Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Graphics Software Hardware

Massive Graphics Card Review 133

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the sifting-through-the-cruft dept.
Brian Tonka writes to tell us that rojakpot has posted a pretty comprehensive graphics card review including over 240 different desktop graphics cards. With each of the vendors given their own section and using 15 different points of comparison this should be quite a starting reference for the enthusiast and casual buyer alike.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Massive Graphics Card Review

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @02:41AM (#14343323)
    It's a fricking table of all the cards and their specifications. It doesn't review a single card at all.
    • by ergo98 (9391) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @03:00AM (#14343404) Homepage Journal
      It's a fricking table of all the cards and their specifications. It doesn't review a single card at all.

      Exactly. It's full of irrelevant specifications (including for some ancient, not-a-chance-in-hell cards) that no one can use to choose a card (and processor speed and hypothetical megatexel speeds are largely irrelevant in the real world. Micron manufacturing process...well that's just retarded). What a waste of a story spot.
      • by h4rm0ny (722443)

        I hope whoever paid /. for this story spot doesn't think they'll get their money's worth. 98% of the page hits will be people who clicked the link, saw a meaningless collection of statistics and closed the tab before the ads had even finished loading. And most people will open the story first, see the first three comments describing the article as rubbish and not bothering to click the link at all.
    • Slogan (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DietCoke (139072)
      "Where the best in technology gather."

      Let me finish that.

      "Where the best in technology gather, overload a server, then leave still wondering how the hell this constitutes a review."

      A bit wordy, but accurate.
    • It's a fricking table of all the cards and their specifications. It doesn't review a single card at all.

      Dave Fanboy: "My God, it's full of ATI advertisements"
      • No wonder it took me two full minutes to find the link leading to the Nvidia specs (and no, I'm not implying that they're at all useful once you find them - guess I was hoping there was something more substantial further on).
    • by 80 85 83 83 89 33 (819873) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @06:03AM (#14343760) Journal
      there are so many people that only have PCI slots (no AGP nor pci-Express) who would give anything for a nice comprehensive comparo review of old-school pci graphics cards.

      there is so much debate as to what is the fastest PCI card for gaming; yet the hardware sites don't understand the pain and suffering out there... or do they? all that is available on ANY hardware site is pure conjecture and respewing of marketing hype.

      they will NOT do a PCI video card review.

      i think they are under pressure from marketing forces (read: ad dollars) to not reveal the actual performance of PCI. (yet the review sites HAVE stated that the move to pciExpress is purely marketing; that there is NO performance benifit from AGP to pci-Express.)

      there is even a pci version of nvidia's 6200, yet try and find a review of that! (http://www.3dfuzion.com/cards_6200_pci_128.asp [3dfuzion.com]) yet you can find hordes of reviews of the agp and pciExpress versions of it.

      well, many brand name systems have only PCI, and it is a shock to many poor souls when they realize it (not everyone is as thorough as the /. crowd when it comes to picking out computers. and people recieve them as gifts, etc.). and i bet not providing a viable upgrade option is also a marketing move to force people to buy whole new systems just so they can play games.

      of course, i'm posting this hours after the article was put up, so prolly no one will even read this.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        Frankly, I don't consider PCI a real option for high-end gaming. Sure, you can throw a video card in a PCI slot...and I'm sure it'll perform reasonably well...but it'll be sharing the bus with all your other PCI devices. Regardless of the theoretical performance of PCI; once you're sharing your bus with a USB card, a 1394 card, a sound card, and a NIC your performance is bound to drop.

        Most OEM PC's these days come with an AGP slot. Yes, there are still some out there that are on-board with no AGP slot fo
        • by kesuki (321456)
          Like it or not, AGP is really the standard for video expansion right now.

          sorry to nit pick, but AGP is dead, for the latest and greatest the AGP and PCI Express version of the same card, and the AGP version costs $150 more. you can buy a Very nice motherboard for that price difference....

          AGP is a legacy product, in it's death throes. the cards require more circuitry, and they cost more. buying a motherbord with an agp slot relegates you to obsolete (or budget) 2005 model cards or paying a super premium on
          • by drinkypoo (153816)
            Actually, you are mostly right but made a glaring error. AGP8x allows multiple AGP slots (2 only, I think) in a single machine. Granted, that's only half as many video cards as you can have with PCIe... But dual-slot was the main draw of AGP8x, which rarely provides any performance improvement over AGP4x with sideband and fast write.
            • dual-slot was the main draw of AGP8x

              I never knew that, but I'm also sure I've never heard of a motherboard with 2 AGP slots. There is certainly none available on the market now from the larger motherboard manufacturers (Asus, Gigabyte, MSI, ...) Are you sure such a thing is possible and has been done by someone?
            • the only multiple agp device motherboards on the market (period) are Integrated Graphic solutions boards that include an AGP slot...

              so i don't see how 'allowing multiple agp slots' was the major draw of agp 8x when there are not even any legacy products currently on the market that support this mythical 'dual slot' agp setup.

              the current state of the industry is that agp graphic cards are as big a plague as normal PCI cards were when agp adoption was in it's early days. eventually budget cards and remnants w
        • by arth1 (260657)

          Frankly, I don't consider PCI a real option for high-end gaming.

          Good for you. Now move along, cause we're not discussing high-end gaming here.

          Rojakpot's list lists PCI/AGP/PCIX/PCIe cards and motherboard chipsets regardless of what they're intended for -- even older cards like Voodoo1 and Matrox M200. That the list is both buggy and appear to have lost parts (what happened to the Matrox P-series, earlier on the list and still in retail?) is a different matter...

          --
          *Art

      • by Cerberus7 (66071)
        You make an excellent point. It's been so long since review sites stopped looking at PCI cards that there's no way to say if AGP itself has shown any benefits beyond a couple of frames per second here or there. Unless somebody were to get their hands on AGP, PCI, and PCI-E versions of the latest generation and reveal the truth to us all. We're talking a couple-thousand bucks worth of video cards, so I'm certainly not in a position to do it. I'd gladly do the testing, though. I have a hunch that AGP wou
        • I can't find the English version of http://www.de.tomshardware.com/motherboard/2000022 5/agp-analyse-08.html [tomshardware.com] which compares AGP to 2x and 4x. It's old, but it was interesting.
        • AGP vs PCI (Score:2, Informative)

          by HalWasRight (857007)
          I have a hunch that AGP would show barely an improvement over PCI in a typical system (where the PCI bus is mostly idle), and PCI-E would only show improvement in a dual-card config.

          There are a couple things you may not have considered with your hunch. First, if you are doing 3D textured graphics, then transfer speed to texture and vertex memory is key to performance, and PCI is many times slower than AGP. 10x is not "barely an improvement" in the real-time 3d graphics world. Secondly, there typically isn

          • of course. well, HOW much does moving textures around really affect games? woudn't you like to know? and there is PLENTY of demand for PCI cards. the vid card makers charge a LOT MORE for them. yes, there are shitloads of systems shipped in the recent years with only onboard AGP. yes, i'm savy enough to make sure i don't get in that situation, and obviously you are savy enough too, but what do you tell that sweet innocent girl you like that the computer she just bought herself with the money she saved
          • There are a couple things you may not have considered with your hunch. First, if you are doing 3D textured graphics, then transfer speed to texture and vertex memory is key to performance, and PCI is many times slower than AGP. 10x is not "barely an improvement" in the real-time 3d graphics world.

            True, but on a typical home system, where the PCI bus is mostly available, is it enough bandwidth to keep the video card supplied with data fast enough? Are games these days really pushing so much data that the

      • who would give anything


        Anything but 10 bucks for a half decent used mobo with AGP.

      • There are a lot of people with 8-bit ISA slots that would really like to have a comparo of MGA, CGA, EGA, VGA, and Hercules mono video cards. Everyone nowadays is reviewing these newfangled "accelerated" cards instead of olde fashioned frame buffer cards.
      • holy crap dude, it's not 1995 anymore. Everybody who's bought a PC in the last ten years has an AGP slot.
        Next you'll be wanting game reviews of Commander Keen and Rick Dangerous.
        • The systems I purchased in 1996 and 1997 have only PCI and ISA slots (AGP did not exist at that point in time).
        • Many OEM computers, especially on the lower end, only have PCI expansion slots. I don't know about brand new ones, but I have seen PCI-only OEM computers from a year ago.

          Likewise, there are many AGP computers out there, and for people wanting to run multiple monitors and need another video card, PCI is their only option.
      • PCI is on its way out. A few more years and finding a PC motherboard with a PCI slot will be as hard as finding one with an ISA slot, if not harder. It's all going to be PCI-Express and the occasional AGP for the forseeable future. Of course, PCI can't go away entirely until we start getting more few-lane PCI-E cards.
    • Rojacks is, for those who aren't aware, a hardware evaluation site. As far as being a 'review' is concerned, if you understand the implications of video card specifications it provides a gold mine of performance potential information. A true techie could give you a pretty accurate estimation of the relative performance potential of a given card just from the specs provided in Rojacks listing.
    • You're a brainwashed dupe for thinking a singular review in a vacuum is somehow better than a comparative point-for-point review. Just because most reviewers are now too lazy and unmotivated - and enjoying the benefits they get of "hyping" a product - to do comparative reviews doesn't mean that singular reviews are more useful. Comparative reviews are MUCH more expensive and time-consuming to conduct, so what do you suppose motivates the choice of singular reviews?

      It means just what it means: you're being
  • Review? (Score:5, Informative)

    by compm375 (847701) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @02:42AM (#14343328)
    This might be helpful to some people, but it can hardly be called a review. It is just a list of specs. It doesn't even have benchmarks.
    • This is similar to their earlier 'compression tool comparison', just a bunch of nothing with an metric assload of ads.
      • Indeed, I see three articles on the front page linking to rojakpot and two of them are unattributed submissions. I smell a rat. Slashdot is inching forward to being blacklisted at my place.
      • > just a bunch of nothing with an metric assload of ads.

        sorry, that would be a metric "arseload" of ads. "assload" is an imperial measurement, only used by americans and others who have difficulty with metric (not surprising, it's very difficult with everything being multiples of 10 rather than some semi-random multiple).
    • Click on the quick link menu to choose other manufacturers. ATI, Nvidia, XGI, S3, SiS, Matrox, PowerVR, 3dfx, Trident and Intel. I would have to say overall it's pretty useless (raw numbers... ok they seem to go up, just like the graphics card's model #... ).
  • by Speare (84249) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @02:43AM (#14343332) Homepage Journal
    Simple question. What's the list of modern cards that can accelerate 3d without a binary vendor driver on Linux? Something you can load on a typical Ubuntu or Fedora without finding JoeNoName's-Bleeding-Repository?

    Follow-up: can Red Hat or Novell or somebody please offer a certification logo program for some of these cards? You know, a sticker that you can find on the boxes in CompUSA or something, which says that it's not going to be a stink to get running on Linux?

    • The best so far would be the radeon 9250, which is the most recent card supported by the current (open source) x.org "radeon" driver, and has EXA acceleration in the just-released 6.9/7.0 version.
      • > The best so far would be the radeon 9250, which is the most recent card supported by the current (open source) x.org
        > "radeon" driver, and has EXA acceleration in the just-released 6.9/7.0 version.

        Does it actually work yet? I keep on buying ATI based cards on the theory that it is the only major vendor with Free drivers available (even if ATI themselves doesn't help all that much to make them happen, it is still more than Nvidia does) but I have never had success with Xfree86's 3D driver. I alway
        • I have a Radeon 7500 Mobility for which there is no proprietary driver. I've been using the open source driver for it for several years, works perfectly.
        • I admin a score of machines using Sapphire 9200 cards, all running with the Xorg driver. The machines are used daily (I am posting this from one of them) and I have yet to see a single problem with the driver. Granted, OpenGL is mostly used for screen savers on these boxes, but still. In my experience the drivers are rock solid.
          • > Granted, OpenGL is mostly used for screen savers on these boxes, but still.

            That is what usually scuttles me, the GL screensavers lock the box solid within a day or so of normal use.

            For 2D the XFree86 driver is fairly good, except on one of my Thinkpads which will quite reliably lock up if I reverse scroll a gnometerminal too fast.
            • I have noticed that a couple of my users thouroughly enjoy the sight of GL screensavers (using xscreensaver), and they have never reported any lockups. I remind them regularly to report any and all annoyances with their computers, and they're usually pretty good at dong so, so I am fairly confident that there has been no lockups. I am currently running Xorg 6.8.2.

              Perhaps you should try a driver upgrade?
    • Follow-up: can Red Hat or Novell or somebody please offer a certification logo program for some of these cards? You know, a sticker that you can find on the boxes in CompUSA or something, which says that it's not going to be a stink to get running on Linux?

      Wrong question. Better question: Can a vendor-neutral consortium please offer the same.

  • Wow (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by lastberserker (465707)
    Two [slashdot.org] slashdvertisements from the same Adrian's "hit the monkey" Rojakpot on the same day - that must be a true boxing day today here =8X
    • Re:Wow (Score:1, Troll)

      by TubeSteak (669689)
      you must be new here.

      Boxing Day is when CmdrTaco fights it out amongst his co-editors for dominance.

      He still hasn't lost yet, thanks to his lowly towel boy CowboyNeal.
    • by ergo98 (9391)
      Two slashdvertisements from the same Adrian's "hit the monkey" Rojakpot on the same day

      This is just after there was the whole Microsoft is buying Opera fiasco, courtesy of CoolTechNews and relayed on Slashdot, followed up by the nonsensical Such a Thing as too Paranoid About Privacy? [slashdot.org] "article", again from CoolTechZone.

      Anyways, I'm off to choose a video card based upon the manufacturing process!
    • And it's by our favorite editor that's definitely getting a cut ... ScuttleMonkey. (notice how many BeatlesBeatles stories are published by SM)
  • by spacerodent (790183) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @02:48AM (#14343352)
    So with all these benchmarks lately when do we get an extrapolating database where you and build a virtual system and get an estimate on what its proformance will be?
  • MTexels/s (Score:5, Informative)

    by BrookHarty (9119) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @02:53AM (#14343375) Homepage Journal
    I'm not sure if mega-texels shows true performance. I have a ATI 9700 Pro and Geforce 7800 GT, both can run games at high resolutions at the same speed, but the 7800 can run with AA/AF enabled without a performance hit.

    It is nice to see where GFX cards rate in games, and Toms hardware has the best link per game. Thats why I picked a GT over a GTX for 200 dollars less.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/02/vga_charts_ viii/page18.html [tomshardware.com]
    and
    http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/07/05/vga_charts_ vii/page4.html [tomshardware.com]

    • Well... with a 4-digit UID, you're obviously not new here.

      Maybe you visit Tom's Hardware for nostalgic reasons?

      I gave up on that site a long time ago, right around the time when Tom stopped having direct involvement in the content being posted. I don't know if this has changed or not, but the site used to have foreign writers putting up content in their quite good, but not-perfect-english.

      Anywho, I'm sticking with my trusty Voodoo 5500AGP. Mostly because I don't want to (un)install a new set of drivers for
      • Tom's hardware VGA list is the best ive seen for a larger selection of gfx cards.
        GamePC is my second favorite site, xbit labs and hot hardware are good too.

        Hey, I'm lazy, give me some decent charts to look at with more than 2 gfx cards, I need reference points.
    • Excellent links. I'm in the market for a video card, and this information definately helps in my research.

      Thank you!
  • Maybe Flamebait (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by hagrin (896731)
    .. but this is a type of story I expect to see on Digg.com.

    This isn't a review, there are no benchmarks, there are no nVidia cards even listed and the site formats crappy in IE (just so happened to be using it because of CSS design issues). This has no place on Slashdot and the editor posting the story really should have read through the listings more carefully to see that this doens't extend past ATI cards.
  • by greg1104 (461138) <gsmith@gregsmith.com> on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @02:59AM (#14343398) Homepage
    Can somone give the useless and ad-ridden articles at rojakpot their own section, so I can filter them all out automatically? If I wanted a graphics card review that actually gave useful information, I'd visit a site with real content in that area, like Tom's hardware [tomshardware.com].
  • by permaculture (567540) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @03:12AM (#14343429) Homepage Journal
    I was hoping to read up on some massive graphics cards, as I recently purchased a massive motherboard. Imagine my disappointment when I find this is merely a massive review of normal sized graphics cards.

    "Massive Graphics Card Review" doesn't mean the same thing as "Massive Review of Graphics Cards".
  • Which cards are well supported for Linux. I use to think that my GForce 2 was until NVIDIA decided that it was too old to bother with anymore. 3D stopped working in Suse 10.0 because of it. I am told that I need to install the older NVIDIA drivers. What a hassle.

    Let's hope that NVIDIA will be kind enough to open source their old drivers. But not wanting to hold my breath I'm looking at going with a card from a different company that does have open source drivers.
    • Which cards are well supported for Linux. I use to think that my GForce 2 was until NVIDIA decided that it was too old to bother with anymore. 3D stopped working in Suse 10.0 because of it. I am told that I need to install the older NVIDIA drivers. What a hassle.

      This happens with hardware where vendors only offers binary drivers but no documentation. With documentation it's much easier to make good open source drivers, but sadly the Linux crowd are way to eager to use binary only drivers. Recently OpenB

    • I went through the trouble of logging in so I could give advice. I read about Linux graphics all day, and I can tell you which card has the best open driver: the ATI 9250.

      Nothing else is close. Its the most powerful card on the market with open specs!

  • It's titled COMPARISON, not REVIEW, whoever posted it to /. got it wrong, not the adsense crazy Rojakpot.
  • 3D at 2560x1600 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rufusdufus (450462) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @03:36AM (#14343480)
    A while ago I was trying to build a machine that could run my 30" cinema display at full native resolution (2560x1600) in 3D. Surprisingly difficult to figure it out partly because of the terminology. To run at that resolution, the card must be 'dual link' which is different from 'dual cards in SLI configuration' and they may actually be mutually exclusive features.

    I got dual nvidia 7800 GTX KO's in SLI configuration and it works great(even though the builder said it probably wouldn't)! I can run games like GuildWars and *upcoming beta product* at full resolution with excellent frame rates.

    Just an FYI.
    • ...and for only $2500 you can too!

      Seriously...having a apple cinema display is worth the mula, but $600 for a video card (that you bought two of) is a little much. I think I'll stick with my dual 6600 GTs. They can play practically every game at great frame rates w/ max settings at 1024x768 or 1280x1024. It would be nice to use higher resolutions, but frame rate and image quality matter more.

      • The thing is, the LCD display cannot display 1024x768. It really has only one resolution. So thats why its important, and after paying 3 grand for a screen, getting cards that can drive it right is worth it.
  • This is really cool (Score:3, Informative)

    by fraktus (632342) * on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @03:38AM (#14343484) Homepage Journal
    Ok seems I am the only one to see this usefull.
    My application requiere shaders v2.0 and it's really boring to always type radeon radada in google to hunt for the specs to reply to questions from customers.
    Also even if it will not tell you for sure that your engine will run faster on this one or this one it will at least give you a hint.
    Having the OpenGL version supported from the driver would also have been nice.

  • by ysegalov (849765)
    a gfx card that can draw not only polygons, but also natively draw round objects (i.e. circles).
    • NURBS B-splines based sufraces are a great way of specifying round objects.
      It's kind-of-analog to the Bezier tool present in drawing programs, but applied to surfaces.
      They share some interesting properties with polygons (invariance through projections) but they are much more complex.
      They could be implemented, at least at the software level, but all the algos in the card should be made NURBS-aware, too. Right now it's just easier to rely on a good tesselation algorithm, maybe based on NURBS models.
      • Isn't that the sort of thing that the Oxygen cards are made for? and the reason nVidia came out with the Quadro cards, and ATI came out with the FireGL cards?

        If I'm an idiot, and they don't actually accelerate the calculation of NURBS B-splines, then please tell me, cause I'm confused now.
  • A table of specs, so very exciting :)

    Really all a review needs is separate the brands in price/target market groups and review the quality/features, price and speed of each one in a sentence or two.

    I for one can't care less if it's .19 or .16 micron.
  • I want this monitor.....can somebody please help me figure out what is the bare minimum agp nvidia card required to run it at full resolution over DVI??? Is a plain ol' 6200 good enough to take advantage of that massive screen real estate??? Any forums that answer this question would be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks,
        grndslm
    • by rwa2 (4391) *
      Well, its native resolution is 1920x1200 - which is incidentally the limit on the single link DVI-D spec. You'll probably want to run at 32 bits per pixel (8 bits for red, green, blue, and alpha transparency), so you'll need a card with at least 10 MB of RAM... most cards have much more than this (32MB +), the extra which can be used for offscreen buffers and stuff. So pretty much any decent card with DVI-I outputs will do for 2D. Probably best to stick to the ATis and NVidias, though, since I'm certain
      • It looks like I'll prolly go with the 6600GT 128MB AGP....definitely seems to be the best value. How many people out there are happy with their 6600GT between their linux box and their dell 2405fpw??? Just need to add the correct resolutions to the modelines, correct? The linux drivers do support portrait modes, right? Any other advice before I click the buy button (i.e. - should I get the slightly more expensive XFX card with dual DVI, or will the cheaper eVGA with one VGA and one DVI connectors be ple
        • I don't know that there is card on the market that will play some of the newer games (COD2, Quake4, F.E.A.R) at that resolution. Maybe dual 7800 GTXes?

          I got 6800 GS 256MB PCIe card for x-mas and can only run COD2 at 800x600 for it to be truly playable online. Single player is ok at 1024x768.

          I'd recommend the 6800 GS over the 6600GT. Seems to be the best bang for the buck right now, though I noticed some folks have 256 MB 7800GTs priced at $300 on pricewatch.com.
      • At 1920x1200 is there even a visible effect from antialiasing? I have to get real close to a monitor to see it at 1280x1024, so why even bother if your resolution is that high?
  • by twicesliced (909083) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @06:00AM (#14343751)
  • by D. Book (534411) on Tuesday December 27, 2005 @09:42AM (#14344323)
    Here are a couple of actual "reviews" comparing a broad sweep of video cards:

    Digit-Life's 3Digest [digit-life.com]

    Tom's Hardware's VGA Charts [tomshardware.com]

    Anyone know of any others? One of the big problems in the hardware review site industry is that they all review the same stuff and duplicate one another's work 100 times over (for various reasons which I won't go into), while you'd be hard pressed to find a single review of many low-mid range cards. Even if the purpose of such reviews would simply be to inform people about how poorly they perform, it's a major oversight. There is still a heavy bias toward high-end stuff in the above linked reviews, but at least there are a few low-end and mid-range cards chucked in.

    P.S. Another pity is slashdot's poor editorial standards, accepting the description of the linked article as a "review" being the latest example. I guess I could just stop visiting, but then I'd miss out on all the insightful comments from visitors who actually do produce some worthwhile content. So I just block the ads, so as not to reward the editors' laziness.
  • Why did the editors post this? It has little to no information.

    I guess digg was right. Slashdot is dying.

  • Here's a question I never get answered...

    Suppose I have a bunch of images of the same size already in ordinary computer memory, and I want to display them at 60 images per second. The image format is whatever is 'best'--a texture, whatever.

    Given card X, what is the largest (width x height or bytes) image that can be displayed smoothly?
    That is, each image is read from memory and sent to the screen at scale 1.0 with no shading or other modification, but it is synced to the monitor display rate, and doesn't ev
  • it would have been useful to see the Nvidia Quadro cards in this list, even if they sometimes share chractaeristics with the GeForce cards.
  • This will probably never be answered, way to late posting, but I am asking in case it is:

    Where are the reviews, etc for the "really high end" graphics stuff? Not that I would be able to afford them (I am currently running a GeForce 2 for crap-sake! Meets my needs under Linux, tho), but I would be interested in what is really coming down the pipe. I remember seeing reviews and such (long time back) on graphics processor "boxes" fed via a SCSI channel or such from Evans and Sutherland, which was meant for fli

UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn

Working...