Ineffable Wingbolt Necris Omega Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 So this morning my computer starts up with a sound the likes of which made every neuron in my brain associated with computer hardware scream in tandem. Taking off the case's side panel, I find that, much to my repeating dismay, the fan on my video card has died. Again. Now, I've already been thinking of replacing my current machine (or at least the majority of it's grotesquely outdated parts... so the majority of it) but this really takes the cake. I was on the fence about a new video card along with a motherboard, CPU, memory, case, and OS what with having recently replaced the fan and installed a new heat sync on it. Now, however, that fence has summarily collapsed. As I type this, I've a floor fan pointed directly into my open case, holding my Radeon 4850 HD at a working 50° C whilst my files back up. I've nothing running to tax it, but I really don't see myself running, say, Skyrim in a few weeks on this poor crippled card. Thus, sadly, it needs to go. SO then... between the two titans of video cards, what's the suggestion? I've worked with both and run both brands to the melting point (my nVidia at the time had no temp. sensing fail safe to shut it down, so it literally WAS a melting point) and can't profess a strong preference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Tyranicus Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 I had an ATI 9800 back in the day, but ever since the GeForce 6 series, I've been using Nvidia cards. Right now I've running a GTX 470. Depending on Skyrim performance, I may upgrade to a 570. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Performance between the two is really neck and neck and varies by how much you want to spend, your performance needs, and which company just edged ahead with new releases. If you want to latest in graphics cards, Ars Technica is probably the place to check. —Alorael, who writes this using a Geforce 8600M that's showing its age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Earth Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 which card is best changes when price goes up and on top cards it can change when new version of drivers are released. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast keira Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I'm personally an Nvidia fan, although looking back that's probably just because their logo is green, given that I also prefer AMD processors (Which is ironic and a potential compatibility cluster-fuuuuamily friendly forum). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dantius Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 nvidia, but really that's solely because I just found out Priem was an RPI graduate. Institutional loyalty and all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast keira Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Originally Posted By: Dantius Priem was an RPI graduate. Institutional loyalty and all that. Of course you would be from RPI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Rowen Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 You can use nVidia or ATI, but I know that some people prefer to match nVidia with Intel processors and ATI with AMD. Not something you have to do, but it is a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Earth Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I have always had ATI on Intel processor's at home and 1st better workcomp had NVidia-card and AMD.processor but today its ATI+Intel. Many motherboards support both manufacturers (separately of course) unless its NVIdia's or AMD's chipset then choices are bit limited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Tyranicus Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Motherboards can be either Intel or AMD as far as processor compatibility, since they use different sockets, but I'm not aware of any motherboards that support only Nvidia or only ATI graphics cards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curious Artila Jeanne Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Tom's Hardware frequently rates the best CPU for different amounts of money. They do the benchmark testing so you don't have to. The latest one was done in September and you can find it at http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-performance-radeon-geforce,3018.html. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Earth Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 if you use single card then it doesn't matter but if you want to use 2 or more then some mobos allow only AMD's cards or NVidias cards since no support for Crossfire and SLI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyshakk Koan Mod. Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Not sure about ATI and Nvidia, but I for some reason favor ATI. As for AMD and Intel, I like AMD much better. I have two PCs with the same specs specs, besides the processors, and both have integrated graphics chips. The Intel one is supposed to be better and is brand new, while the AMD has been sitting around for a while getting cluttered. The AMD gets a steady FPS of at least 125 (where I cap it) on my favorite FPS on almost every map. The Intel often drops to around 40 FPS, despite having the graphics settings on the PC to max performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Tyranicus Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Originally Posted By: Mod. Not sure about ATI and Nvidia, but I for some reason favor ATI. As for AMD and Intel, I like AMD much better. I have two PCs with the same specs specs, besides the processors, and both have integrated graphics chips. The Intel one is supposed to be better and is brand new, while the AMD has been sitting around for a while getting cluttered. The AMD gets a steady FPS of at least 125 (where I cap it) on my favorite FPS on almost every map. The Intel often drops to around 40 FPS, despite having the graphics settings on the PC to max performance. You say they both have integrated graphics chips, but are they the same integrated graphics chips? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dantius Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Originally Posted By: Mod. Not sure about ATI and Nvidia, but I for some reason favor ATI. As for AMD and Intel, I like AMD much better. I have two PCs with the same specs specs, besides the processors, and both have integrated graphics chips. The Intel one is supposed to be better and is brand new, while the AMD has been sitting around for a while getting cluttered. The AMD gets a steady FPS of at least 125 (where I cap it) on my favorite FPS on almost every map. The Intel often drops to around 40 FPS, despite having the graphics settings on the PC to max performance. Why on earth would you need 125 FPS? Modern monitor only have a refresh rate of 60 Hz, meaning that over half of the frames rendered by you GPU aren't even displayed, and the human eye has trouble perceiving any difference beyond 40 FPS or so. There is literally no reason to tax your computers hardware and shorten its lifespan to get a framerate of 125- it's just stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Earth Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 some LCD support 75 Hz refresh rate and if he has CRT then depending type its possible to get 120Hz refresh rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyshakk Koan Mod. Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Originally Posted By: Dantius Why on earth would you need 125 FPS? Modern monitor only have a refresh rate of 60 Hz, meaning that over half of the frames rendered by you GPU aren't even displayed, and the human eye has trouble perceiving any difference beyond 40 FPS or so. There is literally no reason to tax your computers hardware and shorten its lifespan to get a framerate of 125- it's just stupid. Actually, there is a difference on the game I play with having 125 FPS. I don't see a need to go into detail as to why, but its an old game, which relies on CPU more than graphics card, and isn't very graphic intensive anyway, so 125 FPS isn't hard to get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Frame rates over 60 FPS can help most when you have fast-moving objects. Although the eye can't separate the images, it can pick up the difference between objects that teleport and those that actually pass through the space between. It's from the fact that it's not the eye that has a frame rate, really. Neurons in the eye will keep firing in staggered fashion constantly; each one can't produce a whole image, of course, but each one does have some input to visual processing and, in turn, to what you perceive. —Alorael, who has seen monitors sold with much higher refresh rates than 60 Hz. They tend to be specialized gaming hardware, though, which means there's even odds that the difference isn't perceptible to anyone but the most highly trained. That's not sarcasm; he'd believe that serious gamers can tell the differences between very high refresh rates the way artists can distinguish among more colors than the general population.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.