|
|
Post by Ubereil on Apr 28, 2010 13:05:26 GMT
If you've followed the Forum News thead you know that my graphic card is dead, and for that reason I need a new one.
My system specs:
Intel Quad Core Q9300 2500MHz 6 MB cache processor
Western Digital Raptor HD 150 GB
Corsair Power Supply 750W TX
2*Kingston 2GB DDR2 (so, 4GB RAM)
ASUS P5Q Mainboard S-775 P45 ATX PCI-E Audio GbLAN 2x1394 SATA-II Raid DDR2
I'd rather not spend another $500 (375 euro) on a graphic card when the rest of the machine probably only have another two years in it. Any suggestions on suiting cards? I went to a store today and they had the following two cards: MSI N2500 GTS (I suspect that's acually an N250) and an Asus EAH5770*. Any views on those two cards?
*Graphic cards is a jungle, why can't they get a naming convention that makes intuitive sence?
Übereil
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Apr 28, 2010 14:57:02 GMT
How big is your case?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Apr 28, 2010 15:03:14 GMT
Chieftec Aegis... 540 x 205 x 460mm so 21.3x8.1x18.1 inches. It looks like this and the f***ing door is broken, and I need it closed not to be blinded by the power diod. Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Nero the Glorious on Apr 28, 2010 17:55:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Apr 28, 2010 18:02:13 GMT
I have a Nvidia GeForce 9800GT - got it from Best Buy for a little over $100. It's a beast; it doesn't matter that I still have a single core processor, I can play anything I buy at 1920X1200 resolution, max graphics, etc. For price and power balance I have to recommend it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nero the Glorious on Apr 28, 2010 18:40:48 GMT
Is that the PNY model Flix? I couldn't find it on their website, I have the 9800GTX and yeah it rocks face...but its DDR3 I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Apr 28, 2010 19:23:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Apr 28, 2010 21:28:36 GMT
From ATI, you can get a pretty good deal on a card like an ATI 5770, or at 5870. Those would be my recommendations.
|
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on Apr 28, 2010 21:48:51 GMT
I hate NVidia's card numbering scheme. It's terribly put together - still is, even w/ the new 200, 300, and 400 series. I would try and avoid cards that are in the Nvidia budget card range. These cards often lack shaders and pipelines that the medium to high-range models have. Most designers avoid these cards. Also, high-end of a previous card series usually out-perform those in the low-end and middle-end of the NEXT series. I.e. GeForce 8800 outperforms a GeForce 9400. EDIT: I have a Nvidia GeForce 9800GT - got it from Best Buy for a little over $100. It's a beast; it doesn't matter that I still have a single core processor, I can play anything I buy at 1920X1200 resolution, max graphics, etc. For price and power balance I have to recommend it. Yes, the extra few $ for the GeForce 9800 GT over the 9400 is worth it for the extra shaders and pipelines. Plus, most PC gamers on the market will buy usually for The GeForce market in the x600-x800 range (medium to high range) for a card series, anyways - i.e. GeForce 6600; GeForce 7600; GeForce 7800; GeForce 8600; GeForce 8800;GeForce 9600; GeForce 9800; etc etc. The medium to high-range in a series is where most dev's aim to support their games w/ and many gamers will spend there money at. (NOTE - This so doesn't include the GeForce 200-400 series numbering scheme). Also, I wouldn't spend any $$$ on the GeForce 400 series yet (AKA Fermi). Without even running a game, the cards run real hot - like 70-90 degrees Celsius. Seriously - wait til they release a better series or can get heat consumption WAY DOWN. Plus, GF 400 series does REQUIRE a monster 600 Watt power supply - seriously, what the hell? |
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Apr 28, 2010 22:01:27 GMT
Right. It's the second digit that's important right? 8800, 9800, etc. are all better than 8400, 9400....
|
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on Apr 28, 2010 22:07:09 GMT
Right. It's the second digit that's important right? 8 800, 9 800, etc. are all better than 8 400, 9 400.... In the GeForce 5000-9000 series, that is correct. I.e. GeForce 8800 beats the 9400 and 9600; GeForce 7800 beats the 8400 and 8600. The lead number is the model series number - 8 series is 8000 numbered; 9 series is 9000 numbered. Usually, the lead number is telling you what version of Windows, DirectX, and/or Pixel Shader is now supported. I.e. GeForce 8000 series is first series w/ DirectX 10.0, Pixel Shader 4.0, and Win Vista support. In budget card models (i.e. the second digit is say 000-599), they often leave out DX support for a newer version; shaders; and pipelines - which will likely be in the medium and higher models (second digit is say 600-999). B/c games often call for certain shaders to be required or certain version of DirectX to be supported, budget card models get the short-end of the stick. This is why they are normally a few bucks cheaper - and often if you can't boot a game, it's b/c you're in the budget-card series. And if it does boot - depends on the game's requirements and where you fall w/ your card; hopefully you're above the recommended range (especially if you're processor's weak). Often on a game box, they'll even tell you certain cards aren't supported - and they are normally budget cards lacking a certain DX support and/or shader; even if a high-end in the previous series is supported! Pure bullcrap. It's really crummy way of doing business, if you ask me - b/c you would think logically, a 9400 would be better than a 8800 b/c of its numbering. In reality, it's NOT. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 28, 2010 23:02:26 GMT
...No wonder I get a massive headache whenever I try to work graphics cards out!
|
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on Apr 28, 2010 23:09:56 GMT
...No wonder I get a massive headache whenever I try to work graphics cards out! Want another headache? The model # scheme's different for the newest GF 100, 200, 300, and 400 series, too. The G, GT, or GTX comes first now - and represents the level of the card (budget, mid, high). TRANSLATION: I would avoid all cards in the G range; I'd aim for GT or GTX series. In the model number - the lead number represents the generation # of the series. (100 series; 200 series; 300 series; etc). From there, the last two numbers only indicate how much better it performs compared to the others in the series. This is much easier to understand this way than their older schemes. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 28, 2010 23:14:38 GMT
My new card is a GTX 285, whatever that means. I'm just glad i have a friend who understands this stuff so I don't have to! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on Apr 29, 2010 1:03:27 GMT
My new card is a GTX 285, whatever that means. I'm just glad i have a friend who understands this stuff so I don't have to! ;D GTX = highest end of a series. 285 = a VERY high version in the 200 series. (GTX 295 is only card above GTX285 in the GeForce 200 series) |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 29, 2010 1:51:25 GMT
I knew it was a good card and that's as far as my knowledge goes! I completely lost track once they started counting pipes and bells and whistles and other strangeness. It got even more confusing than processors did, which is really going some!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Apr 29, 2010 9:02:58 GMT
I bought an Asus 5770 EAH with 512 MB memory in the campus store. Price was decent ($220, remember the 25 % VAT), it's slightly higher that what I could find online including shipping. To that I got it today and there's a store I can go to if anything happens.
Übereil
|
|
