PDA

View Full Version : Video Card



JJJJJ
06-10-2005, 10:33 AM
I am trying to improve picture quality.
fps is immaterial. It is the overall sharpness and lustre I am concerned with.
Is 128 mb ram sufficient or should I get 256? What is the ram on the card actualy used for.
I have at present an ATI 9800 pro. with 128 megs.

Would anyone like to suggest a better card. AGP.

Metla
06-10-2005, 10:45 AM
The ram holds the textures, the more ram on the card the bigger textures you can have displayed.

So in your case the extra ram would come in handy....probally.

I garentee nothing when it comes to your brand of tweaking.

Anyhow, The problem you have is that the recomended card (in this case I would say the 6600GT 256mb) isn't a huge step over your current card, better, but perhaps too close in performance to qualify the outlay.

So, seeing as your alreadny near midfeild you may be best looking at a high end card, something in the nvdia 6800 range, or the ATI X800 range.

I did read the other day that the fastest AGP card on the market was the X850 something.....

Metla
06-10-2005, 10:46 AM
Though if your looking to run the next flight sim on your current rig I woulkd suggest you get the biggest baddest and meanest video card you can.

Metla
06-10-2005, 11:00 AM
GECUBE RADEON X850XT Platinum VIVO AGP Edition


Maybe worth looking at.

Seems their are much better cards available for PCI-e.

drcspy
06-10-2005, 11:59 AM
jeez...............for picture quality and sharpness i woulda thought a 128mb ram card would be quite sufficient...........however it's the monitor that may be more relevant here..........a high quality monitor will help for sure........

FoxyMX
06-10-2005, 12:30 PM
Are you sure that your glasses don't need updating, Jack? :stare:

:p

JJJJJ
06-10-2005, 01:22 PM
jeez...............for picture quality and sharpness i woulda thought a 128mb ram card would be quite sufficient...........however it's the monitor that may be more relevant here..........a high quality monitor will help for sure........

You had better be wrong!
My monitor is a month old. A $900 plus Viewsonic 19" LCD.

JJJJJ
06-10-2005, 01:24 PM
Are you sure that your glasses don't need updating, Jack? :stare:

:p

At the prices they charge for glasses these days. You must be joking.

Battleneter
06-10-2005, 01:40 PM
If your talking about video card you probably don't realise it but you are really asking about Anti-Alising anisostropic filtering WHICH imporves picture Quaility NOT more ram (ram kinda does with more textures). The very short description of what these do is reduce jagged lines etc, making the picture less fuzzy ish and clearer to look at.

As Metla said more ram means more texture quaility IF the game supports it, many current games still don't improve with 256 over 128, although this is changeing fast.

You "want" a faster GPU card that can run higher Anti-Alising and anisostropic filtering settings without killing your FPS.

I don't reccommend the 6600GT for you as we are in similar positions. I have the 9800XT 256 version (very similar perfomance to the 9800Pro), the 6600 GT is definately faster than both our cards BUT only about 30% tops ish depending on the game, and in fact a few games our card will outperfrom the 6600GT (a few I said).

I would strongly suggest Either a Nvidia 6800GT or a ATI X800XL or better, you will not be happy with a 6600GT, it is not much of an upgrade for the cost involoved.


BTW ATI cards are "generally" accepted as having slightly better picture quaility over Nvidia.

Metla
06-10-2005, 02:35 PM
Part of my reasoning is due to JJJJ playing Flight Sim 2004 with ever increasing texture packs, Due to the huge scale of the gameworld and the high resolution texture packs Im suggesting the more video ram the better.

Though I won't put money on this one, Just where my trail of logic leads me.....

jamesyboi
06-10-2005, 02:43 PM
ps3 graphics are insanely good.

Metla
06-10-2005, 02:48 PM
How can you say that if you have never seen them?

Or are you referring to the renders that have been made on the PC?

Suggest people dont blow the next generation trumpet untill it arrives and can be judged, especially when run through a NZ low resolution TV.

Trev
06-10-2005, 02:50 PM
Check this out.
http://users.actrix.co.nz/trevw/Emma.jpg
Emma Field in FS 2004. Its about a 20 min flight South East of Seattle International airport.
Leadtek FX 6800 LE TDH 128mb card.

I run a Philips 109Es 19" CRT monitor. Before the Leadtek card I had a Gainward Geforce 4 4200 TI 64mb card. I thought I had a good picture with this card, but when I upgraded it was like WOW it was like a 100% improvement to what I had.

Trevor :)

Battleneter
06-10-2005, 02:52 PM
Most games will swap the textures anyway between system ram and Video ram, so the actual textures displayed are often the same between a 128 card and 256MB etc, the obvious downside of course is this will lower the FPS, but the picture quality is the same (although I consider low FPS to be low picture quality but its technically not)

A great recent example of this is the Fear demo, The quality on a 7800GTX 256 card is the same as the New ATI X1800XT's 512's but the speed takes a huge hit on the Nvidia card due to its lower ram (until Nvidia release there 512 very soon at least).

There are a few games that don't swap texture ram, but its incredibly poor coding.

pctek
06-10-2005, 02:53 PM
X800 minimum., X850XT is better. Or a 7800GT.

Depends on whether you are talking about the detail level or not.
You DO want 256mb on the card but for best results a high end card as well as lost of ram on it.

I tried the F.E.A.R demo both with and without anti-aliasing and it made stuff all difference to the detail level.

Battleneter
06-10-2005, 02:56 PM
Check this out.
http://users.actrix.co.nz/trevw/Emma.jpg
Emma Field in FS 2004. Its about a 20 min flight South East of Seattle International airport.
Leadtek FX 6800 LE TDH 128mb card.

I run a Philips 109Es 19" CRT monitor. Before the Leadtek card I had a Gainward Geforce 4 4200 TI 64mb card. I thought I had a good picture with this card, but when I upgraded it was like WOW it was like a 100% improvement to what I had.

Trevor :)


Keep in mind the Shader ability improvements on the 6800GPU is miles ahead of the old TI. Good cards those old TI's, were miles ahed of there time.

Battleneter
06-10-2005, 03:06 PM
X800 minimum., X850XT is better. Or a 7800GT.

Depends on whether you are talking about the detail level or not.
You DO want 256mb on the card but for best results a high end card as well as lost of ram on it.

I tried the F.E.A.R demo both with and without anti-aliasing and it made stuff all difference to the detail level.


Actually I am Biasied as I am waiting for my new 6800Gt 256MB to arrive from the states.

But I went for the 6800GT 256 because of it's pixel shader 3.0 ability that those two ATI cards dont have, I think the ATI X8x generation may suffer from the lack of that ability in the near future.

I have read you can't see much AA benefit in FEAR until your up around 1600x1200, but I certainly don't have the card to test it currently lol

You can see a HUGE difference in BF2 and COD2 Demo when AA is turned up, those two are basically what have made me upgrade.

pctek
06-10-2005, 03:18 PM
I have read you can't see much AA benefit in FEAR until your up around 1600x1200, but I certainly don't have the card to test it currently lol

You can see a HUGE difference in BF2 and COD2 Demo when AA is turned up, those two are basically what have made me upgrade.
It was on 1600.

And also testing with the fear demo, although lesser cards than mine, it did make a big difference with the 256mb over 128.
Whatever, all games are different and I'm happy.
But getting back to the original question. If you have the money buy a high end card with 256mb, whether you like Nvidia or ATI.

JJJJJ
06-10-2005, 03:40 PM
ps3 graphics are insanely good.
PS9 are even better.
If I could get them running right

JJJJJ
06-10-2005, 03:50 PM
I am getting a "good" picture. I just want a better one. I know that FS9 can produce it.
I am useing antistropic filtering and anti-aliasing both running at maximum setting but still get some blurring and shimmering around the edges of buildings. When I take a screen shot or pause the game I get the perfect picture, but while in play I get the blurring.

NOTE in FS9 fps are immaterial. The default setting is 20 fps. There is no improvement by increasing this. In fact going down to 15 fps does not worsen the picture either

Battleneter
06-10-2005, 04:04 PM
PS9 are even better.
If I could get them running right


Ahh whats a PS9?

I am assuming he was meaning Play Station 3. OF course consol games suck if your into FPS or RTS, the controllers just don't do it. (I have an Xbox and owned a playstaion 1)

Battleneter
06-10-2005, 04:20 PM
As I am not a big flight sim person, is FS9 MS Flight Sim 2004? (supposively one of the best)

I had MS FS2004 on my system for a month or two and have to say the graphics arn't the greatest, expecially the ground textures, and reading review's back then it was flammed a we bit for its fairly non exciting engine, of course this is not what flight sims are about.

Are you sure your not expecting to much? and why do you think it should look better, ie have you seen it running on a friends machine or something?

Trev
06-10-2005, 04:22 PM
Try FS9. Microsoft Flight Simulator is known by two names. Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 A Century of Flight, or Flight Simulator Nine because it is the 9th version.

Trevor :)

bartsdadhomer
06-10-2005, 04:27 PM
I would have thought the screen resolution and the monitors speed would factor into how good a pic you are getting (as well as the vid card of course)
I've seen some really expensive LCD's that look like crap if the resolution is set too low and a slow LCD won't help matters either
What resolution do you run it at?
and what is the monitors speed? eg. 24ms, 16ms, 12ms, 8ms etc

Metla
06-10-2005, 04:44 PM
Ive seen quite a few people complain about blurry edges, Though it has usually been on budget video cards (that is cards using capable chipsets but the rest being churned out by a less well known or regarded company)

Cicero
06-10-2005, 04:46 PM
At the prices they charge for glasses these days. You must be joking.

A friend just returned from Thailand,be bought 3 pairs of prescription glasses with good frames for $350,Something is wrotten in the state of Denmark.

JJJJJ
06-10-2005, 04:47 PM
Ahh whats a PS9?

I am assuming he was meaning Play Station 3. OF course consol games suck if your into FPS or RTS, the controllers just don't do it. (I have an Xbox and owned a playstaion 1)

PS9 is realy FS9 after I've finished "improving" it.
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 :thumbs:

JJJJJ
06-10-2005, 04:49 PM
I would have thought the screen resolution and the monitors speed would factor into how good a pic you are getting (as well as the vid card of course)
I've seen some really expensive LCD's that look like crap if the resolution is set too low and a slow LCD won't help matters either
What resolution do you run it at?
and what is the monitors speed? eg. 24ms, 16ms, 12ms, 8ms etc

4 ms!

pctek
06-10-2005, 08:03 PM
I am getting a "good" picture. I just want a better one. I know that FS9 can produce it.
I am useing antistropic filtering and anti-aliasing both running at maximum setting but still get some blurring and shimmering around the edges of buildings. When I take a screen shot or pause the game I get the perfect picture, but while in play I get the blurring.

Go ahead and buy a really cool card then. You won't regret it.