17 replies to this topic

[rob86]

As much as I'd love to have a top of the line, high-end graphics card, I'm going to have to go with a budget model right now. How good of a card do I need to play most games, on low graphics settings? Any major difference between ATI and NVIDIA? I've been seeing a lot of ATI cards in mid-priced pre-built computers lately, mostly in the ATI 4650-70 area. Is something around that range adequate? Should I look for a similarly priced NVIDIA model instead? Or is it useless for games?

I just want to get an idea of what something in that price range is capable of. Could it handle (on acceptable video quality at least) games like, Empire: Total War. What about FPS games like FEAR2, Half Life2.

I'm not so into gaming that I need to play the newest and prettiest FPS on the market, but I'd like to be able to most games that at least have been released in recent years. I've been using an NVIDIA 5200 on this computer, and it often does the job in older games like Rome Total War, Doom3, but a lot of games just plain don't work.


And a question regarding 7, I noticed that almost every game out there says compatible with XP and/or Vista. Does that mean half the games out there don't work on 7? I waited for Vista compatibility to improve before getting a new PC, now they go and release a new OS that's pre-installed on everything..... damn Microsoft! I look on google and see a whole bunch of "Game not working on Win7!!!" but maybe it's been improved since then.

I guess my general question here is, should I avoid Windows 7 if at all possible, or is it better than Vista? I'll probably end up installing Linux anyway, but still.. I need Windows to run Windows-only software.

[rvalkass]

rob86, on Dec 13 2009, 06:27 PM, said:

Any major difference between ATI and NVIDIA?

Not particularly. Both are releasing cards with similar performance at similar prices, so it's a matter of comparing prices at the time you buy. If you're thinking of running Linux then nVidia currently have better drivers, but ATI are catching up and improving all the time.

rob86, on Dec 13 2009, 06:27 PM, said:

I just want to get an idea of what something in that price range is capable of. Could it handle (on acceptable video quality at least) games like, Empire: Total War. What about FPS games like FEAR2, Half Life2.

For the HD4670, take a look here: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/...hd-4670-512mb/8

The frame rates start on that page and go on for the next few pages.

rob86, on Dec 13 2009, 06:27 PM, said:

And a question regarding 7, I noticed that almost every game out there says compatible with XP and/or Vista. Does that mean half the games out there don't work on 7? I waited for Vista compatibility to improve before getting a new PC, now they go and release a new OS that's pre-installed on everything..... damn Microsoft! I look on google and see a whole bunch of "Game not working on Win7!!!" but maybe it's been improved since then.

From people I've spoken to it's very hit and miss as to whether older games are working. If you're gonna switch to Microsoft^TM Windows^TM 7 then check in advance that your favourite games will work. Some are releasing patches, but older games aren't getting patches released, so you're stuck.

rob86, on Dec 13 2009, 06:27 PM, said:

I guess my general question here is, should I avoid Windows 7 if at all possible, or is it better than Vista? I'll probably end up installing Linux anyway, but still.. I need Windows to run Windows-only software.

Go with Linux from the off WINE will probably support just as many older games as Microsoft^TM Windows^TM 7.

[rob86]

Thanks for the reply. I'm not going to worry too much about the ATI driver - ubuntu compatibility, I'll have faith in them. I hope I don't regret it! I don't use Compiz anyway, and a lot of the ATI problems I've seen seem to be with that.

[rvalkass]

rob86, on Dec 14 2009, 06:18 AM, said:

Thanks for the reply. I'm not going to worry too much about the ATI driver - ubuntu compatibility, I'll have faith in them. I hope I don't regret it! I don't use Compiz anyway, and a lot of the ATI problems I've seen seem to be with that.

I've got an ATI card in my current PC running Kubuntu 9.10 and it works perfectly. ATI just seem to be slightly slower to release drivers, and release them for kernel and X versions that are slightly out of date, but as the versions in the Ubuntu repositories aren't usually bleeding edge, it's not that much of a problem. The newer ATI cards are also generally cooler and quieter than the equivalent nVidia card.

[truefusion]

For most games out today, you would only need at least 600mhz with at least 32 stream processors. Note, this does not mean you'll be able to play the games at their highest or maximum graphical settings, but all the games you have listed will run fine. I own an ATI 4670 card and have made a review about it. Check it out if you go with one and have any problems with it, as i provide some troubleshooting information. Do not use the ATI drivers in Ubuntu's repository if you go with ATI; Nvidia is fine, though, to go with the one in the repository (though it may not be as up-to-date as you may want it). I say this 'cause i had trouble with them: i would get a screen, but upon restart, the system wouldn't fully load. I do not know if this problem has been fixed, but i'm not going to check, especially since the proprietary ones work fine. Installing from the repository, all that means is that you don't have to manually reinstall the graphics card drivers whenever a new kernel update is installed. This is due mostly to the Linux kernel being a monolithic kernel; the drivers use the kernel headers or sources found on your computer to build a compatible driver for your system. Both ATI and Nvidia release their drivers in a timely fashion; the betas just require slightly more work to track down.

Windows 7 is better than Vista, but i don't use either. If i had to choose between the two, i'd go with Windows 7, just because i found it easier to use than Vista—though not as easy as XP. Not sure of its game support, but forcing XP compatibility may solve any problems.

[inverse_bloom]

Ive used multiple version of linux with a Radeon 9600XT old, old card! Although I almost always got it working with whatever version of linux i was using at the time, but it didn't always come without headaches.

If you are going to stick with just linux, nVidia maybe the way to go (im an ATI fan). If you dont mind delving into xorg configurations (linux command prompt) and such, maybe ATI is the way to go.

Generally speaking over the years "ATI" is better value for any midrange budget you have alloted to the cause. Years ago it had a smoother way of rendering textures in games, whereas nVidia was more gritty but tended to punch out pixel fill rates (good for particles). Im not sure what the cards are like today.

I agree the 4670 would be the card of my choice if i had the money, it would also be good for the sake of longevity. Good luck.

Edited by inverse_bloom, 14 December 2009 - 11:13 PM.

[rob86]

Is there a big difference between the ATI HD4670 and the HD4650? And is there a big difference between 1GB and 512mb models? The 4670 seems like a popular choice online, but all of the computers I've seen come with at best a 512mb ATI HD4650.

And what's the difference between AGP and PCI? AGP is faster? Is it recommended to go for a more expensive AGP one or are the PCI ones ok?

And (there sure are a lot of things to consider on computers) is DDR3 RAM significantly better than DDR2 RAM? Would 6GB DDR3 be better than 8GB DDR2?

Edited by rob86, 15 December 2009 - 12:29 AM.

[inverse_bloom]

I cant remember exactly the difference between the Ati HD4650 and Ati HD4670 bar for the fact my research indicated that if you have the money, the HD4670 is worth the extra bit (researched it 4 months ago).

Regarding dedicated memory on video cards. What that does is "temporarily holds" the textures, 3d coordinates for depth and compiled shaders that are processed by the GPU on its way to being put up on screen.

Regarding what you will need for your purposes (512/1024), typically what you do is consider if you are going to run your games at very high resolutions with high detail, in that case there is a possibility that you might want to go with more ram.

But that is if the GPU is able to process quickly enough get good frame rates at those resolutions. Thats why higher end cards typically have more ram onboard to cater for that possibility. However on a mid range card like yours 512 is sufficient. Check this out -

http://techreport.co...icles.x/14230/3

AGP is an older standard then the new PCI-express. Thus they cost more to purchase because they have little demand compared to PCI-e. For Radeons i dont think Ati makes anything beyond HD3650 for agp anyhow, because the cards were beginning to get slightly bottlenecked by the AGP standard at that point.

Regarding RAM if you have the option always go for the quickest ram, i haven't checked up much in this area in the last year or so, but maybe DDR3 is finally quick enough to really warrant its extra expense. Of course you will need to get a 64 bit Amd chip if you want to utilise anything over 4 GB's of ram becuase that is the circumstances where higher amounts of ram will register. (Most Intels are still 32 bit, in which case 6 gigs wont register in the bios although the computer maybe fitted with it).

In my opinion unless you are doing intense 3d rendering you wont utilize much more than 4-6 gig at the moment anyway. For your intended use, 6 gigs of quick good quality ram is ideal. Corsair immediately comes to mind.

Actually i didnt realise it but Ati HD4890's are good price at the moment maybe that is "another" one you could consider -

http://techreport.pricegrabber.com/search_...terid=740724270

Edited by inverse_bloom, 15 December 2009 - 03:13 AM.

[truefusion]

rob86, on Dec 14 2009, 07:11 PM, said:

And (there sure are a lot of things to consider on computers) is DDR3 RAM significantly better than DDR2 RAM? Would 6GB DDR3 be better than 8GB DDR2?

Depends on your motherboard and what kind of set-up you're going with. While DDR2 and DDR3 have the same amount of pins, the gap in between the pins are positioned differently, so you cannot have a motherboard that supports both DDR2 and DDR3 although the processor may support both. Note that the advertised speed is divided by the channels. For example, if you have DDR2 800 dual-channel, that means 400mhz per stick. Concerning the RAM timings, if your motherboard can't support the advertised RAM timings, then you'll need a better motherboard. Most of the DDR3 RAMs can out perform DDR2. For gaming you won't necessarily need DDR3, but at least 2gigs is recommended—unless you are running Vista or Windows 7, then i'd recommend at least 4gigs.

[webishqiptar]

Is it any difference from ATI Radeon and ATI? How to check about compatibility of motherboard and card graphic?