I was considering putting this in the SC2 forums as it mostly has to do with that but it also applies to other things so I considered putting it here.
My specs: CPU TYPE:AMD PHENOM(TM) 9550 QUAD-CORE (2.2 GHz) RAM: 5 GIGABYTES GPU:NVIDIA GEFORCE 9300 RESOLUTION: 1680X1050 HARD DISK: 750 GIGABYTES
So basically my GPU is driving me crazy. Everything is pretty good if you ask me except it. In SC2 everything's on Ultimate/Extreme except Shader which I have to have on Low or else whenever I try to scroll around I just lag horribly, other than that I don't lag at all. All my drivers and stuff are updated. Is it just my GPU is bad?
Either way though I'm thinking of upgrading it. But I can't for my life find out what socket or whatever it's called is. I think it might be. I think it may be PCI Express. I think the most common one now is PCI Express x16 2.0. Any suggestions on a new card that costs around $140?
Nvidia GTS 250 or ATi HD 5750 at $140 ATi HD 4850 at $110-120.
GTS 250 is the strongest performer overall. ATi HD 4850 is the 2nd strongest performer except on SC2 where it is overshadowed by the HD 5750 (odd!). ATi HD 5750 is the weakest of the bunch except in SC2, but it also supports DX11, Eyefinity (too weak for Eyefinity though).
5750 is the most power efficient, 4850 least so, and GTS 250 in the middle.
Then I should lower my resolution? Cause everything runs smoothly until shader is above low then it only lags when I scroll... and everything does run well with all at ultra and resolution at 1650x1080 with shaders on low
Yeh origionally I was considering the 5750 just I don't know if the slots compatible with my computer as I think the 9300 one is much older and uses and older slot type. I think they're called slots at least O.O
On March 06 2010 12:38 Nub4ever wrote: Yeh origionally I was considering the 5750 just I don't know if the slots compatible with my computer as I think the 9300 one is much older and uses and older slot type. I think they're called slots at least O.O
You either have: - A PCI Express 2.0 x16 slot = you're good to go, buy the 5750
- A 1.x PCI express x16 = you can still buy any new card and it will work, but don't plan on buying a super powerful card since it'll be throttled by the lower bandwidth (I don't know at what point it makes a difference, I'm guessing a 5750 would be okay but don't take my word for it)
- Onboard video = you can't get a new GPU without getting a whole new motherboard (unless you have one of the aformentioned slots in addition to onboard video).
To determine this if you don't know already, you can download a program like CPU-Z. Open it, go to the "mainboard" tab, and look under 'graphic interface'. If it says PCI-Express x16 you're good to go. If you want to find out if it's 1.x or 2.0, google the model of your motherboard (at the top of that tab)
Edit: oh, geforce 9300 is motherboard-only, it's not in a slot at all. You might still have a PCIe slot, though, google your motherboard's model to find out. (or find out what it looks like and open it up)
oooo after looking at CPU-Z I think I might know why my GPU is able to run SC2 on all ultra as I've got a Nvidia Geforce 9300GE and a Nvidia Geforce 9200, but my slot is PCI Express x16 1.0 =( I guess I'll go for GTS 250
Also, you can check out TomsHardware for graphics card reviews. Every month they post an analysis of best budget graphics cards for a whole bunch of different price brackets.
Here's the article for February: (March one should be out in a few days)
The funny thing is that it is actually fairly out of date on the higher power cards like the 5850. Yes, there was a time in January when the 5850 could be found for $290 (even as low as $270 with newegg combo I think), but since late February (about the week before the HD 5830 launch) they were upped to around $310-320. :<
The 5750 has also increased in price to the point where the lowest is $150ish, making it a terrible buy when the 5770 is just $10 more.
The 4870 isn't dead yet though, just a bad buy.
The thing I hate the most about the Tom's Hardware "cost effective" part is that they only take into account cost effectiveness, and when they brandish the cards like that (like 2x 4890s in Xfire in the $400 category), people buy those without thinking about the drawbacks they have :|
imho, benchmarks are much better, people just have to take the time to look at them.
On March 06 2010 17:46 dethrawr wrote: actually with my 250 GTS and AMD Athlon X2 6000+ I get lag when I scroll as well, I have no idea what the problem is :/
That cpu is fairly aged i'd turn down things like physics and reflections maybe that's it assuming you have reasonable settings for the rest of the game which would probably be default high to ultra depending if thats a 512 or 1 gig card with that card
A 6000+ gives the same performance of like a E5200+ but without the high overclocking ability
with reflections and physics being bunted off to the cpu i'd at-least see if that's it as a cpu is less likely to handle a spike caused by moving the screen as well.
in other words i'd lower my settings to min then isolate what is the issue by bring up certain values although my initial guess is the cpu.
As for the OP your cpu is just fine it's not great as it's the bad series of quadcores amd was making but it's still fairly powerful
the guy i was posting to had a GTS250 which should run the game pretty much on ultra if it's the 1 gig version so a more likely suspect for his drop in performance is his cpu, your gpu is just bad.
You are using a 9300 and playing on the best settings? That is definitely the problem here... GeForce 9300 cannot handle all that. And the ATI cards people are recommending are very solid. The 9300 you are using should not be used to play SC2 at ultra settings no matter what because you will just lag like crazy from the awesome texturing that you GPU is doing, which in turn cuts down on your ability to play. Try lowering your settings all to low and you will see all the lag go away I bet. Anyone here have problems with Tri-Sli on SC2? I get flicker issues with it. I got 3x 275 gtx's and I cannot get them to not flicker...
People have said this soo many times, I don't know whats going on but with my 9300 I can run everything on Ultra/Extreme except for Shader which I must keep on low or it lags horribly when I scroll.
Is AMD even competitive anymore? I feel like they're just churning out cheap ass graphics cards nowadays cuz they know they can't compete in quality against intel.
yooniball: I have no idea about tri-SLi, but from what I heard from all of the random people that come comment, SC2 does not support SLi. I have no idea whether it's true or not though, because I haven't actually done any research on it :p. Best bet is just to ask Blizzard tech support.
KingKRule, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Intel makes some of the worst graphics on the market because they are all integrated GPUs. Intel does not have a single dedicated GPU on the market at the moment.
I know that SLI works for SC2 because I have tried it. TRI SLI does not work however. I didn't think AMD and Intel were any where on the GPU market? I thought it was ATI and nVidia?
Go to www.systemrequirementslab.com and see if SC2 beta will run it. I don't know if it is up on the site yet though. I'm almost certain a 9300 is definitely not powerful enough to run SC2 on ultra.
On March 06 2010 13:03 FragKrag wrote: The 5750 is actually the card I consider the worst. I would honestly go with the GTS 250. (me going for nvidia product?!?!?!!?!)
If you dont mind me asking, why is the 5750 the worst?
Granted these are at release and Catalyst must have improved performance, the 5750 is far from convincing when you look at its price. Not sure if it still applies, but nvidia cards used to like nvidia boards more, so his chipset also needs to be taken in for consideration.
Yeah there isn't really a reason to get a 5750 unless you absolutely cannot get hold of any other card around its level. The 5750 is essentially a very slightly more powerful 4850 that doesn't put out as much heat or require as much power.
The most important thing with choosing graphics cards is the resolution you're going to playing at. If you're going to run stuff at 1600xwhatever resolution or lower, a 4850 should run most things pretty fine. If you're going to 1900xwhatever, you're going to need a 5770 at least.
Starcraft 2 right now is obviously going to be inefficient right now since its only in Beta. I have no doubt that they'll streamline the software so I don't think you actually need really, really powerful computer hardware to play the retail version of Starcraft 2.
To answer KingKRule, AMD is churning out video cards after video cards because they know they're ass raping nVidia right now and going to milk the market while they have the chance. Heck if the rumors about Fermi's performance is true (slightly better than the 5870 but needs way, way more power and is massive as fuck), the ATI cards are still going to be bloated in price since they STILL don't have any real competition from other companies.
No it doesn't in the vast majority of cases. If we're talking about stock cards, the 4850 performs very slightly worse than the 5750 which is why you don't bother with the 5750 unless you can't find any other card around its level.
To answer KingKRule, AMD is churning out video cards after video cards because they know they're ass raping nVidia right now and going to milk the market while they have the chance. Heck if the rumors about Fermi's performance is true (slightly better than the 5870 but needs way, way more power and is massive as fuck), the ATI cards are still going to be bloated in price since they STILL don't have any real competition from other companies.
this is a huge fear for me well maybe not fear, it'll just annoy the hell out of me
I'm pretty sure all of those rumors running around on the internet are just speculations, though in a Nvidia bench, it seems like it performs a lot better under DX11
Though as fudzilla says, the benches are synthetic so I'm not sure what to expect. We'll learn on March 26th!
In this 5970 video
You can see the 5970 hits around 35 FPS at the Dragon part whereas the GTX 480 hits around 40. Now it's pretty obvious that Nvidia's GTX 480 is a lot better than ATi cards at rendering stressful parts, and is more efficient. On those grassy parts, the 5970 hits 110 FPS where the GTX 480 gets around 80.
If you compare the new 5000 series ATI cards against the 200 gtx series cards, that is just outlandish. It is unfair to compare the two in terms of graphics. Also, ATI churns out cards like no other and I applaud them for that but the quality behind the graphics cards is always behind Nvidia. They take longer to make their products because their products are higher quality. Just wait until the new line of Nvidia cards are out. Like the last series, it will most likely be better than the ATi. You can't say they are "ass-raping" the competition when the competition hasn't even begun to compete against them.
That's the problem. Nvidia has not competed with ATi for the last 5 months. Who's fault is that? Nvidia's. We're comparing the 5000 series to the 200 series because that is ALL Nvidia has given us in the past 2 years other than a few shitty OEM cards.
Of course the 4xx cards will be better than ATi 5000 series. They must be better than what ATi is offering us if Nvidia has waited 5 months to even give us a fucking preview (which is actually very impressive imho). While those comparisons were valid back when they were released, they aren't quite as valid now because ATi has improved on its driver division with Catalyst 10.1 and 10.2. Now what we see is a $160 ATi HD 4870 outpowering that $200 Nvidia GTX 260.
I would say AA performance isn't as important with gamers as overall performance though. Sure AA is a nice bonus, but most GPUs can't even run games with 8xAA at decent resolutions with a decent frame rate.
If you compare the new 5000 series ATI cards against the 200 gtx series cards, that is just outlandish. It is unfair to compare the two in terms of graphics. Also, ATI churns out cards like no other and I applaud them for that but the quality behind the graphics cards is always behind Nvidia. They take longer to make their products because their products are higher quality. Just wait until the new line of Nvidia cards are out. Like the last series, it will most likely be better than the ATi. You can't say they are "ass-raping" the competition when the competition hasn't even begun to compete against them.
For a while, nothing from nVidia even competes with ATI's 5000 series lineup in literally all important areas (energy efficiency, heat generated, graphical power, size, DirectX11, etc) save for perhaps compatibility (ATI 5000 series seems to hate Gigabyte motherboards for whatever reason) and driver quality (drivers from both companies suck balls though just nVidia's releases tend to suck a little less).
The majority of people aren't neckbeards with water cooled systems, 1000w power supplies to work their SLI/Crossfire setups, and the desire to get 200 FPS in Crysis. Most people want a product that is not only extremely solid but cheap and ATI's current lineup is exactly that. Whether or not Fermi will even compete with the HD5850 or HD5870 depends not on its performance but on its price and I really, really, really doubt Fermi will come cheap.
To compare the ATI 5000 series graphics cards to the NVIDIA 200 graphics cards doesn't make any sense. When the new 400 series Nvidia graphics cards come out, then compare the two. And then see the difference between the companies. You guys are well aware that ATI only had Q4 of 2009 and Q1 of 2010 while Nvidia dominated Q1,Q2, and Q3 of 2009. Just wait until Nvidia releases its Fermi cards. And compare the 5000 ATI cards and the Fermi Nvidia.
You need to compare what's on the market right now. If I needed to buy a card in q4 2009, then waiting for Fermi to come out was pointless. I couldn't just say, wait until the next line comes out and then compare! you need to compare what's on the market at the time when you're ready to buy.
On March 09 2010 14:57 yooniball wrote: To compare the ATI 5000 series graphics cards to the NVIDIA 200 graphics cards doesn't make any sense. When the new 400 series Nvidia graphics cards come out, then compare the two. And then see the difference between the companies. You guys are well aware that ATI only had Q4 of 2009 and Q1 of 2010 while Nvidia dominated Q1,Q2, and Q3 of 2009. Just wait until Nvidia releases its Fermi cards. And compare the 5000 ATI cards and the Fermi Nvidia.
You don't know how the market works. We can't compare what isn't on the fucking market. You compare the companies by what they have released, not what they are capable of producing based on what they announce! It doesn't make sense to wait to compare the 5000 series when they are the best cards on the market at the moment!
The ATi 4870/4890/4870x2 line was gaining on Nvidia by Q2/Q3, and there was a HUGE boost in ATi users.
That said, I'm pretty excited for the GTX 4xx series
If you are in a position where you are purchasing a graphics card, then it is ok to compare the two different generations, but I am talking in respect to same generation cards. I'm trying to give both ATI and Nvidia a fair chance in the fight. The 4870/4890/4870x2 never had anything on the 200 series cards. It was the 5000 series cards that gave ATi the boost. Just wait for Nvidia. They will retake the top... They are just giving ATi a taste of what it's like to "be the best" producers of GPUs. I would say that Nvidia is trying to set up for a future battle while ATi is just churning out cards and dominate the market. ATI's plan is working at the moment but won't work for that long. They are pushing each other to the limit. While ATI has it's highs, so will Nvidia.
Why would I compare compare graphics cards if I wasn't going to buy a graphics card? Hmm. I could list many different reasons, such as maybe I care about benchmarks of different graphics cards? Or maybe I hold stocks in one of the companies and care on how they perform? Don't be naive and broaden your thinking a bit more.
Also. You guys are comparing the 4870x2 to the GTX285. However, it should be compared to the GTX295 since they are both dual GPUs. Please compare graphics cards in their appropriate categories. Stop bein so narrow minded in your arguments. Of course the technology is going to advance, and comparing a new card with an old card makes no sense. Compare the 5000 series cards with the 400 series cards when they arrive. And then make your arguments. But before then, please stop acting like you know what you are talking about. I've posted hard facts showing Nvidia outperforming ATi in the same generation between different categories of graphics cards. So what do you do? You take the new card and put it up against an older card. Of course the newer card will look and play better. IT IS NEWER. Get that through your head please.
Hm I was thinking the GTX 260 192 core which paled in comparison to the HD 4870. The GTX 260 216 core was > the 4870 for a bit when it came out though, so yeah mistake on my part.
However, at the moment the HD 4870 > GTX 260 216 core because ATi drivers are finally catching up!
yooniball, if you are in the graphics card market for stocks, sure, maybe. However, then it's not like announced graphics that are delayed 6 months help your stock!
You're the one being narrow minded. You are only comparing between single generations, which is absurd. Why should I narrow my mind to only single generation comparisons when there are Nvidia 8 series, Nvidia 9 series, Nvidia 2 series, ATi 4000 series, and ATi 5000 series on the market? How does that even make sense?
If I compare the benchmarks of two different generations of graphics cards, that comparison is pointless. Of course the newer cards will perform better. I think you have the mindset of a buyer and I have the mindset of someone who is just analyzing GPU performance in general (Seeing that you mention comparing all the different cards). If you compare across generations of graphics cards, that makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying the 5000 series is better than the 8 series Nvidia cards (Of course it is). I am comparing single generation in order to establish my point that one company provides better products than the other (in this I believe Nvidia provides more quality than ATi). For example, let's look at driver support. It takes a couple of months for ATi to allow customer to fully utilize their products. On the other hand, Nvidia releases drivers on the day new games come out in order to maximize the performance of their card for the games. In regards to highest FPS, Nvidia has gained higher FPS most of the time in benchmarks with their counterpart in the same generation of ATI cards. And sure, you may blame this on lack of driver support from ATi. But that lack of support is what makes ATi compete worse, thus making their product not as good.
Clearly you haven't been following the latest benchmarks then. I personally think everybody has the mindset of the buyer except for the person who has the money to buy whatever he wants, and that there is no point in analyzing raw performance of the graphics cards without first looking at the pricing of the card itself. But I look at it from a 'buyer' point of view because that is what we do with GPUs, we BUY them, not objectively marvel at what they can do.
ATi has been about price/performance in the 4000 and 5000 series cards. ATi prices their cards competitively because they may perform a bit worse. It doesn't matter if one company provides 'better' cards than the other if the other company takes a whole half of a year to actually get those 'better' cards out! By that time, it probably isn't reasonable to compare the 5000 series against the 4xx series because Nvidia has had an extra 6 months to make their card!
The HD 4870 was performing under the GTX 260 until the release of ATi drivers, which are now released very often. Catalyst 10.3 is said to come out this month, and Catalyst 10.2 came out last month. Whereas now you see Nvidia drivers blowing up Nvidia cards!
Oh. So it doesn't matter any more which company is better? I'm sorry but Nvidia competes pretty damn well with ATi in gaming and blows ATi out of the fucking water with rendering and stuff like folding.
And Nvidia drivers blowing up Nvidia cards? I heard about the whole heat issue due to fan control but that was immediately taken care of by Nvidia by a recall of their drivers. Plus, it gave me no problems personally. And you know what? ATI doesn't even exist anymore, while Nvidia is still competing.
ATI churns out cards just to make their cards "slightly" better than their past cards. While Nvidia is actually putting research into stuff like tesselation technology, rendering, folding, and more to make their cards more worthwhile. In the end, we will see who is better. Nvidia or ATI. Just wait a few weeks for the new Nvidia cards. You'll see the difference.
Better is completely subjective. I'll agree Nvidia is the 'better' company, but hey, if they were great, maybe the GTX 4xx series would be shipped now! Nvidia GPUs are indeed generally better at rendering, and from the DX11 benchmarks, they look like amazing GPUs for DX11 (and they DAMN WELL SHOULD BE).
ATI is still the reserve name for the graphics yooniball
You can only say that now because of Fermi! Nvidia loves to churn out old chips. G80 chip sound familiar? We've seen it like 4 different times all under different names! At least ATi makes large improvements on the performance and power consumption!
Of course we'll see a difference. Nvidia has had 6 fucking months to make those cards. If we don't see a difference it will be the hugest disappointment in the GPU market in a long time. If Nvidia had announced something in the past 3 months before CeBIT, maybe it would be a bit better, but they chose to leave every single customer in complete dark (and so far I think most of their partners are still in the dark). While I do believe it is beneficial for Nvidia to keep technical specs away from ATI, we heard nothing from Nvidia at all.
What do you mean by ATI being the reserve name for graphics?
And there will be a noticeable difference for the 4xx series graphics cards. I can guarantee you that. Nvidia would not be wasting this much time just to release a renamed card. It will probably change GPUs in general like PhysX and SLI.
ATI was bought by AMD, but ATI is still the name reserved for AMD gpus!
I can see that there will be a definite difference from Nvidia's benchmarks, but they are all synthetic, so I want to see how these games fare in real world machines!
On March 10 2010 13:41 yooniball wrote: What do you mean by ATI being the reserve name for graphics?
And there will be a noticeable difference for the 4xx series graphics cards. I can guarantee you that. Nvidia would not be wasting this much time just to release a renamed card. It will probably change GPUs in general like PhysX and SLI.
And if the fermi cards cost $600 then I'm still buying an ATI card regardless of how it bench marks
Obviously one of the fermi cards is gonna cost up there, and if what I see from the GTX 480 is true, it should be a decent buy at $550-600.
I'm looking forward to seeing how the GTX 460/450 is priced, because that seems like it would be in my price range. (Maybe bump those fuckin growing 5850 and 5830 prices!!!). If a Nvidia card comes out at around $250-$300 I'll bite if its performance is up to par.
EPT
