|
And those are OEM cards anyway, which won't be on store shelves. They will, however, be confusing folks who are ordering Dells online.
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Look how cute this little guy is!  
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
How far back do you have to go for that to compete with the flagship card of the day?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
Is that the GT 640, the GT 640 or the GT 640? Oh NVIDIA, I know we joke about names, but this is going too far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
KillHour posted:How far back do you have to go for that to compete with the flagship card of the day?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 23:20
|
|
|
Hard to say until we get benchmarks. Probably around the GeForce 7 series? Maybe GeForce 8 if it's significantly more powerful than a GT 430 or not hamstrung by low memory bandwidth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 23:24
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:If you're just going by GFLOPS, roughly the 9800 GTX from 4 years ago. But which one? The GT 640 gets 612.1 GFLOPS, the GT 640 gets 729.6, and finally the GT 640 gets 415.1. vvv Aww, drat. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Apr 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
I assume he was asking about the GT 630, which is the picture I posted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:If you're just going by GFLOPS, roughly the 9800 GTX from 4 years ago. The last video card I bought was an 8800GTX. You're making me feel bad about my system.  Edit: I dropped 600 bones on that card. KillHour fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Apr 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
KillHour posted:The last video card I bought was an 8800GTX. You're making me feel bad about my system. Don't feel bad. I did the same thing (except with a 8800 GT 512). Then I get a Gigabyte 580 GTX Super Overclocked card and 4 months later the 680 comes out for the same price.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
Well nvidia unveiled the 690, the dual core beast today. http://www.anandtech.com/show/5795/nvidia-unveils-geforce-gtx-690-dual-gk104-flagship-launching-may-3rd e: Unveiled their 28nm dual core video card on the 28th. I see what you did there. incoherent fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Apr 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 06:37
|
|
|
incoherent posted:Well nvidia unveiled the 690, the dual core beast today. Oh geez, exhausts out both the front and the back of the card? That's not straightforward to cool. It's nice to see that performance should be competitive with SLI 680s, though. I mean, that's a stupid amount of power and it costs a stupid amount of money, but it's nice to see the price/performance curve hold steady.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 07:12
|
|
|
Wasn't the 690 supposed to be based on the GK100 chip, not 2 GK104s? Or will that be the 685?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 07:31
|
|
|
The "685" has been nothing but conjecture for anybody not covered by an NDA. There's still a "big Kepler" GK100 forthcoming, but we don't even know if there will be a consumer version of it. It may be only for Tesla and Quadro cards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 07:57
|
|
|
KillHour posted:The last video card I bought was an 8800GTX. You're making me feel bad about my system. Same here, 8800GTX for $519 was my last video card purchase over 4.5 years ago (wow, long time!). I've stopped playing games because it's so drat slow at 1920x1200 it's not even worth it. Waiting with barely contained anticipation for details on the 670, so I can decide between that or a 7870 in my much needed new PC. Edit: Though the specs I'm hearing on the 660Ti don't look to shabby at all for $250-ish. JBark fucked around with this message at 11:02 on Apr 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 10:57
|
|
|
JBark posted:Same here, 8800GTX for $519 was my last video card purchase over 4.5 years ago (wow, long time!). I've stopped playing games because it's so drat slow at 1920x1200 it's not even worth it. Waiting with barely contained anticipation for details on the 670, so I can decide between that or a 7870 in my much needed new PC. I've just bought a new i7 3770k for my new rig. I'm currently on a 8800GT and it really is starting to lag. However, the 560ti is so cheap right now, I just don't whether to hold out for the 660ti or even the 670. I had a similar debate with getting the 3770k over the 2600k and I obviously went for the newer tech. I just don't know how long I can cope waiting for the 6xx release and even for its stock, before I go mad from the 8800 GT. I have been tempted by just getting a 680 but it's overkill for my needs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 12:01
|
|
|
My guiding principle for hardware these days is "don't buy any individual component that's over $200". Obviously the philosophy isn't for everybody but it does mean that for the price of someone else's video card you can get a fast enough full working system (especially if you reuse parts in an upgrade).
Longinus00 fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Apr 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 04:06
|
|
|
Longinus00 posted:My guiding principle for hardware these days is "don't buy any individual component that's over $200". Obviously the philosophy isn't for everybody but it does mean that for the price of someone else's video card you can get a fast enough full working system (especially if you reuse parts in an upgrade).
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 05:36
|
|
|
grumperfish posted:I usually spend around $250 for a videocard, and haven't ever really been disappointed with performance. I don't have extreme requirements, but that usually puts me well in the mid-range with power to spare, and in two years I just grab another ~$250 card to move up. This worked out particularly-great with the 4870 and the unlocked 6950 I'm running now, as I can very-nearly max everything out (at 1680x1050) and overclocking fills the gaps when I want to run stupid-high settings with something like The Witcher II or Metro 2033. $500+ videocards have their places for certain people, but I'd rather trade off maximum performance for being able to continually-receive "good enough" performance without having to turn many settings down. I don't think I'd handle moving to a 5770-6850 very well, as the inconvenience of having to tailor settings would outweigh (for me) the reduced cost vs. a more powerful card. If you're willing to put up with rebates, count the cost of an included game as part of a "discount", and not buy when just released then a 6950 just squeezes in as a $200 card. I ended up going for a 6870 because you could get them for around $150 after rebate and it basically doubled the performance of my old 4850. I'm actually surprised that I can run 60fps @1080p for many new titles even without any overclocking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 07:13
|
|
|
I enjoy being spendy on high end cards and generally pick up a top end one from the generation  Am I hitting the price to performance sweet spots? Oh lord no, but I turn up all the pretties and as a shallow ape man I dig that!When I find time to get back into the system parts picking advice thread I am not going to suggest others do the same or anything like that, but I will buy big so I can enjoy what eye candy they have to offer this go around and it has not let me down in terms of enjoying games so far  It does basically lock you into the high end upgrade cycle where if you want to see a notable performance increase you best be willing to either wait two generations and buy a $250ish card or be prepared to plop down another five hundred bucks for this generation but what can you do (apart from not do that I mean)
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 14:09
|
|
|
The thing is,for awhile now, to hit high end graphics you dont really need high end cards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
Depends on what your resolution is, what games you're playing, and what kind of graphics and framerate you're after. Most (not all - playing Crysis 2 right now, and I can't run all ultra AND DX11, if I turn DX11 features on I've gotta turn some stuff down, GTX 580 overclocked to 920mhz core) console ports run fine because that hardware is ~roughly 7800GTX level. But a lot of games definitely will let you take advantage of powerful graphics, even at the "lowly" resolution of 1080p. If you don't want super graphics, that is 100% your business and again, I don't tell other people to buy high end poo poo because it's generally not necessary and a lot of people asking advice are in college or other circumstances that don't really leave them with a lot of extra money. But I don't judge people who do buy high end. And people with extraordinary requirements pretty much have to, three-monitor guys, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
Agreed posted:I enjoy being spendy on high end cards and generally pick up a top end one from the generation I have done the same thing the last couple of gens. I bought the 5870 when it came out, and that cost me like $400 at the time. But if it had not poo poo the bed 6 months out of the 2 year warranty, I would still be using it because it is fine for 1080p and the games I play. I would rather buy a top end card every 3-4 years than meddle with $250 cards every 2 like I have done in the past. My 5870 was about the same as the $300 560 TI 448 Core I bought to step up to a 680, so it held up pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Depends on what your resolution is, what games you're playing, and what kind of graphics and framerate you're after. My 580 is only clocked at 860mgz and I run Crysis 2 in DX11+Ultra with no problem at 1920x1200. Maaaaybe I turned off the AA, I can't remember. It's pretty smooth with only the occasional chop, but I couldn't give throw a number out there, and I know you and I definitely have different tolerance levels on games going below 60fps. Still, Crysis could be another crazy Metro-like outlier overworking your card at a seemingly stable 920mhz.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
Dogen posted:My 580 is only clocked at 860mgz and I run Crysis 2 in DX11+Ultra with no problem at 1920x1200. Maaaaybe I turned off the AA, I can't remember. It's pretty smooth with only the occasional chop, but I couldn't give throw a number out there, and I know you and I definitely have different tolerance levels on games going below 60fps. Still, Crysis could be another crazy Metro-like outlier overworking your card at a seemingly stable 920mhz. I have some extra stuff enabled with a third-party configuration utility, and I've got it vsynced with a 58fps frame limiter set via nvidiaInspector - 45fps dips really bug me, it's silly, but it's also my preference. I want it to be smooth and good looking. DX10 mode I can have it all, DX11 mode I can have a lot of it but not all of it. The parallax mapping/bump is good enough in DX10 that I really don't miss DX11 tessellation, and apart from that there's, what, DX11 advanced depth of field? Smoother SSAO performance, but unlike the DX10 features you can't pick and choose with DX11 mode. Unless there's a newer configuration tool than the 5.2 version I'm using. The AA is a hog in Crysis 2, it's got three available AA options which can be combined for really, really nice visual performance, and when you start manually tweaking the shaders it starts to look even more amazing while simultaneously becoming rather more demanding too. I like pretty games and I want vsync locked and stable, y'know? Agreed fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Apr 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
I'd spend good money if AMD (or nv) could produce a video card that performed at mid-range levels, but didn't require an aux. power source or a massive cooling unit. I'm currently rocking a HD5450 because my wife and I wanted a quiet PC, and it does just fine pushing dual 1920 monitors. The last gam3r card I had in there (4850) sounded like a hairdryer. Are the days of passively cooled video cards gone?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 17:59
|
|
|
Civil posted:I'd spend good money if AMD (or nv) could produce a video card that performed at mid-range levels, but didn't require an aux. power source or a massive cooling unit. I'm currently rocking a HD5450 because my wife and I wanted a quiet PC, and it does just fine pushing dual 1920 monitors. The last gam3r card I had in there (4850) sounded like a hairdryer. I couldn't hear my GTX 680 over my case fans even under full load doing F@H. It is the quietest card I've ever had, with a history of 5870, 8800GTS 512mb, 8800 GTS 320mb, and 7900 GTO. My case is the Antec 1200 with the fans on low for reference. I know a $500 isn't the solution for everyone, but it should be indicative of the Kepler cards to come.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
Civil posted:I'd spend good money if AMD (or nv) could produce a video card that performed at mid-range levels, but didn't require an aux. power source or a massive cooling unit. I'm currently rocking a HD5450 because my wife and I wanted a quiet PC, and it does just fine pushing dual 1920 monitors. The last gam3r card I had in there (4850) sounded like a hairdryer. Like this 6850? Looks like Newegg has a fanless Sapphire 7750 as well, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 18:12
|
|
|
^^ gently caress, beatenCivil posted:I'd spend good money if AMD (or nv) could produce a video card that performed at mid-range levels, but didn't require an aux. power source or a massive cooling unit. I'm currently rocking a HD5450 because my wife and I wanted a quiet PC, and it does just fine pushing dual 1920 monitors. The last gam3r card I had in there (4850) sounded like a hairdryer. This is probably the strongest passively cooled card http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131442
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 18:14
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:^^ gently caress, beaten That's pretty nice actually. I've got a stock 6850 that pushes 1080p without much problem, maybe setting to 'High' instead of 'Ultra' and keeping AA at 4x or so
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
While that card is passively cooled, it still requires additional power, and has the case heating issues that go along with that. I was hoping AMD would solve the problem at the chipset level, rather than an OEM solution that takes 3 slots because the heatsink is so massive. This is the card I'm currently using. Remember when just about every video card looked like this? I'd like to see mid-range performance in a package this size. Pipe dream? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131339
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 19:12
|
|
|
Civil posted:I'd spend good money if AMD (or nv) could produce a video card that performed at mid-range levels, but didn't require an aux. power source or a massive cooling unit. I'm currently rocking a HD5450 because my wife and I wanted a quiet PC, and it does just fine pushing dual 1920 monitors. The last gam3r card I had in there (4850) sounded like a hairdryer. The 4800 series of cards were notoriously hot. The 4870 would be getting close to 100C in games. The newer generation of cards run a bit cooler and cooling has improved a bit since then. All performance geared mid range cards come in multi fan cooling solutions which lowers the noise even further. If even that is not enough then you can try the ridiculous passive heatsink cards of the even larger aftermarket passive heatsinks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
Civil posted:While that card is passively cooled, it still requires additional power, and has the case heating issues that go along with that. I was hoping AMD would solve the problem at the chipset level, rather than an OEM solution that takes 3 slots because the heatsink is so massive. Pipe dream. It takes a lot of power to run modern games with high options. Consoles are running on ancient hardware and you can really tell if you get a game maker who is competent at porting and lets the PC have a bunch of fancy stuff the console doesn't get (e.g. Crysis 2 fully patched, possibly with one outside texture mod, 360 vs. PC - PC looks amazingly better with zero slowdown if your hardware is salty enough; Metro 2033 on 360 vs. Metro 2033 on high-end PC, again there's just no comparison in the amount of graphical doohickies you can get going on the PC, it's crazy good looking). The good news is that heat isn't going up with processing power because shrinking lithography means that the same processing capability is less and less expensive, power-wise. Plus nVidia and ATI are both actively working HARD to improve power gating. ATI's low-wattage mode on the 7950/7970 runs at 3W when rendering the desktop only, that's crazy efficient. nVidia has also consistently reduced power consumption of their top end cards, and arguably have the most effective and efficient wattage-to-processing-power graphics cards on the market now, depending on whether you weight time in or out of games more. Edit: Can't forget improved cooling tech, as well; cards these days are using vapor chamber cooling, which takes the concept of phase-change cooling found in heatpipe technology and applies it to a broader surface area for more efficient heat transfer. The loud part is the rotary blower, which is a very effective and long-lived design that will work for pretty much the entire useful life of the card, but it's loud. Aftermarket cooling for cards tends to be centered around replacing the efficient but loud cooling with a multi-fan and heatpipe setup to cool as effectively or more effectively, but with two 90mm turbulence-optimized low noise fans or the like instead of the noisy blower setup found in reference designs. The trade-off is that you end up unable to eject heat effectively from the case, so it does become necessary to have good airflow inside the case or you'll get heat buildup, but most mid-tower cases these days accommodate at the very least multiple 120mm fans, with many of them designed for multiple 200mm fans. My case has 3 200mm fans which are silent and one 120mm fan which is nearly silent. Two 200mm intakes, one 200mm top exhaust for efficient heat removal and one 120mm rear exhaust to prevent, as much as possible, turbulence from making it difficult to cool the processor. (Though the processor's heat sink is a Noctua NH-D14 with an optional third fan mounted, so turbulence really isn't an issue - it pushes a column of air extremely well and very quietly thanks to Noctua's top-tier fans). I would strongly advise looking at cases which feature two 200mm fans in their stock configuration before deciding that noise and airflow are some insurmountable curse. I bet I could slot two of those suckers in Crossfire (if they made a bridge big enough  ) and still cool them just fine, and that would eliminate the only noise source that I can really detect in my case, which is the reference blower-style vapor chamber cooler on my GTX 580.
Agreed fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Apr 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
Also, there's a reason why cards don't have small passive heatsinks - because we are comfortable with large heatsinks and multi-slot solutions - and this massively increases the possibilities for the power of the chip. If we decided to constrain GPU power to small passive heatsinks, of course it could be done, but we would simply have much, much less power. Eventually, the processes shrink, the architecture is more refined, and so on. Your card is still vastly more powerful than the similar looking card of many years ago, so essentially, you DO have what you want. But wanting the cutting edge in that envelope is impossible, because the cutting edge chips are designed to give out heat that need massive cooling solutions and require more power. It just extends the realm of what's possible. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Apr 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
When did we start getting comfortable with the idea of multi-slot graphics cards? I feel like the FX 5800 was the first notable reference card to do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
Probably about the time the integrated sound, network, and etc. on the motherboard got good enough that we didn't need a ton of expansion slots any more. And switching to broadband instead of dial-up modems. Remember when you used to pay a premium for 6 PCI slots instead of 5 because you really needed that last one?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
That's probably true. Once you had all that space and nothing but a graphics card to fill it, the idea became less ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
It all sort of happened at once: multi-slot coolers, auxiliary power for GPUs, the rise of PCI Express (making GPU placement in the case a bit more flexible) and the better integration of more devices into the north bridge. Hell, we basically stopped calling it a north bridge around the same time because the south bridge disappeared. The relevancy of front-side bus died too. I guess I shouldn't be so surprised that people who haven't built a PC in 8 years have no clue what's going on anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 19:54
|
|
|
In my day we had 2 PCI slots and 3 ISA slots and that's the way we liked it 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Probably about the time the integrated sound, network, and etc. on the motherboard got good enough that we didn't need a ton of expansion slots any more. And switching to broadband instead of dial-up modems. Remember when you used to pay a premium for 6 PCI slots instead of 5 because you really needed that last one? M-my Audigy5 ZSX Gran Turismo edition 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 20:00
|
|
