undecided

[reverancepavane]

Time for a new video card. ATI are out of consideration, primarily since the ATI drivers have really sucked for linux. So, that really leaves only nVidia, who are winning the graphics war at the mpment in terms of performance anyway. Since the remaining available old school (Series 7) nVidia card (7950GT) that seems available doesn't run DivX10 natively, it's probably not a wise purchase if I dowant to run any of the new generation games. That leaves the nVidia Series 8 cards. The 8600 series are mainstream cards for the occaisional gamer (which probably describes me). The price break for the 8600GT really is unbeatable (being half of what I was thinking of spending) and the performance is not too bad, especially since it readily does everything I generally use a computer for (I'm really not a big graphics-heavy game player). Paying an extra 66% for the 8600GTS probably doesn't seem worthwhile for the 20% increase in performance, especially considering that both cards are limited to a 256MB memory with a 128-bit pipe. In the modern games coming out at the moment, it is the card memory that generally determines the ability to run the new games, so both cards will hit this limit at essentially the same time, regardless of what is effectively factory overclocking. Which is a pity since the 8600GTS is about the price range I was originally looking at. The 8800 series is the big brother designed for the serious game player. Not only has it a GPU that is 3x larger in terms of thread capacity, it comes with either 320MB or 640MB of memory and a 320-bit data-pipe (the price difference being negligible at that level, the 640MB is the sensible choice for avoiding false economies). However it's also twice the price I was really looking at (or even three times if I considered the GTX - I have the misfortune of tending to take a look at stuff by percentage increase in cost for performance increase, thus a tendency to spend even more money once I have overcome my natural parsimony). So what I'm really looking for is fallen in the gap between the 8600 series and the 8800 series. If I go 8600, then the cheap 8600GT seems killer value, since the performance boost to the next step appears negligible (although there are important physiological/psychological perceptile thresholds that may make it worthwhile), especially since it can handle most of the tasks I want to do (since I'm not really that much of a computer game player). In contrast, the 8800 seems overkill to me simply because I might want to run some modern games in the future, although a gamer friend tells me the memory limit can be a real killer in modern games. So which way do people think I should go? Given that there are people on my friends list with slightly more experience (by a big margin, really) with the state of game requirements these days. What sort of cards do you have? [Especially since the only game that looks marginally interesting is something like Neverwinter Nights 2, and that only from the basis of wanting to maintain the Dungeon Exchange Program, which I have yet to get around to doing anything seriously with, anyway.] Of course, knowing me as well as I do, it's a conflict between not having to part with as much money as I thought, or having to part with more money than I really wanted. Surprisingly, I have considerable inertia when moving in either direction.

Comments

[submarine-bells.livejournal.com]

I'm not too worried about the fact that my brand-noo flashy laptop only has a series-7 NVidia card and thus can't handle DirectX 10. I'm not convinced that DX10 is going to be terribly necessary for a while yet. And bear in mind that to be able to use DX10, you're gonna have to use Vista as your OS, at least until good drivers get written for other OSs. (I dunno what the state of things Linux are, but I'm imagining it's going to take a while.)

There's actually a nice detailed discussion of the "should I upgrade to DX10?" issue in the current issue of PC PowerPlay. Their assessment was that while DX10 can do some funky and cool stuff that DX9 can't (nice effects with dust and snow, for example), it doesn't actually speed the graphics up in a general sense at all... in fact, it slows them down. They got a *slower* framerate for stuff under DX10 than they did under DX9.

Given all that, and the fact that there's bugger-all out there that actually uses DX10 capabilities at this point, I was happy to choose a DX9 video card because it'll be quite a while before the absence of DX10 capabilities is gonna be a problem, and that way I can stick with my OS of choice rather than switching to the as-yet-rather-flaky Vista.

Another thing to consider if you're considering the 8-series - do check out the physical SIZE of the cards and confirm that they'll fit in your chosen case, before committing to anything. My understanding is that the 8800-series (some of them? all of them? not sure) are so ludicrously large that they actually can't fit in some standard-sized cases.

I'm not answering your question, exactly. Sorry 'bout that. But I had to make a very similar purchase decision recently, so I thought I'd toss my thoughts on the subject your way in case they add anything to the process.

[reverancepavane.livejournal.com]

The Linux drivers are good with nVidia. They actually maintain a team of engineers to tune the drivers, which has paid off in sales to the special effect houses. However there exists very little (if anything) on the Linux side that would stress any modern graphics card, and definitely nothing that invokes DX10. And calling Vista flaky is an insult to Viennese pastries (even getting a free [and I don't mean free in the sense of tanstaafl either, but actually free] copy of Vista in addition to XP makes me want to get a refund on it – but considering my nominal line of work some familiarity with it is probably required). Then again my preferred Windows base is still 2000, network peculiarities and all (which is why you use Linux or Novell – not that there is any real difference these days – to do the grunt network work for you). My original choice was one of the Series 7 cards (7900GT to be precise), but given there were delays in getting the machine, it's no longer available, and the 7950GT is listed as "may be available – call first," which doesn't actually inspire confidence. Actually you have answered much of the question, especially since it was one of "now I actually have some time to play on computers I might see what all the fuss is about," and haven't really looked at the game side of things for several years. Thanks, it's actually been very helpful, since most of the reviews are really for high-end gamers (which I'm not).

[easterbilby.livejournal.com]

The size thing submarine_bells mentioned above is certainly an issue - I was thinking about buying a new desktop, and when was shopping around I had to spend a lot of time checking cases to make sure that they'd take the cards. It eventually got down to great graphics or small footprint. The other side was the wattage on the power supply - for some cards we had to make sure that the power supply would be enough. Of course, I imagine you've already taken these into account.

Personally, I tend not to desire the latest cards. Power is wonderful and all that, but I prefer to put that money into a bigger hard drive or a radio-controlled helicopter. So I'd go with the 8600GT, based on your assessment. But that's just me. :) I tend to go for small footprints and quiet operation over raw power, anyway.

(And yes, I know I'd regret my choice six months down the line when I found a game I *really* wanted to play. The question is, can I live with the regret?)

[reverancepavane.livejournal.com]

I have no hassles wrt to the power supply. The specs are slightly overengineered in order to maintain stability when all disks are operating (OK, so I got a computer with a storage capacity that best specified in Terabytes). I've seen smaller dedicated RAID boxes. Card size also shouldn't be too much of a problem either, considering exactly how large the case is to contain the drives. Silent operation would be a novel experience, consideringthat my server is actually a server. <grin> Oh, and speaking of which, the Hobby Shop on Pulteney Street has marked down the radio-controlled leopard tank in it's window (by a considerable margin)last time I looked. Of course, Ruth is never going to forgive me mentioning it to you, considering it is the size of a small coffee table, but I can live with those regrets. <grin> And I can probably live with the other regrets too. There's reasons why I'm not thinking exactly straight at the moment (or rather, it being me, for why I am not thibking as crookedly as normal). Which is why I'm putting off the decision until it passes. But I am tending to the 8600GT and just feeling annoyed that I amnot spending as much money as I want.

[maelorin]

leopard tank. how much?

[reverancepavane.livejournal.com]

Dropped by on my way home. It's actually a M1A1 Abrahms at about 1/30 scale (it would just fit nicely on a normal desk). The price is back up to $500. [It was $300 when I saw it last, and was almost tempted to buy it for someone's wedding present – mainly so I could wrap it so the treads projected from the packaging and had it go to the gift table on it's own). I'm not sure how it would have gone down, though. He would have liked it.]

[maelorin]

$500 *sigh*

i can just imagine the fun i could have with a working 1/30 abrams around campus - especially once army.au gets regular use of their 'new' toys of the full size.

oh well. :D

mayhap a tank might not be quite right for an office in the new law school in any event. perhaps i ought to be looking out for a 1/30 pirate ship? [though a 1/30 scale tardis would be hard to go past ...]

[freyaw.livejournal.com]

But would you want to sail it down the Torrens? You'd have to clean it after...

[maelorin]

the model would be for my office ... i have no plans to flood that :P

[reverancepavane.livejournal.com]

Now if it was a fully-functional 1/30th scale M1A1 I can see how that would be quite useful. APDUDS anyone?

[maelorin]

ooooh!

but the constant maintenance would get tiresome.

[maelorin]

by working, i of course mean a working remote-controlled model.

[quuux.livejournal.com]

Oh no mustard on my shirt (mustard)
my favourite shirt (mustard)

[reverancepavane.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid, dear quux, that this comment makes even less sense than usual. Although, perhaps it would make more sense if you forget to wear your underwear?

[freyaw.livejournal.com]

But reverancepavane, what's with all the carrots?

[reverancepavane.livejournal.com]

For my night vision. I don't want to touch the fire. It could burn me.

[freyaw.livejournal.com]

The question now is: Where do we go from here?

[reverancepavane.livejournal.com]

He laments the fact that the ballet is on at dawn,and he probably won't be able to make it. He could try, but he would just be going through the motions.

[freyaw.livejournal.com]

Using all your drive?