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

[Asher]

It's extremely hard to find direct comparisons of the 2600 XT and 6600 because they're so radically different in performance.

I did find one: Oblivion, 1024x768...

6200: 3 fps
2600 XT: 23 fps

Now let's do basic math:
6200: $25
2600 XT: $60

3 fps / $25 = 0.12 fps per dollar
23 fps / $60 = 0.38 fps per dollar

Which is the smarter buy?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by 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.

thats much clearer than what youve said before. I havent seen that - or maybe i didnt understand the technical language.

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.

I looked on Toms hardware. They did not have the 6200 in the benchmarks section, or if they did I wasnt able to find it propertly. They did have the 2600 XT. They also heavily recommend it.

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.

Thanks for your polite tone. Of course I know that. This isnt about paying for my kids college, or buying a car. Its a video card - a toy, to me. To play games, and for the most part, not even the genres that are most important to me (which are the relatively video undemanding strategy niche titles) And of course the return on investment depends on the differences in the benefit stream, which until this point you havent really spoken about - youve simply said I should get the 2600, and you seem to take it personally if I dont simply take your advice, but keep asking things. Im sorry, you dont have to give me advice if you dont want to, Im sure others will.

g, 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.

Im asking questions, thats all. You all seem to overlook (if I wasnt clear, forgive me) that I dont currently need a a video card. The game Im playing right now is Crusader Kings which runs fine at max settings on my IG. I do intend to fool around with RCT3 to get a better idea of the limits of IG. After that I intend to play Age of Sail which also isnt likely to be constrained at all by the IG, IIUC.

[Asher]

I'm sorry if I seem a bit curt but I just don't see how anyone can spend so much time quibbling over something so inane. It's not too much money in either case -- if you're not currently looking for a video card then I guess the answer is this thread is a waste of time?

I have a hard time seeing you shop for clothes in under a day. Do you try on every shirt in the store, weigh them, measure them, and then compare them with every other store in the mall?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Asher

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?

Im not sure what better way there is for me to learn about graphics and stuff. Im not about to take a course on it, Id like to find out in the context of shopping. Its fun, its a hobby. At least I dont spend my time getting angry at strangers cause they ask questions and dont take my advice. Again, if you find this annoying, you are free to not give me advice. While I do appreciate your technical knowledge, I didnt intend to annoy or anger you.

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.

IG is fine for the games Ive played on this machine so far. But the only recent ones Ive played on this machine, are RON and CK. Im thinking of playing more demanding games. I presume the IG wont be good for them, as it doesnt even meet min specs for them. I suppose I could go out and buy games first, until one of them runs terribly or not at all. It wasnt my impression that most people did that, but I could be wrong. I thought I would first ask what to get. And I would compare the cheapest card to one that is more expensive. Ive been trying to pin down the differences, thats all. I dont see that what Im doing is SO unreasonable (well yeah I know the price diff is small, but youve got to accept I dont spend a lot of money on gaming. I just dont)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher
I'm sorry if I seem a bit curt but I just don't see how anyone can spend so much time quibbling over something so inane. It's not too much money in either case -- if you're not currently looking for a video card then I guess the answer is this thread is a waste of time?

I found opening my the PC and adding RAM fun. That gave me the idea to think about adding a video card. My decision tree went more like this

If I can find a video card available for a trivial amount of money that significantly improves performance, buy it, and theres no better one for a modestly larger amount of money, buy it.

If I cant find such a video card, but can find one for a the modestly larger amountreasonably amount of money, consider buying it.

If I can find a video card that provides a significant improvement for a trivial amount of money, but one for a modestly larger amount provides more improvement, weight the benefit cost.

In all cases, the expectation is that the process of learning/shopping is fun/adds to human capital and hence is cost free (so no, I dont "value" my video card search time - shopping for electronics is itself a game to me)

Its not a waste of time even if I dont decide to purchase a card now, for whatever reason.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

I have a hard time seeing you shop for clothes in under a day. Do you try on every shirt in the store, weigh them, measure them, and then compare them with every other store in the mall?

On the contrary. Clothes are boring. Electronics is interesting.

[LotC]

I had a lot to say, but Asher said it all.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher
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.

Oh, is that the turbocache thingie? Im sorry it wasnt obvious from the microcenter specs that that was what that was. I finally found a review from 2005 that mentioned it - they still found it compared favorably to IG. But I suppose not by much.

[Asher]

TurboCache (Nvidia) and HyperMemory (ATI) are euphemisms for "uses your system RAM, not high speed dedicated RAM".

This is a massive bottleneck.

[Kuciwalker]

@ the names

[Asher]

Yeah, it's a bit blatant...

[lord of the mark]

Oddly, not only are there $25 video cards for sale, there seems to be a market for under $30 used cards

http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/search/sys?query=video+card+pci&minAsk=min&maxAsk=30

its also possible to get a video card on freecycle, though not any PCI-E cards, apparently.

This provided as info only, not to suggest anything or quibble with anyone.

[Standup]

If you're going to get an old card then the 6600GT would be a good buy and should be available for a couple of dollars - if you're ever in the UK you can have all of my old cards and experiment away.

Another issue to consider is the power supply. Most separate cards will draw more power than the IG and many of the new ones will need an additional connector. As you don't seem inclined to buy a 8800 ultra hopefully this won't be a problem. But if you have a weedy powersupply then your choice is limited.

And as Asher said don't buy the 6/7/8200 or anything that mentions Turbocache or Hypermemory.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



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.

I wouldn't use a 6200 to run a linux email server if you paid me to use it.

Does that answer your question?

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Asher
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.

By that you mean the memory that's also used by all other processes, right? Whereas a dedicated video card uses its own memory? I was just talking to a friend who complained that his video card (or the drivers) eats too much memory and I was thinking of the 6200 (he wasn't sure which one he has).