Picking a Graphics card...

jkyprodigy

jkyprodigy

New Member
I need help finding a graphics card. I have no real clue where to start. I want something that will play videos well, games ok, SLI if possible, Vista and DX10 compatable, and under $150.
I've been reading site after site but I never know whether it's a good deal or not. FX's, 8000's, 650's, I have no clue what it all means.
 
Great call on both of those cards. I'm going to go with the Radeon HD 2600XT though. Also, GPUreview.com is clutch! Good find.
 
GPUreview relies on specs which, ironically, cannot be relied on concerning real life performance. The 8600gts is better, but the HD 2600xt is slightly cheaper. Your call.
 
8600GTS is cheaper after rebate

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127284
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814186022


ETSA said:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102102

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=512&card2=520
Click to expand...


Memory bandwidth is not so important

8600GTS have higher Texture Fill Rate and Pixel Fill Rate which is very important for gaming

Shader Operations is important but you should remember that 8 series can do MAD and MUL at the same time per Operations/sec. ATI can't do that


................


According to these benchmarks 8600GTS beats HD2600XT easily. Even 8600GT beats it in many cases

http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q3/radeon-hd-2400-2600/index.x?pg=1
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/radeon_hd_2600_performance_preview/page5.asp
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3023&p=10
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM2MCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA=
 
Last edited:
Grr at facts! Rawr at weblinks! heheh..

Benchmarks are the ultimate card realizer. Do not underestimate them, friend. :)
 
jkyprodigy said:
ok... What should I be looking for when I read specs for a card?
Click to expand...

If you truly wish to understand the performance of a certain card, look towards benchmarks. Clocks, mem bandwidth, shader operation levels, they all pale compared to simple benchmarks. In my mind the most important spec is the cards RAM. All other specs are subjective, and rely on core architecture, among other things, to define their worth.

Edit: VRAM is defined by the card itself too, i forgot. Graphics cards have memory controllers that can be better or worse at using system memory. Thus why the 8800 320Mb and 640Mb and so similar, they utilize a better MMC and can use system RAM with hardly any negative side effects.
 
Last edited:
But nowadays what are facts but popular opinions. Just a five hundred years ago the world was flat. Sorry about the digression, thanks for all the ideas, I'll be doing some research on what you've mentioned (I won't forget the Radeon, ETSA) and figure some stuff out for myself.
But for more information, with as powerful of a card as, say the 8600GTS, what kind of response time should I be looking for in a monitor so neither one limits the other? Or are those completely different topics?

If you want to give suggestions, it'd be 19' and HD worthy (:I'd get another one too, I don't know how people live without dual monitors:).
 
Last edited:
Benchmarks are facts. The Gts getting ten extra FPS than the 2600 is not popular opinion. ;) As for response time popular opinion says 5Ms or less, 2ms optimum. But the fact is that the response time is not nearly that important. I have a older 12 ms LCD and play many different games, and have never experienced ghosting or other effects commonly associated with high response times. But 5-6-8 Ms response times are common these days, and cheap, so it won't be very hard to pick up a faster one, if only to settle your fears.

Do the research, agreed. Relying on facts you know as such, is better than relying on those facts you do not
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top