Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Massive Graphics Card Review

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the sifting-through-the-cruft dept.

Graphics 133

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.

cancel ×

133 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This isn't a review (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14343323)

It's a fricking table of all the cards and their specifications. It doesn't review a single card at all.

Re:This isn't a review (5, Insightful)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343404)

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.

Re:This isn't a review (2, Insightful)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343959)


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.

Re:This isn't a review (1)

click2005 (921437) | more than 8 years ago | (#14344096)

Ads... wot ads?

Adblock in firefox is great :)

Re:This isn't a review (2, Funny)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 8 years ago | (#14344101)

. 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.

About 1% of the hits will be from me, trying over and over to load the damn page which choked on some javascripted banner ad (from the name of the domain it was waiting for), till I finally gave up.

Re:This isn't a review (1)

GweeDo (127172) | more than 8 years ago | (#14344590)

I think I will click and close just to eat their bandwidth!

Re:This isn't a review (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14344830)

It's not even complete. Where's the Radeon 8500 Pro? 9100 Pro non-IGP? It's missing stuff.

Re:This isn't a review (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14345156)

Readers will want to know "micron manufacturing process" in order to determine which cards are most overclockable.

Re:Where's the proof? (1)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 8 years ago | (#14345353)

Readers will want to know "micron manufacturing process" in order to determine which cards are most overclockable.

Wow, really? Way back when, my Celeron 300a - a 0.25 micron chip - could be easily overclocked to 450Mhz. A 50% improvement just by setting some jumpers. So 0.25 micron chips can be overclocked 50%?

Of course that is complete nonsense, and no one can use a micron guide to determine how overclockable a chip is. That depends upon the complexity of the chip, the weakest link, and how aggressively the vendor clocked the chip to begin with. Given a micron guide is just space filler with easily accessible information, and it has no usefulness to consumers.

What does matter to consumers are actual performance results - the end result of the fab, the texel units, the pixel shaders, and so on. This particular page has zero actual performance metrics that are usable to compare cards.

Re:Where's the proof? (1)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 8 years ago | (#14345482)

I have no idea where the subject line to that reply came from.

Slogan (3, Insightful)

DietCoke (139072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343524)

"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.

Re:This isn't a review (0, Redundant)

HD Webdev (247266) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343722)

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"

Re:This isn't a review (5, Interesting)

80 85 83 83 89 33 (819873) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343760)

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.

Re:This isn't a review (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14344106)

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 for expansion, but they are most definitely in the minority. I know that most OEM's are somewhat deceptive in their packaging... I've bought computers that claimed to have an AGP video card only to discover that it's an on-board AGP card, with no slot for expansion. But, realistically, if you're savvy enough to be looking at benchmarks to upgrade your video card...if you're savvy enough to know that your PC doesn't have any AGP slots...then I have to assume that you're savvy enough to make sure your PC has an AGP slot when you purchase it, or install a new motherboard that has an AGP slot.

Like it or not, AGP is really the standard for video expansion right now. Yes, PCI cards are still manufactured, but no serious gamer is going to use one if they have a choice. Is it any wonder that the review sites focus on the technology than 90% of their readers are interested in? Yes, I'm sure some kind of a "bargain basement video card blowout!" review would do well... But you can't honestly expect PCI cards to get the same kind of coverage these days as AGP. Especially when AGP itself is starting to lose ground to PCIx.

I don't know that PCIx actually offers much over your standard AGP card...other than SLI... It may be that it is purely motivated by marketing... But I have no doubt that given a few years of improvement there will be a very distinct difference in performance between PCIx and AGP. Just as today there is a very distinct difference in performance between AGP and PCI.

Thank you, Captain Obvious! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14344393)

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

No, shit? Duh.

Who said anything about "high-end gaming"? No-one? Then why do you think someone talking about PCI graphics cards is interested in high-end gaming?

Re:This isn't a review (2, Insightful)

kesuki (321456) | more than 8 years ago | (#14344463)

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 the high end 2006 cards.

Why? because you can only have 1 AGP slot in a mother board, you can have 4 PCIEx16 slots, and still keep slotfans below them.. like it or not PCI Express x16 is here to stay, and agp is going the way of the dinosaur it was.

there may not be a 'real world performance' issue between the two technologies, until you put a pair of gt7800's in SLI mode... or a pair of radeon X1800's in crossfire mode... then you see why agp is dead and dying.

Re:This isn't a review (2, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14346147)

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.

Re:This isn't a review (2, Interesting)

arth1 (260657) | more than 8 years ago | (#14345440)

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

Re:This isn't a review (2, Interesting)

Cerberus7 (66071) | more than 8 years ago | (#14344257)

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 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.

Re:This isn't a review (1)

Sumocide (114549) | more than 8 years ago | (#14345283)

who would give anything


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

Re:This isn't a review (1)

Urusai (865560) | more than 8 years ago | (#14345312)

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.

Re:This isn't a review (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14345833)

Unfortunately, most ISA BIOSes stopped supporting MGA cards around the same time that AGP came out. That was a real gotterdaemmerung for Soft-ICE users. :-(

welcome to 2005 (almost 2006) (1)

ne0n (884282) | more than 8 years ago | (#14345912)

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.

Re:This isn't a review (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14346130)

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.

Re:This isn't a review (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14345299)

What a redundant waste of table. http://www.gpureview.com/ [gpureview.com] already has this information and 10 times more.

first post!!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

rocket_boosta (865381) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343325)

FP

Review? (5, Informative)

compm375 (847701) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:Review? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14343342)

And how is this considered a "comprehensive graphics card review" when it only has ATI cards?

Re:Review? (2, Funny)

compm375 (847701) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343353)

That would be the first page...

Re:Review? (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343357)

This is similar to their earlier 'compression tool comparison', just a bunch of nothing with an metric assload of ads.

Re:Review? (1)

Jebediah21 (145272) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343477)

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.

Re:Review? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14343415)

indeed, these are just comparision tables and even those are incomplete/outdated.

where's ati x200m ?
where's nvidia 7300go ?

i'd like some specs on thoze...

Re:Review? (1)

seifried (12921) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343470)

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 #... ).

simple: open source drivers? (4, Interesting)

Speare (84249) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343332)

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?

Re:simple: open source drivers? (4, Informative)

hamfactorial (857057) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343372)

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.

Re:simple: open source drivers? (2, Interesting)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343494)

> 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 always get random hardware lockups until I tire of it and install the proprietary driver. It can be a major bitch as well but once installed correctly the lockups end.

Haven't tried the latest x.org version though, does it work at last? I'd really like to remove the only taint (other than a couple of old Loki games) from an otherwise 100% pure machine.

Re:simple: open source drivers? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14343558)

even if ATI themselves doesn't help all that much to make them happen, it is still more than Nvidia does

Is it that ATI helps more or that it's own drivers are such shit (compared to nvidia) as to require a third-party alternative?

Re:simple: open source drivers? (1)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343749)

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.

Re:simple: open source drivers? (2, Informative)

odie_q (130040) | more than 8 years ago | (#14345044)

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.

Re:simple: open source drivers? (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 8 years ago | (#14345881)

> 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.

Re:simple: open source drivers? (2, Insightful)

Baloo Ursidae (29355) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343570)

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.

Handy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14343333)

Hey, I need a new computer soon, so this article seems like it could very handy. Hey, my first Slashdot post is the first post for this article, too! Aww, that means absolutely nothing.

Wow (0, Offtopic)

lastberserker (465707) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343346)

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 (0, Troll)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343377)

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.

Re:Wow (0, Flamebait)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343898)

I think you're confused. CowboyNeal is his towel boy at the annual Slashdot bukakke-fest.

Re:Wow (1)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343419)

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!

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14344270)

why has OP been modded OT, he's on the nail with this. I'm sick of advertisement articles that are appearing on slashdot, they are not being chosen for relevancy or interest but based on incentives in my opinion. If you check you'll find (tin hats on) that the last two were posted by scuttlemonkey, if you check back further for articles linking to that website you'll find a string of articles all submitted by Joey Braff (an yahoo email adress as is Brian Tonka's, the latest submitter), while I've no idea whether scuttlemonkey is working based on incentives it's not appropriate to have multiple articles pointing to the same website submitted by the same editor. .... not to mention the fucking articles a bloody dupe.

Hmm... some errors in the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14343348)

GeForce 6800 GT 350 MHz 5600 MTexels/s 256-bits GDDR3 500 MHz 32.00 GB/s

$ nvclock -s
Card: nVidia Geforce 6800GT
Card number: 1
Mode GPU Clock Memory Clock
Coolbits 2D: 370.000 Mhz 1000.000 Mhz
Coolbits 3D: 370.000 Mhz 1000.000 Mhz
Current: 11.903 Mhz 1002.375 Mhz

Mine is BFD nVidia GeForce 6800 GT w/256MB ram.

Re:Hmm... some errors in the article (1)

Dambiel (115695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343420)

BFG overclocks their boards. Because the perceived risk in this they warranty them for life. 350MHz is standard for the GT, 370MHz is what BFG runs the card at.

Check out the product description [bfgtech.com]

when do we get a complex database (2, Insightful)

spacerodent (790183) | more than 8 years ago | (#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?

Re:when do we get a complex database (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14343672)

Good idea, but in reality nothing beats a personal review by someone who tried card X with board Y and memory Z and said "It worked". That's why Toms is best imho. Here [gpureview.com] is the best all round collection of card data I have found recently, then cross ref this with any reviews you find on Toms closely matching your own hardware base.

What review? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14343364)

In what ways does the article constitute a "review"?

How does the compilation of a bunch of specification numbers help anybody in deciding what card to buy? How does knowing the specification of some 10-yo obsolete PCI graphics card help shoppers today?

The summary is total BS.

Hmm. Radeon, radeon, ati, ati (0, Flamebait)

phorm (591458) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343366)

As mentioned above, it's not a review. However, nobody seems to have mentioned that it only seems to cover ATI cards. It's nice to see the improvement of the various cards as far as speed/texturing engine/etc, but it doesn't show an cards from NVidia or others (which given the years of some of these ATI cards, there were other good manufacturers beside ATI/NV).

Still, interesting but not really useful for deciding what card to go for next, unless you're trying to see if a new ATI is better than your old in terms of speed (stability not mentioned).

Oops (3, Informative)

phorm (591458) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343368)

Replying to myself, I didn't notice the "NVidia" link hidden at the bottom (I looked, I swear!), which leads to XGI, etc.

Re:Hmm. Radeon, radeon, ati, ati (5, Informative)

JanusFury (452699) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343373)

There are other brands on the following pages of the article; it's just really hard to find the 'next page' link because the site's layout SUCKS.

Re:Hmm. Radeon, radeon, ati, ati (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14343385)

Scroll down to the very bottom of the page and click on the "NVIDIA" link! Then after that, click on XGI, then S3, SiS, Matrox, PowerVR, 3dfx, Trident, and... Intel

I almost missed the links too, btw.

What the heck? You Call This Newsworthy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14344067)

I was looking forward to a proper review, instead I get a poorly arranged specsheet for ATI cards dating back to the Bronze Age!

If you have nothing worthy to mention - don't mention it and waste our time, please.

MTexels/s (4, Informative)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343375)

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]

Re:MTexels/s (0)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343405)

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 the GeForce3 that would replace it. and teh Voodoo can handle Mame just fine.

Re:MTexels/s (1)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343431)

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.

Re:MTexels/s (-1, Troll)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343458)

It's okay old timer, your laziness is forgiven.

I don't expect to much from anyone with a low UID anyhow.

I assume anyone with a low UID had their brain fossilize a long time ago :op

Maybe Flamebait (1, Flamebait)

hagrin (896731) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343394)

.. 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.

Re:Maybe Flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14343428)

You're right, it is flamebait. Try using the menu at the bottom of the page, or the arrows to find other manufacturers. Way to look like an idiot there guy.

Re:Maybe Flamebait (1)

hagrin (896731) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343675)

Ahh the replier is right, my mistake.

Maybe I should have been nominated for the 2005 Foot in Mouth Award? : )

Stop the madne...er, linking (4, Insightful)

greg1104 (461138) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343398)

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] .

Massive cards, or Massive review? (4, Funny)

permaculture (567540) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343429)

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".

Re:Massive cards, or Massive review? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14343522)

In English, those two phrases can mean the same thing.

"Graphics Card" could be adjective describing the review, as is the word "Massive."

Re:Massive cards, or Massive review? (1)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343908)

I have massive graphics, you insensitive clod!

ATI (-1, Flamebait)

ptarjan (593901) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343433)

Only ATI cards? Sadly I won't buy an ATI card until their linux support stats to get anywhere near the NVIDIA one.

Re:ATI (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343493)

This is the third or fouth post from someone who did not notice the link to the next page buried in the ads. Earlier on I read the compression comparison, and it took me about 5 minutes of searching to find the link to the next page. Looks like another Roland Piquepaille like page that just lures in unsuspecting slashdotters to gain ad revenue. Useless content drowned in a sea of ads, the site aint called jakpot for nothin.

Re:ATI (1)

praxis22 (681878) | more than 8 years ago | (#14344204)

Kind of besides the point since people just want to bitch, but install adblock, and filterset G updater, and you'll rarely see another "normal" ad. As for the article, rojakpot always has a drop down menu at the top, as did this one, that you can scroll to the required page. Not to mention the fact that the "Nvidia" link was at the botom of the page, (at least the page I was looking at) It's not exactly rocket science.

What I need to know is... (1)

Eric Damron (553630) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343435)

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.

Re:What I need to know is... (1)

undeadly (941339) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343762)

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 OpenBSD has had several campaigns to get hardware documentation with great success, but with lackluster support from Linux users/developers/vendors.

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.

NVIDIA does not release documentation for any it's hardware, be it 3D cards or network cards. Any NVIDIA open source drivers are reverse engineered. Sorry, binary only drivers does not cut it. After some time you have a forced obsolence of still usefull hardware.

Re:What I need to know is... (2, Informative)

poofyhairguy82 (635386) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343901)

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!

The original article is right. (2, Informative)

ShaolinTiger (798138) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343465)

It's titled COMPARISON, not REVIEW, whoever posted it to /. got it wrong, not the adsense crazy Rojakpot.

3D at 2560x1600 (2, Interesting)

rufusdufus (450462) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:3D at 2560x1600 (1)

fishybell (516991) | more than 8 years ago | (#14345500)

...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.

This is really cool (3, Informative)

fraktus (632342) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343484)

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.

Re:This is really cool (2, Insightful)

Mr. Vandemar (797798) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343497)

It may be cool, but it's sure as hell not a review.

I would like to see (2, Insightful)

ysegalov (849765) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343506)

a gfx card that can draw not only polygons, but also natively draw round objects (i.e. circles).

Re:I would like to see (1)

Wisgary (799898) | more than 8 years ago | (#14345059)

Yeah instead of 15,000,000 polygons to approximate a quarter or a wheel.

Re:I would like to see (1)

orasio (188021) | more than 8 years ago | (#14345658)

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.

Gee... (1)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343645)

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.

Only ATI? (0, Redundant)

Jafar00 (673457) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343654)

In world where Nvidia does not exist.

Dell 2405FPW?!?!?! (1)

grndslm (310363) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343739)

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

Re:Dell 2405FPW?!?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14343790)

I have it running with a Geforce 6600GT (DVI).

Re:Dell 2405FPW?!?!?! (2, Insightful)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343849)

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 they will support that monitor's physical screen rotation feature.

Uh, you'll probably have to go pretty high end if you want decent 3D framerates at 1920x1200 with anti aliasing and stuff. But if you're looking for that, you pretty much have to set your price point ($100? $200? $300?) and go see what http://anandtech.com/ [anandtech.com] or http://tomshardware.com/ [tomshardware.com] has to recommend.

Re:Dell 2405FPW?!?!?! (1)

grndslm (310363) | more than 8 years ago | (#14344423)

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 plenty if I only plan on using one monitor??) Alright...and my last one this time...how do videos of lesser resolutions look on the 2405fpw...are they blurry enough to be bothersome in your opinion(s)???

Re:Dell 2405FPW?!?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14345624)

I had to set a modeline for mine (I have evga7800GT + 2405) but it worked fine basicly, aside from needing newer drivers (which I don't like for other reasons) to support the 7800.

You don't need dual DVI unless you plan on running a 2nd LCD of course. I even ran it on VGA 1920x1200 and I was surprised it didn't look bad at all, although not as nice as DVI, so if the price difference is a big deal I wouldn't sweat it that your missing the second DVI.

Re:Dell 2405FPW?!?!?! (1)

Prophet of Nixon (842081) | more than 8 years ago | (#14344898)

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?

August wasn't *that* long ago... (3, Informative)

twicesliced (909083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14343751)

Re:August wasn't *that* long ago... (1)

Zanthany (166662) | more than 8 years ago | (#14344931)

Not only that...but let's not forget the most recent Rojakpot article [slashdot.org] that was submitted. It's good to see Slashdot continuing to post such high quality, informative articles -- especially ones featuring such high quality page layout and useful advertising.

Wow. They have what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14343844)

They have massive graphic cards now? I must really be behind the times.

Some actual reviews of a wide range of cards (2, Interesting)

D. Book (534411) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Absolutely pathetic. (1)

idhindsight (920184) | more than 8 years ago | (#14344444)

Why did the editors post this? It has little to no information.

I guess digg was right. Slashdot is dying.

Quite a diagnosis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14344553)

"...over 240 different desktop graphics cards...15 different points of comparison this...a starting reference for the enthusiast and casual buyer alike."

240? 15? A "starting reference"? To buy a graphics card? This proves there is something wrong in the industry. That or Slashdot's concept of the 'casual buyer' is horribly flawed. Come to think of it, expecting a casual buyer will want to even look at this might explain the low take-up of linux on boxes post-purchase.

Modelines! $5! Get yer modelines!...

How fast do cards display out of memory. (1)

hexatron (683320) | more than 8 years ago | (#14344563)

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 ever (or hardly hardly ever) drop frames.

Not complete (1)

honeypotslash (927312) | more than 8 years ago | (#14344815)

It doesn't even have my card...Nvidia 5500-OC
--
Get your Free MacMini here [freepay.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>