video card shopping question number 1 - ATI/AMD(?) line vs Nvidia

[lord of the mark]

this thread is not very helpful.

Thats cool, I can do research elsewhere.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
You guys dont seem to get that I ENJOY talking about system requirements, I think this stuff is cool. Id rather spend some time learning about this stuff, than just throw some money at a card or system far beyond my requirements.

If you want to talk shop, this is more fitting in the tech forum.

For example ive learned that the Nvidia and ATI are the only manufacturers of GPU chips, not the only manufacturers of video cards. The "vendors" are the guys who take the chip and combine it with memory, cooling system, etc and then package it and sell it to retailers like Newegg or Best Buy. Which makes a lot more sense to me.

I don't mean to confuse you, but this isn't totally accurate.

ATI and Nvidia do not physically manufacture anything. Chips, cards, nothing. They are pure "IP" (Intellectual Property) companies. They design the chips and boards and then they have contracts with other companies (primarily Taiwanese Semiconductor Manufacturing Company or TSMC) who then produce the actual chips or GPUs and other companies who produce the actual boards, with the GPUs.

Nvidia then provides these boards to their "partners" (ASUS, BFG, Gainward, etc) who can tweak it as necessary from adjusting the clock speeds to changing the cooling configuration. It is also theoretically possible for the companies to do custom board designs, but VERY few do. Not all "GeForce" cards of the same model are the same speed. You may see things like "Superclock" or "OC" models with ramped up clock speeds -- but the MINIMUM clock speed is defined by Nvidia. For Nvidia, it is 100% up to the partners/vendors to package these for retail and distribute them into the channels.

ATI is very similar, but they also are "first party" producers. Not only do they have partners (eg, Sapphire) like Nvidia, but they also produce their own ATI-branded boards.

Re the 2600 XT

1. Since Im not planning on putting Vista on this system, thus wont be getting DX10, and since Im probably not going to upgrade the CPU from the P4, is this chip overkill?

DX10 is the capability but it's very much the best DX9 card for <$100 as well. It is by far your best deal for performance, DX8/9 or 10. You can buy cheaper cards but you'll be getting less performance per buck to save (literally) a few bucks. This is the card to get with your budget.

2. What is the energy usage of this chip? Heat generation?

Neither are going to be significant given the performance.

It uses the RV630 chip, and the maximum usage of this chip is 35W (it idles at less, and some variants hit only 25W). This is extremely low power usage and heat generation, the best you will find in this segment.

I dont want to sound cheap, and $60 does sound like a good deal, but I'm still tempted by even cheaper cards.

I don't think you understand the technology much. You can save $10 and get a card that's half the speed...but that doesn't make much sense, does it? Look at it from the perspective of performance per dollar and the 2600 XT is the king right now (by a good margin), given your budget.

BTW, the 2600 XT is also an extremely good card in terms of media. It's basically top of the line in terms of video acceleration, if you ever upgrade to DVD...

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
this thread is not very helpful.

Thats cool, I can do research elsewhere.

[Asher]

Also, there are other GPU manufacturers. There are just no other good GPU manufacturers.

An example is S3 and their DeltaChrome chips. Which are truly awful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeltaChrome

[lord of the mark]

Im familiar with contract manufacturing. However my understanding is that Nvidia, while it doesnt own factories, does contract for chips which it owns and then sells to the card makers, which is distinct from just licensing the technology.

as for the value issue, you make good points, though I think I need to understand the tech better. If you prefer to discuss it on the other board, I can go there.
Ive been thinking in terms of games that will run, rather than in terms of how well they will run, and so may be misled.

By the time I feel comfortable with the tech, the 2600 XT will probably be even cheaper, but y'all will probably be suggesting something else. Though maybe at that point the CPU WILL be constraining?

Do you think my current CPU will be constraining, (video card budget aside) or is not the correct way to think about this technology?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

BTW, the 2600 XT is also an extremely good card in terms of media. It's basically top of the line in terms of video acceleration, if you ever upgrade to DVD...

You mean to Blu Ray? we have DVD on this machine.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Im familiar with contract manufacturing. However my understanding is that Nvidia, while it doesnt own factories, does contract for chips which it owns and then sells to the card makers, which is distinct from just licensing the technology.

as for the value issue, you make good points, though I think I need to understand the tech better. If you prefer to discuss it on the other board, I can go there.
Ive been thinking in terms of games that will run, rather than in terms of how well they will run, and so may be misled.

By the time I feel comfortable with the tech, the 2600 XT will probably be even cheaper, but y'all will probably be suggesting something else. Though maybe at that point the CPU WILL be constraining?

Do you think my current CPU will be constraining, (video card budget aside) or is not the correct way to think about this technology?

Honestly I do not think the 2600 XT will drop much lower. It launched at $150 a year ago. It's bottomed out. It'll stay at this price until it gets discontinued, or close. There are fundamental, baseline costs that won't go down here. The margins are already razor thin.

The CPU will be constraining, but it won't kill you.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


You mean to Blu Ray? we have DVD on this machine.

DVD, Bluray, downloaded videos, etc. They can all be accelerated noticably so (and probably reduce your heat/power use) with this video card. They will probably look better as well.

[Asher]

I also do not understand your distinction between games that "can run" and games that "can run well".

If the game doesn't run well, how can you play it. I can't play games with <15fps frame rates...

The simple fact is requirements will continue to go up. Speed and specs. This is a DX10 card. You can put Vista on there and meet the min requirements for any forseeable game for quite a while.

You can save very little money by going for cheaper cards that are much slower with more limiting specs. From a value proposition perspective, there really is no better choice.

[snoopy369]

You don't want to go below $60. As Asher says, you won't save any significant money, and you'll get a HUGE downgrade. You *could* buy a $40 card, but it would be worse than your IG in most ways.

[Sarxis]

I remember when I bought one of the first GeForce3 cards.. a top of the line one too!

:sighs:

O' How I miss dropping $300 for video cards

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by snoopy369
You don't want to go below $60. As Asher says, you won't save any significant money, and you'll get a HUGE downgrade. You *could* buy a $40 card, but it would be worse than your IG in most ways.

well thats one of the things Id like to know. Would the Geforce 6200 actually be no better than my IG? Cause I certainly dont want to spend money on it then.

I dont mean to sound resistant, Im listening.

To correct though, the 6200 is only $25. And I dont expect to ever put Vista on this machine.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher
I also do not understand your distinction between games that "can run" and games that "can run well".

You tell me. I see quotes from game makers on minimum and recommended specs., Im not really sure what a game looks like when the system isnt up to recommended specs. The only FPS Ive run was HL, on this system, and the IG on this is plenty good enough for that.

The closest Ive got to a video card stretching game for this system, right now, is RCT3 I guess. Playing around with that to see what happens on higher settings, is on my list of things to do. I guess my understanding is "cant run well" means to get an acceptable frame rate, I have to turn settings down. I already saw various settings on RCT3 in terms of graphical detail, so I think Im getting an idea of what settings mean. Is my understanding incorrect?

[Asher]

I really do not understand how much clearer people need to be.

The 6200 is a ripoff at anything more than $1 for you. Its performance is virtually identical to integrated graphics because, if you did even the most basic research, you'll see it's essentially integrated graphics. It uses system memory for graphics memory. You're paying for a 2004-era, lowest-end-possible GPU. There is no reason at all to do this. Period. It doesn't do anything for you.

I'm not sure how else to explain this to you. Are you just wasting our time here or are you genuine? You asked us and we gave you direct answers. Everyone here is in agreement. If you take 5 minutes to google benchmarks you'll see it makes sense. The 6200 is MANY times slower than the 2600 XT with a fraction of the featureset and only marginally cheaper.

Sometimes LOTM -- and you will learn this some day -- it is better to spend a little bit more to get A LOT more in return. It's not about how little money you can spend, it's about getting the best value for your money in the long term. Eg, if you buy the 6200 you're not doing much in the first place to improve your situation, if you get the 2600 XT you're going to massively improve your game playing experience and let you play future games the 6200 couldn't come close to handling.

What do you not understand? If you're not going to take our advice seriously and instead seemingly ignore it while tossing out other insane, simply retarded suggestions then don't waste our time.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


You tell me. I see quotes from game makers on minimum and recommended specs., Im not really sure what a game looks like when the system isnt up to recommended specs. The only FPS Ive run was HL, on this system, and the IG on this is plenty good enough for that.

The closest Ive got to a video card stretching game for this system, right now, is RCT3 I guess. Playing around with that to see what happens on higher settings, is on my list of things to do. I guess my understanding is "cant run well" means to get an acceptable frame rate, I have to turn settings down. I already saw various settings on RCT3 in terms of graphical detail, so I think Im getting an idea of what settings mean. Is my understanding incorrect?

I'm blown away, honestly, by these questions.

Is your time valuable at all, because it seems like you spend inordinate amount of time examining the most mundane aspects of life in such detail that would drive any sane person to suicide?

Simplify.

Is IG good enough for you? If yes, then there's no point to this thread.
If no, the 2600 XT is by far the best deal for you out there in terms of meeting your current and future needs.

It's a simple decision tree.