Slashdot Mirror


Graphics Card Comparison Guide

JaniceZ writes "These days, there are so many graphics card models that it has become quite impossible to keep up with the different configurations. Therefore, we decided to compile this guide to provide an easy reference for those who are interested in comparing the specifications of the various desktop GPUs in the market as well as those already obsolescent or obsolete."

271 comments

  1. speed of development by tute666 · · Score: 5, Funny

    they'll be obsolete in 5 minutes anyways....

    1. Re:speed of development by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Funny
      My 3dfx Voodoo 5 5500 has a fill rate of 666 MTexels/s.

      Is it any wonder this was the last card they produced?

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:speed of development by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 1

      That is why you should not whoreship 6 and all of man's earthly creations!

      Worship the *7* today, buy the all new nVidia Geforce 7800 which easily has a fill rate exceeding 7777 MTexels/s!

    3. Re:speed of development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf is a texel

    4. Re:speed of development by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

      A texel is a two dimensional voxel.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    5. Re:speed of development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny


      A texel is a pixel with boots, a big-ass hat, and an electric chair.

    6. Re:speed of development by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Informative

      "wtf is a texel"

      It's a 'textured pixel'. Yeah, I know, that's not too descriptive. In 2D, when you draw a point on the screen, it's known as a pixel. In 3D, when you're filling a polygon with a texture map, every one of the pixels of that texture map is considered a 'texel'. That texel may be drawn of several pixels, but it's still one unit of that polygon that's worth measuring.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    7. Re:speed of development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Texel is also an island in the netherlands:
      http://www.texel.nl/index.html

    8. Re:speed of development by thegoogler · · Score: 1

      actually, they made the voodoo 5 6000 also :) . 4 gpu's, on one card. the early models had an external power brick like a laptop

    9. Re:speed of development by Malor · · Score: 1

      Wow. That's beastly fast.

    10. Re:speed of development by Solosoft · · Score: 1

      Noper, I have the same card sitting beside me. Well the box anywho, Linux only supported 1/2 of the card (literally (1 166MHz chip and 1 32mb RAM Module))and Windows XP and 98 support 100% of the card. If you flash the card it would work on a Mac also. Sadly tho that is not the last card from 3Dfx.

      The Voodoo 5 6000 is the last production card according to this page. The problem with these voodoos tho, they where too frickin expensive to fight with nvidia's GeForce. Oh well, nice to know there is still someone with a voodoo card.

      I own a Canopus 3Dfx Voodoo 1 (6mb RAM) and a 3Dfx Voodoo 5 5500

    11. Re:speed of development by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I thought they cancelled that before it hit the market?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    12. Re:speed of development by SeanAhern · · Score: 1

      It's a 'textured pixel'.

      Well, kind of. It's a "texture element", the smallest part of a texture. Only when rasterization to a frame buffer happens does the concept of "pixel" come into play. It's useful to talk about texels as an independent entity from pixels. I know you mentioned the separation in your final sentence, but I wanted to make it very clear.

    13. Re:speed of development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A texel is a TEXture ELement, i.e. one pixel in a texture map.

      3dfx perverted this originally simple technical term to refer to texture-mapped final pixels, so they could talk about "texel fillrate" with the Voodoo 2 that could apply two separate textures to one pixel per cycle. This was to counter the Nvidia Riva TNT that only applied one texture per cycle, but had two pixel pipelines to compensate with.

      Not unlike Geforce 5800 (four dual-texturing pipes) vs. Radeon 9700 (eight single-texturing pipes).

      (All bilinear filtered textures in the above. Bilinear actually reads 4 closest texels and blends the final pixel color from them, but even 3dfx didn't have the gall to quadruple their "texel fillrate" again due to this...)

      "Texel fillrate" never was a correct term, although it funnily enough *was* useful as a prediction of game performance. Nowadays DX8/DX9/OGL2 shaders (and also full-screen anti-aliasing) are making texturing performance a moot point -- hardcore gamers are growing used to to having anisotropic texture filtering on anyway, which can take anywhere from 16 to 128 samples (texels) per pixel depending on the rendering situation... But, I recall El Carmack fairly recently reminding people that shaders aren't going to replace textures (but complement them), so texturing performance still matters; it's just usually not a bottleneck nowadays.

      Straying away from the Q, I notice... HTH

    14. Re:speed of development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They never could get the V5 6000 into retail in any kind of volume. They manufactured some, but in the end only a handful ended up in eBay.

      The biggest difficulty wasn't the price as such, as they had figured out already that a sufficient "$600" clientele indeed existed; it was the board manufacturing and card assembling problems at the hopeless Juarez plant that 3dfx had stupidly bought off of the much relieved STB... (Back when 3dfx decided they'll make their own cards instead of just supplying chips, and burned every bridge toward other vendors for good.)

      One thing I never could figure out. Why didn't Voodoo 3 have any SLI capability? (Two cards or dual-chip on one card.) Even a clumsy combo of AGP + PCI with SLI would have kept them the undisputed king of the hill (until Geforce DDR), and that always translates into lower end sales with the 1337 kiddies in CompUSA stores...

      Buth my point is, perhaps the V5 6K was the last card in some level of production, but the 5500 (and the puny V4) certainly was the last card in the retail channel.

      *sigh* The Rampage was so close ;-)

      Have to check that Xbit Labs article. While they are thorough and competent, they aren't always totally clear as to what they mean (due to translation difficulties).

    15. Re:speed of development by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Actually, modulo a few 12 year old OCD gamers, anything sold today is orders of magnitude more capable than anyone will ever need.

  2. Article content is medicore at best by linux_warp · · Score: 5, Informative

    This article does not provide benchmarks, just things like "transistor count" and the number of pixel pipelines. Check out http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20050705/ index.html has the same information and benchmark charts.

    1. Re:Article content is medicore at best by feanor512 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Rojakpot guide provides fillrate and memory bandwidth so you can directly compare cards without doing the math. These are the two most import factors in the performance of the cards. It also has quite a few more cards.

    2. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Coneasfast · · Score: 5, Informative

      i like digital-daily, they have some good benchmarks:

      PCI-E 2005
      ATI 2003

      for example

      --
      Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
    3. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Coneasfast · · Score: 2

      oops, the second link is wrong:
      here is correction

      --
      Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
    4. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Seumas · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fortunately, I've converted to the Mac, so I don't have to worry about stupid things like having a choice in graphics cards.

      (Sadly, I'm not trolling or being a smartass.)

    5. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 0, Troll

      Fortunately, I've converted to the Mac, so I don't have to worry about stupid things like having a choice in graphics cards.

      So you don't like choice?

      Tell me again when your kids are forced to be Christians and have to learn all about Creationism in school.

      You might be intellectually lazy, but having the right to exercise choice is important for any free thinking human being. I for one do NOT welcome that choice hating/locked down system architecture overlord in Steve Jobs.

    6. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Cylix · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can't tell if it's supposed to be humorous or arrogant.

      Choices are bad! Oh noes... I have to read a bit before spending over a few hundred dollars.

      To be honest, if you are not intending to spend more then a hundred dollars your choices aren't so great. Older cards tend to depreciate to their relative value as per their capabilities.

      With newer cards there is of course the tax for being a newcomer and the cost of the performance.

      When I play this game, I start by determining how much I want to spend and then purchase the better performer in that range. At the point I'm buying a graphics card where all the questions are usually answered. (A new card for me is in the 220-250 range)

      Those buying bleeding edge are either going to have to make a blind decision or put in some research time. This is pretty much the way all transactions above impulse buy work.

      It's not a curse, it's not a problem introduced in the graphics card market... it's just how things work.

      It's kinda silly to just point and buy something. (Though I did just buy my last car that way.. which was silly... but the price was right)

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    7. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Seumas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My gaming PC has a $600 videocard in it. I'm thinking of getting away from the annual process of building two new souped-up PCs to keep up with top of the line gaming and moving to console gaming once the new XBOX and PS3 come out.

      My main reason is that I can get any decent strategy or RPG game that I want to play on the Mac. Everything else, I can get for the console. And rather than maintaining two expensive high-end gaming PCs for myself and my brother, we can buy one copy of a game and have one machine that'll last us years. Much better than dishing out $110 for two copies of Unreal or Counter Strike: Source on top of the videocards and everything else.

      Mostly, I just want out of the rat race. I have a spare bedroom filled with a couple dozen monitors and linux, solaris and windows boxes and several laptops. And all I use is my Powerbook. I'm undecided as to whether I'll use just the laptop, the laptop and buy a desktop mac on x86 later or if I'll stick with my powerbook and have a windows desktop.

      Really, the only reason I would keep the windows box now is the same reason I kept a windows box in the linux/solaris world. Because it runs the games. I think I can do without Counterstrike and a couple other PC games and settle for Halo and Madden and GT4 on the console. Or at least, I'm going to try.

    8. Re:Article content is medicore at best by DJ-Dodger · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Tech-Report has a similar chart, but theirs is sortable and each card is linked to a review of the card if they did one.

    9. Re:Article content is medicore at best by leonbev · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, Tom's article is out of date now. It only includes cards that use an AGP slot (So, none of the new PCI-express only stuff is there), and doesn't include anything from the new Nvidia 7800 line.

    10. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess only the Powermacs really offer a choice, but with current PCs, there aren't a lot of laptops that offer choices (there are some). With pre-assembled desktops, I'm not sure you can just pick a model and have a choice of graphics cards.

      Personally, graphics cards did matter for a while, but I have never spent more than about $200 to get one, and the choice was affected by whether it supported certain 3D apps, but not games.

      The Radeon 9500/9600 cards that I have do everything that I want except mirror the overlay pane, which was what I wanted for HTPC. I'm currently using an old Matrox G400, which DOES mirror the overlay pane.

    11. Re:Article content is medicore at best by freidog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the CPU wars of the last 5-7 years have taught us nothing; it's that you really can't judge a product on stats alone. At some point you have to see it perform. If we went strictly by the Rojak tables, the 5900 Ultra is a clearly superior card to the Radeon 9800 Pro.


      Radeon 9800 Pro 128-bits 380 MHz 3040 MTexels/s 256-bits DDR 340MHz 21.76GB/s
      GeForce FX 5900 Ultra 450 MHz 3600 MTexels/s 256-bits DDR 425 MHz 27.20 GB/s
      The 9800 Pro has 1 additional vertex shader pipe, but the raw pixel pushing of the 5900U should be a good 15-20% faster than the Radeon.

      Clearly that is not the case in the real world

      A modern graphics card has so many complex and intricate features and tradeoffs for performance and power and production, looking at a handful of stats isn't even a good comparison when we're dealing with GPUs of the same family, much less a wide ranging comparison.

      If you want to know how something performs, there is no substitute for benchmarks.

    12. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Graphics cards in PC laptops don't offer a lot of choice (you have to buy the laptop that comes with the card, of course). But they're definitely important, since if you're going to run Linux on it (Debian/Ubuntu in my case), you're going to care quite about about what support there is for it.

      In my unfortunate case, I have an ATI Mobility Radeon which probably has somewhat less proper support and drivers for it than the NVIDIA laptop line for linux . . . but it does alright..

    13. Re:Article content is medicore at best by name773 · · Score: 1

      I'm undecided as to whether I'll use just the laptop, the laptop and buy a desktop mac on x86 later or if I'll stick with my powerbook and have a windows desktop.

      i'd say just upgrade the laptop and buy a less expensive windows comp, but i don't know how much that will help you out

    14. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might I point out this is the second time Rojakpot has been slashdotted this week? They're a bullshit site who are exploiting slashdot for their own gain, and the editors are, like fools, giving them an audience. if they had any real merits, they wouldn't need to resort to this sort of underhanded advertisement.

    15. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
      Fortunately, I've converted to the Mac, so I don't have to worry about stupid things like having a choice in graphics cards.


      Really? When I bought my G5 tower I had the choice between a GeForce 6800 Ultra, an ATI X800XT, an ATI 9600XT, or an aftermarket ATI Radeon 9800 Pro.
      If you *really* needed the choice you shouldn't have bought a Mini, Emac or an Imac.

      No, you don't get all off the off-brand "XFX Sooper EXTREEM O'CLOCKED 78000GTX with Dual Inline Turbo" types of things, but there are choices for some of us.
    16. Re:Article content is medicore at best by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

      Screw that, it only goes as low as the Voodoo 5 5500. Where's my Voodoo 2 12mb? It kicked ass in its day, am i rite?

    17. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I guess that's technically "choice". But not compared to the choices I have when putting together a Windows gaming box or a budget linux box.

      And I actually like the cheaper, off-brand versions. A lot of the off-brands aren't so "off". They're just not nvidia or ati. I dropped a bundle on my Killer eVGA brand GeForce. I've had great experience with their NVIDIA cards (and MSI's).

      The main problem is, I love the gaming on the PC, but I love the coding and everything else on the OSX. But I can't justify spending more money on new machines every year than I would on a new car. Heheheh.

    18. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Fizzlewhiff · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? You have choices. I just upgraded the video card in my Mac.

      --

      'Same speed C but faster'
    19. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      While I respect your low user number, you have got to be kidding me.

        You get your choice of ATI or Nvidia, PCI-X if you have a newer G5. There really aren't any other choices worth mentioning unless you don't play games...even then..

        We seem to live in a dualistic world. Male or Female. Left or Right. Up or Down, Mac or PC, ATI or Nvidia, Intel or AMD. Linux and the BSD's are an affront to this order. :)

    20. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Seumas · · Score: 1

      You get your choice of ATI or Nvidia, PCI-X if you have a newer G5. There really aren't any other choices worth mentioning unless you don't play games...even then..

      ATI and NVIDIA aren't the only companies to put out ATI or NVIDIA based cards. There are plenty of other very worthy contenders with ATI and NVIDIA chipped cards that may or may not vary from the main lines - and are certainly cheaper. And some support various degrees of overclocking, even.

      I haven't bought an ATI card in at least five years, but I don't know the last time I bought an NVIDIA that was an actual NVIDIA card and not an eVGA, MSI or other. Maybe it was back in the Viper 5660 (or was it 6550?) days.

    21. Re:Article content is medicore at best by feanor512 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree that benchmarks are important. I explained in another post that a card with a higher fill rate and more bandwidth isn't always faster.

      If you look at an OpenGL game such as this one http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/ vga-charts-06.html the 5900U beats the 9800 Pro by a greater margin than the 9800 Pro beat it in that DirectX benchmark you linked.

      The stats _are_ a good indicator of performance in the same family. The performance of the 9700 through the 9800XT scales mostly according to fillrate and memory bandwidth.

    22. Re:Article content is medicore at best by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I live in the linux world, and I've got guild wars running on my second monitor.

      Cedega (transgaming's wine) rocks. I love it.

      And I'm using a Geforce FX 5900, which runs all my games at 1280x1024, 40-50 FPS. You can get one for ~$130 at pricewatch or techbargains.

      I've got an xbox and Ps2, but I just don't come back to those games the same way I come back to PC games.

      *shrug*. I've tried to make the move. I've got a mac mini, a powerbook, and 2 consoles. I still like my x86 linux box the best.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    23. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I have a spare bedroom filled with a couple dozen monitors and linux, solaris and windows boxes and several laptops."

      I'll be glad to take some of these off your hands so that you can have more available space in your spare bedroom.

    24. Re:Article content is medicore at best by MojoStan · · Score: 1
      If we went strictly by the Rojak tables, the 5900 Ultra is a clearly superior card to the Radeon 9800 Pro...

      Clearly that is not the case in the real world

      It is if you're running Linux, right? Seriously, I haven't seen any 5900 Ultra vs Radeon 9800 Pro Linux benchmarks, but I know NVIDIA has had a better reputation for Linux drivers. For that reason alone, I tend to favor NVIDIA products, even if their Windows performance is slightly worse.

      Has ATI improved their Linux drivers lately?

      --
      TO START
      PRESS ANY KEY

      Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

    25. Re:Article content is medicore at best by eyeye · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the tomshardware link, that rojaks pot site is annoying to read too since he insists you always stare at his banner at the expense of readable screen area.

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    26. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fortunately, I've converted to the Mac, so I don't have to worry about stupid things like having a choice in graphics cards."

      Nor do you have to worry about a choice in games! Let's see, you've got puzzle logo, Breakout... Super Breakout...... Photoshop... ;)

    27. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      Conspicuously absent from the table: does it have free drivers?

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    28. Re:Article content is medicore at best by UncleFluffy · · Score: 1

      The Rojakpot guide provides fillrate and memory bandwidth so you can directly compare cards without doing the math. These are the two most import factors in the performance of the cards.

      Maybe 10 years ago this was true, but nowadays there's a whole heap of other issues that are equally significant. Quality of the JIT compilers in the driver; cache architecture; number of silicon bugs that the driver has to work around to pass WHQL; how good the AA downsampling algorithm is at adapting to GPU workload; shader architecture and how well it translates to the DX shaders... and these are just the first few thoughts that go through my head after a night's solid drinking.

      A simplistic overview like this one is vaguely interesting from a historical/evolutionary perspective, but isn't really much use in terms of describing performance. As is said with all other aspects of computer benchmarking, the only relevant question is: "How fast does it run *your* application?"

      Go look at the stuff on Tom's Hardware. It's a pile of biased, paid-for, crispy dog-wank (and I know this from working in the industry), but is still a million times more useful than this.

      --

      What would Lemmy do?

    29. Re:Article content is medicore at best by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      Yes , but you couldn't tell that from the chart either .
        I have an ATI card in my laptop and the drivers have improved but well ... not enough

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    30. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Echnin · · Score: 1
      Dual 2.7GHz PowerPC G5
      1.35GHz frontside
      bus/processor
      512K L2 cache/processor
      512MB DDR400 SDRAM
      Expandable to 8GB SDRAM
      250GB Serial ATA
      16x SuperDrive (double-layer)
      Three PCI-X Slots
      ATI Radeon 9650
      256MB DDR video memory

      Choose from the latest graphics card options from both ATI and NVIDIA, including the advanced ATI Radeon X850 XT and the NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT. All cards include dual display support and ship with a DVI to VGA adapter. Special note on the NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT DDL: the larger size of this advanced graphics card reduces the number of available PCI or PCI-X slots from three to two on the Power Mac G5.

      ?

      --
      Lalala
    31. Re:Article content is medicore at best by raz0 · · Score: 1

      That's because ATI is focusing on stability right now with their Linux drivers. ATI's linux drivers have been known to be buggy and crash, and ATI clearly wants to get rid of this reputation before they go for performance.

    32. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Zoinks · · Score: 1

      Dude, get a life. Your problem is the games. You're lining the pockets of the video card makers and game software makers. "Out of the rat race" == stop spending so much time and money on playing games.

      And yes, I practice what I preach. I recently was planning a major system upgrade to AMD64, perhaps dual core, something like 1.5 GB or more RAM, etc, etc. And then I decided that the four linux boxes I run at home are "just fine" for now (upgraded between 1 and 3 years ago). They'll have to do...

    33. Re:Article content is medicore at best by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I gave up on PC games a while ago. After realizing that I'd have to spend $300 on a video card about as often as consoles comes out, not to mention all the RAM, CPU, motherboard and other necessary purchases to keep an up to date gaming rig, I had it. Sure there's a few games that I don't get on my gamecube. But when I think of all the money I used to spend, and the fact that I have lots of good games, and some games I missed, that I can't get on PC, I realize that PC gaming is just a big waste of my time and money.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    34. Re:Article content is medicore at best by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      I've talked quite closely with some of the ATi linux guys - Tippett is pretty enthusiastic about it. It seems quite plain that the blame lies squarely with ATi, not with the people doing the actual programming. As regards what they're focussing on, it's definitely not speed at this point. There are lots of more pressing things that are plaguing these drivers, such as power management problems, stability and so on. The release after Christmas started a set of quite big improvements, though.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    35. Re:Article content is medicore at best by arth1 · · Score: 1
      feanor512 wrote:
      The stats _are_ a good indicator of performance in the same family.

      That's only true for what actually is measured. Too many things aren't, including latencies, overlay speed, hardware assist for video, and, most important in some cases, how it affects the speed of other components in a system.

      One card can run circles around another for pure 3d calculations, but still have worse performance for other things, like multi-monitor blits, overlays, mpg hardware assist, and bridge/CPU use.
      This can be very important if choosing a card for e.g. video work.

      Regards,
      --
      *Art
    36. Re:Article content is medicore at best by topper24hours · · Score: 1

      ...and still no games for you to play!!!

    37. Re:Article content is medicore at best by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      That's promising ,I am not bothered about speed really but the power management issues were really taking their toll on my battery life

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    38. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Thanks for missing the point completely. I was talking about the heart of the cards, hence the comparison to CPU's, etc.

    39. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Danse · · Score: 1

      If you like console games, then ditching the pc in favor of a console is fine. For me, I mostly enjoy FPSs, RPGs, and RTSs. So since the consoles basically suck at all of those, I don't have a problem with bi-annually upgrading my PC. If I ever get into sports games, platformers, or start to enjoy games based on movies, then maybe I'll get a console.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    40. Re:Article content is medicore at best by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Guess what? You don't have to build a new system every 6 months. Also, buying the 2nd best parts will save you a ton of money. Sacrifice 10% performance and save 50%+ on costs. Games usually lag hardware by about 12 months anyway. The games that DO push the graphics envelope usually either have sucky gameplay (Doom3, I'm coughing in your general direction...), or run just fine on less than state-of-the-art hardware (HL2, for example). If you just want to play RPG/Strategy, your requirements are even lower.

    41. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but who wants to play on less than state of the art when they can run Counter Strike Source or Rome Total War at absolutely highest specs?

      And therein lies the problem. I've got a case of "keeping up with the Jones'".

      I don't think I've gone more than a year without building a new top of the line box as long as I've been an adult (which is going on more than a decade now - heh).

      Fortunately, I want to save my money up for a Real Doll with the added animatronic gyrating pelvis - so I won't be building a new high end gaming box for awhile.

    42. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Three PCI-X Slots

      PCI-X is not PCI Express. Even a Mac user should know this by now.

      Choose from the latest graphics card options from both ATI and NVIDIA, including the advanced ATI Radeon X850 XT and the NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT.

      Read it and weap: Froogle search of PCI Express graphics cards

    43. Re:Article content is medicore at best by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of FPSs for consoles. The problem is, they refuse to let you hook up a keyboard and mouse so you can actually control them. RPGs do exist. Depends exactly on what style of RPG you are looking at. I enjoy the Zelda games, and all the FF games are available. As far as RTSs are concerned, I think you're right. There are none.

      I do miss playing FPSs too. But I like the platform games, and party games that are available for consoles. I found that PC games were too centred around only having one person in the room.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    44. Re:Article content is medicore at best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for missing the point completely. I was talking about the heart of the cards, hence the comparison to CPU's, etc.

      Here's for missing the point:
      It's GPU :)

  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. Thank God by seringen · · Score: 1

    I want to replace my radeon 9700 tx with a comparable or better nvidia card for the cheapest possible price, (due to driver issues under linux with certain bleeding edge functionality) but I couldn't even begin to find out how to properly grade cards. Hopefully this will actually help me.

    1. Re:Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      That model sounds an oem from Dell. My cousin has one in his Dimension 8250. I believe your best upgrade path is to an agp Geforce 6600gt. Depending on the power supply you could try for a 6800 model, but I'm not sure if you'll want to try that due to the limitations of your power supply. I'm guessing it's rated at 250 watts or so, and Dell underrates their power supplies if I remember correctly so you might be able to risk it. If do you want to go all the way and get a Geforce 6800 Ultra or GT and have a system with a better chance of working stably, you could try PC Power and Cooling, as they offer power supply upgrades that are compatible with Dell systems. You could also wait around for a 7xxx model, but nVidia sems disinterested in agp now. The 6600gt is still a good deal though; it's cheaper and performance wise either ties or beats a radeon 9800 pro, which is obviosuly better than your 97000 tx.

    2. Re:Thank God by seringen · · Score: 1

      yes, it is a dell oem, pretty much exactly your friend's computer. Thanks for the help, I had worried about the power supply on it, too

    3. Re:Thank God by imboboage0 · · Score: 1

      Just to let you know, the 6600GT SERIOUSLY whoops up on a 9800. by the numbers and the benchmarks, everyone has to agree. not to mention, it has that 'new technology' stuff. lol. I have a 6600GT. I got it for ~150 at NewEgg, and it has been worth every penny. Also, If you do the numbers, (pipelines*clock speed) the 6600GT is theoretically faster than the 6800.

      --
      Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
    4. Re:Thank God by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I will avoid the nVidia cards like the plague.

      Google for "6600GT infinite loop" and you will see what I mean. I have a 6600GT OC from BFG sitting *right here* on my desk, and why isn't it in my computer? Well, it seems like nVidia is staffed with whores who can't even code a device driver properly!

      An equivalent ATI card *just works*. Period.

      Infinite loop indeed, what did they do, outsource their driver development to munkeys in India? Total waste of my money, never again.. nVidia.

    5. Re:Thank God by Danga · · Score: 1

      you could try PC Power and Cooling, as they offer power supply upgrades that are compatible with Dell systems.

      I am confused. As long as it is ATX standard wouldn't ANY companies power supply work? Or is there something I am missing that is really special about Dell computers? I need to upgrade my power supply soon though since I got a NVidia 6800. I have a 350 watt (I think) Sparkle PS, and it does alright, but I do have 3 HD's, 2 DVD writers, and all of my PCI slots filled too.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    6. Re:Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I have the same card sitting on my desk...oh wait, in my computer I mean. I have had no issue with the card and it works beautifully.

      Plugged it in, installed the latest drivers and it "*just works*".

      I had more heat related issues with the 9800 Pro, pawned that card off and bought the BFG 6600GT OC. Been happy ever since.

    7. Re:Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An overclocked card that broke? What a surprise!

    8. Re:Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the informative AC from before. Dell motherboards and power supplies use non-standard connectors to connect to each other. A regular power supply won't work in a Dell computer becuase the plug on the mobo has a different pinout, and I don't know offhand if there are any adapters to be had. As an added bonus, Dell uses different motherboard form factors too, so you're stuck with what came in your case. And for the hat trick, standard ATX mobo's won't fit either since the port backplane (the part with printer and ps/2 ports among other things) is also different. Thus, upgrading any Dell pc tends to be inordinately hard after 2 or 3 years. Nowadays, if you want a PC you can seriously upgrade with standard parts, you need to build it yourself or go with one of the high end gaming PC vendors like Falcon Northwest or Voodoo PC, since they use the same exact parts you would be able to, but charge a few hundred extra dollars to assemble it for you first. But hey, at least you know you got decent parts instead of crap from a tier-2 or 3 vendor in Asia, since these companies let you pick individual parts right down to the specific brand name more often than not.

      I know all this, because I do all my shopping at Newegg nowadays, since I learned what Dell, HP, and all the other top vendors put in their computers. Pity me, for my first computer was a Dimension 8100 from Dell. I got a first generation Pentium 4 and an IBM Desktar hard drive, with Windows Millenium installed.

    9. Re:Thank God by pdbogen · · Score: 1, Insightful

      'Your search - "6600GT infinite loop" - did not match any documents.'

    10. Re:Thank God by imboboage0 · · Score: 1

      BFG? Shoulda got a better brand. I have NEVER had any problems with ELSA. Here's a quote from your search. "Gamespace - Vid Card $300 Well 6600GT is a better card than the 9600xt for sure, ... And while your at it, search at www.google.com for "9600XT Infinite Loop Error". ... forums.gamespace.net.au/archive/index.php/t-1479.h tml - 21k - Cached - Similar pages" funny. and you're talking about nVIDIA. "An equivalent ATI card *just works*. Period." Unless you're running an OS that isn't part of a monopoly, ex. Linux.

      --
      Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
    11. Re:Thank God by dslbrian · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I will avoid the nVidia cards like the plague.
      ...
      An equivalent ATI card *just works*. Period.

      I've had the opposite experience. The worst problem I've had with an Nvidia card has been trouble configuring the DVI display settings on a Linux machine. Eventually thanks to user forums I figured out the magic settings (and they released a driver update with those settings a few days later).

      On the other hand, I've been burned by ATI twice on graphics cards. In fact on one of the cards (a card supporting TV in) they never even made functional Windows drivers, much less Linux. Even called ATI tech support on that one and they put me on hold on their charge-per-minute support line - yeah great support there. Funny thing is years after the fact some 3rd party wrote a generic driver for the chipset under Linux which made it work. (So in total ATI "official" Windows drivers never worked, and generic 3rd party unofficial Linux drivers did work)

      So now I don't even bother to look at ATI specs. They could make whatever uber-card they want that outperforms Nvidia ten times over, and I still won't ever touch the thing. Twice burned is enough for me.

    12. Re:Thank God by Cougar_ · · Score: 1

      Well, the thing is, Dell doesn't use ATX. At least, they didn't in the past, I have heard rumours that they now use standard ATX. The worst part is, while they don't use ATX, they DO use ATX connectors. So you can plug in an ATX powersupply, and fry the motherboard, PSU or both. You can also do the same plugging a Dell PSU into an ATX mobo. Adapters are available however, I'm sure Google can help with that. Otherwise, if you're good at soldering, you can do what I did, and resolder the PSU wiring to standard ATX format.

    13. Re:Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will avoid the ATI cards like the plague.

      Google for 9600XT "infinite loop" and you will see what I mean. I have a 9600XT sitting *right here* on my desk, and why isn't it in my computer? Well, it seems like ATI is staffed with whores who can't even code a device driver properly!

      An equivalent nVidia card *just works*. Period.

      Infinite loop indeed, what did they do, outsource their driver development to munkeys in India? Total waste of my money, never again.. ATI.

    14. Re:Thank God by Worminater · · Score: 2, Interesting

      did you bother turning agp fast write off?

    15. Re:Thank God by feanor512 · · Score: 1

      Here's an adaptor http://www.endpcnoise.com/cgi-bin/e/dellconverter. html

      And newer Dells use standard ATX power supplies.

    16. Re:Thank God by Danga · · Score: 1

      That is very interesting and good to know. I wonder why they would use non standard power supplies. Very strange.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    17. Re:Thank God by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      It might help, if the entire page weren't ATI cards.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    18. Re:Thank God by boa13 · · Score: 1

      Here's a hint for you: there are several pages. Next page in nVidia.

      (The link is well hidden, though, so that you spend more time looking at the ads.) (I wonder if they got paid by ATI to put their page first?)

    19. Re:Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder why they would use non standard power supplies.

      Because they can make lots of money on spares and upgrades, and it also helps lock you into Dell. If you can't upgrade your old Dell PC, most people will (Stupidly) buy a new Dell.

    20. Re:Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ditto.
      2 bad experiences with ATI, 5+ good experiences with nVidia. My Ti4200 is still awesome 2 years later!
      I'll never touch ATI again. Heck, S3 would be better than an ATI. ATI drivers have always been unstable for me.

    21. Re:Thank God by blackicye · · Score: 1

      " I want to replace my radeon 9700 tx with a comparable or better nvidia card for the cheapest possible price,"

      ATI never produced the Radeon 9700 in an XT or tx flavor. Only Pro and vanilla and later ultra versions existed.

      Also when the 9700 Pro was released it was the fastest (and most expensive) video card by a respectable margin.

    22. Re:Thank God by northcat · · Score: 1

      outsource their driver development to munkeys in India?

      Didn't anyone else think that deserved a flamebait mod?

    23. Re:Thank God by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm sure it had to be there somewhere, but the rule with user interfaces is that if you can't figure out how to do something in five seconds, the thing isn't worth using.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    24. Re:Thank God by cfuse · · Score: 1
      Twice burned is enough for me.

      Yeah, but three times is the charm.

      Seriously though, if you want something that just works - buy old gear. It's been around long enough (in some cases 6 months) that the hardware and driver bugs have been ironed out.

  5. Me dumb by Monte · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Let's say I didn't know anything about graphics cards. How does this help me?

    1. Re:Me dumb by feanor512 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Look at the fillrate and memory bandwidth. In general a card with a higher fillrate and more memory bandwidth is faster than one with a lower fillrate and less memory bandwidth. This isn't always true, though. The ATI Radeon 9700/9800 series is faster than the Geforce FX 5900 series clock for clock, while the Geforce 6800 series is faster than the ATI X800 series clock for clock.

    2. Re:Me dumb by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      If you wanted to buy a video card for yourself or a niece, you could compare cards in the same price range and pick the one with the higher numbers. Yeah it would be nice if you knew what they meant and which numbers mattered more, but them's the breaks.

    3. Re:Me dumb by cfuse · · Score: 1
      Let's say I didn't know anything about graphics cards. How does this help me?

      Here's the easy rules for graphics hardware:

      1. If you can afford it, then it's crap
      2. If it's slightly more than you are comfortable paying, then performance will be acceptable
      3. If it costs more than 8 weeks rent, it's good
      4. If you sold everything you own (including your body) and you still can't afford it, this is the card you want
  6. We really wouldnt need this type of thing by Crashmarik · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If the manufacturers didn't go out of their way to completely confuse the issue to the point where there are no definitive answers to the question.

    1. Re:We really wouldnt need this type of thing by ThatFunkyMunki · · Score: 1

      And what alternative do you provide for the companies, and why should they even give a shit about you?

      --
      If patriotism is racist, is racism patriotic?
    2. Re:We really wouldnt need this type of thing by mblase · · Score: 1

      We really wouldnt need this type of thing if the manufacturers didn't go out of their way to completely confuse the issue to the point where there are no definitive answers to the question.

      Yeah, why should all these capitalist commercial corporations be so insensitive as to confuse the question of whether their competitors make a better product?

    3. Re:We really wouldnt need this type of thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what goes great with Capitalism?

      Regulation. Make em be honest about their performance.

      I'm tired of seeing them release the latest and greatest "repackaged Geforce2 mx" brand.. its sickening to see people fall for it.

      5200, crap. 6200, crap. 7200, will be crap. I'm sure ATI has their similar brands, which I'm not familiar with.

  7. Re:But what about Linux drivers? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    It was probably made by the same people.

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  8. 8 year old card by ch-chuck · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm still using a 3dfx card - not my game machine but its running XP and does full screen TV & DVD's ok.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    1. Re:8 year old card by NemosomeN · · Score: 1

      3dfx made some awesome cards, and Glide was nice. I still used my Voodoo3 for years after I got it, and when I got it, it wasn't top of the line. Too bad they went under.

      --
      I hate grammar Nazi's.
  9. It _is_ a shame by Achra · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anyone else that accidentally bought an ATI Radeon 9250 knows what I'm talking about.. Why is it acceptable to rename the 8500 to 9250, just to make it sound more "relevant" in the modern market? The fact is that if you're going to buy a vidcard you have to do a crapload of research. Period. You can't stand in the PC store and say, "I dunno, what you got for $50?" anymore. You'll end up with a pile of junk. Another good example is the Geforce 4mx, basically a rebranded Geforce 2.

    --
    Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
    1. Re:It _is_ a shame by Mishra100 · · Score: 1

      That pretty much relates to anything you buy that costs over $100. If you don't know what you are buying then you are a lot more susceptible to being jipped.

      If I was going to buy a car and just picked a random car, then I might have bought a Daewoo...

      You really shouldn't be buying anything computer related unless you know about it. The nice thing is, once you buy the card and you enjoy it; you can recommend it to your friends. So having a trustworthy friend is always a great help in that department.

    2. Re:It _is_ a shame by Achra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True.. I may come off as being whiney and uninformed as well, but I can remember when the 3dFX Voodoo2 was measurably better than the Voodoo. The Geforce2 was better than the Geforce, the Geforce3 better than the geforce2... I mean, you're going to have your stinker pieces of hardware, but both Nvidia and ATI's product line now is absolutely not linear. The Radeon 9600 is slower than the 9500... The Geforce 5200 is slower than a Geforce4 ti..
      For all those that are going to ask me for hard benchmark data... Find it yourself. :) I'm too busy trying to sell my Radeon 9250.

      --
      Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
    3. Re:It _is_ a shame by Mishra100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you posted a total logical point. I just wanted to add a couple of things.

      And if we are discussing naming conventions, I absolutely HATE Nvidia's naming conventions and really don't buy from them because of it. At least when I buy a 9600, I know its better than a 9200. But when I see
      NVIDIA nForce4 Ultra
      GeForce FX
      NVIDIA nForce4 SLI
      GeForce 6 Series

      I have absolutly NO IDEA what is better...

    4. Re:It _is_ a shame by lee1026 · · Score: 0

      the nforces are motherboards. the fxs are also called geforce 5s. hope that helps.

    5. Re:It _is_ a shame by Tanmi-Daiow · · Score: 1

      Actually, Nvidia's newest 6000 line, they are linear. 6200 is less than the 6200 GT. the 6600 is better than the 6200 GT. The 6800 is better than the 6600 GT, etc. In my opinion, Nvidia has taken the correct road. ATI is still in never never land when it comes to names.

      --
      "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
    6. Re:It _is_ a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, a 9100 is a renamed 8500.

      kthx.

    7. Re:It _is_ a shame by Mornelithe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      GeForce 4200, 4400, 4600
      GeForce FX5200, FX5300, FX5700, FX5750, FX5900
      GeForce 6200, 6600, 6800
      GeForce 7800

      nForce refers to motherboard chipsets. Regular is regular, SLI means it supports SLI, and Ultra means it's the highest performing model (which also happens to include SLI).

      The only confusing aspect is the suffixes like GT (Ultra, GTX, LE) on the graphics cards, which can make cards with the same number have different specs. Of course, ATI does that was well (which is better: A Pro, an SE an XT or a regular?). In fact, the major difference between the naming schemes the two companies use is that the first number for a nVidia card is the generation the chip is from (4, 5, 6), while the first number in an ATI card is (supposed to be) the version of DirectX it's built to support (or, it was until the X series; they ran out of 9-based numbers, I guess). So for a time, ATI was actually inserting new 9x00 chips between existing 9x00 chips from an earlier generation. Are you sure that a 9600 is significantly worse than a 9700 in that situation?

      nVidia's naming scheme is no more or less complex than ATI's. You're just familiar with ATI's product line, and rather ignorant (it seems) of nVidia's.

      --

      I've come for the woman, and your head.

    8. Re:It _is_ a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and Ultra means it's the highest performing model (which also happens to include SLI).

      Ultra is the highest performing model without SLI. See, they are confusing. :-)

    9. Re:It _is_ a shame by MojoStan · · Score: 1
      the first number in an ATI card is (supposed to be) the version of DirectX it's built to support (or, it was until the X series; they ran out of 9-based numbers, I guess).

      With the glaring, f'd up exception of the Radeon 9000/9200 series, which are DirectX 8 cards (as the grandparent stated). The 9000/9200 series were previous-generation cards (8500 series) renamed. Isn't that f'd up?

      GeForce 4200, 4400, 4600
      GeForce FX5200, FX5300, FX5700, FX5750, FX5900
      GeForce 6200, 6600, 6800
      GeForce 7800...

      nVidia's naming scheme is no more or less complex than ATI's. You're just familiar with ATI's product line, and rather ignorant (it seems) of nVidia's.

      You left out the GeForce4 MX, which was based on GeForce2 technology (DirectX 7), not GeForce4 (DirectX 8) as its name seems to indicate.

      So far, it seems like only the "low end" cards have had misleading names. But "low end" buyers are the ones least likely to do the research.

      --
      TO START
      PRESS ANY KEY

      Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

    10. Re:It _is_ a shame by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      So far, it seems like only the "low end" cards have had misleading names. But "low end" buyers are the ones least likely to do the research.

      It was common place for some dealers to advertise a TNT or a Geforce 2 / 4 in a whitebox and when you bought it home it ended up being the MX edition.

      A general rule of thumb... If you are looking for a budget video card it's generally best to buy last years hot model rather than this years *lame* model.

      For example I bought a geforce4 mx edition where I would have been better off buying a geforce3 which IIRC didn't have an mx edition. It was *good enough* till I actually wanted to play something more modern, in which case it was too dog slow.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    11. Re:It _is_ a shame by labratuk · · Score: 1

      I don't know why you're complaining about the 9250 - it's probably the best card ATI do. It's the fastest performing model that actually has usable drivers for it.

      --
      Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
    12. Re:It _is_ a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it really was an 8500, then you probably got a deal. 8500s are awesome (they perform better than 9000).

  10. Re:But what about Linux drivers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I used Sun's Solaris quite a bit so I understood the shell at least. ... though I was confused why I needed ... to have a root password since it was a single user machine
    Okay... this person is either a liar or a moron, or both.

    How can a person use a Unix-like OS for any reasonable period of time without realizing even on a single user system how important the concept of a root user and root password is?

  11. Re:But what about Linux drivers? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    But what I find most stupid is the philosophy behind it. Why make something so complex for free? I'm an excellent software engineer, good software is hard to make, it's beyond art, takes incredible amounts of education, hardwork and talent, and it should be kept proprietary and one should be paid to make it. I shouldn't have to run around asking for donations and shouldn't have to live in my mom's basement to get by.
    Not everybody lives only for money, asshole. Of course, you sound like those ultra-Capitalists who think that absolutely everything should be done for money.
    and giving away software for free is not helping anybody except big corporations who save even more money.
    That is one of the most ignorant statements in that post, which is saying a whole fucking lot. The little guy, who has very little money to spend on software, is the one who benefits from FOSS. Because he gets better software for free.
    Oh, and FOSS doesn't necessarily mean free as in price, although the code itself usually doesn't cost anything. (Usually, the cost of FOSS is in support and such.)
    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  12. Re:But what about Linux drivers? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    He works for Linspire?

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  13. Short list by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you want Linux compatibility, you want nVidia. Yes, nVidia's drivers are closed-source, but they're at the same level as their Windows drivers, right down to the overclocking controls.

    If you want a fanless, low-power GPU that can also do light gaming, get a GeForce 6200 with as much onboard RAM as you can find (ignore the TC "TurboCache" crap).

    If you want a midrange, not-too-power-hungry card, get the 6600GT. This is my favorite card.

    If you need a high-end GPU, get a 7800GT. If you have money to burn, get the GTX version. Check to make sure your power supply is up to snuff (Seasonic S12 series is my favorite, highest efficiency I've found), especially if you did something silly like buy an Intel P4. If you can afford one of these you can afford a proper AMD 64-bit processor to go with it.

    There, everything you need to know. The 6200 was a pleasant surprise to me. I put one in my parents' Shuttle SFF box (Athlon 64 3000+), replacing a Ti4200, and the lower power consumption was enough for the main system fan to slow down to its minimum 1000RPM most of the time. It's still good enough to play UT2004 Demo at full detail at 1280x1024 res.

    1. Re:Short list by s_p_oneil · · Score: 2, Informative

      You have to watch out for some of the 6200's. Some are a step down from the 6600's and others are a step up from the 6200 TurboCache versions. Even though they're not TurboCache versions, they are actually slower than the original 6200. It's a shame that they're not marked as being different from the others.

      If you want silence, there are some fanless 6600's on the market. They may use too much power to run in a Shuttle, though. ;-)

    2. Re:Short list by NitsujTPU · · Score: 2, Informative

      He's right. I have an ATI video card, and it's pure misery.

      People will argue it in both directions, but they're just completely incorrect. My 4 year old GeForce works far better under Linux than my brand spanking new Radeon.

    3. Re:Short list by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      Good pun.

      Mod parent up, funny.

    4. Re:Short list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, new P4s are hot (really, really hot), 64bit AMDs are cool.

    5. Re:Short list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want linux support, you do _not_ want Nvidiot, they only have binary drivers and nvidia has never shared any documentation with open source developers.

      The best card to use if you run an open source system(*BSD, Linix, Plan 9, ...) is Radeon 9200, which was the last card for which ATI released any docs.

      Nvidia used to make good hardware, this days they only make junk and they refuse to release any docs for it, latest news is that Nforce4 SATA controller will _never_ be supported in Linux, not even thru binary drivers, and all we get is a promise that "in the future they will try to do better":

      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/10/169

      If you care for Linux and Open Source, never buy Nvidia.

    6. Re:Short list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > My 4 year old GeForce works far better under Linux than my brand spanking new Radeon.

      Which isn't saying much as a 4 year old Radeon is also likely to work better than a spanking new one.

    7. Re:Short list by pyite69 · · Score: 1

      I have a 6600GT and it is nice, but I think I am going to get a Gigabyte 6600 256MB because it is apparently fanless.

      My computers sounds like a jet engine.

    8. Re:Short list by adam613 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's not surprising. Most four-year-old hardware will work better on Linux than the brand-new equivalent, because various developers have had four years to write drivers.

      What is impressive about nVidia is that their brand-new hardware works just as well under Linux as the four-year-old stuff.

    9. Re:Short list by Kargan · · Score: 1

      You could always just buy a third party silent VGA cooler. Just remove the stock cooling array and attach. $20 for a good one at most places around here.

      The 256MB 6600 apparently doesn't need a fan because it's not even close to performing as well as the 6600GT.

      --
      Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
    10. Re:Short list by myslashdotusername · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you want Linux compatibility, you want nVidia.

      and if you want a graphic card with a Manufacturer's Warrenty you want to get an ATI. Seriously for certain card models ATI cards aren't that badly supported (even under linux) sure, most ati cards work better under windows than under linux (with a few exceptions) but if you're buying a gaming system and worrying about linux you're either A. dual booting or B. running some type of virtual machine set up, or C. planning on migrating down to 'linux' when you retire the system. and if you're building a 'workstation' you're going to be looking at the FireGL cards, and nvidia has nothing that compares to FireGL and the linux drivers for ATI products are Specifically written for the FireGL product lines..

      so you be happy with your Nvidia card which has some dubious warrenty from some company who may or may not have a 'real' setup for providing warrenty service, and requires you to return the card to a retailer, who pays a $xx,xxx a year fee for the right to RMA defective products to the manufacturer. i think i'll stick with ATI, and if i need an ATI card to work under linux I'll be sure to grab up a FireGL card...

      --
      Everyone whom you love, loves no one else. You must be special.
    11. Re:Short list by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      I totally understand.

      However, on both fronts, I am using the proprietary drivers. On one front, I paid $300 for a card (included in a notebook), that will have devalued significantly by the time I am able to use all of its features.

      Had I purchased an nVidia, it wouldn't have been a problem.

    12. Re:Short list by afa · · Score: 1

      yeah, but what I want at present is to have my osx86 run with coregraphics and quartzextreme, so, WHAT I NEED IS ONLY A intel GMA900

    13. Re:Short list by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 1

      "nvidia has nothing that compares to FireGL"

      Say that again? What about Quattro??

    14. Re:Short list by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 1

      I'm loyal to nVidia (at least in their video cards, not so much in their motherboards) but I wouldn't say their Linux video drivers are at the same level as their Windows drivers. For example, I'm still waiting for proper TV-in support (no, RivaTV doesn't count, it's an awful hack that will never work properly).

    15. Re:Short list by aaronl · · Score: 1

      As previously pointed out, the nVidia equivalent to the FireGL is called the Quadro. It's been out for several years now and is extremely well supported.

      nVidia also has the most complete and accelerated OpenGL implementation on the market. They have much more stable drivers than ATI, and the actually support their previous generation hardware. They don't tend to do massively bloated "we require 128MB RAM for our driver" type crap.

      When ATI gets around to releasing a driver that actually loads on a new kernel, it doesn't work right anyway. nVidia gets you the advantage of as fast or faster performance on Linux, compared to Windows.

      Also, why would you be needing a professional graphics card for a workstation. Perhaps you're using that "workstation" to do work instead of play games. I use my workstation to do programming and system/network administration. Why do I need a FireGL?

      Every few years, I'll risk throwing money at an ATI product. I've been burned every single time that I've done it, dating back to my mach32 VLB card. They drop driver support, half-ass what they do have, but at least they've stopped making shoddy hardware.

    16. Re:Short list by key134 · · Score: 1

      I agree with the warranty thing because ATI supported my card when the fan blew, but I have an honest question. Does nVidia only make chipsets now? Do they not actually manufacture a single card?

    17. Re:Short list by cowbutt · · Score: 1
      There, everything you need to know.

      Not quite; if you want a card that works using the Free XFree86/Xorg drivers and offers stability, future usability and 3D, then you want a Radeon upto the 9250.

      If you don't care about 3D, you can buy pretty much anything you like, including on-board.

    18. Re:Short list by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Well, perhaps the graphics drivers aren't bloated, but my friend has an nForce driver that installs Apache, to provide remote configuration, or something. No, not a small, optimized mini-web server: an entire Apache.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    19. Re:Short list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a jet engine? Feh - check out the Albatron 6600GT. It's not silent, but it doesn't noticeably contribute to the sound output of my box.

      On a slightly off-topic note, if you want something that /does/ sound like a jet engine - Sun's Fire v210 server. DAYAM those things are frelling loud! (It's the freakin' ducted coolers on the dualie sparcs, plus the 15k RPM disks)

    20. Re:Short list by EzInKy · · Score: 1


      If you want Linux compatibility, you want nVidia. Yes, nVidia's drivers are closed-source, but they're at the same level as their Windows drivers, right down to the overclocking controls.

      I guess that all depends on how you define compatible, and if it the drivers aren't open source then the drivers are not compatible with my open source system. I do research my hardware before I buy, and I will pay a premium to make sure that what I pay for will work with Linux without having to depend on some companies closed source drivers.

      Tyan motherboards, yes. Opteron processors, yes. Audigy sound cards, yes. But NVidia cards, no.

      Guess I'll just keep pluggin along with my Radeon 9200 until this project makes more progress.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    21. Re:Short list by myslashdotusername · · Score: 1

      but at least they've stopped making shoddy hardware.

      Exactly, and nvidia I don't know what quality a RAM manufacturer or a Motherboard vendor who consisttantly manages to release at least 3 boards a Year they 'silently' pull off the market because they couldn't fix the 'bugs' in bios revision 1.xx

      Sure the 'drivers' are better, sure they engineer the chips good... but I'm building systems for people and i can't afford to pay $10 grand a year to a 'tier 1' motherboard manfacturer for the right to RMA there defective junk video card hardware...

      Sure I have to reasearch which cards etc to use anyways, but I really really appreciate the RMA process that ATI has, as well as there upgrade/competitive upgrade programs. It makes my life as a small system builder a hell of a lot easier. That's something Nvidia doesn't do.

      When I'm building a custom graphic workstation for someone who needs to do 3-d rendering/graphic work, then yeah it comes down to which 'workstation' board is best suited for the job.

      Competition is good though, Nvidia changed the industry drastically, they made it so that everyone who wanted to sell crappy graphic hardware was selling nvidia rebranded chips, and made sure that no-none except ATI could survive and compete against them. Why did ATI survive? because they Make life So much easier for some people that even if there products have a little flakier drivers you know that you're not going to be left high and dry by the company if you actually get a bad bit of silicon, that managed to 'pass' inital QC checks etc.

      I don't think you realize how hard it is for a small OEM to survive and compete let's say you decided to go with Nvidia cards, and lets assume you researched design and found a company with a solid design... but in order to compete with the 'big' names on prices buying that card from 'new egg' etc was too expensive, so you 'saved' $10 a card buying from some dubious internet vendor you found on froogle/pricewatch etc... but of those cards lets say 1 in ten was 'failing' on you, and the 'manufacturer' of said card has a no-RMA poilicy and the site you bought from insists the cards were not covered because you had 'opened' them, and it was past the 30 days that US law requires they would have to accept the defictive hardware back :p

      Now what if those cards cost $200 a pop, and you needed to buy them because that's what your customers wanted in terms of 'gaming' perfomance in there systems? now what? genius... if they're 'real' ATI cards, all I do is RMA them via ATI's channels, no problem, I don't need to pay any special fees to do any of this... if they're Nvidia I'm out $200... all for trying to be price competitive with the likes of dell and gateway etc...

      Nvidia has better drivers, especially on linux. with the exception of the ATI FireGL cards most ati cards have crappy linux drivers, because Linux has crappy gaming support (emulate windows?, tux racer? Open GL games that have a linux binary...)

      Linux works pretty well as a workstation, or a server, but it's only a 'basic' desktop, and a 'basic' level of game support (although there are many many very fun games for Free for linux, most of them aren't exactly 3-d intensive) So yeah, ATI has very minimalistic drivers for the 'gaming' cards under linux. they made a call because competing with nvidia is a damn had thing to do and they need to focus on what makes them better able to compete with nvidia. Support the FireGL cards better under linux, because there are really decent 3-d rendering and 3D-CAD programs for linux that need the 3-d hosepower and driver support. and don't support the 'desktop gaming' cards so much.

      Nvidia lets other companies spend the money and engineering resource (or as the case is, not spend the money) on providing good small OEM builder support etc, so of course they have plenty of time to build drivers that don't have any 'real' value in this day and age... like linux drivers that work for gaming cards on an OS that has the worst possible gaming support framework of any modern OS.

      --
      Everyone whom you love, loves no one else. You must be special.
    22. Re:Short list by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      nVidia-based graphics cards are quite good nowadays but do be aware that a lot of the newer cards do not support AGP 4x (e.g., 1.5V AGP) ports. You want to be very careful about this, especially if you install nVidia-based graphics cards on older systems.

    23. Re:Short list by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 1

      Get a Zalman VF700-AlCu to replace your stock cooling. You'll sacrifice a card slot but it works very, very well. The -Cu version is considerably heavier and just isn't needed unless you're into serious overclocking (in which case you should be thinking about liquid cooling).

      For people who haven't bought cards yet, pick one with a 60mm fan instead of the reference 40mm fans. MUCH quieter. I went with Leadtek.

    24. Re:Short list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what's REALLY impressive? That ANY graphics card works to it's fullest potential in WINDOWS. Linux is a fucking joke joke, period.

    25. Re:Short list by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 1

      I got bit by that too. I bought that 6200 for an old Celeron slot 1 CPU in a 440BX chipset board and the card was keyed differently so it didn't fit at all. I then bought a 5200 card, which did fit, but the machine wouldn't boot. GeForce 4-series cards are fine though.

    26. Re:Short list by aaronl · · Score: 1

      I'll definitely agree with you that on a graphics workstation, you choose differently. The ATI FireGL line is quite good for both hardware and software. Servers have used ATI for onboard graphics for a long time, although they occasionally use chipset integrated graphics now. Quality control for the nVidia Quadro is much better than for their GeForce line, but you're still buying from a VAR instead of direct.

      It doesn't matter so much what you choose for anything other than gaming or graphics workstation. As long as it's reliable and can push a good resolution with clarity, it should be fine.

      The RMA situation is certainly quite obnoxious, but you're hopefully not going to lose business because you spend an extra 10$ or 50$ to choose a reliable vendor. On a personal machine, then maybe the 50$ is a worry because it makes you charge 1015$ instead of 965$, or whatnot.

      Myself... I choose the nVidia kit over ATI simply because ATI still hasn't learned to put together quality software to back up their hardware. If they get their heads on straight and start producing software on par with their hardware, then I'll put them up as a competitive option rather than a vendor to not even consider. Either way, it's hard to do well being a small OEM...

      The machines that I build or purchase only come with ATI if I don't have another choice. The only ATI hardware that I run right now is the integrated Rage chipsets on my UltraSPARC workstations, and similar on the Dell PowerEdges. I don't care about graphics on those machines, and the only hardware related crash I've had (so far) has been a result of the ATI driver for my little PowerEdge 1400SC. The larger PowerEdges have been fine with whatever ATI chipset runs them.

    27. Re:Short list by pablodiazgutierrez · · Score: 1
      If you want Linux compatibility, you want nVidia. Yes, nVidia's drivers are closed-source, but they're at the same level as their Windows drivers, right down to the overclocking controls.

      You're right, and the reason is that they have the same source tree for all their drivers. Or in other words, they have just one single, huge driver that fits all. And it fits them well, too.

    28. Re:Short list by Zoxed · · Score: 1

      > Yes, nVidia's drivers are closed-source

      For my requirements (basic card, no use for 3D, no gaming, DVI out... (ASUS V9400-X/TD / Nvidia MX4000) the xorg driver "nv" works fine for me. I never bothered to try the nVidia driver.

  14. They missed FPS by Mishra100 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I hear video cards being rated in FPS(frames per second) in certain video games all the time. If person A can get 100 more FPS out of Doom 3 using an ATI at the same cost as a Nvidia, usually they are going to go for that.

    So my question is why didn't they include this in there? They have a lot of good data but I just wish that someone would run all the video tests on each card and check out the FPS data on certain popular games and produce them in a nice chart similar to this one.

    1. Re:They missed FPS by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      One of the earlier posts in the topic points you to http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20050705/ index.html which seems to have what you are asking for. You are right, the submitted article isn't nearly as useful to buyers as the tomshardware article.

    2. Re:They missed FPS by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      www.tomshardware.com www.anandtech.com www.hexus.net www.pcworld.com www.techtree.com take your pick.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    3. Re:They missed FPS by Mechcozmo · · Score: 1
      How do you get 100 FPS in Doom 3?

      Did John Titor give you that video card?

    4. Re:They missed FPS by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      I guess it was because FPS figures are completely useless unless you only intend to play one game for the entire life of the graphics card. If Doom 3 runs faster, that especially doesn't bare any relation to other games, unless they happen to be using exactly the same rendering techniques (which most games do not.)

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    5. Re:They missed FPS by flipper65 · · Score: 1

      I feel rather dense here, but what do fps over say 60 buy you? I use 60 because that is the fps of the average motion picture.

      I am not trolling I am actually curious, can the eye see the difference between a card pumping 90 fps and one that is pumping 110 fps?

    6. Re:They missed FPS by Sabriel · · Score: 1
      what do fps over say 60 buy you?
      It buys you a card that has a chance of playing next year's game at 60 fps too. :)
      I am not trolling I am actually curious, can the eye see the difference between a card pumping 90 fps and one that is pumping 110 fps?
      While I doubt I could tell the difference (even 60 and 80), there are people who can. It's like how I need glasses to read street signs and others don't. Different levels of optical sensitivity. Trivia: 20/20 vision is not the best you can have.
    7. Re:They missed FPS by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      Well, most of those cards wouldn't play Doom3, and something like Quake1 wouldn't be demanding enough to show a significant difference at the high end.

      And, if you got the old cards to play Doom3, you would have them being waaaay over-reported because they can't do any of the pixel shaders. Since they would be doing so much less work, the frame rate would indicate it to be much faster than it really is.

    8. Re:They missed FPS by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      I feel rather dense here, but what do fps over say 60 buy you?

      Futureproofing, as you've already had mentioned, but also it gets you a bit of extra insurance... With my distinctly crappy card (bottom-of-the-line budget GeForce somethingorother, but fanless which I suppose is a plus) I get a perfectly playable Neverwinter Nights experience most of the time - except when the crap starts flying. When I'm launching meteor swarms and fireballs at all in sight and when there are dozens of drow guards and duergar invaders and three gigantic golems all on screen at once - THAT'S when you want the better card. 100fps in normal play buys you 60fps when things get frantic, and those are the times you really need a responsive system.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  15. Ouch my wallet! by Wino · · Score: 5, Funny
    That list looks like my damn credit card bill for the last 10 years! What would be really cool is if the guide had check boxes and when you hit submit it tells you how much money you wasted on all those shiney new gfx cards over the years.

    Wait... on second thought that wouldnt be cool at all.

  16. Which GPU is best for scientific computing tasks? by Drew+Curtis · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Is that commensurate with how well it performs in games?

  17. When the mainstream magazines fail, by TuxPaper · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the web picks up the slack. Back in the day when I bought computer magazines (at least 2 years ago), I've always wanted comprehensive charts of the latest graphic cards listed in magazines. Occassionally, if they were doing a graphics card special issue, there'd be maybe 7 cards compared.

    However, this comparison guide is hardly a "easy reference". It's on the web, so give it some features. I want to sort, filter out columns, have side-by-sides comparisons, comments/ratings by users (or staff), etc.

    I live in Japan now, where I can pick up a monthly computer magazine, and they have a section dedicated to charts on the latest CPU, Video, HDD, Motherboards, and Chipsets. The video chart, for comparison, has 14 different specs, all listed on one row, making it far easier to compare than this site.

    The only advantage to the charts at the site in this story is that it will/does include old cards. But, as with other commenters in this thread, I say this story certainly feels like a cheap ad.

    1. Re:When the mainstream magazines fail, by hexed_2050 · · Score: 1

      Back in the day when I bought computer magazines (at least 2 years ago)

      Two years ago is "back in the day?" I thought two years ago felt like yesterday.

      --
      Valkyrie is about to die! Wizard needs food -- badly!
  18. Suggestions for Linux PCI? by shotgunefx · · Score: 1

    I'm using a docking station with an old Dell CPTv Celeron laptop as the base for my car computer that runs Debian Woody. The interface I'm working on runs on PerlSDL

    Anyone one to suggest a good PCI linux friendly card for the dock? Tried doing some research but PCI video cards aren't exactly popular anymore. Hard to find any hits that aren't after 02.

    So far peformance is ok, but moving up from a 8mb ATI rage mobility seems like a a cheap way to get more performance. Especially for some of the bells and whistles I'd like to implement. (Maybe writing it in something besides Perl might give me some more leeway, but that's not negotiable).

    Any suggestions?

    --

    -William Shatner can be neither created nor destroyed.
    1. Re:Suggestions for Linux PCI? by weekendgeek · · Score: 1, Informative

      How about a nVidia FX5500 or FX5700? Roughly about $100 and easy driver installation.

      Newegg has them in stock (just search for video cards with a PCI interface).

      --
      It would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name
    2. Re:Suggestions for Linux PCI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just bought an eVGA GeForce FX5200 PCI (~$50) for my wife's computer. Its almost more video than her computer (700 MHz Celeron) can handle. OpenGL1.3 capable. ATi 9250's are available in the same price range, but the nVidia seemed like it might be a hair better.

    3. Re:Suggestions for Linux PCI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you're running Debian... if you want to use full-featured open source drivers, then the fastest available 3D card is Radeon 9200, which seems to have a PCI version as well. Other choices include Radeon 9250 (which is really slower than 9200) and earlier Radeons.

    4. Re:Suggestions for Linux PCI? by shotgunefx · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the suggestions. After looking at it (and msg boards for various problems/issues with these cards on linux), I'm going to get the Radeon 9200

      Thanks.

      --

      -William Shatner can be neither created nor destroyed.
  19. Re:Which GPU is best for scientific computing task by netllama · · Score: 1

    NVIDIA's Quadro line of cards is meant for workstations (instead of consumer/gaming) purposes.

  20. ditto, 3dfx voodoo 3000 TV by burnttoy · · Score: 1

    Works fine for me. Best of all it's passively cooled. It sits in an old P3/866 which is also passively cooled. Actually not a bad machine for a load of stuff pulled out of a skip after the company I was at went tits up.

    --
    Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
    1. Re:ditto, 3dfx voodoo 3000 TV by Wolfier · · Score: 1

      The Voodoo3's are keepers, as well as the Geforce MX, if you want a fanless card.  I used to play CS with them and they now end up in my girlfriend's computers (she doesn't 3D game).

      These old boards are still way better than the VIA onboard videos sold today in terms of 2D quality and 3D performance.

      These cards are cool, reliable, and with rock solid stability (out of ALL video drivers I have used till today, Nothing beats 3dfx in terms of driver stability!)

      I'm looking for a fanless 6600 setup right now, tho none of the local stores carry them :(

    2. Re:ditto, 3dfx voodoo 3000 TV by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      The Voodoo3's are keepers, as well as the Geforce MX, if you want a fanless card. I used to play CS with them and they now end up in my girlfriend's computers (she doesn't 3D game).

      My ati 9600 (256D) series is fanless. I know not the most hot gamer card on the market, but nothing to sneeze at esp considering it fetches a price under $60.00. I don't have bench marks but I noticed that pirates had game sequences such as dancing and "attack the town" where my old lame g-force 4 was so slow it was practicaly unplayable.

      The TNT2 non-ultra editions were pretty spiffy and fanless, but I had some real dogs from Diamond. I returned my Viper 770 several times and finally gave up. Works ok if underclocked, but running at the standard memory clock it freaks out and gets worse as the years go on. I would have designated it a nice hand-me-down card otherwise.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  21. My solution by YuriGherkin · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I recently came up with a good way to compare video card with a bang-for-buck type analysis.

    * I went to the latest review of VGA cards at Tom's Hardware.

    * I chose the top 12 video cards from ATI and nVIDIA

    * I created a spreadsheet which calculated the relative rankings of each card across about 30 different tests for a range of games/benchmarks. i.e. the top scoring card in a category got 100% and the remaining 11 cards were expressed as a fraction of the top score.

    * I averaged the rankings for the 30 categories

    * I used a local hardware search tool to find the current "buy it today" best prices for each of those cards.

    * I divided the average ranking by the price to get a bang/buck ratio that can help to compare the cards. i.e. so a card that averaged 90% but costs AUD$600 would have a lower final score than a card that came in at 50% but only cost AUD$200

    Unfortunately, the spreadsheet is at work but the 6600GT was a clear winner in terms of bang-for-buck.

    All these 12 cards were good, and most of them were the only ones remaining in the extreme tests like high-res DOOMIII with AA sort-of-tests. So, even if a card only came in at 50% average, it was still able to work with all the latest games at reasonable frame rates.

    1. Re:My solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Unfortunately, the spreadsheet is at work...

      phew! for a moment there I thought you were doing this on your spare time.

    2. Re:My solution by bmgz · · Score: 1

      ...the 6600GT was a clear winner in terms of bang-for-buck. I did the same sort of "Research" and ended up with the same conclusion. I am completely satisfied with this cards' performance.

  22. Re:wow, what an utterly useless article by thirty2bit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a useful reference for people who have graphics cards that are a year or two or more old and need a comparison guide for a new purchase. I'm pleased to see it includes Direct-X levels for each card. That is the most often overlooked attribute in reviews. The only other similar ref I have seen is an issue of Maximum sellout^h^h^h^h^h^h PC that is over a year old, listing DX levels by chipset. Before HL2 and Doom3 came out, plenty of people were wondering what DX version their cards were, and if they would be usable.

    There is no 'article text' because this appears to be a set of comparison charts, not a card discussion, and there is no explanation of 'what is what' because it is assumed that if you are comparing stats, you already know your subject. Finally, there is indeed an article navigation control at the bottom of the page. At least there is in Firefox, and also no Google ads for me, thanks to the same.

  23. YAG3DGCC! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh Boy! Yet Another Generic 3D Graphics Card Comparison! Like we've never seen one of those before!

    How about something that covers new ground? How about evaluating the features beyond simple stats and 3D performance in various games I'll never play?

    I want to see a comparison that looks at these characterstics without regard to 3D FPS...

    1) Noise level, idle and under load
    2) Heat level and/or power consumption, idle and under load
    3) DVI signal quality when pushed to maximum resolution & refresh rate - i.e. how long a cable I can hang off of it at what resolution
    4) Video acceleration - mpeg2, mpeg2 for hi-def, WM9, WM9 for hi-def, h.264 and h.264 for at hi-def resolutions
    5) Video de-interlacing support and quality - 3:2 telecine at what resolutions, how about 2:2 telecine, etc
    6) Video scaling quality -- how many taps for vertical, how many taps horizontal, any fancy algorithms, test-pattern measured quality levels

    Anybody and his brother can put up a speclist of 3D features or run a set of semi-standard 3D benchmarks and they already have. How about somebody with some real tools - oscope, multi-meter, pattern tests, etc do something new and useful to the REST of us for a change?

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:YAG3DGCC! by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree. Most of the 3D benchmarks push the idea that the only buying considerations for buying are FPS and dollars. It would be nice if they considered the other stuff like you mentioned.

      I personally would like to see a database like what storagereview.com does, and be able to cull out rediculous crap like graphics cards that take two slots. I'd also like to know what sound pitches the on-board fans use and how loud they are.

      It seems like the people that buy the high end stuff buy without regard to practicality. It was bad enough that high end cards used two slot spaces but didn't need it for circuitry. Then there are rediculous modders that eliminated almost all useful PCI slots so they can use a CPU cooler on a GPU.

    2. Re:YAG3DGCC! by pangu · · Score: 1
      How about something.... new and useful to the REST of us for a change

      Those things take effort and time. Turning on FPS counters do not.
    3. Re:YAG3DGCC! by yeremein · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more. I've been through four upper-middle-range cards through the past several years (Voodoo3, GeForce3 Ti200, GeForce4 Ti4200, and now an FX5900XT). I get all caught up in memory bandwidth and pixel shaders and I end up with a card that works great during the three or four times a month I play games, but drives me insane with its fan noise the rest of the time.

      'No fan' is #1 on my list for my next card.

    4. Re:YAG3DGCC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are how many manufacturers manufacturing how many variations of models? How can you really test them all? Some reviews mention these things but getting data on one or two makes really isn't much use and how many place will be treated to or able to afford to look at a dozen manufacturers half dozen models of two chip suppliers?

    5. Re:YAG3DGCC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a stupid argument because it applies to ANY mass comparison review, regaredless of if it just another bunch of 3D FPS numbers or something with more emphasis on the non-3D aspect.

    6. Re:YAG3DGCC! by Pansy · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you should look at Matrox. I'll warn you in advance though, the kids will keep asking you why the PCB is that boring green color, where all the chrome is, and why it doesn't have a fan. The 2D quality is top notch though.

      --
      People are the problem, stop procreation now!
    7. Re:YAG3DGCC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Matrox had good analog 2D. But they've fallen way behind the times. With the move to digital DVI, their clean analog signal is no longer of much value. Their support for codec acceleration - mpeg2, mpeg4, h264 is prehistoric and they have little to no support for hardware de-interlacing. Last I checked, they only supported video overlays which is now primitive compared to the texture-based video display capabilities of 'current' video cards.

      All they really have left is multi-head with very low heat and power dissapation plus small card sizes.

  24. Re:Which GPU is best for scientific computing task by Drew+Curtis · · Score: 1

    I was referring more to the recent work on using the GPU for non-graphical tasks.

  25. Useless by SniperClops · · Score: 1

    This guide is useless, it doesn't have any benchmarks for comparisons

  26. Nice charts, what happened to Matrox? by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It seems like Matrox kind of got swept under the table over the years. They always made great cards. Not necessarily the best for gaming but they had some cool features before any one else.

    Seems like they haven't really introduced anything new in quite some time.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:Nice charts, what happened to Matrox? by antdude · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Matrox was great but its 3D part was awful. I'd love to see them get into 3D business to compete ATi and NVIDIA. I owned a G400. Great card, but not so great for games.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    2. Re:Nice charts, what happened to Matrox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well now Matrox doesn't really do consumer market goods anymore, too much competition I guess they couldn't afford spending millions on research and developpement for a product with a 6 months or less lifespan. Now they do things like hi-end cards for busisiness purpose (medical imaging, surveillance systems, and this sort of thing) there are still in pretty good shape they just went for a more specialized market.

    3. Re:Nice charts, what happened to Matrox? by rrhal · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well they're still on the cutting edge -
      http://www.matrox.com/mga/media_center/press_rel/2 005/millennium_g550_pcie.cfmMatrox announces world's first PCI Express x1 graphics card

      --
      All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
    4. Re:Nice charts, what happened to Matrox? by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 1

      At first I laughed, but that's damn useful. It's passively cooled and uses a slot that is on my motherboard but currently useless. Good stuff.

    5. Re:Nice charts, what happened to Matrox? by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Matrox are still the only people (of which I am aware) shipping a quad-head DVI video card. And it's passively cooled, to boot. It's the video card Bloomberg sends you with a new terminal. ATI and Nvidia would kill to have a reliable price-insensitve market like that, but they just can't make the quality goods like Matrox can. The other two are stuck in the l33t overclocker eXtreme universe.

    6. Re:Nice charts, what happened to Matrox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's useful! I can use the two PCIe x16 slots on my K8WE for heavy-framerate cards, and use the x1 slot for one of those buggers for front-panel LCDs, TV-out, monitoring heads, presentations and so forth. And, since the chip does have some 3D capability, I can use it for OpenGL demos :-)

      And to boot, it works with Linux (and FreeBSD, and probably even Solaris)

    7. Re:Nice charts, what happened to Matrox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Today, the G400 may not be worth anything in games but when it was released it rocked. It's performance was even enough to let me use it up until ATI released the first DX9 cards (It was a competitor to nVidia's TNT2 series and with it I skipped GeForce 1-4!). Granted, it did not work well with the latest games at that time but I was able to play GTA3 and even Mafia on it.

      So yes, the G400 isn't good for gaming today, but at its birth, it certainly was! (plus its signal quality blew away pretty much everything apart from the old Millenium 2D cards) I only wish Matrox could release something equivalent to the Radeons and GeForces of today but alas that will remain wishful thinking.

  27. Fanless video card Review with benchmarks by digitalderbs · · Score: 3, Informative
    I'm in the process shopping for a fanless card. I found this review useful (Nvidia and ATI). Sorry, no linux. The review comes with detailed benchmarks.

    includes...
    • PCI-E and AGP
    • Nvidia Geforce 6200, 6600 and 6800 models
    • ATI X300, X700, X800
    • Benchmarks : 3DMark05, 3DMark03, Half-Life 2, Doom 3, Far Cry,
  28. Rojakpot? by mblase · · Score: 3, Informative

    Didn't we already slashdot this server once today?

    1. Re:Rojakpot? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Maybe Rojakpot is the Roland of a new generation.

  29. What ever happened to "Regular" cards? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    What if all you want is just to display some stuff on the screen, and dont care about having the highest FPS on the planet..

    I remember when 25 dollar cards were plentiful and DID THE JOB...

    Not everyone that owns a PC is a gamer.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:What ever happened to "Regular" cards? by lee1026 · · Score: 0

      ins't that what intergrated video is for?

    2. Re:What ever happened to "Regular" cards? by ArchangelX · · Score: 1

      Then get a motherboard with onboard video :) Video cards are designed to do extra tasks than just display stuff. Though this link will yeild cards that are 25 dollars are under, and "just display some stuff on the screen".

    3. Re:What ever happened to "Regular" cards? by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

      All jokes aside no. Onboard video will slow down your whole system, and if your extra lucky your motherboard will not work with any other high end video cards. Oh yeah, that 256mb of ram for your "just put stuff on the screen" computer with XP will no longer be enough because 32mb is going to your slow video card. :)

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
    4. Re:What ever happened to "Regular" cards? by Hungry+Admin · · Score: 1

      Cheap used computer stuff - that is one of the benefits of living in Silicon Valley. At any given electronics swapmeet I can find some Matrox Millenniun cards with 2 to 12 megs of RAM, for around $2 each. They are great for making multi-head monitor setups. Quality 10/100 ethernet cards are also cheap (about $2) and plentiful... 3c905B and Intel pro 100.

      But rent is RIDICULOUS.

      --
      Be who you are and say what you feel, because the people who mind don't matter, and the people who matter don't mind.
    5. Re:What ever happened to "Regular" cards? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Integrated video is terrible. It takes up system memory, and uses up a lot of bandwidth accessing the system memory all the time. Right now, it seems like the "regular" video card to get is something like a GeForce MX for $25-$30. You can get Radeon 7000's for about the same price, but I think the GeForce MX is a bit more powerful and modern.

    6. Re:What ever happened to "Regular" cards? by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      I remember when 25 dollar cards were plentiful and DID THE JOB...

      What job?

      I remember buying into some ISA video cards way back when. I was slightly annoyed at the fact that not many games supported my card... then VESA became popular so this was less of a problem, bought into an ATI ISA card, but it's windows peformance was too slow so I bought into a graphics accelerator and things were groovy.

      I got tired of 8bit color and bought into PCI and 16bit color, and it was spiffy for a time, but then I wanted to play a game, and had to upgrade yet again.

      Sounding familar?

      The day of the $25 video card has not passed. Even 15 years ago you "could" buy a $25 video card and so long as you were doing text everything was groovy, but anything game related at above and beyond VGA 16 color was propriority and you either were lucky and bought something that was supported, or were unlucky and had a virtual paperweight.

      What a $25 video card? Plenty to choose from mail order. Hell I just picked up a old ATI Rage 128 all and one wonder for well under $25 bucks. The video digitizer chipset isn't supported under linux but if you are a windows user and you don't play game it's a mighty fine card. Localy... expect to spend closer to $40 for your base video card unless you shop around some indy shops. Otherwise hit the newsgroups, find that that gamer who just has to have the latest and greatest, simply must have that small increase in framerate so they have an edge over the other guy.

      Don't play games... $25. What to play a game from time to time, $50. Nothing has changed.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    7. Re:What ever happened to "Regular" cards? by TheOrquithVagrant · · Score: 1

      The problem with really cheap graphics card is the often monstrously awful quality of their analog output. Not a problem if you use DVI w. flatscreen, I guess, now that even the cheapest cards usually have a DVI connector.

  30. Whiffed... by NeoBeans · · Score: 2, Informative

    You do realize you totally missed the sarcasm, right?

  31. A More Concise Table... by ptcheezer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've always referred to this excellent pcvsconsole table of PC video card specs for a very concise overview of the specs and performance of the various video cards. It really is worth a look if you want to see how much more horsepower is in the newer cards as compared to the older ones.

  32. Re:Which GPU is best for scientific computing task by LordHatrus · · Score: 1

    Then you're still probably well off with Nvidia's quatro.

  33. Brand comparisons? by virgil_disgr4ce · · Score: 1

    Does anybody maintain a decent chart of brand comparisons? I always find it difficult to sort out which specific package is the best or most appropriate.

  34. Nvidia Linux support by DrJimbo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    A couple years ago, I noticed a memory leak in OpenGL apps when using Nvidia drivers and an experimental Gentoo Linux kernel. I sent Nvidia an email about it around 10 pm Saturday evening.

    I got a response about 20 minutes later which included a patch for the Linux kernel I was using. I recompiled my kernel with the patch and it fixed the leak.

    It is too bad their drivers are closed source, but I have to say that their Linux support is outstanding and on a par with the best support I've experienced.

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
    1. Re:Nvidia Linux support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I emailed nVidia when they jacked up the modelines a few weeks ago, and had email the next morning. They do respond, it's awesome.

  35. nVidia and compatibility by King_TJ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah, I've always had good luck with nVidia drivers/cards and Linux - although not sure I'd say they're exactly "at the same level" as the Windows driver counterparts.

    On my MythTV box, using a GeForce 4Ti 4600 card, I've run into lots of issues of nVidia changing around little details related to the card's ability to output in HDTV resolutions, to properly select or auto-detect which port the card is connected to (s-video, composite, or DVI/VGA) and other such things. It generally works well... don't get me wrong. But some of the optional parameters nVidia says you can specify in your XF86Config-4 file seem to shift around from version to version in their driver updates, and things that work fine in one release are broken again in the next. (Lately, I've had issues where the option to specify some "overscan" for composite or s-video output with an integer value between 0.0 and 1.0 seems to have no effect at all on my card.)

    1. Re:nVidia and compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nvidia hasn't been doing quite so well in Linux drivers recently. A substantial number of people including myself have encountered the "black screen of death" when starting up X; this has spawned a huge topic on the nvnews forums with no obvious official response yet. The worst of it is that there doesn't appear to be any one thing causing the issue.

    2. Re:nVidia and compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if you ran into the same thing as me..
      I just had to turn selinux to non-enforcing, then install the nvidia driver.

  36. 6600GT "infinite loop": 7,900 hits. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Informative


    6600GT "infinite loop". 7,900 hits.

    --
    If you support dishonesty and violence, don't say you are Christian.

    1. Re:6600GT "infinite loop": 7,900 hits. by Mortlath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But did you look at the results? One was a post by someone named "Infinite Loop", and some of the others were explaining an old problem, and some were not about it at all.

    2. Re:6600GT "infinite loop": 7,900 hits. by Loonacy · · Score: 3, Informative

      What's funny is the first result was a bunch of posts by "Infinite Loop" and the second result was someone complaining about an infinite loop with the ATi 9600XT.

  37. Intel exXxteme Edition! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot the way to tell the Intel eXtreme Edition ones apart: the more Xs the better! Wonderful Intel Marketing, what will they think of next?

  38. Do not post your website on slashdot.. by js3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    if you can't handle the slashdot!

    --
    did you forget to take your meds?
  39. Re:Which GPU is best for scientific computing task by rrhal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think you will want one of the newer PCI-e cards.

    The older AGP standard transmitted data to the card very fast but could only read it slowly. This worked well for the things that graphics cards traditionally do.

    The newer PCI-e cards can read from the graphics card at a much higher rate.

    --
    All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
  40. OS Compatibility? by RKBA · · Score: 1

    The chart would be a lot more useful if it had a column listing compatibility with the various flavors of Linux/BSD/etc.

  41. linux drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same experience. I have a wireless lan card which I would like to run on linux but find it difficult to make it work. I also tried different distributions with madwifi drives and still failed to make it work. Need to do some more research.

  42. 9250 is great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As far as I can tell, the Diamond branded 9250 is the best fanless PCI, dual display video card on the market. Niches are everything.

  43. Re:But what about Linux drivers? by simonecaldana · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How can a person use a Unix-like OS for any reasonable period of time without realizing even on a single user system how important the concept of a root user and root password is?

    By using Mac OS X.

  44. Re:But what about Linux drivers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free software does help the little bloke, but it also helps out the big bloke who can use it to gain power over the little bloke in other areas.
    I fear we are making the chains the will be used to enslave us.

    Most open source programmers cant afford to legaly defend their work, so corporations have a big legal advantage over us.

    The FSF (or another enforcement body) needs to give a corporation a good hard kick in the nuts to set an example, let them know that Free doesnt mean take what you like.

    The softly-soflty aproach they have taken over the years clearly doesnt work, look at the embedded market, it would be a very small percentage of commercial embedded linux products that are released to the market that ARENT violating one of their licences. And what is the motive for companies to do the right thing, the way it stands right now, the worst thing that will happen is that they will be given free assistance to help them comply and wont be penalised at all. Ignorance isnt an valid excuse.

  45. Posted by ScuttleMonkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is everything on Saturday night posted by ScuttleMonkey?

  46. Re:But what about Linux drivers? by cdn2k1 · · Score: 1

    obviously a troll.

    nothing to see here, move along.

  47. Worst page navigation EVAR by ChrisCampbell47 · · Score: 1

    Don't miss the little dropdown at the very bottom of the linked page.

  48. Re:wow, what an utterly useless article by ajayrockrock · · Score: 1
    Maximum sellout^h^h^h^h^h^h PC


    What did Maximum PC do that makes you think they sold out? Just curious because I really like their magazine and enjoy it when they trash hardware even though it's advertised in the magazine. A few years ago Iomega had a two page spread for some new removable hard drive POS and in the reviews section they gave it a 2 out of 10.

    --Ajay
  49. Re:wow, what an utterly useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what took my by surprise recently? Things like vertex shader and pixel shader. It's a feature of the card, some games require it, but not all new cards have it, and some manufacturers (ATI, I"m looking at you) will not call it by name. I did notice this chart refers to them, which now makes it useful to me. I spent the last two years in and out of country, and while just about everything else (processors, ram, motherboards, and even sound) is fairly easy, graphics cards just get more and more convoluted.

    Someone came to me with an error that sounded like a direct x 9 problem. Downloaded direct x, burned it to cd -- no go. They bring it in, I see the error and it intrigues me. Research leads me to the truth about pixel shader, but then I spent so much time looking for a suitable card that had this nifty feature -- if I had this chart (or something like it) at hand, I could have cut the time down significantly.

  50. Where's Matrox's Parhelia? by twicesliced · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I mean, sure, it wasn't the fastest thing on the block, but it had triple-monitor support and some other really nifty technologies in there (par for the course from Matrox). I know, not exactly a gaming card, but if you're going to include the G550, you can't leave the Parhelia out. Then there's the Px50 series too...

    1. Re:Where's Matrox's Parhelia? by arth1 · · Score: 1
      twicesliced wrote:
      I mean, sure, it wasn't the fastest thing on the block, but it had triple-monitor support and some other really nifty technologies in there (par for the course from Matrox). I know, not exactly a gaming card, but if you're going to include the G550, you can't leave the Parhelia out. Then there's the Px50 series too...


      Due to the Parhelia not working well with newer games, I was going to replace it on my main computer. So I bought an ATI X800pro. It went in, and out again the next day. It appears that ATI cards don't support video overlay to a second monitor unless the two monitors run the same resolution. Nope, can't work with that. So I returned it and got a nVidia-based 6800GT instead. It works, but it can't scale overlays in real time. Add to that that it was completely impossible to do video capture without audio/video being out of sync, and extremely high CPU usage, and I decided to put the Parhelia back in.
      The 6800GT is now in a second PC, for game use only. It's too slow for video work compared to the Parhelia.

      Regards,
      --
      *Art
  51. A better reference by typical · · Score: 1

    It's a useful reference for people who have graphics cards that are a year or two or more old

    If people *do* care about older ones, the chart in the article is is incomplete (for example, it lists the Radeon 7500 but not the Radeon 7250).

    This link contains both a more comprehensive set of graphics cards and more extensive information on each.

    And it isn't covered in ads, as the one in the article is.

    --
    Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
  52. Which Bastard? by Somegeek · · Score: 1

    I must have missed that press release from Intel. What are you referring to?

    I personally applaud and support AMD for bringing competition to Intel and dropping the retail cost of processors to a fraction of what they used to be, but on the other hand, I would like to know if they are truly some nefarious company?

    I am interested in any evidence that you have to backup your statement but I am afraid that I will find that I have just been feeding another troll. Oh well.

    --
    And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
    1. Re:Which Bastard? by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 1

      See here. Intel P4's burn a LOT more power than AMD chips. They place a far greater demand on your power supply (and your electric bill).

      Never argue technology with a 4-digit /. ID unless you know what you're doing ;-).

    2. Re:Which Bastard? by Somegeek · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I should have quoted. I was trying to ask what the heck Geekoid was talking about when he stated "Except AMD is full of lying thiving bastards."

      (soomgeek mutters under his breath 'That's why I posted the stupid question as a response to his post, not as a response to yours....')

      From now on I will try and clarify exactly what question I'm asking and of whom when I'm dealing with threads that contain old geezers like you... :)

      --
      And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
    3. Re:Which Bastard? by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 1

      Ah, sorry. His reply was filtered out by my +2 moderation filter so it looked like you were replying to my post.

  53. Re:But what about Linux drivers? by SpacePunk · · Score: 0

    "Not everybody lives only for money, asshole. Of course, you sound like those ultra-Capitalists who think that absolutely everything should be done for money. "

    People don't do it for the money, they do it to get by, pay the bills, and grind to meet the next round of bills. You have two kinds of 'open source' code monkeys. The first are those that work for universities, companies, or are students that are pulling down grants, etc... They receive money, and Open Source for them is just a hobby. The second are people that live in their parents basement, off their parents pocketbook, and have no bills. They don't 'need' money so they don't see why they should do it for money.

    "That is one of the most ignorant statements in that post, which is saying a whole fucking lot. The little guy, who has very little money to spend on software, is the one who benefits from FOSS. Because he gets better software for free."

    Free software is a lot like somone getting blue prints for a 'free car'. They end up with a vehicle that's made of hand machined parts that aren't exchangable with parts made for other cars made from the same blueprints. It's a lot of work, and only those with time on their hands can have such a vehicle. The rest of us with lives, that work to make money to pay bills, etc... just want it to work.

    Perhaps a simply analogy would be if someone received a kit to bake their own bread. They open the kit and they discover they must first grow their own wheat, then grind it, etc...

  54. Re:But what about Linux drivers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have been trolled. You have lost. Have a nice day.

  55. Re:But what about Linux drivers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please, carry on pouring your money down the drain of commercial software. Oh wait, I'll bet you warez it all...

  56. Re:Which GPU is best for scientific computing task by gregor-e · · Score: 1

    Apparently that's not a straightforward question to answer. The gpgpu.org hardware features forum would probably be the best place to ask.

  57. Re:But what about Linux drivers? by me+at+werk · · Score: 1

    I've personally experienced blue screens in windows, usually it's because the system overheated. Or, if you're talking about the "reboot instead of show a blue screen", ok. Windows randomly reboots. Hows that for a feature? I think it's great.

    Nice try trolling though.

    --
    For context, click Parent.
  58. Re:But what about Linux drivers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Here here! There's a reason the majority of computer users don't use Linux... and it isn't because of Microsoft. It is because Linux just doesn't work out of the box like Windows does.

    There's already an OS specially made for people who are technically incapable of doing anything but clicking on icons. Saying Linux doesn't work out of the box makes no sense, if you mean that linux distros don't work out of the box, I wouldn't know because I tired of LFS and run gentoo on my desktop.

    And to those Slashdot readers who haven't used Windows since 3.1, no, Windows XP does not have blue screens or general protection faults

    Yes it does.

    IHBT HAND

  59. Spend Your Cash On Something Else by fudg3tunn3l · · Score: 0

    The last time I bought a graphics card with extra features I wished I'd spent the 100 or so pounds on something more worthwile like a new bike for my son or a necklace for the wife, this time I won't be so quick to dump my current GeForce 5700 as apart from a slightly faster FPS it seems like my Radeon 8500 hasn't gone away... but that was a special card was it not?

    --
    Resident of Skara Brae since 1985
  60. Re:But what about Linux drivers? by spauldo · · Score: 1

    If microsoft had stuck with the ideas and simplicity of windows 3.1, I'd probably be using it. 95 being such a piece of crap is what drove me to linux in the first place.

    Microsoft hasn't shown me any real reason to go back yet. Of course, I might be a bit biased since the only time I sit down at a windows machine is to fix it.

    --
    Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
  61. matrox by l3v1 · · Score: 1

    As a long time Matrox fan I first skipped to the Matrox page, only to find out G550 is the last on the list. Now come on.

    And other than that, it's just yet another chip comparison.

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
  62. Re:But what about Linux drivers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the most hurting comment I've seen at the OSS community *ever*.

    I will tell you why we have and why we NEED free software. Simply because proprietary software owned by corporations is restricting us in every way they can. They cannot handle the power that comes with software, just load up your windows bow and see how much you are in control.

    Most other bits of your post are trolling that can be ignored.

  63. Be warned by crhylove · · Score: 1

    Be warned, I got one of those "heat pipe" cards, and it fried right away. I'm going back to fan!

    rhY

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  64. Re:But what about Linux drivers? by the_womble · · Score: 1
    I'm an excellent software engineer

    But you can not get any of several Linux distro's to work for you on a single user machine?

    I am not a software engineer, in fact I am not an IT professional of any kind, yet I have managed to get a small SOHO LAN + several stand alone PCs running linux, with all the applications I need, up and running with no real problems. You must be REALLY competent!

  65. Easy reference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With a transistor count list this certainly makes it easier to understand the differences between the graphics cards!

    Seriously though, what use is this sort of "stats" comparisons?

  66. Re:Which GPU is best for scientific computing task by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative
    Another poster suggested the Quadro. This is not a good idea, since the main difference between the Quadro and the GeForce line is the drivers - and you're not really going to need CAD-optimised OpenGL good drivers for scientific computing.

    In general, newer is better, but at the moment I'd go with nVidia, since their shader pipelines have much better branch support in the latest generation than ATi - something very important for non-graphics work.

    AGP might it might not be a bottleneck, depending on what you do. You can get data onto an AGP card a lot faster than you can get it off, but if you're streaming data in and only want an cumulative result then AGP will be fine (render to target extensions in modern cards are great for intermediate results).

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  67. Why not open them? by matt+me · · Score: 1

    I've just sent them an email 11:30 am Monday, asking why they don't release the source code... 20 minutes to go...

    I can't see the reason they don't. I can't imagine the code would be much good to competitors (ATi), and releasing it would greatly increase prestige and sales amongst a certain market. ATi would probably realise they've made mistakes in ignoring Linux, and then would try and catch up so as not to leave all the spoils to nVidia. Everyone profits!

    (Ok, maybe I forgot a ??? step)

    1. Re:Why not open them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
      (Ok, maybe I forgot a ??? step)

      Yes, you did; several in fact.

      * They've licensed some technology from 3rd parties, and can't disclose the related source code due to non-disclosure agreements.

      * The GPU industry is encamped in a patent minefield. If they release their source-code, their competitors might find incontrovertible evidence that they have infringed on one or more of the competitors' patents. This would put NV (or ATI) in a costly legal position, even if the infringement was inadvertant. That's not an attractive proposition.

      * Even if NV (or ATI) thinks their software has no trade secrets of its own, their hardware certainly contains features that they consider to be trade secrets. Unlike patents, trade secrets have no statutory protection, and so-- were they to become public knowledge-- NV/ATI would have little recourse. Open sourcing their drivers could potentially publicize many of these hardware trade secrets, either by inference, by deduction, or by explicit statement (like, comments in the source.)

      If your hardware happens to be better than your competitors at performing some particular task, why would you want to tell your competitors how your hardware does it? (This is not to say your competition couldn't deduce such things via other technical means, but those other means are by definition harder. I mean, what's easier than reading a document your competition so graciously gave you for free?)

      The GPU business, perhaps more than any other type of silicon business, is essentially an arms race, and so maintaining technological leverage is paramount. If you trip up once, you find yourself no longer the leader, and playing catch-up.

      Consequently, forfeiting any advantage at all can be a financially devastating mistake.

  68. Re:But what about Linux drivers? by kasperd · · Score: 1
    Though the parent post is moderated troll, there still is one good point, namely the question in the subject.

    What value is a graphics card comparison to me, if it doesn't tell me which of them will work with my system? Two additional pieces of information would make the comparison very valuable.
    1. Driver availability:
      • No driver
      • Closed source driver
      • Open source driver
    2. Documentation availability:
      • No docmentation
      • Documentation based on reverse engineering
      • Sparse documentation from the vendor
      • Full documentation from the vendor
    --

    Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
  69. AGP spec? by Malc · · Score: 1

    It would be nice if it would which version of AGP (min & max) these cards support. I have a dual P-3 850 and I want to replace the graphics card. It's only got a AGP 1x slot. Most of the AGP cards these days don't support 1x, but require something like a minimum of 2x or 4x.

  70. Re:But what about Linux drivers? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    Must be a badly maintained system or one with defective hardware. Usually only bad hardware causes stop errors any more, most errors can be recovered from without a reboot nowadays. And hell, I'm still using 2k and haven't seen a blue screen since I got rid of that faulty Soundblaster card.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  71. Reverse engineering by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

    Some OSS developers try to get the newer ATI cards to run anyway. http://r300.sourceforge.net/R300.php
    By now, they claim success for the Radeon 9600, but the 9800 still locks up sometimes.

    Unfortunately, this example also shows the timeframes for doing it without manufacturer support:
    My two year old Radeon 9600 might now be usable under an open source driver.

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
  72. Re:But what about Linux drivers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Funny you should say "nice try trolling", since the grandparent is correct, and your reply is uninformed, snide, and unnecessarily sarcastic.

    You should know that there's no such thing as a random reboot. The child poster is right, it's probably because of hardware. Might be that it's faulty, or not yet supported (and believe me, it will be soon, it always will with XP).

    Don't act like Linux won't freeze or reboot from overheating, the reboot is probably from the motherboard's overheating protection.

  73. Re:But what about Linux drivers? by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

    I don't blame you for hating blue screens. Look at this freaking Graphics card review. There is NOTHING about heat capacity or how long the cards can run with a $5 fan.

    You are not going to get 540Mhz Core speed with a shitty fan. As simple as that!

  74. PWoT by legallyillegal · · Score: 0

    this article was completely fucking pointless

    --
    ?giS
  75. Spreadsheet version by SoylentG · · Score: 0

    Kinda hard to compare one card against another if it's not in a spreadsheet. It's even harder if it's spread-out across a dozen different web pages. Here's the spreadsheet version because MSOffice rocks and all: http://www3.telus.net/cspowart/boing/vidcards.xls

  76. cool, but what about... by RavidgeMole · · Score: 1

    What about taking the top cards from each manufacturer and comparing those? Or allowing the viewer to select which manufacturers they would like to compare and laying it all out?

    --
    "It is better to keep your mouth closed and have people think you a fool than to open it and prove them right." M. Twain
  77. For home users MS isn't that expensive... by klubar · · Score: 1

    At the end of the day, for most home users buying licensed MS software isn't that expensive. XP Home comes with most machines and probably adds a $30 MS tax to the cost (the retail price is significantly more, but most large assemblers probably pay around $30.) Works (a generally lousy program, except it includes a full version of Word) adds about $30 to the purchase price. If you need to step up to full office (Word, PPT, Excel & Outlook) the student/teacher version is available for $100 for a three-pack. Add $50 for anti-virus software and whatever you want for games and you're set.

    As much as I'm not a fan of MS, it's pretty easy for most users to get the system up and running...no incompatible drivers and no need to install or compile anything.

    If your average user doesn't modify the software or attempt to upgrade drivers it all works out of the box.

  78. Re:But what about Linux drivers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahah you poor bastards. Getting modded down for funny/insightful posts.

    You should know better than to post Anti-Apple sentiments on Slashdot.

    The fucking mac zealots now control this site.

  79. Workstation gfx cards vs Desktop gfx cards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone know where to find a comparison including workstation graphics cards? Those beasts are often available dirt-cheap secondhand AND tend to outperform several of the desktop graphics cards.

    Not to mention that (working) Linux support would be a nice thing to know about as I never found drivers for the IBM RC1000 chipset since ATI buried it in sand after purchasing them out of the market some >3 years ago. Oh.. the card? Diamond FireGL 2. Would be nice to have drivers for it on any recent (post-2001) OS.

  80. Re:But what about Linux drivers? by me+at+werk · · Score: 1

    The other commenter got it right, my video card overheats and then the machine BSODs. Usually in video games. I have a 9" fan i have aimed at the case which I turn on when gaming, to keep it from doing that (moving heat away from idling at the card), and it helps a lot.

    --
    For context, click Parent.
  81. Re:wow, what an utterly useless article by thirty2bit · · Score: 1

    While I really like Max PC, they've dumbed themselves down greatly over the past two years. There seems to be more pimping of Microsoft than they have in the past. They no longer point out Windows problems, but have become silent and follow the crowds that look to Longhorn (for what? DRM?). The hardware focus has changed from components (mobos, graphics) to shiny toys: nifty water cooling, cameras (huh?), projectors (huh?), MP3 players (beat), scanners (dime a dozen), PDAs (why?). Finally, case mods are all the rage. Have you noticed they review more cases than anything else lately? How disappointing.

    They started a promising article on power supplies a few issues ago. Then M-PC seemed to lose their nerve at some point, and ended up not comparing any units, or making any recommendations. What happened?

    I miss the days when M-PC used to have all the lastest mobos reviewed, or pit video cards against each other. Now you're lucky to see a mobo once a quarter. Their latest issue review CPU coolers: probably the first article of that kind in over a yest. They've left a huge gap for readers who want to build a cost-effective kick-ass system.

    That's why I feel M-PC has jumped the shark on us a bit.