upgrading graphics card. Help!

[chivEd]

Hi, I bought a computer a few months a go, it is a hp a1350n

amd X2 processor 4200+
1 GB memory
integrated Ati Radeon xpress 200

I'm not an intense gamer but I want to get a graphics card to play some pretty good 3D games, which PCI express graphics card would you guys recommend my budget is about $250 but if there is a cheaper one that would to the job, a lot better. Thanks

 

[spartanslayer]

Do you want to play the games in full graphics, or normal graphics? Also, what is your motherboard. Thanks.

 

[iss]

one of the Nvidia 6800GT series cards would be in that price range.

 

[chivEd]

Manufacturer: Asus
Motherboard Name: A8AE-LE
HP/Compaq motherboard name: AmberineM-GL6E

Well I would like to play in with all the settings on high, as I metioned, I'm not really into intense gaming, normal settings would be ok. but if there is a very good card that would let me play with full graphics within my budget, great.

 

[DonNagual]

I'll second the vote for the 6800GT. Great cards for the money. Here is one for $239
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814121192

 

[spartanslayer]

I vote for the 6800GT also. Wish I had one.

 

[LipsOfVenom]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814130247

thats a 7800 GT for $279 after mail in rebates. Your price was $250 but if you skip eating out for a few times then this might be a good buy for you since it is almost a top of the line card.

 

[vnf4ultra]

I think a x850xt would be a good fit.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102505
Should be right in between a 6800gt/gs and a 7800gt.
Nice price too.

 

[SCHUMIinSA]

I would say go with a nVidia GeForce 6800GS. It's a good mid to high range card and is the replacement of the 6800GT. It would leave you with a good card and some cash to spare.
Or if you already have some extra spare cash then go for a 7800GT like everyone else said.

 

[DonNagual]

I think a x850xt would be a good fit.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102505
Should be right in between a 6800gt/gs and a 7800gt.
Nice price too.

I'm curious as to why you would put the X850XT above the 6800GT. Isn't it hard to compare that X850XT to the nvidia cards, as it does not support pixelshader 3.0? Sure, it's framerates are great but that is partly because it doesn't have to work so hard to produce the amazing graphics that a pixelshader 3.0 card (6800GT for example) does.

I am curious because I know you already know what I have said above, and for graphics you are one of the people who's advice I tend to read just to learn something.

 

[vnf4ultra]

I thought about the ps 3.0 when I posted, but I'm no expert in shaders, and saw that the x850xt is nearly as fast as a 7800gt, and is fairly cheap, so I thought it'd be a good choice. I'm not sure how much you'd lose by not having ps3.0 though. A 6800gt/gs is a good choice though, and I do tend to recommend nvidia...

I am curious because I know you already know what I have said above, and for graphics you are one of the people who's advice I tend to read just to learn something.

Well thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'm no expert. You likely know as much as I do in this area.

 

[chivEd]

Thanks for all the feedback
So it is between the 7800GT and the 6800GS. eventhoug the 7800 is more expensive would the results be a lot better than the 6800GS or would I be allright with the 6800GS?

If you have a diffenent graphics card or another suggestion or opinion, please let me know. Thanks

 

[JMag034]

If you arent a hardcore gamer..or even if you are...you should be fine with the 6800GS...its a real bang for the buck

 

[compres]

I'm curious as to why you would put the X850XT above the 6800GT. Isn't it hard to compare that X850XT to the nvidia cards, as it does not support pixelshader 3.0? Sure, it's framerates are great but that is partly because it doesn't have to work so hard to produce the amazing graphics that a pixelshader 3.0 card (6800GT for example) does.

I am curious because I know you already know what I have said above, and for graphics you are one of the people who's advice I tend to read just to learn something.

Currently all effects that are done with ps3.0 can be done with ps2.0. ps3.0 is more about getting speed out of the same algorithms.

I would choose the x850. With the 850 you get better image quality(AA and aniso) than any of the GTs.

IMO Image quality is king, cant go wrong with ATI in that regard. If you care about raw performance, then the 850 is also king in that price range in direct3d performance. Gotta admit the 6800s are nice, but I would not choose it based on the 3.0 support.

The only reason to get the 6800 over the 850 is the doom3 performance and openGL in general(but man doom 3 was sad...).

The 7800 GT is the best choice anyway.

All this of course IMO.

compres

 

[sllewe]

-compres

Do you have any good reads on p.s.3? I really know very little about it, or what it has over p.s.2....

Sean

 

[DonNagual]

Currently all effects that are done with ps3.0 can be done with ps2.0. ps3.0 is more about getting speed out of the same algorithms.

That has been true, but slowly this has been changing. Today's newer games are using pixel shader 3.0 and making some beautiful graphics.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/02/vga_charts_viii/page2.html

Nvidia 6 and 7 series support pixel shader 3.0 but you have to go to the X1X00 series of ATI in order to get it. The X800 series can't. I choose an nvidia card over ATI for this reason alone. The picture just looks that much better.

 

[vnf4ultra]

Interesting article. The ps3.0 does look nicer in the pics, and I can imagine that looking nicer requires more power from a card to get similar framerates compared to without ps3.0. My vote goes for the 6800gt/gs now, in light of the new info.

 

[compres]

That has been true, but slowly this has been changing. Today's newer games are using pixel shader 3.0 and making some beautiful graphics.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/02/vga_charts_viii/page2.html

Nvidia 6 and 7 series support pixel shader 3.0 but you have to go to the X1X00 series of ATI in order to get it. The X800 series can't. I choose an nvidia card over ATI for this reason alone. The picture just looks that much better.

Well it all comes to the developer's decision to which features to support on which shaders. In my case I would choose image quality over some shader effects on a couple of games. The 7800 series is better than both the 6800 and x850 anyway.

 

[DonNagual]

In my case I would choose image quality over some shader effects on a couple of games.

That link I gave above showing the difference between shader pixel 2 and 3 shows that pixel shader 3 support makes a big difference. It shows the game the way the programers WANTED the game to be shown, with all the effects.

I personally wouldn't want to downgrade to a shader 2.0 card and I am curious about the quote of yours I have above. What exactly do you mean when you say the image quality is better. In my link above showing the 2 vs 3 shader graphics, I don't care how much higher quality the picture of the 2.0 shader screenshot is, it isn't going to look as good as the 3.0 shader. It is missing a part of the picture.

And the claim that ATI produces better image quality... well, even if it IS true, it isn't by much. Nvidia also make great cards, and their picture quality is AT LEAST competive to ATI (if not superior). So even if it is a LITTLE better, it isn't going to be so much better that it would be worth sacrificing by going down to pixel shader 2.0.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[iss]

ATI cards have in the past alway had bettwer image quality than Nvidia cards. but with the advent of the 6XXX series of cards Nvidia has taken steps to remedy that situation and currenetly thier image quality is on par with ATI.

That said pixel shader 3.0 is overhyped not only do very few games even have that support but the difference between 3.0 and 2.0b are fairly minor as far as it is being implemented at this point by Game developers.

 

[DonNagual]

That said pixel shader 3.0 is overhyped not only do very few games even have that support but the difference between 3.0 and 2.0b are fairly minor as far as it is being implemented at this point by Game developers.

I thought this article was fairly well done, discussing whether or not pixel shader 3.0 is overhyped or really worth it:

http://www.gdhardware.com/interviews/dx9b/002.htm

To help settle the score, we took it upon ourselves to ask a few cutting-edge developers about their thoughts considering Pixel Shader 3.0, 32bit precision and if either one are truly relevant for consumers to pay attention to.

From what I understood in that article, programmers want to use pixel shader 3.0 as it DOES allow them to render better looking games, but not a high enough percentage of users have GPUs that support the technology so they have to wait. Since all NEWEST cards out today are supporting 3.0 (even the new ATI cards on on board), my guess is we are going to see it used more and more, as the programmers (at least the ones in that article) tend to feel that it is a step up in graphics.

If you are buying a new high end grahics card, (and I still consider the 6800/X850 cards high end) why by one that doesn't support pixel shader 3.0 (I.e, X850 series)? More and more games will be making use of the technology over the next few months it seems.

 

[iss]

From what I understood in that article, programmers want to use pixel shader 3.0 as it DOES allow them to render better looking games,

if you read the article you posted the link to you can see that the statemnet is made: Rowan: I can not think of any effects that can be done in PS 3.0 that can't be done in PS 2.0. Under PS 2.0 they might take some extra passes, or maybe a few more instructions, but the final result should exactly match the equiv PS 3.0 Shader.

If you are buying a new high end grahics card, (and I still consider the 6800/X850 cards high end) why by one that doesn't support pixel shader 3.0 (I.e, X850 series)? More and more games will be making use of the technology over the next few months it seems.

I can tell you why it isnt a deal maker for me. I use ATI cards because they are calable and becuase they will fit in my full tower case without me having to remove my drive cages. and the same cannot be said about Nvidia's absurdly over long cards.

 

[DonNagual]

if you read the article you posted the link to you can see that the statemnet is made.....

OUCH!! :unch:

pulling out the stoppers and going for the kill!!! Yeesh.

That was one (of many) responders answers. Was his the only one worth reading? I found the numerous other responses that were postive for pixel shader 3.0 to at least be worth reading.

For example:

Andrey: In VS3.0 Shader model actually is possible to support general displacement mapping (with smart Shader design when vertex Shader has to do something during waiting for texture access).

In PS3.0 shaders it’s possible to decrease number of shaders using dynamic branching (one Shader for general lighting) and in such way decrease number of Shader switches and as result increase speed, and also we can utilize dynamic conditional early reject for some cases in both PS and VS and this also will increase speed. As to NV40 generally possible to use co-issues better to take advantage of super-scalar architecture (we can execute 4 instructions per cycle in a single pipeline).

- Handle several light sources in single pixel shaders by using dynamic loops in PS3.0.
- Decrease number of passes for 2-sided lighting using additional face register in PS3.0.
- Use geometry instancing to decrease number of draw-calls (remove CPU limitations as much as possible).
- Unrestricted dependent texture read capabilities to produce more advanced post-processing effects and other in-game complex particles/surfaces effects (like water).
- Full swizzle support in PS3.0 to make better instructions co-issue and as result speedup performance.
- Increase quality of lighting calculations using 32 bit precision in pixel shaders on NV40.
- Take advantage of using 10 texture interpolators in PS3.0 Shader model to reduce number of passes in some cases.
- Easily do multiple pass high-dynamic-range rendering on FP16 targets.
- Speed up post-processing a lot by using MRT capabilities and mip-mapping support on non-power-of-two textures.

or this one:

Rick: It is more about freedom and removing limits rather than what can or can't be done. Pixel Shader 2.0 would be more like programming in C with only half of the commands available and with half of the RAM available. Pixel Shader 3.0 offers the 'programmers' a lot more flexibility in terms of control of the logic of execution and length of the program itself. The effects will be easier to write and probably will look more movie like. You may also be able to reduce the number of separate texture passes down as you can write more complex pixel shader programs to do the math necessary.

or this one:

Tim: PS 3.0 supports dynamic conditionals and much larger Shader programs, so it becomes possible to render in a single pass what would previously take many passes. For example, a renderer can more practically combine multiple lightsources into a single pass, using a dynamic conditional to handle the properties of each individual light in a single pass.

"If I read it"??? Is that your impression of what I do in this forum, is post things I have not read? Nice. Anyways, you are one of the posters here who's opinions and contributions I have found INVALUABLE many times.

But today, I'll let this thread go on without me for a while. It is starting to take the flavor of a punching match, and well.... sometimes those are fun, but not today.

 

[iss]

I think you missed the point of what all of the developers had to say about the differences between PS2.0 and 3.0 they all admitted that there is nothing that can be done with PS3.0 that cant be done in PS2.0. it is simply EASIER and more cost effective in to do it in PS3.0. that is not an unimportant factor is developing games. BUT... if the same effects and identical graphics can be done with PS2.0 as can be done with PS3.0 then it cant be said that better lookings games are only possible with PS3.0

The real reason developers want to move to 3.0 is because it will allow them to create the SAME graphics quicker and easier than doing it with 2.0. not becuase they cant make better looking games with 2.0

 

[DonNagual]

OK then, if they CAN make the same level of graphics using 2.0, then why is it that games that are utilizing 3.0 shaders look so much better? The far cry team had a LOT to say about the advantages of 3.0 vs 2.0, and it was NOT simply that it makes it easier to program as you are saying above.

Andrey Khonich – Crytek, Makers of Far Cry

GD: A lot of attention has been paid to NVIDIA's support of Pixel Shader 3.0 - can you specifically think of anything PS 3.0 can be used for that can't be done in PS 2.0?

Andrey: In VS3.0 Shader model actually is possible to support general displacement mapping (with smart Shader design when vertex Shader has to do something during waiting for texture access).

In PS3.0 shaders it’s possible to decrease number of shaders using dynamic branching (one Shader for general lighting) and in such way decrease number of Shader switches and as result increase speed, and also we can utilize dynamic conditional early reject for some cases in both PS and VS and this also will increase speed. As to NV40 generally possible to use co-issues better to take advantage of super-scalar architecture (we can execute 4 instructions per cycle in a single pipeline).

- Handle several light sources in single pixel shaders by using dynamic loops in PS3.0.
- Decrease number of passes for 2-sided lighting using additional face register in PS3.0.
- Use geometry instancing to decrease number of draw-calls (remove CPU limitations as much as possible).
- Unrestricted dependent texture read capabilities to produce more advanced post-processing effects and other in-game complex particles/surfaces effects (like water).
- Full swizzle support in PS3.0 to make better instructions co-issue and as result speedup performance.
- Increase quality of lighting calculations using 32 bit precision in pixel shaders on NV40.
- Take advantage of using 10 texture interpolators in PS3.0 Shader model to reduce number of passes in some cases.
- Easily do multiple pass high-dynamic-range rendering on FP16 targets.
- Speed up post-processing a lot by using MRT capabilities and mip-mapping support on non-power-of-two textures.

Another example (from this link http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/02/vga_charts_viii/page2.html ) is Age of Empires3. Why are those 3.0 screenshots so much better than 2.0? If 2.0 CAN do the same, then why aren't they?

I think your point that for most games 3.0 is not utilized is accurate, but to say that 3.0 is not a step up (graphics wise).....

The performance of graphics cards that support PixelShader 2 can't be compared directly to that of those using PixelShader 3. If a game like Age of Empires III or Black & White 2 supports the higher shader version, it will utilize it to render more complex effects. In other words, cards with a lower shader version display fewer effects -all the while resulting in higher performance due to the lower computing load. The same holds true for shadow effects. For example, ATI's driver automatically disables soft shadows in F.E.A.R. starting at 1280 x 960 pixels, giving the cards a performance boost. With older ATI hardware, shadow details have to be disabled completely in Fable - The Lost Chapters, or the game will automatically revert to 640 x 480.