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."
they'll be obsolete in 5 minutes anyways....
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.
Let's say I didn't know anything about graphics cards. How does this help me?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wait... on second thought that wouldnt be cool at all.
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.
* 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.
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.
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.
includes...
Didn't we already slashdot this server once today?
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.
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
6600GT "infinite loop". 7,900 hits.
--
If you support dishonesty and violence, don't say you are Christian.
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.
Well they're still on the cutting edge -2 005/millennium_g550_pcie.cfmMatrox announces world's first PCI Express x1 graphics card
http://www.matrox.com/mga/media_center/press_rel/
All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
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.