Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Graphics Card Comparison Guide

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the dust-off-the-old-hardware dept.

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."

58 of 271 comments (clear)

  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 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."
  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 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.
    10. 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.

    11. 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
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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 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.
    2. 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...

    3. 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.

  7. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

    --
    Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
  15. 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 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.

    2. 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
    3. 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.

  16. 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,
  17. Rojakpot? by mblase · · Score: 3, Informative

    Didn't we already slashdot this server once today?

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

    You do realize you totally missed the sarcasm, right?

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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
  22. 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.)

  23. 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.

  24. 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?
  25. 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
  26. Re:Thank God by Worminater · · Score: 2, Interesting

    did you bother turning agp fast write off?

  27. 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.

  28. 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...

  29. 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
  30. 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.