms of quality. I don't know the difference between a good motherboard and a poor one.

Anyway, here it is:-

Medion MD5000 motherboard (Max Memory 1 Gb)
P4 2.66 Ghz (533 Mhz Front Side Bus)
512 DDR RAM (333 Mhz)
Seagate 60Gb HD at 5400 RPM
Radeon 9000LE 64 Mb [/B][/QUOTE]

Its not too bad from where I am standing. I don't know that particular motherboard but the other stats look good. Don't worry too much about the average HD since you have got plenty of RAM which should lessen access to the HD during gameplay. Also with 60GB, you should always go for full installations. The RAM also works at the correct Mhz for the P4 533FSB so there are no bottlenecks being created in the BUS channels. The video card is good enough for all the current games being released, unless you want to run games with FSAA or at high resolutions over 1024x768. I would say your rig can last 2 years before you need to upgrade again.

One thing I will say about the motherboard is that when I look at hardware reviews there is usually very little difference between boards with similar specs (typically under 5% variance) so it does not matter which board you purchase so long as it supports the hardware features you are employing - eg. 200Mhz FSB (to support the new chips from Intel and AMD), dual 400DDR memory chips, AVP 4x etc.

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 25
64 bits? - 6/26/2003 12:54:17 PM   
Mac_MatrixForum


Posts: 295
Joined: 4/11/2000
From: Espoo, Finland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ian Packham
[B]Intel wont be releasing a faster P4 chip than 3.2Gig. Their next release will be the 64bit P5 which will debut at 3.4Gig later this year.[/B][/QUOTE]
Uh, what is this 64 bits? Intel has said they wont make the transition for years and that kind of bomb is out of the question for Prescott. Or do you have some inside info :D?

Sorry I'm such a nitpicker.

_____________________________

Markku "Macroz" Rontu
"Understanding is a three-edged sword, your side, their side and the truth." - Captain John J. Sheridan, Babylon 5

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 26
- 6/26/2003 4:08:58 PM   
Ian Packham

 

Posts: 1247
Joined: 3/1/2003
Status: offline 		I must be getting confused, I thought Prescott was 64bit and was Intel's answer to the Athlon 64 and G5?

Reading the article again it looks like Prescott has 64bit extensions (Yamhill) which will be unlocked later. Its all a bit confusing to me. How can a 32bit processor handle 64bit instructions?

Is the Athlon 64 also 32bit?

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 27
- 6/26/2003 4:48:05 PM   
Mac_MatrixForum


Posts: 295
Joined: 4/11/2000
From: Espoo, Finland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ian Packham
[B]I must be getting confused, I thought Prescott was 64bit and was Intel's answer to the Athlon 64 and G5? [/B][/QUOTE]
It's still an answer, but (only) 32 bit. It's not like the upcoming Apple G5 actually beats the current P4s or Athlons. Madison is the upcoming 64 bit Itanium and Deerfield is supposed to be a lower cost version of that. They wont be intended for desktops (former for heavy duty, latter for workstations). Athlon 64 however is intended for desktops (the already released Opteron for servers and workstations).
[QUOTE][B]
Reading the article again it looks like Prescott has 64bit extensions (Yamhill) which will be unlocked later. Its all a bit confusing to me. How can a 32bit processor handle 64bit instructions?[/B][/QUOTE]
Theoretically speaking this (putting stuff that will be unlocked later) is possible but in practice it's rarely smart to add millions and millions of useless transistors to already huge silicon isn't it? That's most likely just crazy gossip. They sort of did that with Hyperthreading but we are talking about doubling a lot of stuff and it's not cheap. Intel doesn't think we need 32 bits now and for common desktops it's hardly a requirement for a couple years even if Athlon 64 works well as a catalyst.
[QUOTE][B]Is the Athlon 64 also 32bit? [/B][/QUOTE]
No, it is 64 bit but unlike for example the Intel Itanium it can run 32 bit applications natively at full speed. Therefore you do not have to get new applications. When 64 bit applications arrive you will slowly transfer to them for further increased performance and of course you can add more than 4 gigabytes of memory easily (there are uses for that) if you have a 64 bit OS installed.

_____________________________

Markku "Macroz" Rontu
"Understanding is a three-edged sword, your side, their side and the truth." - Captain John J. Sheridan, Babylon 5

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 28
- 6/26/2003 9:23:09 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		My sister has a fairly decent P4 system (for a Dell system). She told me when it's paid for, my son can have it as she will upgrade.

I suppose that is a good news bad news deal hehe.

Good news my son gets a computer that is fractionally better then mine. Bad news is of course my fractionally worse system has definitely better add ons dumped in it.

Good luck kiddo getting anything added in for games. Dell systems are modular hell. Oh well, it is a fine enough system now. And it will be just fine for homework.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 29
- 6/27/2003 11:09:28 AM   
Ian Packham

 

Posts: 1247
Joined: 3/1/2003
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mac
[B]It's still an answer, but (only) 32 bit. It's not like the upcoming Apple G5 actually beats the current P4s or Athlons. Madison is the upcoming 64 bit Itanium and Deerfield is supposed to be a lower cost version of that. They wont be intended for desktops (former for heavy duty, latter for workstations). Athlon 64 however is intended for desktops (the already released Opteron for servers and workstations).
[/B][/QUOTE]

It will be interesting to see how the 32bit Pentium Prescott chips compete against the Athlon 64.

Since it will probably be 2 years before we see much 64bit software emerging for desktop programs, it is somewhat pointless buying an Athlon 64 unless its new architecture provides a big performance boost over the Prescott chips for ordinary software, which I doubt will be the case. AMD may be jumping the gun here.

As for games, they will remain 32bit for a long time to come as they need to play to the general public. Only specialized software for business/art uses will have 64 bit instructions for the foreseeable future.

(in reply to Blunderbuss)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Which video card do you use? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.484