Ranking programs in terms of the load they put on video ca..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Is there a Web site anywhere that shows which programs put the
heaviest loads on video cards?

In particular, I'm wondering where _The Sims 2_ ranks in terms of how
much of a load it puts on video cards.

I've heard _Half-Life 2_ mentioned a lot in video-card articles. Is
there something unusual about this game that really hits video cards
hard?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 18:50:03 +0200, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

>Is there a Web site anywhere that shows which programs put the
>heaviest loads on video cards?
>
>In particular, I'm wondering where _The Sims 2_ ranks in terms of how
>much of a load it puts on video cards.

More than typical 2D appications, less than most newer 3D
games.


>
>I've heard _Half-Life 2_ mentioned a lot in video-card articles. Is
>there something unusual about this game that really hits video cards
>hard?

No, HL2 is in fact much gentler on video cards than many
other contemporary games. It's certainly possible to enable
more effects/eyecandy/etc and make it run like a dog on
lesser cards, but taken at proper settings per card you can
even run HL2 on a GF4MX card, something games like Far Cry
or Doom3 won't do nearly as well.

So there's this secondary issue, not only what the max
possible eyecandy is in a game, but also how well the game
can be scaled back, how well it's card detection scheme
recognizes and chooses appropriate settings. Most game
developers don't expect their game to run anywhere near max
detail/etc on the typical buyers' system- the average gamer
does not have a $200 video card let alone $500.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

The newer graphics intensive (realistic looking) games use MILLIONS of
pixels per screen as opposed to older, less realistic games that use
thousands of pixels per screen. The use of millions of pixels per screen
puts a heavy load on the video card and requires massive computing power.

--
DaveW



"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vikse15n7o1qt7fdv001v2tcvr2pat2g9q@4ax.com...
> Is there a Web site anywhere that shows which programs put the
> heaviest loads on video cards?
>
> In particular, I'm wondering where _The Sims 2_ ranks in terms of how
> much of a load it puts on video cards.
>
> I've heard _Half-Life 2_ mentioned a lot in video-card articles. Is
> there something unusual about this game that really hits video cards
> hard?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there a Web site anywhere that shows which programs put the
> heaviest loads on video cards?

Windows applications usually do not tax any modern video card. Full-
screen games often do.

The web sites which rate video cards probably use the most
demanding applications/games. I think that is one place you can
find those programs.

> In particular, I'm wondering where _The Sims 2_ ranks in terms
> of how much of a load it puts on video cards.

I think there are Sims discussion groups where you can find a
precise answer.

> I've heard _Half-Life 2_ mentioned a lot in video-card articles.
> Is there something unusual about this game that really hits
> video cards hard?

First-person shooters usually require fast video cards. Graphic arts
might also, but maybe more memory intensive.
Even real-time strategy puts a load on a video card when many
units are in play (a good example was Total Annihilation).
Recently released games are usually very good at stressing one's
system. Battlefield 2 might require 1 GB of system memory (and
probably a fast video card) to run smoothly.

Whether the application is stressing your video card or stressing
your CPU might sometimes be unclear.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

DaveW writes:

> The newer graphics intensive (realistic looking) games use MILLIONS of
> pixels per screen as opposed to older, less realistic games that use
> thousands of pixels per screen. The use of millions of pixels per screen
> puts a heavy load on the video card and requires massive computing power.

I assume you mean polygons, not pixels. And there can't really be too
many of them on the screen, since the total number of pixels is less
than two million even at 1600x1200, and you need at least one pixel
per displayed polygon (hidden polygons are a different matter, but I
don't know to what extent video cards are aware of these [?]).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 06:59:43 +0200, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

>DaveW writes:
>
>> The newer graphics intensive (realistic looking) games use MILLIONS of
>> pixels per screen as opposed to older, less realistic games that use
>> thousands of pixels per screen. The use of millions of pixels per screen
>> puts a heavy load on the video card and requires massive computing power.
>
>I assume you mean polygons, not pixels. And there can't really be too
>many of them on the screen, since the total number of pixels is less
>than two million even at 1600x1200, and you need at least one pixel
>per displayed polygon (hidden polygons are a different matter, but I
>don't know to what extent video cards are aware of these [?]).

The video card should be aware of all of them, then
calculate how to render it into the number of pixels
available at the chosen display resolution.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

kony left a note on my windscreen which said:

> The video card should be aware of all of them, then
> calculate how to render it into the number of pixels
> available at the chosen display resolution.

How do you mean 'aware' of them?

AFAIK the video card shouldn't need to _render_ hidden polys at all (at
least if the 3D app is coded efficiently).

For example, Doom 3 would grind to a halt if the card where rendering
every poly on the map - even tho the majority would be obscured.
--
Stoneskin

[Insert sig text here]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 14:05:59 +0100, Stoneskin <no@thanks.com>
wrote:

>kony left a note on my windscreen which said:
>
>> The video card should be aware of all of them, then
>> calculate how to render it into the number of pixels
>> available at the chosen display resolution.
>
>How do you mean 'aware' of them?

Uses all data at input for creating frame.


>
>AFAIK the video card shouldn't need to _render_ hidden polys at all (at
>least if the 3D app is coded efficiently).

"need", no, from a user's visual perspective. I don't think
they do but it depend on whether you include overlapped
polys as hidden.

>
>For example, Doom 3 would grind to a halt if the card where rendering
>every poly on the map - even tho the majority would be obscured.

On the map? How about only objects within "line-of-sight"
in the frame?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Stoneskin writes:

> AFAIK the video card shouldn't need to _render_ hidden polys at all (at
> least if the 3D app is coded efficiently).

True, but you need to know that the polygons exist in the first place
in order to know that that they are hidden.

However, I don't know exactly how rendering work is divided up between
the main CPU and the video card in modern configurations.