1  2  |   Order by index

Jun 4, 2003, 12:16pm

Hi all

I'm gonna buy me a new Video Card, and it is importen to me that this card
does not have any problem with AW,
One of the card type I'm looking on is:

Geforce FX 5600 256 mb DDR

Does anyone have this or know if this card is ok to use with AW?

Or have you a better idea of a card at same type as this?.

Tengel

Jun 4, 2003, 1:18pm

More info about the card

http://www.gainward.com/c-1.html?id=95


[View Quote]

Jun 4, 2003, 7:34pm

The Geforce FX chipset is the latest and greatest from nVidia; it's more than sufficient for usage with AW. Board manufacturers rarely stray far from chipset reference designs, and since AW uses DirectX/OpenGL versions natively supported by the FX, you shouldn't have any problems.

[View Quote]

Jun 5, 2003, 3:06am

Just don't run that 3d Pipes screensaver. ;-)
--
- Syntax -
http://www.swcity.net
http://forum.swcity.net

[View Quote]

Jun 5, 2003, 3:56am

Heresy! All must acknowledge The Blank Screen as the supreme ruler of the screen saver universe.

[View Quote]

Jun 5, 2003, 5:30pm

I'm using a GeForce2 Intergrated GPU which works fine for me w/ aw..:-o

[View Quote]

Jun 5, 2003, 5:31pm

Oh jeeze those things are so freakin' loud and run hot. Just get an ATI
Radeon 9700 card; they have much better image quality and they're less
expensive anyway.

The FX 5600 was a failure. Nvidia's CEO even admitted to that.

- SW Comit

[View Quote]

Jun 5, 2003, 5:39pm

Actually, thats the FX5800 you're talking about, comit.
But still, go with an ATI Radeon 9500 Pro if you can find one, or a 9700
non-pro. They're both much better (the 9500 pro completely *stomped* the
5600 in GAMING benchmarks. Yeah, the same benchmarks that nVidia says are
the only valid ones)

Besides, ATI's drivers don't blatantly cheat ;)

-CMM

[View Quote]

Jun 5, 2003, 6:59pm

I thought you were only asking whether or not the card would work, but if you're looking for card recommendations, I'd have to agree with Comit and Mad Mike.

ATi's latest Radeon cards use a 256bit memory bus with traditional DDR RAM, but they still kick the heck out of an FX card ("DDR II" RAM/128bit bus) with a core clocked far higher than an opposing Radeon. Nvidia got the hint and switched to a 256bit interface with the 5900 Ultra, but that thing's going to cost a small fortune for a little while.

The Radeons are a good deal smaller than the FX cards, generate less heat (this is important if you don't have good case ventilation), and give you a good bang for the buck.

Here's a price comparison: (USD)

Radeon 9500 128MB: $142
GeforceFX 5600 : $149
Radeon 9600 Pro : $167
Radeon 9700 Pro : $265

Prices are from www.pricewatch.com

[View Quote]

Jun 5, 2003, 7:26pm

If you want the best card, I suggest waiting for Radeon 9800 Pro and Geforce
FX 5900. I read a few reviews, and their performance is nearly exactly the
same. Even their price is the same. From what I've read about where the GFX
performs better, it would probably do better with AW (and its not as loud as
previous FX models, but still loud); however, the 9800 pro would probably
do better on things which put more strain on the card.

news:3edf9c8b$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Actually, thats the FX5800 you're talking about, comit.
> But still, go with an ATI Radeon 9500 Pro if you can find one, or a 9700
> non-pro. They're both much better (the 9500 pro completely *stomped* the
> 5600 in GAMING benchmarks. Yeah, the same benchmarks that nVidia says are
> the only valid ones)
>
> Besides, ATI's drivers don't blatantly cheat ;)
>
> -CMM
>
[View Quote]

Jun 5, 2003, 8:17pm

Thanks to all the reply.
looks like ATi Radeon 9700 pro will be the card, to try.

Tengel

[View Quote]

Jun 5, 2003, 8:25pm

I'd pick ATI solely on image quality. ATI bends nvidia over the table when
it comes to eye candy like Anisotropic Filtering and Anti-Aliasing which is
very nice in AW. Also because AW is *very* CPU dependant, so any difference
between the cards would have to be very significant to really matter.

[View Quote]

Jun 6, 2003, 7:18pm

Exactly. I had an 800Mhz system with an original Radeon 32MB DDR card, I
could usually get about 12-20fps in AW. Upgraded to my 9700 pro, think I got
about 2 or 3 more fps. Graphics card doesn't matter much with AW.

-CMM

[View Quote]

Jun 7, 2003, 12:12pm

"captain mad mike" <cmm at nospam.swcity.net> wrote in
news:3ee1050a$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com:

> Exactly. I had an 800Mhz system with an original Radeon 32MB DDR card,
> I could usually get about 12-20fps in AW. Upgraded to my 9700 pro,
> think I got about 2 or 3 more fps. Graphics card doesn't matter much
> with AW.

Actually, it does play a big part. But such a high-end card is wasted if
you have an 800Mhz CPU.

KAH

Jun 7, 2003, 9:28pm

True, but then when I upgraded to my current 2Ghz system I didn't get a huge
increase in performance, it was somewhat similar to the previous switch from
my 300Mhz P2 system with a 2MB graphics card to the 800Mhz system and the
32MB card.

AW is more dependant on CPU and RAM...

-CMM

[View Quote]

Jun 8, 2003, 10:09am

Well KAH
Reason to my question, was to get a card that work nice in AW, but I have to
think about my work as well, that is graphic work, so I was wonder how
fx5600 was.

And after have done some resource, this FX 5600 is not so loud as told,
Gainwind's fx card does not make more then 7 decibel, under 20 decibel you
can't hear it.

So after have been reading alot, and got some answer from some friends. ATI
card is not the card for me, since that is a card that is good for gamers,
and also somethimes hard to get installed.
FX, is a card that is work more to my direction.

[View Quote]

Jun 9, 2003, 4:31am

If ATI is better for gaming, then why are you getting the 5600 for? 2d
work? Even nvidia fanboys will admit that ATI has better image quality tha
nvidia, everyone knows that; and that's what it boils down to. And I heard
about those 7 dba cards. It sounds like marketing exaggeration to me. The
human heart makes 10 dba for crying out loud. And this card uses fans? Not
to mention that an openGL screensaver like 3d pipes will fry the card, lol.

I'd personally never buy an nvidia product cause Nvidia is so untrustworthy.
I followed the graphic market everyday now and nvidia has lied so much, and
they cheat in their drivers with clipping pains and custom pixel shading
programs to increase performance at the cost of image quality. They were
caught red handed with solid proof, and the next day they lie about it
saying it's a "bug". Riightt, bugs don't do that. And then as damage
control they pay off the major press sites to re-word it in a way that makes
them look ok. The truth on all this out is there, just go look at an
enthusiast forum. Actually I made a whole post about this stuff right here,
take a look:
http://swcity.skywalkeronline.net/yabbse/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=792

But whatever, you probably don't care about that stuff. Bottom line is that
ATI 0wnz in image quality, drivers (as of late), and I dunno what you mean
by installation. It's the same as any other graphic card. I've installed
dozens of graphic cards of various brands. Just pop it in your computer and
install the drivers, period.

[View Quote]

Jun 9, 2003, 1:49pm

[View Quote] <snip>


> But whatever, you probably don't care about that stuff. Bottom line is that
> ATI 0wnz in image quality, drivers (as of late), and I dunno what you mean
> by installation. It's the same as any other graphic card. I've installed
> dozens of graphic cards of various brands. Just pop it in your computer and
> install the drivers, period.
>

Well,,,, I could use some help to install the driver:(
I guess I'm not a beginner in making / putting together computers but ATI was the first card which I was NOT able to install at all.


--
Andras
"It's MY computer" (tm Steve Gibson)

Jun 9, 2003, 3:44pm

[View Quote] The second word in this line totoally destroyed your point. How can you
produce a better image quality when all it's doing is aligning electrons
on a screen? Unless it's using some damn sophisticated design that
allows it to take images in and beautify it, you're going to get the
_same_ picture from both.

They both recieve the same data, they're both going to send the same
data out to the monitor to be drawn. My desktop would look the same
under ATI, nVidia, or Trident. Point and case, really.

An OpenGL screen saver burning a graphics card out? Please. Maybe it
happened to a couple of people, lo, it must be a bug in all cards and
not have been fixed yet.

--
--Bowen--

Jun 9, 2003, 3:44pm

[View Quote] Join the club.

--
--Bowen--

Jun 9, 2003, 4:40pm

[View Quote] Totally way off the facts. your making this up now.
Every Card handles the analog side a little differently. You ever run dual monitors?
Using separate video cards?


> An OpenGL screen saver burning a graphics card out? Please. Maybe it
> happened to a couple of people, lo, it must be a bug in all cards and
> not have been fixed yet.

LOL again,.... you need to read up on this....it can be done with software.
software can indeed cause hardware damage..:) in many areas.

Leo :)




>
> --
> --Bowen--
>

Jun 9, 2003, 4:44pm

If you expect any large corporation to be kosher, then you're bordering on naive. ATi, AMD, and the other current underdogs spread marketing hype just as fraudulent as the rest of them.

Besides, brand-loyalty is counterproductive and antiquated. Buy the most personally suitable product with the best price; don't go with something else because you think the manufacturer is somehow more righteous :P

[View Quote]

Jun 9, 2003, 4:52pm

> The second word in this line totoally destroyed your point.

What? 0wnz? lol, whatever

> How can you produce a better image quality when all it's doing is aligning
electrons
> on a screen? Unless it's using some damn sophisticated design that
> allows it to take images in and beautify it, you're going to get the
> _same_ picture from both.

I assume your talking about simple 2d display like pictures and stuff. Yes
that would be the same as far as I know. In 3d graphics, there's far far
more than just raw data going to your monitor. The card has to read the
pixel and vertex shading code for every pixel to apply an affect to it (such
as reflection, refraction, etc) and process it. Then there are dynamically
generated graphics, such particles and special effects. And image enhancing
like Truform, Anisotropic Filtering, and Anti-Aliasing. Different card
arcitecture does that differently, and that's where you see the difference.
I'll just post some examples...

http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/06/IMG0006345.jpg vs
http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/06/IMG0006345.jpg

http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/06/IMG0006347_1.jpg vs
http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/06/IMG0006348_1.jpg

and http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/06/IMG0006349_1.jpg

As for the frying cards, take a look for yourself. Granted they probably
already fixed it, but it really kills my trust in driver controlled fans X_X
and it only applies to the FX 5800.
http://www.pcekspert.com/articles/127-1.html


[View Quote]

Jun 9, 2003, 4:59pm

Once again, to even the score here, you have to remember how quickly things change in the PC market.

Let's take a trip down memory lane...

Anybody still remember the days when 3dfx was king and all challengers were worthless infidels? Back then, nVidia was to 3dfx what ATi was to nVidia a year or so ago - their products were unreliable (the drivers were a nightmare), graphically inferior, and they held a very small market share when compared to King 3dfx.

When nVidia started cleaning up its act, the 3dfx fanboys claimed that nVidia would never be able to top 3dfx in performance, reliability, or in quality. Those with doubt were silenced s few years later when nVidia bought what was left of the once unstoppable 3dfx. Now those same naysayers are nVidia fanboys, having quickly forgotten their previous allegiances. In the PC world, the crown of king is passed from company to company fairly often. But surprisingly, there are still those with short enough attention spans to not notice the trend...

To make things short (and the reader's prayers are finally answered...): my point here is that things change. Be open minded, and don't be brand loyal. Of course, there are some people who use AOHell's Netscape7 rather than Mozilla, the real deal, because of some misguided sense of nostalgia... ;-)

[View Quote]

Jun 9, 2003, 5:03pm

Oh I assure you I'm not a blind "fanboy", as they call em' in the
enthusiasts forum. Those people get flamed lol. But nooo, ATI and AMD are
not "just as much" in the least bit. The dominating companies have made far
more, at least 4x more, offenses than the other companies.


[View Quote]

Jun 9, 2003, 6:17pm

So what you're saying is that ATI and AMD aren't necessarily the better
company, they're just the lesser of two evils in their respective fields? :P

Last I checked, offenses were still offenses, whether the company makes
4 of them or 40 of them. I guess in ATI/AMD's case, as long as their
list of offenses is shorter than nVidia/Intel's, that somehow makes
their cards/processors superior. :P

[View Quote] --
Goober King
Listed Offender
gooberking at utn.cjb.net

Jun 9, 2003, 6:30pm

Bah I knew I shoulda made my post a little longer =P

Just saying don't put ATI on nvidia's level. Anyone who's following the
Futuremark vs Nvidia soap opera would have a hissy fit if you did, lol. All
ATI has ever done is cheat in a Quake benchmark over a year ago. Since then
they've revolutionized their way of business and been on a clean record
since. Nvidia on the other hand is just digging their hole deeper everyday.
Key difference being ATI corrected themselves and apologized, whereas Nvidia
is lieing about their offenses and trying to weasel outa it. It's a long
story, I doubt anyone here cares what's going on.

As for the CPU companies...Intel's done some naughty stuff, so has AMD.
Nothing really big though like Nvidia X_X. I just like AMD's bang for the
buck ;D


>as long as their
> list of offenses is shorter than nVidia/Intel's, that somehow makes
> their cards/processors superior. :P

Nope, nvidia makes good cards. Personally I just wouldn't give nvidia any
of my money though. Too upset with them hurting the industry for their
benefit. That's just me though.

Jun 9, 2003, 8:43pm

[View Quote] Actually, I *do* know what's going on with nVidia vs. Futuremark, and I still think you're wrong. Nvidia is a *huge* company with holdings in various markets. Its 3D graphics card market share alone dwarfs ATi's and it and a good reputation to back it. Because of this, nVidia can *afford* to take a few beatings to their reputation and not lose much customer-faith. Whereas ATi, who is just now securing a firm hold in the 3D accelerator market, has a rather dirty past and can't stand any further tarnishes to their reputation. The same goes with AMD - who until the K7 made comparably crappy processors to Intel.

Jun 9, 2003, 8:47pm

Hey kids, this is what not looking over your post before you hit 'send' does :P

[View Quote] * Its 3D graphics card market share alone dwarfs ATi's, and it has a good reputation to back it.

Jun 9, 2003, 9:29pm

> Actually, I *do* know what's going on with nVidia vs. Futuremark, and I
still think you're wrong. Nvidia is a *huge* company with holdings in
various markets. Its 3D graphics card market share alone dwarfs ATi's and it
and a good reputation to back it. Because of this, nVidia can *afford* to
take a few beatings to their reputation and not lose much customer-faith.
Whereas ATi, who is just now securing a firm hold in the 3D accelerator
market, has a rather dirty past and can't stand any further tarnishes to
their reputation. The same goes with AMD - who until the K7 made comparably
crappy processors to Intel.
>

You still think I'm wrong of what exactly? I totally agree with what you
said there. I own a nforce2 chipset motherboard and I'm pretty happy with
it.

The earlier days of ATI I don't really know about though, except that they
had sucky drivers which really hurt them even to this day (reputation wise),
and didn't have very good customer support. But like you said in another
post, things change. ATI's drivers are as good if not better than Nvidia's
drivers, which haven't got WHQL certification in a long time. And I'm
pretty happy with their customer support to. My R7500 died (cause I
accidentally hit it with a screwdriver, lol), so I sent it to ATI and they
sent a replacement without any hassle ^_^

But yea, I doubt nvidia's latest bad deeds won't do anything except dent
them in the enthusiast market where people actually care. And that's less
than 5% of the market, woop-dedoo. And their stocks are unaffected by all
this too (actually it went up, lol). There's not enough media covering this
stuff to inform people. And the ones that are funded by Nvidia and they
won't bite the hand that feeds them, or risk not being picked to recieve a
review card from them. Good example would be The Screen Savers on Tech TV.
They showed nvidia's cheats on TV, but they didnt say it was nvidia. And
then started talking about ATI, and made it sound like it was actaully ATI
doing it. Very clever word play, I dunno =O

1  2  |   Order by index