Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Video cards

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2004 10:49:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Hello All,

Can someone please explain about the AGP 2 , 4, or 8x cards? Are
these just faster versions on one format? I see from some of t6he
boards that there is a better video card using a pci slot. I am
confused, is this stuff in transition to another format/platform or
is the AGP XX still the preferred v ideo/graphics slot.??
Thanks,
Jim

More about : video cards

Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b U Graphics card
December 13, 2004 5:31:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

AGP X2, X4 or X8, really makes no real difference in speed
as long as you have lots of memory on the graphics card (128MB or 256MB).
PCI-Express is the new graphics slot replacing AGP.
You should still be able to get new AGP boards for at least the next 6-12
months.

<Jmonahan@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:c1tpr01o8odbi6oqvndioq0qtfda6n19dp@4ax.com...
> Hello All,
>
> Can someone please explain about the AGP 2 , 4, or 8x cards? Are
> these just faster versions on one format? I see from some of t6he
> boards that there is a better video card using a pci slot. I am
> confused, is this stuff in transition to another format/platform or
> is the AGP XX still the preferred v ideo/graphics slot.??
> Thanks,
> Jim
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b U Graphics card
December 13, 2004 5:31:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Does the new PCI express have its own slot, or does it fit the PCI
slots, or what???
Thanks,
Jim
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 02:31:14 GMT, "Tod" <no_spam_me@comcast.net>
wrote:

>AGP X2, X4 or X8, really makes no real difference in speed
>as long as you have lots of memory on the graphics card (128MB or 256MB).
>PCI-Express is the new graphics slot replacing AGP.
>You should still be able to get new AGP boards for at least the next 6-12
>months.
>
><Jmonahan@ev1.net> wrote in message
>news:c1tpr01o8odbi6oqvndioq0qtfda6n19dp@4ax.com...
>> Hello All,
>>
>> Can someone please explain about the AGP 2 , 4, or 8x cards? Are
>> these just faster versions on one format? I see from some of t6he
>> boards that there is a better video card using a pci slot. I am
>> confused, is this stuff in transition to another format/platform or
>> is the AGP XX still the preferred v ideo/graphics slot.??
>> Thanks,
>> Jim
>
Related resources
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b U Graphics card
December 13, 2004 10:49:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 02:31:14 +0000, Tod wrote:

> You should still be able to get new AGP boards for at least the next 6-12
> months.
>
Well, since there's still about 600 PCI video cards listed on rpicewatch
and PCI was replace by AGP about 7 years ago, I thik if you change 6-12
months to 6-12 years you'll be a little more acurate.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b U Graphics card
December 13, 2004 1:08:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

| AGP X2, X4 or X8, really makes no real difference in speed
| as long as you have lots of memory on the graphics card (128MB or 256MB).

This is what's confusing me about the current graphics cards. It used to be
that the size of the memory was only beneficial for higher resolutions,
meaning a 32MB card was plenty big for running in 1024x768. Could someone
please explain to me what the advantages of more video ram are, and where do
you draw the line for overkill?
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b U Graphics card
December 13, 2004 7:24:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Because PCI slots are used by other cards, sound, network, etc.
So of course they will keep making PCI stuff
But AGP is only for graphics, so with PCI-express replacing AGP.
They will stop making AGP cards, ok maybe 12-24 months.


"Wes Newell" <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.12.13.07.49.54.323390@TAKEOUTverizon.net...
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 02:31:14 +0000, Tod wrote:
>
>> You should still be able to get new AGP boards for at least the next 6-12
>> months.
>>
> Well, since there's still about 600 PCI video cards listed on rpicewatch
> and PCI was replace by AGP about 7 years ago, I thik if you change 6-12
> months to 6-12 years you'll be a little more acurate.
>
> --
> Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
> http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b U Graphics card
December 13, 2004 8:21:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

You're right, it did used to be the case that ram was primarily important
for higher resolutions. Whilst this is still true, the reason why the amount
of RAM on the card seems to be making even more of a difference these days
is the sheer size of the textures that games would like to store. If you
look at a game from 2 - 3 years ago, you'll notice that the elements in the
game eg characters and ships etc were quite blocky and although good at the
time, the textures on things like cars and spaceships were basically piss.

Now if you look at a recent game running on a 256mb card the extra ram
allows far more detail to be stored and made available very quickly.

Games are also becoming ALOT more complicated in terms of shading, lighting,
transformations, special effects - the bottom line being that the code for
all these really cool features need to be stored somewhere. I don't think
it's too hard to imagine that all the information and coded intelligence
required to make a scene look photorealistic is just enourmous.

So, bottom line:

- More detail can be stored. You aren't ever going to see a photorealistic,
realtime scene on a 64mb card and probably not on a 256mb card either
- The super cool effects required for photorealism require huge amounts of
information and code to work as well.
- The more information you can have sitting on the card and readily
accessible, means that the video card can do what its good at and leave the
processor and system ram alone to worry about things like AI, sound and
physics etc.

Personally I wont be happy until my games look photo real. We are getting
there but I don't think I'll be satisfied until cards with 1Gb ram come out.
Then things are going to get cool!

:-)
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b U Graphics card
December 13, 2004 8:21:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

| Personally I wont be happy until my games look photo real. We are getting
| there but I don't think I'll be satisfied until cards with 1Gb ram come
out.
| Then things are going to get cool!
|
| :-)
|
Thank you. In other words, it's all for looks. Play-ability shouldn't suffer
on a 64MB card, I mean game programmers wouldn't cut their own throats by
making the games un-playable on the millions of gf4 440 or equivalent cards
out there, would they? (unless, of course, they were major shareholders in
ATI or NVIDIA)
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b U Graphics card
December 13, 2004 10:46:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Wes Newell wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 02:31:14 +0000, Tod wrote:
>
>
>>You should still be able to get new AGP boards for at least the next 6-12
>>months.
>>
>
> Well, since there's still about 600 PCI video cards listed on rpicewatch
> and PCI was replace by AGP about 7 years ago, I thik if you change 6-12
> months to 6-12 years you'll be a little more acurate.
>
What he meant is that you will still be able to buy GOOD AGP videocards.
Ever seen a 9800 PRO on PCI?
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b U Graphics card
December 13, 2004 10:52:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

ProudPapa wrote:
> | Personally I wont be happy until my games look photo real. We are getting
> | there but I don't think I'll be satisfied until cards with 1Gb ram come
> out.
> | Then things are going to get cool!
> |
> | :-)
> |
> Thank you. In other words, it's all for looks. Play-ability shouldn't suffer
> on a 64MB card, I mean game programmers wouldn't cut their own throats by
> making the games un-playable on the millions of gf4 440 or equivalent cards
> out there, would they? (unless, of course, they were major shareholders in
> ATI or NVIDIA)
>
>
Most of the new games are next to un-playable on the GF4 MX cards
already. Wouldn't like to play HL2 or Doom 3 on a GeForce 4 MX 420.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b U Graphics card
December 15, 2004 10:47:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

> Most of the new games are next to un-playable on the GF4 MX cards already.
> Wouldn't like to play HL2 or Doom 3 on a GeForce 4 MX 420.

It's true I'm afraid.

The fact of the matter is that in order to do more and more advanced things,
new features have to be included, more instructions need to be processed and
more ram needs to be used.

Developers do try to make their games playable on as much hardware as
possible. This is essentially the reason that games come with a Vidoe
Options menu - so people can switch off features that might take more
performance than their system can provide.

Some developers place more of an emphasis on ensuring as many users can play
their games as possible. They might really invest a lot of time and money
making sure that even someone with a three year old system could still play
the game although not in all its glory. Other companies hedge their bets and
aim their products squarely at systems purchased within the past year and
systems than will be purchased in the near future.

For example Doom 3 and Halflife 2 can really really push a £400 graphics
card if you want to be able to play it as the developers intended. The
developers didnt go to too much trouble ensuring that the game played well
on older systems, perhaps because the amount of money it would take to
ensure compatability would be more than the potential income from players
with older machines. In addition, the developers might not want to invest
time in money in giving users of older systems a bearly playable version of
a game that they've put their heart and soul into making look absolutely
incredible.

Having said all this though - bear in mind that you only really need to
spend money on a graphics card if you are wanting to play games. There are
people that will tell you that you need a really good graphics card to do
things like photo manipulation but really its all balls. My work machine has
a 16 meg onboard graphics card, a decent processor and a fair amount of ram.
I spend all day writing software and developing websites. At home, my beast
of a machine cant work with photoshop files any faster really.

My point is - only get worried if you really like playing games. If you just
use a computer for "regular" applications like office and so on - don't give
you're graphics card another thought

:-)

If you do want to play games, then get back to us and we can help you get
the best bang for your buck, whatever your budget

Take care

TCE
!