Graphics cards

I'm wondering how often the specs are updated. I'm looking at a system that has a GeForce 9000 series graphics card, and there are no 9000 series cards listed as compatible in the system requirements section. Are the 9000 series GeForce cards compatible with XP? Vista?

it says geforce 2 or better, then goes on to show some examples

if they listed every single card it would take up a couple of pages just for nvidia

I thought that too, but I bought a 7300 and SecondLife tells me it is not compatible when I try to log on. GeForce 2 and 4 GO series, they are minimum requirements... and in the recommended requirements they do seem to very much be listing specific cards as they list the 7000 series and 8000 series and nothing lower in the series than 7600 in the 7000 series and 8500 in the 8000 series.

There are quite a few people using 9800 cards successfully. In fact a 9800 is presently my target for my next card. But, by the time I figure I will feel comfortable spending money on such thing as replacing this 8600 that works perfectly fine the card I wind up with will probably be quite different. LOL

When dealing with nvidia cards, the second number is the important one. Using the 7300 number as an example, the "7" is the series which means the basic features each card shares in that series but may not mean much in reality as a 6300 is not much different than a 7300 other than a few features you likely won't notice. The "3" is the important number and it tells where in the series the card is. A 7300 is a low end card where a 7950 is a high end card. An 8400 seems like it should be a better card than a 7950 since 8400 is a higher number but the opposite is true because the second number is low. An 8400 is an abysmal card that will not run SL usually. "6 or better" is a good rule of thumb for SL, a 6600 or better, a 7600 or better .. you get the idea.

Kathmandu's decription of the nvidia numbering system is correct............

However there is no rule of thumb in my experience which says that particular cards will work with sl or not regardless of what specs LL put out.

Example:

The 8400 mentioned by Kat runs sl perfectly on one of my systems. it has 512 mb ram and it will run stable at high settings. Even a 7300 card i have with 256 mb will run sl perfectly stable.

However on my main system the 9600 512 mb i have will not run stable with the new viewer update, 1.20.16, at all. The only way to make it work at all was to do a backward treiber install. (which in my opinion defeats the object of having a good card....lol)

My facit is.......grafik cards and SL is a lottery ...................it might work but then it might not, regardless how new or how old the card is

ciao ciao
Sonja

and the 256 runs fine on medium settings (i have a 256 PCI-e x16)

I currently have a ATI X1650 Pro (512 MB, PCI-e). Is the NVIDIA GEForce 8800 GT (512 MB, PCI-e) significantly better?

One thing that makes me hesitant about the GeForce 8800 is the Supplementary Power Connector. Is it such a powerful card that it needs to be plugged into the power supply? I don't know if my computer's power supply has a power cable just for a video card.

any 8800 would do better against the 1650, and yeah it requires extra power from your psu. In most cases you have to look into a new psu that has a good 600-700watts, usually the 8800s would require 1 connector from the psu, if you pick up a gtx 260-280 you'll require 2 connectors @_@

As a plan B, what would be the best SL-compatible video card that does not require supplementary power?

Or, at least, better than my ATI X1650 that would be worth upgrading to?

Thank y'all for your help

Almost ALL decent graphics cards these days require auxiliary power.

aye, if it doesnt require aux power its not going to be worth the time

ie geforce 5 (fx) series or lower ... and even alot of those require it