Best Graphics Card?

Hi Guys,

Thought I would do some more PC upgrading this weekend.

I have a Pentium 4, 3.8GHz Gaming Machine, bought around 7-8 months ago. It had 1Gb of Memory, and 2 x Nvidia GEForce 6600 graphics cards.

Last weekend I upgraded to the maximum amount of memory allowed by Windows XP, 4Gb, and it has made little discernable difference.

So, if money was no object, what would be the best graphics card out there right now that I could fit to my PC to improve my SL experience. If anyone is knowledgeable enough, could they also explain just what the benefit of the best graphics card out there would have over a 6600 card.

TIA

Rock

Dear Rock:
My understanding is that Second Life isn't GPU bound. In other words, you need to discover what the bottleneck in your system is, and go from there. With that said, the 6600 seems a bit out of date, and I'm not sure how much SLI helps.
I recomend some sites like www.tomshardware.com that offer help with different video card configurations.
Can you improve your network bandwidth? In other words, are you paying, say, $50/month for 1Mb up 2Mb down and is there an option to go to $75 for 2/4?

Hope it helps, Stimpy

You can try those new 8800GT series in sli fashion with 2 installed. I heard they run good in that confi. And prices are good. I not sure if i believe they running better then the 8800 gtx series graphic cards.

I'm with stimpy here Rock. I'd definitely look at your ISP first. Mine upgraded their speed when I upgraded to unlimited download and it made a very significant improvement; so much so I'm still soldiering on with my trusty ATI Radeon 9500.

in your system, what is the FSB speed? also, yes, the 6600 cards are quite aged for intensive graphics...but to tell if it is the cards turn everything down...does it imporve dramatically? though draw distance can affect other things as well. also, window xp only addresses around 3 gb of ram, so the upgrade is a bit of overkill, but live and learn.

bandwidth of many components and pass through systems, cacheing, and other aspects will hurt performance too. my own newer machine it is my dsl speed...i have to wait for rezzing and such...otherwise it runs SL with everything cranked to the maximum. until i upgraded id never turned draw distance up very high, amazing what you can see without blinders on! i still run around 128m, but 512 gives a much improved veiw for static situations and taking pics

anyway, try some testing with settings and such before you spend money.

and the 880 gt series are the top performers in sli, even with the ati 2900's greater memory and gigantic amount of stream processors,( they added more processors because they werent performing like they wanted). unlike in the past, where ati's hardware was "better" but nvidia's drivers made up for it. Nvidiia's arcitechture is superior in its implementation and handling of the graphics strem through the gpu.

as for XP pro and not able to use memory of more then 2giga. I have 4 giga and i have better stablity then with 2 giga. It all depends

One of the main things you want from a graphics card for SL is memory, if you can get a 512mb one then it will be better as it can hold more textures without swapping.

However, be warned, the main bottle-neck with SL it's lack of proper multi-core/multi-processor support, and thus the main limiting factor you are likely to find is that different parts of SL spend most of their time waiting for each to finish because they're working from the same main thread.

Please see the following JIRA issues to vote on or read about these problems:
http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-1135
http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-864

I was thinking the same thing as I read through the responses.

Whats your motherboards Front Side Bus speed?

Some motherboards have high FSB speeds, but if you don't get the RAM to utilize it, then they are wasted.


FSB speed can be set to a certain speed (think of it as a pipe with a flow control on it) and you can open that up to its widest setting, but if your RAM is not the right type to match that, then you will have your performance bottlenecked at the RAM and no amount of RAM will make it better.
It will help for storage of data of course, but the speed at which you can access that data will be hindered.

I hope I explained that right...its something along those lines anyways.

My old PC uses FX5200 and seems to me to be ok even though Linden say minimum to use is FX5500.
My newer PC uses Fx7500 and that too is OK.
Only one in each, what does a second do to help? ( Should I think about having another fitted?)

I know graphic cards are important because my lap top very, very poor with SL, so bad unusable and I'm told it is the Graphic card letting me down.

Love, June

I run 2 x nvidia 8600 GTS in SLi.

SLi itself appears to me to make little discernable difference in SL. However, it makes a big difference in *some* other games. The two graphics cards, however, do allow the running of multiple monitors without any impact on SL.

Within SL, I have found a massively improved game-experience with the 8600 over the 7950 & 7900. These two cards are again great improvements upon the 7600 series, in my experience.

Specification-wise, and in benchmark tests, the 8800GTX and Ultra are miles ahead of the 8600GTS (and I cant help thinking that the 8600 was somehow deliberately *underclocked* to ensure a wider differential between the two cards). But then again, the cost of the 8800 is miles above the 8600!

Last week I played SL on a 8300GS..my advice is DON'T! The performance on the 7950 & 7900 is far superior. In fact, using the Vista Performance Rating feature, the 8300GS scored a very poor 1.0 in the "Gaming Graphics" catagory whereas the 7950GT OC scored a very respectable 5.5 on the same machine. (we took out the 8300GS and replaced it!)

So, if I was intending to upgrade to another nividia card & I was in your position, I'd go for the 8800 if finances could justify it, if not a 8600GT or GTS but otherwise one of the 7900 series.

Hope this helps

EDIT: if you do go the 8800 or 8600 route, especially if in SLi, you should first check that your existing PSU Unit is adequate as they require significant additional power over other cards. . You can do this using a PSU Calculator like the one here: http://www.extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jsp

Thanks guys, very useful info there.

My ISP is not a problem, 10Mb broadband, so it is the card I am looking at. Following Stimpy's advice, I went to the site he recommended, and they explained graphics cards in an easy to understand way. They advise to go for the new 8800GT, as being the best bang for the buck out there right now, so I have ordered it today, and it will be here next weekend.

With regards to memory under XP, the maximum amount of memory that XP can address is 4Gb, BUT, some of that space is reserved for graphics memory and other housekeeping space, so the amount you can actually use is nearer 3.2Gb. But, as memory cost is so cheap nowadays (mine cost US$27 per Gb), I just found it easier to pop in 4 new 1Gb modules.

No idea about the FSB speed, or how to find out what it is (I have the Microstar MS-7160 motherboard, and none of their PC info utilities gives the FSB).

Rock

the motherboard is:
CPU
• Supports Socket 775 for Intel® P4, P4EE, Pentium D, Pentium XE and Celeron D processors.
• Supports Intel® 05B and 05A processors
• Supports FSB 1066/800 MHz
• Supports Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology


Chipset
• NVIDIA ® nForce4 SLI Intel Edition Chipset
- HyperTransport link to nVidia MCP04 south bridge
- Supports 2 PCI Express x16 and 1 PCI Express x1 interface
- Supports dual channel, DDR2 533/667

• NVIDIA® MCP04 (for nForce4 SLI Intel Edition) Chipset
- Integrated SATA-II controller, four drives
- Dual Fast-ATA 133 IDE controller, for four devices
- IEEE 802.3 NVIDIA MAC for 1000BASE-T


Main Memory
• Supports dual channel DDR2 533/667, using four 240-pin/1.8V DDR2 DIMMs
• Supports the memory size up to 4GB

so it is a solid mobo. not the fastest, because:
Normal mode: Primary PCI-E slot is compatible with PCI Express x16
Secondary PCI-E slot is compatible with PCI Express x1
SLI mode: Primary PCI-E slot is compatible with PCI Express x8
Secondary PCI-E slot is compatible with PCI Express x8

so you do not have true dual 16x PICe interface... but for a bargain priced newer generation motherboard it is fine.


you will not be dissappointed in the 8800, if it isnt too late definately go for at least the 640mb version, i have one only and run dual monitors, one 22" professional series crt and one 20" lcd with resolution maxed and things run flawless

Hi Rock,

I found your FSB speed. It will supports a FSB of 1066/800 MHz

But when I went to the memory manufactureres online, I couldn't find your motherboard model (Microstar MS-7160) in their drop downs, so I'm not sure what actual type of RAM they are specifying to use with that motherboard.

EDIT:

Found it

Main Memory
• Supports dual channel DDR2 533/667, using four 240-pin/1.8V DDR2 DIMMs
• Supports the memory size up to 4GB

Now the question is:
Are you using the DDR2 memory?

Debbie well i have a 7900 extreme gtx that alone is powerful graphic card. The 8600 is a nice one but still not as powerful.Had it for almost one year

does 7900 GTX support DirectX 10? I got the 8600 GT for the DX10, can't remember 7900 having it, but not sure... and DX10 should be on any machine these days imho

I have the 7900GTX and no, it does not support DirectX 10.

=( okies.... had to make sure I was right in my suspicion...

For a computer you're planning on keeping for a while (As this one seems to be, based on the quality lol) you need DX10. I can tell you right now the 8600 GT works wonderfully, I can run Oblivion at almost max settings no problem with mine (Oblivion seems to be the benchmark graphics game for awesomeness these days lol)

I actually did the same thing, recently. I upped from 2GB to 4GB DDR2, expecting a huge boost to performance, not just in SL, but in everything. Unfortunately, I ended up learning a little something about XP in the process that I didn't expect. The 4GB limit is for ALL memory involved, not just system RAM. The fact that I have 1.5GB of video memory prevents XP from using any more than 2.5GB of system RAM. Suck!

2.5 is better than 2, obviously, so I left all four memory modules in place, even though 1.5 of them are just sitting there doing nothing. I have noticed some minor stability improvements system wide, but nothing to write home about. Oh well. Memory is so cheap these days anyway, it's not like I wasted much money.



GeForce 8800 series, no question. I have two 8800 GTX's in my machine. They're amazing.

As for choosing which one in the series to get for yourself, if cost really is no object, then I'd say go for the 8800 Ultra. If you're looking for the most bang for your buck though, the GTX is definitely it. I wouldn't bother with the GT or GTS.

Between the GTX and the Ultra, the latter has about 10% higher clock speeds across the board, and about 20% more memory bandwidth, for around a 50% hike in price. I must confess that had the Ultra existed when I bought my machine, I would have spent the extra money on it since I'm a little obsessive like that, but practically speaking, I do think the GTX is a much better deal. Both models are pricey for sure, but feature per dollar, the GTX is a better ratio.

To give you an idea how well these cards perform, I run SL at 512 draw with every option turned on and maxed, and with 16xQ antialiasing, and I consistently get anywhere from 50-130 FPS, depending on the area. I don't normally run in SLI mode since I use dual monitors, but when I do turn SLI on, I see about a 30% boost in FPS (65-160'ish).

Of course, the video cards can't take all the credit for that kind of performance. I am also using a Core2 Extreme quad, and 4GB (cut to 2.5 by the video cards) of high performance DDR2 RAM. Still, I do think the video cards are doing the lion's share of the work.



By the way, if you really, really want to go nuts, the highest FPS I've ever been able to get in SL (with the settings described) has been just shy of 200. That was when my CPU was overclocked (from 2.6GHz to 3.2GHz), which I don't do anymore since it was very unstable, and in SLI mode. I wouldn't recommend that much overclocking, but if you want to give it a whirl, ~200FPS in SL can be acheived.

Wow nice... i've gotten that while its 'frozen' logging in thats it lol....

Overclocked my Quad Core from 2.4 to 4.6 at one point though, got up to 140 FPS or so... just wanted to benchmark it with that clock lol.... I was so happy with that build.. but of course, for stability and power issues its back down to 3.0 or so normally, 3.2 I tend to stop at... I get around 80FPS normally, 40 or so in a crowded club.

With my 8600GT no less.. I'm proud ^^

EDIT:: Had 160 instead of 140, typo!

60-80 is great, 30 is considered liquid motion or smooth...and the astronomical numbers actually are thrown away, because the monitor you use likely only goes to maybe 85hz, so it cant display the "faster" fps rates that can be acheived...

those are just for bragging rights ...im guilty of it myself, but truly, if you can get your system stable and giving you 60+ fps at highest settings...then you have a fine machine to run whatever gaming application you are using.

"When vertical sync is enabled, video cards only output a maximum frame rate equal to the refresh rate of the monitor. All extra frames are dropped. When vertical sync is disabled, the video card is free to render frames as fast as it can, but the display of those rendered frames is still limited to the refresh rate of the monitor. For example, a card may render a game at 100 FPS on a monitor running 75 Hz refresh, but no more than 75 FPS can actually be displayed on screen."

i love nerdy girl stuff...been a few years since i did support...i miss those days...

and..and..research >.>

I know a guy who got 300fps on his machine... its insane.. hes got a 1.6 CPU OC'd to 6.4 at this point (He uses the fridge cooling method, can't remember what its called atm lol...same way fridges work tho)

He's the best techie I know.. or have even heard of lol.. he helped me build mine initially too ^^ He rocks

Wow. 1.6 to 6.4. That's sick.

I had considered looking into freon cooling when I first bought my machine, but I didn't have the expertise then to do it myself (probably could now), and I couldn't find anyone selling a refrigerated PC with the specs I wanted.

I've somewhat lost my enchantment since then with non-air-cooled systems though. There's just too much potential for things to go wrong. The liquid cooling I'd originally had in this machine leaked. Thank God the power was off at the time; the CPU got soaked.

My system now runs about 10 degrees cooler with a Zahlman fan on it than it ever did with the liquid. So, I've concluded that liquid cooling is little more than a "sounds cool" gimmick. If you're a LAN party fanatic, and you're just dying for everyone to see neon green fluid pumping through the shiny arteries of your computer, then maybe there's something to be said for that. As far as the actual temperature of the machine is concerned though, a properly designed fan works much better.

I'd imagine leaking liquid probably wouldn't be an issue with freon, but I'm guessing condensation might be, which could be just as bad. Also, if the behavior of my central air conditioner is any indication, it's probably not unrealistic to assume there's a lot that could potentially break in any refrigerated system. That air conditioner developed a motor problem last summer, which caused it to overheat from time to time, which in turn caused it to boil off all its freon. It was having to be recharged almost weekly until the landlord finally replaced the whole thing. If something like that were to happen in a computer, it could be catastrophic.

Still, your friend's rig sound really impressive. I think that's probably the most extreme overclock I've ever heard of. If it's stable, the guy must be one hell of a tech.



Haha. Yeah, totally. Even though you can't see all those extra frames, there's something somehow really satisfying about knowing they're there. It makes no sense, but it's true.

bleh.. I don't know about condensation, but probably right.. I watched him install it though and it was nerve racking lol... watching him carve his mobo to mount it =P He's got a shop for this kinda stuff,but still.... so much can go wrong in just the installation, let alone the cooling system itself

He's amazing. and yeah, completely stable, and running at -20*C... he describes how he did it as Overclocking the Cooling system.. and I still dunno how he did it lol... he had it up to 7.1 once but it started going unstable, so he kept it down.. he runs it at around 5.2 normally for power consumption


EDIT::

I remember readin somewhere the human eye can only see so many FPS... so.. any over that anyway would be useless wouldn't it? It was surprisingly low if I remember correctly, too, like under 100... not sure tho

In most cases, when you read stuff like that, it's bogus. Lots of times, they say stuff like "the eye can only detect 24 FPS", which is completely untrue. People just know that number because that's the rate that movie cameras operate at. That's not the only number that tends to get spouted, by the way. It's just an example of one of the common ones.

The truth is the eye does not actually operate in frames, so there's really no way to answer the question of how many FPS the eye can detect. I guess if you really wanted to measure, you'd have to clock how quickly a photo-receptor cell on the retina can fire (which is primarily a chemical reaction), how fast can the nervous system transmit the info to the brain (which is primarily electrity), how fast can the vision center make sense of it (no idea what's involved there), an how fast can it inform your conscious mind what it's seeing (again, no idea what's involved with that). I'd imagine the answer to all that is "pretty damned fast". But precisely how fast, I don't think anyone knows for sure.

You might as well ask what is the speed of thought? The question can't be answered.


There's a pretty good article on how we perceive FPS at http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

there is an extreme overclocking website somewhere that a guy used liquid nitrogen...and posted 3dmark06 scores that were the first to break 100,000!!