I'm looking to buy a graphics card mostly for gaming - it needs D-sub and
preferably s-video and hdtv out. Not willing to pay big money for one and
have read contrasting reviews. I've just got Far Cry 2 and wouldn't mind
playing that at decent resolution because at the moment the built-in vga is
a joke. The minimum requirements on the game's box doesn't make any sense.
Also ideally I don't want a cooling fan on it - do better quality cards need
fans? Does the PC's CPU have a big effect on performance or does the GPU
handle most the load - so if you get a good card then the CPU doesn't have
to high spec? Cheers if anyone can help
The Dude wrote:
> I'm looking to buy a graphics card mostly for gaming - it needs D-sub
> and preferably s-video and hdtv out. Not willing to pay big money for
> one and have read contrasting reviews. I've just got Far Cry 2 and
> wouldn't mind playing that at decent resolution because at the moment
> the built-in vga is a joke. The minimum requirements on the game's box
> doesn't make any sense. Also ideally I don't want a cooling fan on it -
> do better quality cards need fans? Does the PC's CPU have a big effect
> on performance or does the GPU handle most the load - so if you get a
> good card then the CPU doesn't have to high spec? Cheers if anyone can help
The faster the card, the hotter it gets so they need a fan.
CPU has an effect as well.
Sadly, you're not going to get everything you want unless you shell out.
--
Conor
"Some of you may be anxious about finding a new job, or a new place to
live. I know how you feel." President Bush, 2008
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:00:04 -0000, "The Dude"
<sdfsdfsdf@asdfsdfsdf.com> wrote:
>I'm looking to buy a graphics card mostly for gaming - it needs D-sub and
>preferably s-video and hdtv out.
What interface does your HDTV need?
Most common is analog, DVI, and possible S-Video output.
>Not willing to pay big money for one
Big money is relative, the better it is at gaming the more
it will cost. Having some idea of the budget range would
help.
>and
>have read contrasting reviews. I've just got Far Cry 2 and wouldn't mind
>playing that at decent resolution because at the moment the built-in vga is
>a joke.
What do you consider a decent resolution? To some that
might mean 1024x768 on a CRT, but to others it might mean at
least 1680x1050 on an LCD if not more. Without more info,
to play Farcry with what I consider reasonable resolution, I
suggest at least a 9600GSO. They've often been $50 after a
rebate in the US, but I haven't checked prices or
availability recently. That's a low-end suggestion, for
reasonable performance you ought to aim higher. Like an
nVidia GTX 260.
>The minimum requirements on the game's box doesn't make any sense.
It's not supposed to, nobody wants a new game that is played
at the minimum requirements or it'll look like an old game
without the modern eyecandy.
>Also ideally I don't want a cooling fan on it - do better quality cards need
>fans?
Yes, higher performance gaming cards need either a fan or a
much more expensive passive cooler, or to be water-cooled
within an existing water-cooled system. A fan does not have
to be loud, much progress has been made in recent years to
lower fan noise and make fan RPM correspond to video card
temperature. Mainly, choose a card with a double-height
heatsink, and read user reviews about whether excessive
noise is reported, and of course expect to pay more for a
card that is quiet because it has a more costly heatsink on
it.
> Does the PC's CPU have a big effect on performance or does the GPU
>handle most the load - so if you get a good card then the CPU doesn't have
>to high spec? Cheers if anyone can help
It depends on the specifics, you didn't mention your
specific CPU. Generally speaking, if your system is fairly
modern, like a dual core CPU at 2 GHz or more, the video
card is usually a larger bottleneck. If it's a quad core or
> 2.5GHz system, odds are you have enough CPU processing
power to have a playable framerate from the CPU and need
only be concerned about the video card... but one thing at a
time, buying the right video card is the first step yet how
long that upgrade suits your purposes has a lot to do with
your expectations in the future. Each jump in video card
performance will cost disproportionately more and more, we'd
really need to know how long this upgrade needs to last or
actually what the annual budget is for gaming related PC
upgrades, and what your preferred monitor resolution is.
The generic reply without more info is get an nVidia 260,
I'm sure ATI has a good alternative too, web search
benchmarks will find those, but I prefer nVidia and so
that's the advice I'd take myself.
The Dude wrote:
> I'm looking to buy a graphics card mostly for gaming - it needs D-sub
> and preferably s-video and hdtv out. Not willing to pay big money for
> one and have read contrasting reviews. I've just got Far Cry 2 and
> wouldn't mind playing that at decent resolution because at the moment
> the built-in vga is a joke. The minimum requirements on the game's box
> doesn't make any sense. Also ideally I don't want a cooling fan on it -
> do better quality cards need fans? Does the PC's CPU have a big effect
> on performance or does the GPU handle most the load - so if you get a
> good card then the CPU doesn't have to high spec? Cheers if anyone can help
Just for chuckles, I tried the Newegg.com video card page, selected
Advanced search, set interface to PCI Express x16 revision 2, set
cooling to fanless, and had a look at what is available. Then I
scrolled down to the most expensive one, to get some idea of
how much graphics power you can get, without a fan.
I see an HD 4850 near the bottom for $199 (with $20 rebate available). The
ones more expensive than that, are water cooled. Which rapidly drives up
the cost and complexity of installation.
Can you run a thing like this without a fan ? My advice would be
to get an 80mm fan, something with a relatively low CFMs, to blow onto
the cooling assembly. That will allow you, the user, to trade off the
operating temperature of the card, versus the noise level. I operate
a couple passive cooled AGP video cards that way, for better stability.
I bolt a stick to a couple PCI slot screws, then clamp the fan
to the stick with nylon ties. I've used an aluminum L shaped piece
for a "quality" install, and on the second, I used a wooden paint
stir stick :-)
GIGABYTE GV-R485MC-1GH Radeon HD 4850 1GB 256-bit
http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/newegg/14-125-237-S03?$S640W$
There aren't any complaints about stability here. One guy reports it
goes to 115C if the side is off the computer (temp drops once the
side is put back on the computer). This is one reason I don't take
chances, and use a fan mounted in the slot next to the card. (And my
cards are wimpy by comparison to the gaming power of that card.)
The power consumption of a HD 4850 is listed here. 110-115 watts.
The comments about power level on the Newegg page, are baseless.
The Xbitlabs folks, make power measurements where the power enters
the video card (including slot power). They use a specially modified
motherboard for the measurements. You need enough +12V current, to
supply that kind of power level (about 10 amps). Some of the current
will be flowing through the PCI Express auxiliary power connector
located on the end of the card (I see a single PCI Express 2x3 on
the end of the card).
That card has a mini-DIN connector, for some kind of video output.
It has a couple DVI-I connectors. The DVI-I, when used with a DVI-I
to VGA dongle, will give you a VGA interface when needed. Or plug
in a DVI cable for usage with a DVI monitor. So three monitor types
can be supported. The card is also "dual head", meaning two monitor
devices can be driven at a time. Select any two of three outputs.
Expect some limitations/kinks when it comes to movie playback, as
they're constantly fiddling with the drivers, and what the movie
industry will allow for playback (heard something the other day,
about an Nvidia driver not allowing mirroring, whatever that means
- I don't play movies).
It is hard to make out the dongles here, but I think one is a
DVI-I to VGA dongle. The other might be a DVI-I to HDMI dongle.
So if you needed two VGA, you might need to purchase a second
dongle separately later. The "yellow bullet" is for mini-DIN
to composite output. No sign of a component cable that I can
see, in the accessories.
There is an example of a component cable in this picture. This
is for another card. The red-green-blue cable assembly, connects
to the mini-DIN. There are different mini-DIN standards, so generally
it is the least hassle, when the component cable comes with the
card. (The SPDIF interface, is for routing digital audio, through the
video card, over DVI and then through the DVI to HDMI dongle.)
>>The minimum requirements on the game's box doesn't make any sense.
>
> It's not supposed to, nobody wants a new game that is played
> at the minimum requirements or it'll look like an old game
> without the modern eyecandy.
>
Here's what it says on the game's box:
Min Req:
nVidia 6800 or ATI X1650 or better, shader model 3 required 256MB of graphic
memory (nVidia 8600 GTS or better, ATI X1900 or better recommended)
--
If this is the minimum requirements, then it looks like I can get a fanless
one with probably better spec??
ATI RADEON X1650 (About £30 / $60)
Features
* Dual-link DVI
* Twelve pixel shader processors
* Five vertex shader processors
* 128-bit 4-channel /DDR2 memory interface
* Native PCI Express x16 bus interface
* Dynamic Voltage Control
* ATI RADEONT X1650 Core [500MHz]
* 12 Shader Units
* VGA/DVI/TV-out
* Max 3D resolution 2560x1600 (dual-link DVI)
* DirectX® 9 and ShaderModel 3.0 support
* ATI AvivoTM Support
* Support for Microsoft® Windows VistaT
* 512MB RAM
The Dude wrote:
> Cheers for the info. What is the main thing that determines a graphics
> card's performance? (apart from price!)
Gobs of memory bandwidth, tons of parallel resources inside the chip.
A video card, is a massive parallel processing device.
To review the vital statistics for a card, you can look at the charts
on Tomshardware, to get some idea of how effective the card is. Or
go to a site like this, to see all the numbers.
Some games are CPU limited, some are GPU limited. And some are
hard on all resources.
The cheapest, performant card of late, was the 9600GSO. The manufacturers
seemed to have a glut of chips, and needed to get rid of them. (The chip
is relatively old, and the design is a rebrand.) In the US, the card was
available for a final cost to the consumer of about $55. I think the glut
of chips has been cleaned out, because I don't see the most desirable
models of those any more. There are still some left, but
you have to check the parameters very carefully, to avoid getting
one of the poorer ones. There were cards with 192 bit wide memory,
384GB total. Or 192 bit wide memory, 768MB total. As well as some
128 bit wide ones, with 512MB total. The latter would be the one to
avoid, as the memory bandwidth would be lower. Also, some of the
cards were listed with fewer internal parallel resources enabled,
but I can no longer even find web pages noting that fact.
But no matter how cheap a card is, there is no point buying a card
which is not suited for the application. If you know a game really
needs more resources to play well, then would you be happy with
a "slide show" ? I've seen the odd person, who insists on replacing
one cheap card, with another cheap card. And in the end, spending more
money than needed to get where they're going. It wasn't long ago,
there was a mismatch in the graphics card industry, between the
games and the cards. Virtually, only the high end cards were worth
buying, as the others just stunk. So check the benchmarks carefully,
before concluding you've pulled a fast one on the graphics card
makers.
The Dude wrote:
> The motherboard chipset is NVIDIA MCP73VE (i think) - does this imply
> that I need to get a nVidia card? Or will Ati cards work?
>
When using a single video card in a computer, they're interchangeable at
the connector level. If the slot is PCI Express, then *any* brand of
PCI Express should work.
The issue with SLI or Crossfire (dual card configs), is the drivers
restrict where those modes will work. The hardware is still compatible
at the connector level. But depending on what brand of chipset is
involved, the drivers may refuse to go into SLI or Crossfire mode,
if the wrong brand of chipset is detected.
And if the computer is a pre-built, rather than something you
assembled yourself, check the power supply. If it is a low
end supply, it may be a little low on power for a big add-in
card. (The picture below has only a 250W. Shocking.) Some
of the add-in cards are long (10"), and bump into the lower
hard drive cage. Or cover up SATA connectors and the like.
A clue the power supply is not up to the job, is when the
power supply lacks any 2x3 PCI Express auxiliary power connectors.
For video cards over about 48W, they put extra connectors on the
end of the card (2x3 or 2x4), and that is how you know they're
going to need more power. Fortunately in this example, it may
be possible to fit a higher capacity supply, to fix the problem.
As long as the supply is a standard ATX pinout and form factor,
two of the three dimensions are fixed. The length dimension varies,
with some of the original high capacity supplies being significantly
longer than the supply they replace. In this picture, there is some
room for a longer supply.
"The Dude" <sdfsdfsdf@asdfsdfsdf.com> wrote in message
news:eYUUk.105681$AS2.52218@newsfe20.ams2...
> That newegg.com site's prices are much less than we pay over here in the
> UK
NewEgg is USA only - ignore recommendations of that site for UK stuff. Look
at dabs.com, CCL, even ebay shops for new items.
GT wrote:
> "The Dude" <sdfsdfsdf@asdfsdfsdf.com> wrote in message
> news:eYUUk.105681$AS2.52218@newsfe20.ams2...
>> That newegg.com site's prices are much less than we pay over here in the
>> UK
>
> NewEgg is USA only - ignore recommendations of that site for UK stuff. Look
> at dabs.com, CCL, even ebay shops for new items.
>
I use the site for information and spotting trends. Recently, they finally opened
a web site in Canada, but due to brokerage charges, I wouldn't try to use them.
But compared to some other sites, they make it easy to get specs,
pictures, and prices, all in one spot. And the reviews by the
customers help fill in the details.
Once you've identified what you want to buy, you can get it
closer to home.
No etailer in my country, gives you more than product name
and price for items. You cannot tell what you're getting,
in terms of technical details. No pictures either. That
is what Newegg is for. And for reviews, if Newegg
doesn't have it, sometimes Amazon is another source
of information.
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:41:39 -0000, "The Dude"
<sdfsdfsdf@asdfsdfsdf.com> wrote:
>>>The minimum requirements on the game's box doesn't make any sense.
>>
>> It's not supposed to, nobody wants a new game that is played
>> at the minimum requirements or it'll look like an old game
>> without the modern eyecandy.
>>
>
>Here's what it says on the game's box:
>
>Min Req:
>
>nVidia 6800 or ATI X1650 or better, shader model 3 required 256MB of graphic
>memory (nVidia 8600 GTS or better, ATI X1900 or better recommended)
>If this is the minimum requirements, then it looks like I can get a fanless
>one with probably better spec??
Minimum requirements typically allow a game to be played at
a low framerate, with eyecandy disabled, on a lower
resolution monitor. Minimum requirements may seem a
reasonable way to gauge whether a video card you already had
is worth trying to play the game, but should not be used as
a gauge of what new card to buy.
You need to consider the resolution you'd end up playing at
(if you have an LCD monitor then it's native resolution),
how much you can accept having the image quality degraded.
In some cases there is a lot of difference between having
the game set to low levels of eyecandy and higher ones. At
lower levels everything can look both blurry (on textures)
and jagged edges on things. Lower levels can cause fewer
special effects, even items being removed from your view
like trees not being seen until you get closer to them then
they pop up out of nowhere.
You should buy a card that has enough performance that you
can expect reasonable use with not only one game today but
for at least a period in the future, perhaps a year or
longer so you're not continually having to buy a new video
card. You can get reasonably performing fanless cards or
buy an aftermarket heatsink for a card that can with a fan,
but generally such a card should have a fan in the system
pointed at it, or one across from it on the case side panel,
or you'll need much stronger case airflow (more noise) from
the existing front and/or rear fans to keep temperatures
down enough to promote long life as well as immediate
stability while gaming.
>
>ATI RADEON X1650 (About £30 / $60)
>
It isn't nearly fast enough for Far Cry 2. Take a look at
the following benchmarks, (and see others yourself with a
web search).
Even with a relatively low 1280x1024 resolution and only 4x
AF (no AA at all), much faster cards barely make the game
playable. IOW, to keep the minimum in-game framerates high
enough to play you will want the average rates as indicated
on benchmarks to be roughly 40FPS at a minimum. Far Cry 2
is a very demanding game and anything less than an ATI 4850
isn't likely to be very good at it. I mention 4850 because
you can sometimes find those with fanless heatsinks like
this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814125237
OK, I've had a look and still not sure. Basically I want fanless card that
plays modern games (at 1600x1200 - 30fps+) with good quality settings.
Anyone got any ideas?
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:55:08 -0000, "The Dude"
<sdfsdfsdf@asdfsdfsdf.com> wrote:
>OK, I've had a look and still not sure. Basically I want fanless card that
>plays modern games (at 1600x1200 - 30fps+) with good quality settings.
>Anyone got any ideas?
If your aversion to fans is that "some" of them make a lot
of noise, either research those with user reviews giving
some info about noise levels, or get your own aftermarket
heatsink (whether passive, or with a fan but designed for
low noise).
A card that plays modern games like Far Cry 2 at 1600x1200
will have to be a very powerful card. See the link I posted
previously, but prior page(s) of that article:
the range of cards you're looking at include one model I
mentioned already, an nVidia 260, as the lower end
alternative that really isn't fast enough for 1600x1200, an
ATI 4870 in the linked chart would be bare minimum and even
that not something which will do very well.
The key thing is, you need to look at models offering the
performance you want, THEN look at the online or local
stores you'd consider buying from to see if they have a
version of a card with that GPU which has a fanless
heatsink. Which GPUs are you considering needs to be the
primary focus, rather than only what one vendor has that is
fanless, though personally I would just get one with a fan
because it's a good idea, similar to how a whole gaming
system should have a few fans in it even if it'd be nice if
it didn't. Fans don't have to be noisey, it just takes some
planning and research to avoid any that spin at more than
low RPM.
Somewhere on teh intarwebs kony wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:00:04 -0000, "The Dude"
> <sdfsdfsdf@asdfsdfsdf.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm looking to buy a graphics card mostly for gaming - it needs
>> D-sub and preferably s-video and hdtv out.
>
> What interface does your HDTV need?
>
> Most common is analog, DVI, and possible S-Video output.
>
>> Not willing to pay big money for one
>
> Big money is relative, the better it is at gaming the more
> it will cost. Having some idea of the budget range would
> help.
>
>> and
>> have read contrasting reviews. I've just got Far Cry 2 and wouldn't
>> mind playing that at decent resolution because at the moment the
>> built-in vga is a joke.
>
> What do you consider a decent resolution? To some that
> might mean 1024x768 on a CRT, but to others it might mean at
> least 1680x1050 on an LCD if not more. Without more info,
> to play Farcry with what I consider reasonable resolution, I
> suggest at least a 9600GSO. They've often been $50 after a
> rebate in the US, but I haven't checked prices or
> availability recently. That's a low-end suggestion, for
> reasonable performance you ought to aim higher. Like an
> nVidia GTX 260.
>
>> The minimum requirements on the game's box doesn't make any sense.
>
> It's not supposed to, nobody wants a new game that is played
> at the minimum requirements or it'll look like an old game
> without the modern eyecandy.
>
>
>> Also ideally I don't want a cooling fan on it - do better quality
>> cards need fans?
>
> Yes, higher performance gaming cards need either a fan or a
> much more expensive passive cooler, or to be water-cooled
> within an existing water-cooled system. A fan does not have
> to be loud, much progress has been made in recent years to
> lower fan noise and make fan RPM correspond to video card
> temperature. Mainly, choose a card with a double-height
> heatsink, and read user reviews about whether excessive
> noise is reported, and of course expect to pay more for a
> card that is quiet because it has a more costly heatsink on
> it.
>
>
>> Does the PC's CPU have a big effect on performance or does the GPU
>> handle most the load - so if you get a good card then the CPU
>> doesn't have to high spec? Cheers if anyone can help
>
> It depends on the specifics, you didn't mention your
> specific CPU. Generally speaking, if your system is fairly
> modern, like a dual core CPU at 2 GHz or more, the video
> card is usually a larger bottleneck. If it's a quad core or
>> 2.5GHz system, odds are you have enough CPU processing
> power to have a playable framerate from the CPU and need
> only be concerned about the video card... but one thing at a
> time, buying the right video card is the first step yet how
> long that upgrade suits your purposes has a lot to do with
> your expectations in the future. Each jump in video card
> performance will cost disproportionately more and more, we'd
> really need to know how long this upgrade needs to last or
> actually what the annual budget is for gaming related PC
> upgrades, and what your preferred monitor resolution is.
>
> The generic reply without more info is get an nVidia 260,
> I'm sure ATI has a good alternative too, web search
> benchmarks will find those, but I prefer nVidia and so
> that's the advice I'd take myself.
I'm betting he's got something like a P4 2.8GHz or even a Celeron.
--
Shaun.
"The Dude" <sdfsdfsdf@asdfsdfsdf.com> wrote in message
news:hdYUk.1859$iQ2.1084@newsfe23.ams2...
> look at the state of this one:
> http://www.play.com/PC/PCs/-/668/875...archtype=genre
>
> over a grand for a graphics card!
You want a Ferarri and you have just found a Scania!!
Thats a specialist Quadra card! Its aimed at multi-screen setups. Wouldn't
be particularly fast at games!
"The Dude" <sdfsdfsdf@asdfsdfsdf.com> wrote in message
news:hdYUk.1859$iQ2.1084@newsfe23.ams2...
> look at the state of this one:
> http://www.play.com/PC/PCs/-/668/875...archtype=genre
>
> over a grand for a graphics card!
"The Dude" <sdfsdfsdf@asdfsdfsdf.com> wrote in message
news:ya_Uk.1949$iQ2.1332@newsfe23.ams2...
> OK, I've had a look and still not sure. Basically I want fanless card that
> plays modern games (at 1600x1200 - 30fps+) with good quality settings.
> Anyone got any ideas?
Modern games at 1600x1200 on a fanless setup? You are not going to get
that - you need to either lower your expectations, wait a year (or so), or
situate the PC in another room, or look at a water cooling setup
(Expensive).
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:00:04 -0000, "The Dude"
<sdfsdfsdf@asdfsdfsdf.com> wrote:
>I'm looking to buy a graphics card mostly for gaming - it needs D-sub and
>preferably s-video and hdtv out. Not willing to pay big money for one and
>have read contrasting reviews. I've just got Far Cry 2 and wouldn't mind
>playing that at decent resolution because at the moment the built-in vga is
>a joke. The minimum requirements on the game's box doesn't make any sense.
>Also ideally I don't want a cooling fan on it - do better quality cards need
>fans? Does the PC's CPU have a big effect on performance or does the GPU
>handle most the load - so if you get a good card then the CPU doesn't have
>to high spec? Cheers if anyone can help
Anandtech just did an article that should give you more
insight about the performance level you'll need.
Graphics card 
Linear Mode
