- Status
Hello Cleeve,
Thanks for the response. I reread the article and I see your point. This is definitely a good quick reference. I guess i have becomed spoiled by the bigger features and comparisons articles you guys do.
Hope you do the One Year Flashback! I know when I look in my part bin, I often wonder how that old Radeon 9800 Pro of mine would fair against the modern stuff. Course that one might be a bit too old to make even a 2 year flashback...
Another reason I am interested in this article is that I am a value motivated buyer. I often wait 6 months to a year for a top of the line part to become "last years derby winner". I view catching the bleeding edge as a short lived victory for me so I figure out which card I would buy today for $300 and wait until it gets to a price I find acceptable. The problem with that is that I never have a real idea of how well my hardware will stack up to the latest games and such since reviewers have moved on to newer cards when new games come out. Anyway, I babble on... Thanks for the articles!
Cheers,
Coyote
Thanks for the response. I reread the article and I see your point. This is definitely a good quick reference. I guess i have becomed spoiled by the bigger features and comparisons articles you guys do.
Hope you do the One Year Flashback! I know when I look in my part bin, I often wonder how that old Radeon 9800 Pro of mine would fair against the modern stuff. Course that one might be a bit too old to make even a 2 year flashback...
Another reason I am interested in this article is that I am a value motivated buyer. I often wait 6 months to a year for a top of the line part to become "last years derby winner". I view catching the bleeding edge as a short lived victory for me so I figure out which card I would buy today for $300 and wait until it gets to a price I find acceptable. The problem with that is that I never have a real idea of how well my hardware will stack up to the latest games and such since reviewers have moved on to newer cards when new games come out. Anyway, I babble on... Thanks for the articles!
Cheers,
Coyote
cleeve
Illustrious
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
[citation][nom]AZCoyote[/nom]I know when I look in my part bin, I often wonder how that old Radeon 9800 Pro of mine would fair against the modern stuff. [/citation]
You should have a look at the last AGP review we did with the Radeon 3850, we included a 6600 GT that should perform closely to your 9800 PRO.
I also used a 9800 PRO in previous AGP reviews that included an X1950 PRO. Check 'em out!
You should have a look at the last AGP review we did with the Radeon 3850, we included a 6600 GT that should perform closely to your 9800 PRO.
I also used a 9800 PRO in previous AGP reviews that included an X1950 PRO. Check 'em out!
cleeve
Illustrious
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
[citation][nom]brownlove[/nom]I do appreciate artcles like this. However, they don't seem to take in others qualities of the technology. If an Nvidia card scores 15 to 20 FPS better in a video game than an ATI based card, but has poorer quality when it comes to watching tv, video, and other media functions, I'd want to know about that. I'd rather have the whole package in a video card. [/citation]
Do keep in mind that this article is targeted toward 3d gaming power. Having said that, I do consider all qualities.
Both Ati and Nvidia have excellent video playback now. Nvidia trails a little when it comes to Windows XP video quality enhancements, but it takes scrutiny to even see the difference. In Windows Vista, they all perform excellently and on par when it comes to video playback quality.
Do keep in mind that this article is targeted toward 3d gaming power. Having said that, I do consider all qualities.
Both Ati and Nvidia have excellent video playback now. Nvidia trails a little when it comes to Windows XP video quality enhancements, but it takes scrutiny to even see the difference. In Windows Vista, they all perform excellently and on par when it comes to video playback quality.
cleeve
Illustrious
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
Unfortunately, your beliefs have no direct inpact on performance.
The 3600 series is essentially a re-badged 2600 series GPU built on a smaller 55nm process. They are functionally identical with 120 shaders and a 128-bit memory interface, and all of them have universal video decoding capability.
The 3650 GDDR3 has lower clock speeds than the 2600 XT, so it's slower. It's closer to a 2600 PRO than the 2600 XT. That's all there is to it.
There was supposed to have been a 3670 - which likely would have had equal or higher clockspeeds compared to the 2600 XT, but nobody seems to have made it, instead opting to add GDDR3 to the 3650 - which still doesn't make it fast enough to beat the 2600 XT.
Check the clockspeeds:
2600 PRO: 600 MHz GPU, 500 MHz (1000 DDR) memory
3650 DDR2: 720 MHz GPU, 400 MHz (800 DDR) memory
3650 GDDR3: 725 MHz GPU, 800 MHz (1600 DDR) memory
2600 XT: 800 MHz GPU, 700 MHz (1400 DDR) memory
Google 3650 review to see benchmarks. The 3650's with GDDR3 perform closely to the 2600 XT, but the 2600 XT's clockspeed gives it the edge, and the ddr2 3650's are way behind either.
The 3600 series is essentially a re-badged 2600 series GPU built on a smaller 55nm process. They are functionally identical with 120 shaders and a 128-bit memory interface, and all of them have universal video decoding capability.
The 3650 GDDR3 has lower clock speeds than the 2600 XT, so it's slower. It's closer to a 2600 PRO than the 2600 XT. That's all there is to it.
There was supposed to have been a 3670 - which likely would have had equal or higher clockspeeds compared to the 2600 XT, but nobody seems to have made it, instead opting to add GDDR3 to the 3650 - which still doesn't make it fast enough to beat the 2600 XT.
Check the clockspeeds:
2600 PRO: 600 MHz GPU, 500 MHz (1000 DDR) memory
3650 DDR2: 720 MHz GPU, 400 MHz (800 DDR) memory
3650 GDDR3: 725 MHz GPU, 800 MHz (1600 DDR) memory
2600 XT: 800 MHz GPU, 700 MHz (1400 DDR) memory
Google 3650 review to see benchmarks. The 3650's with GDDR3 perform closely to the 2600 XT, but the 2600 XT's clockspeed gives it the edge, and the ddr2 3650's are way behind either.
spaztic7
Distinguished
- Mar 14, 2007
- 959
- 0
- 18,980
The real question is...... do you already have the 4870? Do you have it but are not allowed to tell use? OR do you have the new GTX (280 or 9900, pick you flavor)?
The release date is but about two weeks away and we still have silence about them. We all know if you do have them, you cant tell us any performance, but at least let us know if you (or your comrades at THG) gots the physical device!!!
The release date is but about two weeks away and we still have silence about them. We all know if you do have them, you cant tell us any performance, but at least let us know if you (or your comrades at THG) gots the physical device!!!
Well, I'm in a unique position - I need FireWire on my motherboard choices, and getting a motherboard that was reliable, had FireWire, enough USB ports and a decent chipset was not easy (settled on a Asus P5E). This meant choosing a motherboard with ATI Crossfire, and not SLI support, since Intel wants to be such an a$$hole company. Here's my problem:
1. ATI drivers have sucked for a long time, and by all accounts, still do.
2. ATI drivers suck on Linux (a must have, since the new system will be a triple booter - xp 32bit/vista ultimate 64 bit/Debian AMD 64 bit port. Nvidia simply outperforms ATI in the driver stakes, especially on Linux.
3. I want a high performance graphics card, one capable of playing games very well - both ATI and Nvidia seem to do this, but ATI takes the multi card approach (very bad design imho for a variety of reasons of which I'll expand on below). I prefer Nvidia's let's get a single card performing approach. I'm not being anachronistic here, it's my personal preference.
My reasons for prefering single card options are varied:
1. Cost
2. Actual space in the case (I have a Li Lian V1010 case which is larger than most, and even that wouldn't be a grand idea for a multi graphics card environment).
3. Strain on PSU - even reasonably powerful PSUs will struggle with multiple cards.
4. Wasteful in energy reserves and most certainly not green friendly
5. Even more cabling in the case!
6. Most motherboard manufacturers went to UI design retard school and sadly, don't really allow enough space between their multiple offerings of PCI-e slots. There's **** all reason to include 3 of the buggers, but not enough room to put the actual cards in on the motherboard! duh!
Like others here - I would really like to see not only cost considerations for each price group, but separate listings for single GPU soluations, and multi GPU solutions. Not only based on price, but also on speed. For some like me, the 9800gx2 appeals, because it means only one card in my system, which is what I prefer. Not everyone wants a billion cards in their damn PCs!!!
It would be nicer if GPU manufacturers started offering multiple GPU dies on each card, a la Intel in the CPU stakes. Concentrate on reducing the size of the GPU dies, make them energy efficient, and start stacking them on the card.
I've been out of the "game" for a while now, so it's nice to be able to access charts etc, showing how the current GPUs perform against each other, but please, please, please, include references to older cards, so us less frequent updaters can see how much the new GPUs have really improved over our older cards, and thus how much better our games will REALLY perform
Dave
PS - most super GPU cards are far too long for a vast majority of cases/motherboards. Many reviews do not include dimensions, so it makes it hard to be sure if the card will actually fit in your PC.
1. ATI drivers have sucked for a long time, and by all accounts, still do.
2. ATI drivers suck on Linux (a must have, since the new system will be a triple booter - xp 32bit/vista ultimate 64 bit/Debian AMD 64 bit port. Nvidia simply outperforms ATI in the driver stakes, especially on Linux.
3. I want a high performance graphics card, one capable of playing games very well - both ATI and Nvidia seem to do this, but ATI takes the multi card approach (very bad design imho for a variety of reasons of which I'll expand on below). I prefer Nvidia's let's get a single card performing approach. I'm not being anachronistic here, it's my personal preference.
My reasons for prefering single card options are varied:
1. Cost
2. Actual space in the case (I have a Li Lian V1010 case which is larger than most, and even that wouldn't be a grand idea for a multi graphics card environment).
3. Strain on PSU - even reasonably powerful PSUs will struggle with multiple cards.
4. Wasteful in energy reserves and most certainly not green friendly
5. Even more cabling in the case!
6. Most motherboard manufacturers went to UI design retard school and sadly, don't really allow enough space between their multiple offerings of PCI-e slots. There's **** all reason to include 3 of the buggers, but not enough room to put the actual cards in on the motherboard! duh!
Like others here - I would really like to see not only cost considerations for each price group, but separate listings for single GPU soluations, and multi GPU solutions. Not only based on price, but also on speed. For some like me, the 9800gx2 appeals, because it means only one card in my system, which is what I prefer. Not everyone wants a billion cards in their damn PCs!!!
It would be nicer if GPU manufacturers started offering multiple GPU dies on each card, a la Intel in the CPU stakes. Concentrate on reducing the size of the GPU dies, make them energy efficient, and start stacking them on the card.
I've been out of the "game" for a while now, so it's nice to be able to access charts etc, showing how the current GPUs perform against each other, but please, please, please, include references to older cards, so us less frequent updaters can see how much the new GPUs have really improved over our older cards, and thus how much better our games will REALLY perform
Dave
PS - most super GPU cards are far too long for a vast majority of cases/motherboards. Many reviews do not include dimensions, so it makes it hard to be sure if the card will actually fit in your PC.
"Unfortunately, your beliefs have no direct inpact on performance.
The 3600 series is essentially a re-badged 2600 series GPU built on a smaller 55nm process. They are functionally identical with 120 shaders and a 128-bit memory interface, and all of them have universal video decoding capability.
The 3650 GDDR3 has lower clock speeds than the 2600 XT, so it's slower. It's closer to a 2600 PRO than the 2600 XT. That's all there is to it.
There was supposed to have been a 3670 - which likely would have had equal or higher clockspeeds compared to the 2600 XT, but nobody seems to have made it, instead opting to add GDDR3 to the 3650 - which still doesn't make it fast enough to beat the 2600 XT.
Check the clockspeeds:
2600 PRO: 600 MHz GPU, 500 MHz (1000 DDR) memory
3650 DDR2: 720 MHz GPU, 400 MHz (800 DDR) memory
3650 GDDR3: 725 MHz GPU, 800 MHz (1600 DDR) memory
2600 XT: 800 MHz GPU, 700 MHz (1400 DDR) memory
Google 3650 review to see benchmarks. The 3650's with GDDR3 perform closely to the 2600 XT, but the 2600 XT's clockspeed gives it the edge, and the ddr2 3650's are way behind either."
so then the extra features listed on the 3000 series webpage are also on the 2000 series, just not listed? on the ati.amd website theres less features under the UVD portion for the 2000 series.
i've also seen the 3650 over clocked on another website to 800mhz, and keep under 61 c on full load. but i agree that the slower ddr2 is the downfall for this card.
The 3600 series is essentially a re-badged 2600 series GPU built on a smaller 55nm process. They are functionally identical with 120 shaders and a 128-bit memory interface, and all of them have universal video decoding capability.
The 3650 GDDR3 has lower clock speeds than the 2600 XT, so it's slower. It's closer to a 2600 PRO than the 2600 XT. That's all there is to it.
There was supposed to have been a 3670 - which likely would have had equal or higher clockspeeds compared to the 2600 XT, but nobody seems to have made it, instead opting to add GDDR3 to the 3650 - which still doesn't make it fast enough to beat the 2600 XT.
Check the clockspeeds:
2600 PRO: 600 MHz GPU, 500 MHz (1000 DDR) memory
3650 DDR2: 720 MHz GPU, 400 MHz (800 DDR) memory
3650 GDDR3: 725 MHz GPU, 800 MHz (1600 DDR) memory
2600 XT: 800 MHz GPU, 700 MHz (1400 DDR) memory
Google 3650 review to see benchmarks. The 3650's with GDDR3 perform closely to the 2600 XT, but the 2600 XT's clockspeed gives it the edge, and the ddr2 3650's are way behind either."
so then the extra features listed on the 3000 series webpage are also on the 2000 series, just not listed? on the ati.amd website theres less features under the UVD portion for the 2000 series.
i've also seen the 3650 over clocked on another website to 800mhz, and keep under 61 c on full load. but i agree that the slower ddr2 is the downfall for this card.
cleeve
Illustrious
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
Wow, You have a lot to say Dave.
The first thing I'll address is your assumption that Ati drivers suck. I don't think they do, I test Ati and Nvidia cards every day. You might be living 5 years in the past on this one, both Ati and Nvidia drivers have their quirks in certain games but neither are so frustrating they're unusable.
As far as single cards, I've said it and I'll say it again: I've listed the best single card for the money, it's the 8800 GTS 512MB. The 9800 GX2 and GTX are faster, but wayy to expensive for the performance they offer compared to the GTS or two 9600 GTs. This is a bang-for-your-buck list. You know the 9800 series is faster, if you're willing to shell out a lot of extra money for a little extra performance then you're welcome to do so, but I'm not going to recommend them.
As far as referencing older cards, that's the point of the graphics card chart on the last page of the 'best cards for the money' article. It'd be nice to have an updated benchmark that includes every card made in the last 5 years but the amount of work that would take would be absolutely mind boggling, so we're probably not going to do that on a regular basis. I'll keep it in mind for a one-off article though, I'll see if we can bench a sample of cards that show a good cross section of what's out there.
As far as "super GPU cards are far too long for a vast majority of cases/motherboards"... that hasn't been my experience. Maybe if you're using a very small case, but I've never used a mid-tower that couldn't handle an 8800 GTX or 2900 XT, and those cards are beasts. If you want the performance but have a small case, you're probably going to have to get a new one.
The first thing I'll address is your assumption that Ati drivers suck. I don't think they do, I test Ati and Nvidia cards every day. You might be living 5 years in the past on this one, both Ati and Nvidia drivers have their quirks in certain games but neither are so frustrating they're unusable.
As far as single cards, I've said it and I'll say it again: I've listed the best single card for the money, it's the 8800 GTS 512MB. The 9800 GX2 and GTX are faster, but wayy to expensive for the performance they offer compared to the GTS or two 9600 GTs. This is a bang-for-your-buck list. You know the 9800 series is faster, if you're willing to shell out a lot of extra money for a little extra performance then you're welcome to do so, but I'm not going to recommend them.
As far as referencing older cards, that's the point of the graphics card chart on the last page of the 'best cards for the money' article. It'd be nice to have an updated benchmark that includes every card made in the last 5 years but the amount of work that would take would be absolutely mind boggling, so we're probably not going to do that on a regular basis. I'll keep it in mind for a one-off article though, I'll see if we can bench a sample of cards that show a good cross section of what's out there.
As far as "super GPU cards are far too long for a vast majority of cases/motherboards"... that hasn't been my experience. Maybe if you're using a very small case, but I've never used a mid-tower that couldn't handle an 8800 GTX or 2900 XT, and those cards are beasts. If you want the performance but have a small case, you're probably going to have to get a new one.
cleeve
Illustrious
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
[citation][nom]yetti[/nom]so then the extra features listed on the 3000 series webpage are also on the 2000 series, just not listed? [/citation]
I believe so. After a glance, some of the features under the 3600 and not the 2600 are:
Advanced vector adaptive per-pixel de-interlacing
De-blocking and noise reduction filtering
Detail enhancement
Inverse telecine (2:2 and 3:2 pull-down correction)
Bad edit correction
I know the 2600 has most of these features, some I'm not 100% sure on. What it looks like to me is that the 2600 writeup was done before these features were added in a newer version of the driver.
In addition, I've asked Ati if there was a functional difference between the 2600 and 3600 series when decoding video, they told me there wasn't...
I believe so. After a glance, some of the features under the 3600 and not the 2600 are:
Advanced vector adaptive per-pixel de-interlacing
De-blocking and noise reduction filtering
Detail enhancement
Inverse telecine (2:2 and 3:2 pull-down correction)
Bad edit correction
I know the 2600 has most of these features, some I'm not 100% sure on. What it looks like to me is that the 2600 writeup was done before these features were added in a newer version of the driver.
In addition, I've asked Ati if there was a functional difference between the 2600 and 3600 series when decoding video, they told me there wasn't...
spaztic7
Distinguished
- Mar 14, 2007
- 959
- 0
- 18,980
Cleeve, what about high resolution? For the rising number of us, the best card for 1920x1200 would be nice. I have an 8800GTX but am looking to get something better because of low frames in a couple of games at native resolution. I am looking at the new line coming out to see what would be the best option for me. I am lining up for the ATi card solution, but have to wait to see if is worth it.
I also are with Dave that the single card solution is a much better approach. He has valid points. But also do understand that if you can run dual cards, there are hidden benefits and performance for doing so. It would be nice to see more on the single card marks and high resolution marks. This is something that has bothered me for quite some time. That and I cant tell if the video cards are tested with the most up to date drivers on your charts.
I also are with Dave that the single card solution is a much better approach. He has valid points. But also do understand that if you can run dual cards, there are hidden benefits and performance for doing so. It would be nice to see more on the single card marks and high resolution marks. This is something that has bothered me for quite some time. That and I cant tell if the video cards are tested with the most up to date drivers on your charts.
cleeve
Illustrious
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
I'm not a huge fan of dual-card solutions, either, but it's hit the point where it's a viable option. There's no way of getting around the fact that if you want the best performance at high res, you're going to have to go dual GPU. And if you want the best value from Dual-GPU, the 9800 GX2 isn't a good choice... the 3870 X2 might be though. But two 3870s or 9600 GTs are a great value choice, there's no way around it.
I understand what you guys would like to see, but I don't think it's doable on a monthly basis. It'd be great to have the massive information in a multiple GPU benchmark and the convenience of a quick-reference made every month, but it could never happen. It's just too much work.
For now, your best option is to narrow down what you're interested in -say, a single 3870 X2 - and google the reviews for that particular solution, concentrating on the resolutions that appeal to you.
Maybe we could do it once a year or something.
I understand what you guys would like to see, but I don't think it's doable on a monthly basis. It'd be great to have the massive information in a multiple GPU benchmark and the convenience of a quick-reference made every month, but it could never happen. It's just too much work.
For now, your best option is to narrow down what you're interested in -say, a single 3870 X2 - and google the reviews for that particular solution, concentrating on the resolutions that appeal to you.
Maybe we could do it once a year or something.
cleeve, in your experiences with SLI and Crossfire have you ever encountered any micro stuttering? I've been told it's a huge problem, but no reviews from the major sites ever touch the issue.
Evildead789
Distinguished
- Jun 6, 2008
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
Sorry to say dudes, but the ones critizing the author of the article best graphic card for the money: You are a bunch of morons!
To explain myself I wil start with introducing myself.I'm a 30-year old engineer. I've been gaming for 22 years now. Yes I started with 4 bit game-console. I went trough almost everything and I've always been searching for the best gaming rigs. Most of the time I had pc's or something like it. There was a time amiga ruled the gaming world and so I had an amiga. It was very simple then. Amiga had 16 bit graphics. Pc didn't have graphics (or maybe a little, and a little more if you were willing to sell a kidney). It was easy to know what to buy. Suddenly ibm-compatbile pc's started to get very good and at a reasonable price. 3D-accelared cards came out and amd and intel were waging war for the cpu markt (having a amd cpu was really better for gaming at that time).
Anyway Things got more and more complicated. I started to get really difficult to know what to buy after a while and the last couple of years it's really pure insanity. All these specs you have to take into account for when buying a graphic card. There are also dozens of types. It is nearly impossible to know which card to buy.
The guy that writes this article does all the research for you and he knows what he is talking about. If you are little bit into the industry you can see that. I followed his advice several times and he was right every time. Also 'the graphics card hierarchy chart' is a real lifesaver.
So stop bugging the guy you should be thankfull and the only reason for bothering him should be kissing his feet and saying 'Thank you' my lord.
P.S And for those who think sli is a bad thing 'check your history'.
One of the first 3d accelared cards called 'voodoo2' had a possible sli configuration which was the best thing to buy back then (god that were good times halflife.. , unreal...)
To explain myself I wil start with introducing myself.I'm a 30-year old engineer. I've been gaming for 22 years now. Yes I started with 4 bit game-console. I went trough almost everything and I've always been searching for the best gaming rigs. Most of the time I had pc's or something like it. There was a time amiga ruled the gaming world and so I had an amiga. It was very simple then. Amiga had 16 bit graphics. Pc didn't have graphics (or maybe a little, and a little more if you were willing to sell a kidney). It was easy to know what to buy. Suddenly ibm-compatbile pc's started to get very good and at a reasonable price. 3D-accelared cards came out and amd and intel were waging war for the cpu markt (having a amd cpu was really better for gaming at that time).
Anyway Things got more and more complicated. I started to get really difficult to know what to buy after a while and the last couple of years it's really pure insanity. All these specs you have to take into account for when buying a graphic card. There are also dozens of types. It is nearly impossible to know which card to buy.
The guy that writes this article does all the research for you and he knows what he is talking about. If you are little bit into the industry you can see that. I followed his advice several times and he was right every time. Also 'the graphics card hierarchy chart' is a real lifesaver.
So stop bugging the guy you should be thankfull and the only reason for bothering him should be kissing his feet and saying 'Thank you' my lord.
P.S And for those who think sli is a bad thing 'check your history'.
One of the first 3d accelared cards called 'voodoo2' had a possible sli configuration which was the best thing to buy back then (god that were good times halflife.. , unreal...)
Hey Cleeve
Truthfully i like the site, the best graphics cards for the money seems more like a guide line on whats out on the market and what you can get. Theres so many cards out there you can't fit all of them on this article. Yall should stop hating, if you want benchmarks look at the charts....and if you dont hav sli mobo or crossfire mobo, then dont look at those cards duh!!!!
Hey Cleeve do you hav an eta on when yall might update the video charts i know your not head of it just wondering?
Truthfully i like the site, the best graphics cards for the money seems more like a guide line on whats out on the market and what you can get. Theres so many cards out there you can't fit all of them on this article. Yall should stop hating, if you want benchmarks look at the charts....and if you dont hav sli mobo or crossfire mobo, then dont look at those cards duh!!!!
Hey Cleeve do you hav an eta on when yall might update the video charts i know your not head of it just wondering?
truromeo4juliet
Distinguished
- Jan 24, 2006
- 298
- 0
- 18,780
since most of the selections were crossfire/SLI, I don't entirely agree with the prices, because a LOT of people would have to upgrade their PSU's... just food for thought
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question User RX 580 8gb red devil powercolor, asking original BIOS- Started by PizzaInGame
- Replies: 5
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram