Slashdot Mirror
Massive Graphics Card Review
Brian Tonka writes to tell us that rojakpot has posted a pretty comprehensive graphics card review including over 240 different desktop graphics cards. With each of the vendors given their own section and using 15 different points of comparison this should be quite a starting reference for the enthusiast and casual buyer alike.
It's a fricking table of all the cards and their specifications. It doesn't review a single card at all.
This might be helpful to some people, but it can hardly be called a review. It is just a list of specs. It doesn't even have benchmarks.
Follow-up: can Red Hat or Novell or somebody please offer a certification logo program for some of these cards? You know, a sticker that you can find on the boxes in CompUSA or something, which says that it's not going to be a stink to get running on Linux?
[
So with all these benchmarks lately when do we get an extrapolating database where you and build a virtual system and get an estimate on what its proformance will be?
Replying to myself, I didn't notice the "NVidia" link hidden at the bottom (I looked, I swear!), which leads to XGI, etc.
There are other brands on the following pages of the article; it's just really hard to find the 'next page' link because the site's layout SUCKS.
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
I'm not sure if mega-texels shows true performance. I have a ATI 9700 Pro and Geforce 7800 GT, both can run games at high resolutions at the same speed, but the 7800 can run with AA/AF enabled without a performance hit.
_ viii/page18.html_ vii/page4.html
It is nice to see where GFX cards rate in games, and Toms hardware has the best link per game. Thats why I picked a GT over a GTX for 200 dollars less.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/02/vga_charts
and
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/07/05/vga_charts
Can somone give the useless and ad-ridden articles at rojakpot their own section, so I can filter them all out automatically? If I wanted a graphics card review that actually gave useful information, I'd visit a site with real content in that area, like Tom's hardware.
I was hoping to read up on some massive graphics cards, as I recently purchased a massive motherboard. Imagine my disappointment when I find this is merely a massive review of normal sized graphics cards.
"Massive Graphics Card Review" doesn't mean the same thing as "Massive Review of Graphics Cards".
Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
It's titled COMPARISON, not REVIEW, whoever posted it to /. got it wrong, not the adsense crazy Rojakpot.
Share your Knowlege - Kung-Fu Geekery
A while ago I was trying to build a machine that could run my 30" cinema display at full native resolution (2560x1600) in 3D. Surprisingly difficult to figure it out partly because of the terminology. To run at that resolution, the card must be 'dual link' which is different from 'dual cards in SLI configuration' and they may actually be mutually exclusive features.
I got dual nvidia 7800 GTX KO's in SLI configuration and it works great(even though the builder said it probably wouldn't)! I can run games like GuildWars and *upcoming beta product* at full resolution with excellent frame rates.
Just an FYI.
Ok seems I am the only one to see this usefull.
My application requiere shaders v2.0 and it's really boring to always type radeon radada in google to hunt for the specs to reply to questions from customers.
Also even if it will not tell you for sure that your engine will run faster on this one or this one it will at least give you a hint.
Having the OpenGL version supported from the driver would also have been nice.
In cyberspace nobody knows you're a cat!
a gfx card that can draw not only polygons, but also natively draw round objects (i.e. circles).
"Where the best in technology gather."
Let me finish that.
"Where the best in technology gather, overload a server, then leave still wondering how the hell this constitutes a review."
A bit wordy, but accurate.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/ 20/1912221&tid=126&tid=137
Yeah, thought it looked familiar...
Well, its native resolution is 1920x1200 - which is incidentally the limit on the single link DVI-D spec. You'll probably want to run at 32 bits per pixel (8 bits for red, green, blue, and alpha transparency), so you'll need a card with at least 10 MB of RAM... most cards have much more than this (32MB +), the extra which can be used for offscreen buffers and stuff. So pretty much any decent card with DVI-I outputs will do for 2D. Probably best to stick to the ATis and NVidias, though, since I'm certain they will support that monitor's physical screen rotation feature.
Uh, you'll probably have to go pretty high end if you want decent 3D framerates at 1920x1200 with anti aliasing and stuff. But if you're looking for that, you pretty much have to set your price point ($100? $200? $300?) and go see what http://anandtech.com/ or http://tomshardware.com/ has to recommend.
Nothing else is close. Its the most powerful card on the market with open specs!
Open Source Sushi
Here are a couple of actual "reviews" comparing a broad sweep of video cards:
Digit-Life's 3Digest
Tom's Hardware's VGA Charts
Anyone know of any others? One of the big problems in the hardware review site industry is that they all review the same stuff and duplicate one another's work 100 times over (for various reasons which I won't go into), while you'd be hard pressed to find a single review of many low-mid range cards. Even if the purpose of such reviews would simply be to inform people about how poorly they perform, it's a major oversight. There is still a heavy bias toward high-end stuff in the above linked reviews, but at least there are a few low-end and mid-range cards chucked in.
P.S. Another pity is slashdot's poor editorial standards, accepting the description of the linked article as a "review" being the latest example. I guess I could just stop visiting, but then I'd miss out on all the insightful comments from visitors who actually do produce some worthwhile content. So I just block the ads, so as not to reward the editors' laziness.
There are a couple things you may not have considered with your hunch. First, if you are doing 3D textured graphics, then transfer speed to texture and vertex memory is key to performance, and PCI is many times slower than AGP. 10x is not "barely an improvement" in the real-time 3d graphics world. Secondly, there typically isn't just one bus in a system, and that PCI bus is typically on the other side of more than one bridge relative to the CPU, where AGP is typically only one bridge away.
Finally I just don't understand the obsessiveness of your argument. Who cares about PCI? Do you think it costs that much more to manufacture an AGP card? The $$$ are in the GPU and memory, not in the bus interface. A PCI card wouldn't save you $$$ other than being not in demand and therefore cheaper because no one wants them. Are there really mainstream motherboards with no AGP slots? Haven't seen one in years.
"This mission is too important to allow you to jeopardize it." -- HAL