PDA

View Full Version : Graphics cards



skott4991
15-03-2008, 17:34
O.k i know nothing about graphics cards in computors but i need to know some good ones to play most games now and in the future, the computors ive been looking at say they have "2d/3d intergrated" graphics or "52 in 1 flash card reader" graphics cards.

Is this good enough for most games?

Some guy (UK)
15-03-2008, 19:28
O.k i know nothing about graphics cards in computors but i need to know some good ones to play most games now and in the future, the computors ive been looking at say they have "2d/3d intergrated" graphics or "52 in 1 flash card reader" graphics cards.

Is this good enough for most games?

Intergrated graphics is when the chip/card already inside/on the PC motherboard. Never as good as a seperate card, and only really useful for office/business situations, where no graphics intensive programs will be used.
"52 in 1 flash card reader" is not a graphics card- its a reader of various types of memory cards, such as SD, USB devices, and compact flash such as the linked one below.
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MY-002-AK

As for a good graphics card for now and the future, most people could name quite a few, but not until we know more about the computer it's going into- e.g. processor, amount of ram, and most importantly the slot to put one into on the board- such as AGP, or PCI-Express.
Also, do you have any sort of budjet for the card? :)
As an aside, I would nominate the 8800GT, 8800GTS, 9600GT for pci-express systems. Again, it depends on how what games you want to run, what screen resolution, etc.

RavenMorpheus
15-03-2008, 19:43
If you want good gaming performance don't go for an integrated GPU, and also if it's integrated you can't generally change it cos it's hardwired to the motherboard, and mb's afaik are more expensive than a graphics card.

Oh and for gaming don't touch the Intel GMA cards with a bargepole.

skott4991
15-03-2008, 20:35
COMP 1
Intel Pentium Dual Core E2180 processor (2 GHz). 2048 Mb RAM. 160Gb hard drive. 19in LCD flat panel monitor. 18x DVD +/-RW dual layer. Integrated 2D/3D graphics. Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium.

COMP 2
Intel Pentium Dual Core 2160 processor. 1024Mb DDR2 RAM. 160Gb hard drive. 19in TFT flat panel monitor. DVDRW dual layer. On-board graphics. 52-in-1 flash card reader. Stereo speakers. Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium.

COMP 3
Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 2.20GHz processor. 2048Mb RAM. 250Gb hard drive. 17in LCD flat panel monitor. 18x DVD+/-RW dual layer. Integrated 2D/3D graphics. Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium.

COMP 4
Intel Pentium Dual Core 2160 processor. 2048Mb DDR2 RAM. 250Gb hard drive. 15in TFT flat panel monitor. DVDRW dual layer. On-board graphics. 52-in-1 flash card reader. Stereo speakers. Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium.

Thats all the info i could get on them, from that which would you say would be best for gaming, the games would only really be DoW, worms, C&C, and age of empires.

If i had to buy a new graphics card i would only really be able to spend about 50 for the card and instilation, althought if it was needed i could wait a bit and go to maybe 75.

Thanks.

BPK
15-03-2008, 21:16
A) none of the above., Honestly.

I 100% guarantee you that none of the above achines will play recent games ala crysis.

PM me if you want detailed reccomendations about what to get. I build PC systems.

Some guy (UK)
16-03-2008, 00:44
I 100% guarantee you that none of the above achines will play recent games ala crysis.


Just don't get fixated about a game which will still be one of the best looking games around well into next year. That is one thing I've seen people (wrongly to me) complain about that the system they own can't play Crysis on full whack at a good resolution, having spent over 200 in some cases for new gfx cards and the like.

The higher settings on Crysis might be breath taking and ahead of current tech, but by no means is the medium setting for example ugly.

BPK
16-03-2008, 01:10
True, true, but what I meant by the above post is that none of the above systems will be able to play Crysis at low settings. Hell, even my PC couldn't play crysis on High with 4xAA.

I will PM you shortly. I am currently doing some research to cobble together a good system design for you that wont break the bank. Do you have a maximum budget ?

Penitent
16-03-2008, 04:35
COMP 1
Intel Pentium Dual Core E2180 processor (2 GHz). 2048 Mb RAM. 160Gb hard drive. 19in LCD flat panel monitor. 18x DVD +/-RW dual layer. Integrated 2D/3D graphics. Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium.

COMP 2
Intel Pentium Dual Core 2160 processor. 1024Mb DDR2 RAM. 160Gb hard drive. 19in TFT flat panel monitor. DVDRW dual layer. On-board graphics. 52-in-1 flash card reader. Stereo speakers. Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium.

COMP 3
Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 2.20GHz processor. 2048Mb RAM. 250Gb hard drive. 17in LCD flat panel monitor. 18x DVD+/-RW dual layer. Integrated 2D/3D graphics. Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium.

COMP 4
Intel Pentium Dual Core 2160 processor. 2048Mb DDR2 RAM. 250Gb hard drive. 15in TFT flat panel monitor. DVDRW dual layer. On-board graphics. 52-in-1 flash card reader. Stereo speakers. Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium.

Thats all the info i could get on them, from that which would you say would be best for gaming, the games would only really be DoW, worms, C&C, and age of empires.

If i had to buy a new graphics card i would only really be able to spend about 50 for the card and instilation, althought if it was needed i could wait a bit and go to maybe 75.

Thanks.

The games you've listed won't require a very high end card at all, but there's no sense in going with integrated graphics either.

I get the impression you aren't a hardcore PC gamer, though I will also assume you'll want to be able to play other games beyond what you've listed, on a whim.

I would imagine a budget card, say an NVidia 8400, would suit your needs fine. If you wanted to get a better performer, you could look into an NVidia 8600 or 9600.

Before you buy, though: are you buying a whole new PC, or adding the card to an existing PC? If the latter, you need to find out what kind of GPU slot you have.

kyussinchains
16-03-2008, 12:37
dont forget the ATi cards, the radeon 3850 is just as good, price/performance wise as an 8800GT (especially since you can pick one up for around 80 now)

BPK
16-03-2008, 12:39
@ Penitent. Yeah I agree totally. for the games listed I would reccomend


512MB Gigabyte 8600GT Silent, PCI-E, Mem 1600MHz GDDR2, GPU 570MHz, 32 Streams, 2x DL DVI-I/HDTV from

http://scan.co.uk/Products/ProductInfo.asp?WebProductID=661335

Thats where I do all of my shopping.

To find out what is in your PC case type msinfo32 in the RUN command box.
It honestly depends on if you want to upgrade, or if you want a new PC.

skott4991
16-03-2008, 12:54
@ Penitent. Yeah I agree totally. for the games listed I would reccomend

from

http://scan.co.uk/Products/ProductInfo.asp?WebProductID=661335

Thats where I do all of my shopping.

To find out what is in your PC case type msinfo32 in the RUN command box.
It honestly depends on if you want to upgrade, or if you want a new PC.

Ill be getting a new pc.

O.k going by what ive learned so far my new options are:

COMP 1
Intel Core 2 Duo E6420 processor. 2Gb DDR2 RAM. 320Gb hard drive. 19in widescreen LCD flat panel monitor with 8ms response rate. 18 DVD+/-RW double-layer. 512Mb shared (256mb local) nVidia GeForce 7300GS graphics. 52-in-1 Flash card drive. Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium.

COMP 2
Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 2.20GHz processor. 2048Mb RAM. 500Gb hard drive. 19in LCD flat panel monitor. 18x DVD+/-RW dual layer. 256Mb PCI-E NVidia GeForce 8600GT graphics. Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium.

So what do you think?

BPK
16-03-2008, 13:59
I would choose option 2

skott4991
16-03-2008, 14:04
I would choose option 2

Thanks dude, looks like ill go for that one, its chearper aswell. :)

Penitent
16-03-2008, 14:10
Wow, option 2 is cheaper? That makes option 1 a complete rip-off, as its is inferior in every way.

Anyway, regardless of price, definitely go option 2.

Huw_Dawson
16-03-2008, 18:08
Well, if you're looking into a new computer...

1) Don't get Vista unless you are running a 4GB+ RAM with Quad Core Processor. Why? Because Vista is "the future" and you're going to have to shell out for a new Quad-Core in about 3 years, and until then XP will always be faster.

2) 2GB is neccesary for new games.

3) Integrated GFX is not a good idea.

4) Every place that offers pre-built computers is a rip off. Therefore, either always build your own or shop around.

An example of a decent pre-built computer site is pcspecialist.co.uk. I quite like their prices.
AMD Athlon 64 Dual Core 2.6GHz
2GB Corsair DDR2 RAM (I'd always head for Corsair or Crucial)
512MB Geforce 8400GS
250GB Hard Drive.

That comes to 370, including VAT and Delivery. Comes with a card reader.

After you have sourced the tower, go on eBay and grab yourself a 2nd hand screen, mouse, keyboard, printer etc.

Or, you can go the entire eBay route.

- Huw

EDIT: Expect 25% savings by building it yourself.

Some guy (UK)
16-03-2008, 19:50
Well, if you're looking into a new computer...

1) Don't get Vista unless you are running a 4GB+ RAM with Quad Core Processor. Why? Because Vista is "the future" and you're going to have to shell out for a new Quad-Core in about 3 years, and until then XP will always be faster.



Erm, those specs for Vista are in no way needed. A half decent dual core and 2GB of ram will do you just fine.

From the reviews I've seen of pcspecialist.co.uk, I'd avoid it. My current system is from cyberpowersystem.co.uk, and I would fully recommend them, though they don't do fantastic budjet PCs.

Son of the Lion
17-03-2008, 13:18
Erm, those specs for Vista are in no way needed. A half decent dual core and 2GB of ram will do you just fine.


True, but it's a question of economy and maintenance. Vista tends to eat all the RAM you can give it and it takes some tinkering to keep it's usage down to a bearable level, especially for someone without much PC experience. (That's an assumption on part, apologies if incorrect.)

Generally, on those specs, I'd go for XP. It's still performing faster than Vista in almost every bench test, even after the SP1 release, and has a fair bit of life left in it yet. There are also far less driver and game support issues in xp at present. Microsoft are taking their sweet getting Vista up to a similar level of versatility and compatibility. The cynic in me suggests that by the time they do, it may well be time for a new pc anyway...

Oh, and Penitent - How is a 6420 inferior to a 4500 exactly?!

EDIT: Oh, I agree though - Option 2. :D

Penitent
17-03-2008, 15:34
Oh, and Penitent - How is a 6420 inferior to a 4500 exactly?!

EDIT: Oh, I agree though - Option 2. :D

Its not inferior. I must have read that part wrong :D

BrianC
17-03-2008, 15:55
True, but it's a question of economy and maintenance. Vista tends to eat all the RAM you can give it and it takes some tinkering to keep it's usage down to a bearable level, especially for someone without much PC experience. (That's an assumption on part, apologies if incorrect.)

Generally, on those specs, I'd go for XP. It's still performing faster than Vista in almost every bench test, even after the SP1 release, and has a fair bit of life left in it yet. There are also far less driver and game support issues in xp at present. Microsoft are taking their sweet getting Vista up to a similar level of versatility and compatibility. The cynic in me suggests that by the time they do, it may well be time for a new pc anyway...

Oh, and Penitent - How is a 6420 inferior to a 4500 exactly?!

EDIT: Oh, I agree though - Option 2. :DAgree with the bits about Vista, I'm running Vista Premium with everything turned on (including the Sidebar) and with Firefox running I'm consuming a little over 2 GB of RAM, so you'd want a some extra so you aren't swapping out to disk all the time.

Unless you are going to turn everything on then there is little reason to get Vista over XP, and even then its debatable if any bits are really worth getting, I only went Vista as I needed 64 bit support due to the amount of RAM in my PC and I found 64 bit XP less than ideal.

WLBjork
17-03-2008, 19:10
True, but it's a question of economy and maintenance. Vista tends to eat all the RAM you can give it and it takes some tinkering to keep it's usage down to a bearable level, especially for someone without much PC experience. (That's an assumption on part, apologies if incorrect.)

Good job you said that, as Vista has a much more efficient memory management system than XP.

Vista, Sidebar, Norton, Windows Media Player and Firefox for me are using 33% of 2GB RAM.

0ld1eye
17-03-2008, 19:24
Out of interest, what is your budget?

I can point you in the direction of a couple of trustworthy but little-known online retailers that should be able to pre-build a system for you for a far better price than you'd get anywhere else.

...in fact, http://www.tech-pc.co.uk/forum/
send a PM to b3any, he's one of the owners of http://www.awd-it.com/
tell him your budget, and what you intend to use it for... he should be able to knock up a nice rig. Maybe even pre-overclocked, I don't know if he charges for that as I just ordered all my parts from that store and built and overclocked my rig myself.