Graphics Cards

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

[Ciroton]

Quick Question: I have an ATI RADEON 4670. It runs SS08 extremely well, even at the highest graphics setting. The computer also has, like, 2 - 5GB of ram. (I forgot how much exactly) Will it be able to run Extremes? I don't care much for graphical performance. If not, what card would you recommend? It needs to be good and on the cheap because I have no money myself and my father, who handles all the techy buys in the house, is cheap.

[deltaecho]

attach your dxdiag with a post

[Ciroton]

Sorry about that. I made my previous post on my Laptop, which I know has no chance in hell of playing SSE.

Here you all go then.

[Tracker]

I believe the R4670 has 2 Gb internal RAM at least.... it should be able to run SSE at an appreciable level for you.
Jusy my humble opinion on your card. Ofcourse and improvement would also mean a lot more improvement SSE-wise and more programs/games.
Personally I would not buy a new g-card, but wait and see how SSE runs on my rig before thinking about it.

[Tracker]

Huh???
512 Mb only?

Must be my old grey matter going haywire then
512 is far too little to actually even play patience on windows itself.... j/k
in that case I can only recommend a new g/c... anyone with a nice and cheap one for the bloke?

[dodweb]

As no-one else counters this..... Kawa, as you lack a few biology/science classes..... the human eye sees 16-21 fps as fluent, everything above it the human eye will not notice. Personally I recommend 19-20 fps as most suitable and most fluent but that is just my 2 cents I guess.

Perhaps you should retake the same classes some day? We are not digital machines, but electrochemical and quite analogue. We do not see in "frames". How many frames the human eyes should be exposed to per timeunit for the brain to percieve it as a fluid motion depends entierly on the content of the frame and the method of projection. Fastmoving games without motion blurring will hardly appear anything close to "fluent" at 20 or even 40fps. It also depends on the person seeing, and which part of they eye is seeing it.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
http://www.significant-bits.com/framerates-do-matter

My primary gaming monitor just got upgraded from 60 to 120Hz and in fast games without motion blur it's a world of difference.

If we truly saw at such a low "fps", we would all be seeing this effect with a lot of different things: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDTRMauSHSo

And really, Tracker, 2GB graphics memory on a card from late 2008? Its only just now become available on the highend cards from ATI, and only the GTX460 from nVidia. I'd advice Ciroton to try the game and then upgrade incase it was not performing as he wanted.

[Tracker]

I stand corrected and backed-up in a way

[Ciroton]

Huh???
512 Mb only?

Must be my old grey matter going haywire then
512 is far too little to actually even play patience on windows itself.... j/k
in that case I can only recommend a new g/c... anyone with a nice and cheap one for the bloke?

That computer has been known to lie before. (Back on Laptop) When we first go it, the machine INSISTED that we only had 25GB of Memory while we had 500GB in actuality. Likewise, if I remember right, the Graphics card is supposed to have 1 GB of memory. So, I'll install it and try it. If it doesn't work, I'll gladly take any suggestions posted here. =D

[deltaecho]

my nvidia geforce gt 240 just arrived. hope its works well

[Roger]

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

GTS240 will work, GT240 ends up with 773?

(8800GT - minimum specs - has a score of 944)

Roger

[Kevinmcg_ships]

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

GTS240 will work, GT240 ends up with 773?

(8800GT - minimum specs - has a score of 944)

Roger

So are you saying the older 8800GT is better than the newer GT240? 

The benchmark is very handy should I ever need to replace my faithful old 8800GT in future....I did consider about getting a GT240 should my graphic card ever go to silicon heaven  ....now I will be looking at GTS 250 instead.

Cheers for the link, you will have saved me a big disappointment (and money) in future!

[Roger]

So are you saying the older 8800GT is better than the newer GT240? 

I don't say that but that's what the benchmark says.

I don't understand the resultst sometimes, but why should they be wrong...

[Kevinmcg_ships]

I don't say that but that's what the benchmark says.

I don't understand the resultst sometimes, but why should they be wrong...

I think it may have something to do with cheap components or low-end parts used in some graphic cards. I'm quite surprised to see several graphic cards with a 1GB memory scoring lower benchmark results than my 512Mb 8800GT.

[kawaknaller]

even though its an older game, my FSX had a target frame rate of 20fps and it was smooth and not choppy at all

Lol...you braindead or smthing?

It seems (as I write further under as well) that form science pov fps between 20-25 would be enuf for most humans but its still personal. For my its obvious that it has to be over 25 for my gameplay tbh.

Sry for my rude reply.

[kawaknaller]

I had a GTX275 for a few months, but the wafers separated due to nvidias less-than-perfect silicone packing thechnique, as the stock cooler was not able to keep it cold enough at 100% speed. Every time I came over 71 degrees celcius core-temp there would the warping of the layers and the card would disconnect, cool down, come online again for a few moments, then start warping again as it got over 71c. Having had a longer talk with the one of the teamleaders at the largest hardware importer/distributor in Norway, it seems that was quite a common problem.

I could have sorted the problem with adding an aftermarket watercoolingblock inline with the rest of my watercooling, and kept it well under 71c under 100% load, but I dont like running faulty hardware in my main rig and I got a good deal on a replacement GTX470. I would hardly consider the fan (reference design afaik) as "decent". It moves far too little air to keep the card cool (peaks at 100c at 100% fan speed and 100% load) while making far too much sound. While I dont have a dB meter available, I know that my mothers Miele 1200W vacuum cleaner makes less noise (tested the old fashioned way, put the two next to eachother and turned them both up..)

Not surprisingly, the GTX470 also died a few weeks ago (had it since release), and I have a replacement waiting for me at the post office. I'll probably watercool that one right away before it burns too.

I strill have it and its out of the box ruinning smooth. No noise or irritaded sounds. Only thing is that it stands under my table so my table will absorb some noise but even when I go close tou it I hardly hear anything.
Perhaps its due to the fact that all hw is buiuld-in a Antec nineteen hundred sytemcase. Gives you by default 4 fans....

[2000]

 

[kawaknaller]

As no-one else counters this..... Kawa, as you lack a few biology/science classes..... the human eye sees 16-21 fps as fluent, everything above it the human eye will not notice. Personally I recommend 19-20 fps as most suitable and most fluent but that is just my 2 cents I guess.

never took those classes as I was more interested in computers anyway.
But...20-25fps should be alright for ppl I read here and there on the internet but its still personal.

When I have my games under 25 I see not smooth grafix/performance....perhaps you see it in another way.
As long we both like the game, right?

[Denis]

Lol...you braindead or smthing?

It seems (as I write further under as well) that form science pov fps between 20-25 would be enuf for most humans but its still personal. For my its obvious that it has to be over 25 for my gameplay tbh.

Sry for my rude reply.

The FSX "target frame rate" setting doesnt mean your Flight Simulator X runs at the level you specified. It's the minimum level the game will try to maintain by automatically reducing details if needed. But if your specs are good enough, you might have set a 20fps target frame rate, and the game running at 30 or 40 fps.

[deltaecho]

240gt runs like a charm. everything on high settings, no lag

[Captain Spencer]

Hi Delta,

Would you mind posting your system specs please? It might provide people with a more reliable comparison system, for the benefit of others.

Only if you want to though

[Matthew Brown]

I wouldn't mind having a look 

[dodweb]

My laptop is, as expected, not able to handle the game very well.

Core 2 Duo T9300, 2x2,5GHz
4GB (fairly fast) DDR2 ram + 1GB Intel Turbo memory
8600m GT w/ 512MB ram
Win 7 64bit

With all details at low, minimum ocean movement and no terrain (open ocean) it will go past 15fps.
I've also finished the first Sigita and first Greenpeace missions, they would however average far below 10fps (docking the Red Arrow 4 orwhateveritsnamed in Sidney Harbour with snow and fog was done with some skill in expectating ship movements far into the future, but mostly a lot of luck).

Slow cruising with the Esperanza around all the Bora Bora isles and reefs works fairly well, so I'll stick to that until i get home (on vacation in germany for a few weeks) to my gaming PC.

[deltaecho]

dxdiag for all to see. game runs smooth as a.....something thats smooth?? anyway, not choppy what so ever runs game max everything. message me if you have any questions

[sirchunks30]

Ok.. well i have the ATI Radeon HD 3200 and im desperate to know if i have to get a new graphics card for ship simulator extremes. on the shipsim.com website it says Geforce 8800GT or ATI Radeon 4850. should i change my card? Please Help : I

the game needs a ati 4150 so your card needs updating i have a 5650 ati 1 gig graphics whats your processer and the speed of it

[bsm2003]

Here is my system in case people want to know.
Game runs flawless max settings.

------------------
System Information
------------------
Time of this report: 9/10/2010, 10:59:29
       Machine name: BRIANBOX
   Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) (7600.win7_gdr.100618-1621)
           Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: System manufacturer
       System Model: System Product Name
               BIOS: BIOS Date: 01/07/09 10:53:24 Ver: 08.00.14
          Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU     E8500  @ 3.16GHz (2 CPUs), ~3.2GHz
             Memory: 8192MB RAM
Available OS Memory: 8192MB RAM
          Page File: 1668MB used, 14712MB available
        Windows Dir: C:\Windows
    DirectX Version: DirectX 11
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
   User DPI Setting: Using System DPI
 System DPI Setting: 96 DPI (100 percent)
    DWM DPI Scaling: Disabled
     DxDiag Version: 6.01.7600.16385 64bit Unicode

---------------
Display Devices
---------------
          Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT
       Manufacturer: NVIDIA
          Chip type: GeForce 9800 GT
           DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC
         Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0605&SUBSYS_0606196E&REV_A2
     Display Memory: 4069 MB
   Dedicated Memory: 997 MB
      Shared Memory: 3071 MB
       Current Mode: 1680 x 1050 (32 bit) (60Hz)
       Monitor Name: ACER P223W (Analog)
      Monitor Model: Acer P221W
         Monitor Id: ACR0016
        Native Mode: 1680 x 1050(p) (59.883Hz)
        Output Type: DVI