[akedm]

Is there some sort of database or some cross-reference thing out in the Net that will allow me to find out exactly what graphics cards I can use in a certain make/model system running a certain OS?

For example : eMachines T3304 (Win XP) currently has an ATI 9600 Pro 128MB. What could it handle?

For example : Gateway GT5028 (Win XP) currently has a PNY 7600GS 256MB. What could it handle?

Now I know there's other things like power supply issues and whatnot, but given all that there's a certain point of dimishing returns when the graphics card is simply too much for the CPU. You know, it's just sitting there, not being challenged by the CPU.

Is there a quick-reference sort of place or a Cliff Notes type of site I can go to?

 

[akedm]

Hi. Me again.

To elaborate on my post : I have seen the graphics card table on this site (see the first posts on this video card forum) and it is impressive. But it only one-half of the answer where the question is "what computer can really benefit?" It provides the numbers.

An analogy would be say you have a car stereo deck and speakers. The deck is the computer, and the speakers are the video card. The deck cost $150, and it's a decent system, sounds ok, gets loud, nothing special. Now, would you recommend the $3000 speakers that have all the bells and whistles that audiophiles love? Or would the $300 speakers do for this mid-range quality deck? Now say the deck is a near-$1000 beat-lover's dream. Would those $300 speakers do it justice? Of course not.

I know choosing a computer/GC match is tricky at best but there are certain, constant considerations. RAM for example. CPU speed. GPU speed. You know, stuff like that. But I'm not looking for a yes-RAM-is-important answer.

What I'm looking for is some sort of a rough equation. I know when you people that know about this stuff hear a computer model and hear a graphics card model, you pretty much instantly know yep that'll work, or nope you can do better, or if you're getting that card you should get a better machine to really appreciate it. I want you to think about those first things you think of, and try to put a number to their relationship. I think this would be interesting to know.

I'll throw this out as an example of what I'm looking for : I think the CPU speed should be at least 3 times the GPU speed, and the MB RAM should be at least 3 times the GC RAM. Rough I know. But it's a start.

Thank you.

 

[jb_]

So you want to know what videocard you could use in your machine before the CPU becomes the bottleneck?

If you give us the model of the CPU we could tell you, otherwise there are a few things to consider:

*The game, some games are harder on the CPU and some on the GPU.
*Dual channel or single channel ram, dual is obviously faster.
*Resolution, The higher the res the more it becomes GPU dependent.

There isn't any predefined reference to this around, that I know of anyway. There are too many variables. Even things like motherboard chipsets make a different. For example an nForce2 with an Athlon XP 3200+ would be faster than the same CPU paired with an SiS chipset.

 

[akedm]

Thanks for the reply.

The two machines I'm asking about are in my first post, but I'll dig in deeper and give you the CPU, RAM type, and that other stuff you mentioned. Yeah, I figured it wasnt going to be an easy answer, and if this thread goes on long enough it'd probably turn into another Nvidia v ATI war of words. But you get my central idea - at what point does the CPU become a bottleneck - so, thanks again.

I'll get you those specs.

 

[jb_]

They both sound like AGP machines, you could upgrade to something a faster, but it's old tech so there aren't too many options around anymore, and the CPUs are probably not going to be great either.

The nVidia 7900GS is a pretty good AGP card, as well as the ATi X1950 PRO. Not sure which is faster though, probably the ATi, google it. You can get them for a similar price on newegg.com.

 

[akedm]

7900GS? Do you really think so? I run a 7600GS in my Athlon X2 system and it's only starting to show signs of lag (to my eyes) with games such as Rainbow Six : Vegas and such. I have the PCI-E version, else I would have tried it out in the older systems already (the T3302), and you're right : They have AGP and PCI slots only.

How would I know if the 7600GS or the 7900GS is really too much for the older system?

Here's links to the computers specs page from the manufacturer (all run XP sp#2) :

(#1) My son's setup : T3302 (which I said was T3304 in my first post. But actually T3302 (click on specifications) : http://www.emachines.com/support/product_support.html?cat=Desktops&subcat=T-Series&model=T3302
uses : 15" LCD Monitor at 1024 x 768 x 32 resolution (my son likes this monitor, lol).
I've upgraded this comp to : 1.5Gb RAM, Soundblaster Live!, ATI 9600Pro 128Mb AGP
(and it currently runs WOW, SW Republic Commando, COD2, Fable, LOTR Battle For Middle Earth 2, NFS Most Wanted, etc... very well - smooth - with middle-settings, in my opinion).

(#2) T2482 (click on specifications) : http://www.emachines.com/support/product_support.html?cat=Desktops&subcat=T-Series&model=T2482
uses : 17" wide LCD Monitor at 1280 x 768 x 32 resolution
I've upgraded this comp to : 768Mb RAM, Soundblaster Live!, FX5200 256Mb PCI (yeah, I know I screwed up there - sucky card)
(and it currently run all but the least graphic intensive programs at under 15-20FPS...to my eye).
note : I dont think this system accepts ATI cards. I couldnt get my son's to recognize it.

(#3) My system : GT5028 : http://support.gateway.com/s/PC/R/5876/5876nv.shtml
uses : 19" Wide LCD Monitor at 1440 x 900 x 32 resolution
I've upgraded this comp to : 2Gb RAM, Soundblaster Live!, 7600GS 256Mb PCI-E
(and it currently runs WOW, Fable, LOTR Battle For Middle Earth 2, NFS Most Wanted, FEAR, FEAR XP, Half Life 2 E1 very well with high-settings, in my opinion. Rainbow 6 Vegas is running well on mid settings).
see my other posts for more info on upgrades for my GT5028 :
1) http://www.techsupportforum.com/f210/12v-current-rating-of-22a-or-more-185117.html
2) http://www.techsupportforum.com/f210/antec-trio-650w-and-gateway-gt5028-troubles-199051.html

Thanks.

 

[jb_]

I can't see any easy options besides buying a new videocard for each if you want good graphic performance. The 9600 PRO into the machine with the FX5200 would be a nice upgrade though, providing it has an AGP slot.

Before I upgraded I was trying to run Bioshock with an Athlon XP 3200+ and a 7600GS, no matter how much I turned down the graphics and resolution I could not get it to run smooth. There comes a time when an old CPU just can't cut it, even with the details on low.

How much are you willing to spend?

 

[akedm]

Well, the 8800 640Mb monster is definitely out. With that said...

1) I'm looking at a 7950 GT or better for the GT5028 - so $150 there. After selling my
7600GS for $60-$70, then I will spend $80+ net for the upgrade. And like you hinted
to in your post, I too would live to be able to play Stalker, Bioshock, Timeshift,
Crysis and whatever else is up and coming.

2) I'm looking at an ATI9600 or 9800 for the T2482 since it worked so well in the T3302
- well the Nvidia equivalant since my godson's comp doesn't accept ATI (not the first
eMachine to encounter this obstacle) - but I do not know what the Nvidia equivalant
would be. After selling the FX5200 for $40-$50, then I will spend $10 - $25 net for
the upgrade.

3) I'm looking for some extra pop for the T3302, but I'm not really sure what I would
upgrade to. Would a 7300GS or 7600GS work in it? I'd sell the old card for
$50 - $60, so I'd have that to offset the cost of the upgrade.

I'm not pro or anti Nvidia or ATI. I've used both the Radeon lines and the GeForce lines with success.

 

[akedm]

I too would live to be able to play

Hahahaha. I mean "like". I don't live to play these games. Hahahaha.

Bottom line is that I'd like to keep the GT5028 running with the pack for another 2 years plus. The other computers (T3302 and T2482) I understand are approaching their operational limits, but if there's a decent upgrade availble that will beat having to purchase a new system. I'd like to keep them for another 18 months if possible.

 

[jb_]

Depends what you want to do with them, what you want to play. Like I said, my old Athlon XP 3200+ simply wasn't fast enough to run Bioshock at a playable FPS, no matter how much the graphics card was taken out of the equation.

nVidia never really had an equivalent to the Ati 9x00 series, the FX series were terrible.

Check out Tom's VGA charts and buy the best performing card at the most suitable price.

 

[akedm]

That's a great link - Tom's VGA Charts - thanks for the tip.

And yep, I'm aware that Bioshock and the like will not perform on the T3302 and T2482 no matter what I do (by "perform" I mean anything above a slideshow-type FPS). And that's fine. It's the GT5028 that I'd be wanting to perform. The T3302 and T2482 I expect to be used for mid-range settings on mid-range applications such as those I mentioned in post #6.

But even WOW on the T2482 averages 8-15 FPS with the FX5200. I think that's a case though where a graphics card upgrade is actually a downgrade. On the other hand the T3302 with the 9600Pro averages 25-30 FPS, which is quite acceptable. What I'm looking to do is upgrade the T2482 to match the T3302 FPS, if not even upgrade them both to even higher FPS.

I know as the years pass, the games (even basic ones) will require more and more power to keep up with the evolving standard. And in this the T3302 and T2482 will suffer the most no matter what I do. But that's ok, I'm expecting it. But until they become obsolete, I'd like to upgrade them once more.

I hear the 9800xt is a killer card, and is offered in AGP format (for the T3302 and T2482), but model-numbers-wise that doesnt sound like much of an improvement over the exisiting 9600Pro in the T3302. On the other hand anything would be an upgrade on the T2482.

Side Question : i was surprised on Tom's site to see that the 6600 would regularly outperform the 8400. Isn't the 8400 some two-thousand model numbers above the 6600? I know I know, that's not how it works.

But tell me if I'm right : The 6000-series is for DirectX8, the 7000-series is for DirectX9, and the 8000-series is for DirectX10? And it's really the last numbers "600" vs "400" that indicate speed, meaning the 600 is faster than the 400?

 

[jb_]

The 6600 was a middle range card of it's time, the 8400 is a very cheap low end card. Low end cards don't progress very fast. The 8600GTS is actually slower than the 7900GS in a lot of cases. The older out performing the new.

The 6000 series supports all the same features as the 7000 series, complete DX9 support (with support for SM3.0). The ATi 9x00 series are DX9, but only have support up to SM2.0, same with the Xx00 (e.g. X800XT) series, but the X1000 (e.g. X1800XT) series support SM3.0 and DX9. Anything newer than this supports at least DX10.

The 9800XT is a very old card, but if you still find a 9600PRO fast enough it will be probably be fast enough, but it still lacks SM3.0 support, so the latest games like Bioshock will be out.

 

[akedm]

Hi,

It sure is getting busy here around the holidays. So this thread is falling down my list of priorities and will likely remain low on the list until at least Christmas Day passes.

I haven't forgotten about it, so I wanted to let you know that I'll return to this thread (or reference this thread in a new one if this is closed) as soon as the things slow down somewhat.

Meanwhile the local CompUSA store here in Anchorage, Alaska IS STILL OPEN, meaning it is not one of the dozens now closed around the nation. However, it too will close after the holidays according to some bulliten I read. Any actions you think I should take or items I may consider getting a deal on before the store closes would be appreciated.

- Eric
Anchorage, Alaska