Prev: display port on - HP Compaq dc7900 Ultra-Slim Desktop
Next: lcd repalcemnte on a laptop packard bell
From: GT on 31 Mar 2010 05:03
"Anoi Ance" <noi(a)home.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.03.31.01.09.46.906000(a)home.net...
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:03:31 +0100, GT frustrated with the OS wrote:
>
>> "Paul" <nospam(a)needed.com> wrote in message
>> news:hoqt6b$j6$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>> [quoted text muted]
>>
>> Would an HD 3450 be faster at 3d games than the 8500? Benchmarks are hard
>> to
>> go on because the cards are different eras and the reviews compare
>> different
>> games. 3dMark scores are also useless as they are different versions too.
>> Has anyone compared these two cards directly?
>
> I think these days especially if you have DD2 memory you could find a
> CPU/mothwerboard combo under $80-100 w/ video that would handle your
> needs. Like a Amd X4 635 Biostar AM2/2+ board w/ ATI HD3000 vga $90USD
> that should be able to play all the HD + 5.1ch you need, when you need it.

Sorry, no DDR2, just DDR in there - my mistake. Typing on automatic!!

> Tom's hardware guide has an excellent interactive vga comparison guide
> that lets you select and compare vga cards performances for different
> application software. Any of the later vga card reviews should have a
> chart at the conclusion that recommends which vga cards you would need
> consider before you actually notice performance increases.

Yes, I thought it did, but I couldn't find it anymore - the link I have is
broken and a search revealed nothing. Anyone got a working link to the
TomsHardware VGA comparison tool/page??


From: GT on 31 Mar 2010 05:03
"kony" <spam(a)spam.com> wrote in message
news:gon4r5l90cnpnbt8v1lf4r54tcr00ojola(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:39:27 +0100, "GT"
> <ContactGT_rem_ove_(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Recomendations please for an AGP graphics card to sit in a media centre
>>PC:
>>I need it to decode HD video thereby taking the load off the athlon 2500
>>CPU.
>>On the gaming front, most demanding at the moment is Trackmania Nations
>>Forever at a decent resolution.
>>Physically, it can only be single height as the AGP slot is right next to
>>the edge of the small case.
>>I'm not convinced that there is much overhead in the PSU, so I would like
>>low power.
>>I would also like silent (passive only) or at least *very* quiet fan.
>>
>>Full Current Spec:
>>Shuttle SK41 case with original motherboard (Forgotten model)
>>Athlon 2500
>>1.5GB DDR2 (2 sticks)
>>1x IDE drive
>>1x DVD drive
>>1x 120mm fan
>>1x AGP Radeon 8500 (passive) - to be replaced.
>
> Wait a minute. That board, are you sure it's DD2 memory?
> http://www.shuttle.eu/_archive/older/en/fx41.htm#mainboardfx4
> If not it may raise my proposed project cost buy a couple
> dozen dollars or whatever DDR2 costs these days.

Its PC2700 DDR, not DDR2. Don't know why I typed that. Mistake!

All I'm really after is accellerated HD video playback and improved 3d
performance. We don't need fast flowing COD4 graphics or anything so
demanding, just HD video in hardware and trackmania at better fps. I don't
think its worth replacing the motherboard and CPU - there is no number
crunching, video encoding etc required - I have 2 other PCs for that. This
PC is a living room media centre for music, TV, internet, hotmail and a few
kids games.

The front panel of the case is tied into the motherboard, so I would
actually loose features if I replace the board! I intend to just swap the
Radeon 8500 for either an HD3450 or a HD4650 AGP. I'm just struggling to
find 3d figures that I can relate to the current Radeon 8500 performance,
which I intend to study before upgrading.


From: Jon Danniken on 31 Mar 2010 08:33
VanguardLH wrote:
>
> I have the ATI x850 in my old host. At the time, it was the best you
> could get in AGP. However, over time the games have moved up to
> required Pixel Shader Model 3 which this card won't handle.

[snip]

> However, since it is only games that are pushing my need for a new
> video card and only because they demand Shader model 3 (and some
> require v4)....

Interesting, the games flat out won't play if the card doesn't have the
right shader version? You can't just dumb down the game to use with an
older card?

Jon


From: Paul on 31 Mar 2010 13:15
GT wrote:
> "Anoi Ance" <noi(a)home.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2010.03.31.01.09.46.906000(a)home.net...
>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:03:31 +0100, GT frustrated with the OS wrote:
>>
>>> "Paul" <nospam(a)needed.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hoqt6b$j6$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> [quoted text muted]
>>> Would an HD 3450 be faster at 3d games than the 8500? Benchmarks are hard
>>> to
>>> go on because the cards are different eras and the reviews compare
>>> different
>>> games. 3dMark scores are also useless as they are different versions too.
>>> Has anyone compared these two cards directly?
>> I think these days especially if you have DD2 memory you could find a
>> CPU/mothwerboard combo under $80-100 w/ video that would handle your
>> needs. Like a Amd X4 635 Biostar AM2/2+ board w/ ATI HD3000 vga $90USD
>> that should be able to play all the HD + 5.1ch you need, when you need it.
>
> Sorry, no DDR2, just DDR in there - my mistake. Typing on automatic!!
>
>> Tom's hardware guide has an excellent interactive vga comparison guide
>> that lets you select and compare vga cards performances for different
>> application software. Any of the later vga card reviews should have a
>> chart at the conclusion that recommends which vga cards you would need
>> consider before you actually notice performance increases.
>
> Yes, I thought it did, but I couldn't find it anymore - the link I have is
> broken and a search revealed nothing. Anyone got a working link to the
> TomsHardware VGA comparison tool/page??
>
>

The main chart page is

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts

OK, I can get some overclocked results from here, which will give you a ballpark
figure. Since the CPU makes a difference to a benchmark like this, you could
easily be off by 25% or more by using a result like this. So the main benefit
is to suggest the modern cards are about the same as your old one, and not a
big difference.

http://hwbot.org/community/submission/950599_roccoesa_3dmark_2001_radeon_hd_3450_agp_14246_marks

3DMark 2001 = 14246 marks with Ati Radeon HD 3450 AGP at 750/450MHz

http://hwbot.org/community/submission/914873_maries11_3dmark_2001_radeon_hd_4650_agp_17801_marks

3DMark 2001 = 17801 marks with Ati Radeon HD 4650 AGP at 712/550MHz

http://hwbot.org/community/submission/601760_diabelica_3dmark_2001_radeon_8500_10771_marks

3DMark 2001 = 10771 marks with Ati Radeon 8500

One thing to note about gameplay, and what happens when you change cards.
Say your current card is DirectX 8.1 or whatever. The games you play, may
have several rendering paths. A game might have DX8 and DX9. If you insert
a card with DX9 hardware support, the game may switch to a new render path.
Sometimes, this is harder on the CPU, so if you're CPU limited, the game
might slow down. The graphics hardware could be faster, but the amount of CPU
overhead could be higher. I think I've seen that here, in years past,
where one of my low end cards kinda made things worse.

Some games will have a setup panel or configuration file, where you may
be able to control or change the rendering path or method. Other games,
will just grab the most modern rendering method they can find, regardless
of expense.

HTH,
Paul
From: VanguardLH on 31 Mar 2010 20:20
Jon Danniken wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>> I have the ATI x850 in my old host. At the time, it was the best you
>> could get in AGP. However, over time the games have moved up to
>> required Pixel Shader Model 3 which this card won't handle.
>
> [snip]
>
>> However, since it is only games that are pushing my need for a new
>> video card and only because they demand Shader model 3 (and some
>> require v4)....
>
> Interesting, the games flat out won't play if the card doesn't have the
> right shader version? You can't just dumb down the game to use with an
> older card?

The games won't install, will abort when started, or will crash when ran.
In any case, not having support for the Shader version required by the game
means you can't play it. There might be games that let you degenerate them
to less graphics support but I haven't run across any. You'll have to check
what are the *minimum* requirements for a game and then realize that you
won't want to meet just those minimums to make the game enjoyable to play.
In fact, and what is nasty by the game makers, is that their demo versions
will run on less capable hosts but not the full game. Finding the system
requirements for some (maybe many) games is difficult and often found
elsewhere than the game maker. So you get suckered into wanting a game
whose demo plays okay but find your hardware is too decrepit to play the
full version. Many games in the last few years demand Shader v3. Shader v4
has since showed up.

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

The other condition is support of DirectX 10. Windows XP (what I still use)
only goes up to DX9. Vista/7 would give me DX10 but then that's another
expense just to play games. ATI HD 3850 supports Shader 4.1 and DX10.1. So
if I move to Vista/7 then I've got the Shader and DX support for the newer
games. Alas, I'd be putting the video card in an older host with an AMD
Athlon XP 3200+ (single core) and be held to under 4GB max system memory and
why I'll probably hold out for a better video card until I build my next
host.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: display port on - HP Compaq dc7900 Ultra-Slim Desktop
Next: lcd repalcemnte on a laptop packard bell