Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

FPSC Classic Product Chat / Recommended High-Medium Graphic-Card for realistic FPS-Creator Development

Author
Message
bob humid
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Jan 2006
Location: Cologne, Germany
Posted: 11th Aug 2006 01:29


ppl of earth,

well, the title says it all. i have finally purchased my copy of FPSC and now I need to upgrade my fairly old GeForce 2MX in order to run it properly.

I am looking for a hi-mid quality graphic-card that has minimum 256MB texture RAM. it should be fast enough to run most of the actual games but I don't want to have a total high-end-ish solution since developing a game on that could be deceiveing to mess around with the game's speed... so think of "hi-mid" please...a graphic-card that I can use for about 2 years before I feel the urgent need to update .. ah yes, and it HAS to be AGP and TwinView or DualHead is a must...

I was thinking about an ATI X1600 Pro, it is available from many manufacturers.. would that be a good choice? or is it crap?

excuse my noobish tech question but 1) I am a specialist for AUDIO not graphic-cards and 2) the new chips / chipset name combinations of graphic-adapters are terribly confusing at the moment...

thanx in advance for any help!

robert


B O B H U M I D @ F A T O F E X C E L L E N C E
audio production servitor / tech editor
s a v e o u r t r a n s i e n t s
Reality Forgotten
FPSC Reloaded TGC Backer
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Dec 2005
Location: Wichita Falls TX
Posted: 11th Aug 2006 02:50
a 256 will be more then anough to run this program.


RF
bob humid
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Jan 2006
Location: Cologne, Germany
Posted: 11th Aug 2006 03:15
thank you for the answer..

but that wasn't quite precisely what I wanted to know..

even some cheapo 512MB cards can be total crap when it comes to amunt of pipelines or driver quality...

robert

B O B H U M I D @ F A T O F E X C E L L E N C E
audio production servitor / tech editor
s a v e o u r t r a n s i e n t s
SpyDaniel
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 11th Aug 2006 03:24
If you have the money, buy the most expensive card you can find withthe most MB on it. The more you pay, the better the card.
bob humid
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Jan 2006
Location: Cologne, Germany
Posted: 11th Aug 2006 03:52 Edited at: 11th Aug 2006 03:52
Quote: "If you have the money, buy the most expensive card you can find withthe most MB on it. The more you pay, the better the card."


I really apreciate answers... reaaaally sweet of you guys..

but could you all please do me the favour and read my post carefully??

I don't want to buy the FASTEST card for a reason! then whatever crappy under-performant level I do will run smoothly on my machine while it will crawl on all fours at aorund 2 fps on other machines... I want to avoid that...

robert

B O B H U M I D @ F A T O F E X C E L L E N C E
audio production servitor / tech editor
s a v e o u r t r a n s i e n t s
deadly knife
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Jan 2006
Location: canada
Posted: 11th Aug 2006 07:49
got at tigerdirect.com any check for a xfx 6200 256mb its about 50 or 60 dollars us its a mid card heck it can play f.e.a.r on high quality

knifing kis kick ass
Reality Forgotten
FPSC Reloaded TGC Backer
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Dec 2005
Location: Wichita Falls TX
Posted: 11th Aug 2006 11:19
ok but the thing you [robaby do not understand is this:

All 256mb video cards that are from known companies are good cards, I believe there was the 6800 from nvidia that had some driver issues. ATI are not bad cards either. if you want a product to meet your specifacations you need to stop posting in here and do some friggen research, you have made it clear that we can not answer your question. so go do the number crunching routine with the specifacations and make your purchase.


RF
bob humid
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Jan 2006
Location: Cologne, Germany
Posted: 11th Aug 2006 13:12
Quote: "got at tigerdirect.com any check for a xfx 6200 256mb its about 50 or 60 dollars us its a mid card heck it can play f.e.a.r on high quality"


thank you deadly knife, I will definetly check this out. i was hooked to ATI a bit but that card is probably right.

robert

B O B H U M I D @ F A T O F E X C E L L E N C E
audio production servitor / tech editor
s a v e o u r t r a n s i e n t s
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 11th Aug 2006 13:20 Edited at: 11th Aug 2006 13:21
I used an ATI Radeon 9550 256mb 4x/8x AGP, size doesn't necessarily mean anything, its about the speed and quality of the thing, 256mb means it can store a lot of data, but it can still lag if the data isn't being processed there fast enough, I mean the standard MacBook graphics cards are 64mb but they carry a lot of pretty decent features, even shader 3.0.

I would aim for something in the ATI radeon range, starting at 9800, the 9800 is supposed to be twice as fast as the 9550, so look around, I got mine at a good price and pretty immediately from 'ebuyer'

Quote: "well, the title says it all. i have finally purchased my copy of FPSC and now I need to upgrade my fairly old GeForce 2MX in order to run it properly."


I used to have that card and when I tried to run the demo of FPSC it ran pretty aweful, heck a lot of things did.

bob humid
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Jan 2006
Location: Cologne, Germany
Posted: 11th Aug 2006 13:27
Quote: "ok but the thing you [robaby do not understand is this:

All 256mb video cards that are from known companies are good cards, I believe there was the 6800 from nvidia that had some driver issues. ATI are not bad cards either. if you want a product to meet your specifacations you need to stop posting in here and do some friggen research, you have made it clear that we can not answer your question. so go do the number crunching routine with the specifacations and make your purchase."


please calm down. I was not bitching around... btw: the reason for the exisitance of forums is doing questions. you can go to excellent forums like gearslutz or uaudio.com (which deal with audio-production not games) and nobody ever will send you away for asking a question that has to do with an experience that has not yet be made by the individual person. what is the problem with this forum?

also: I am sorry but I don't believe that all cards from all manufacturers are equally good. I made too many experiences buying hardware and from what I can see in the graphic-cards market right now is that they are intentionally confusing the buyers with all that "GTO, XL, XT, XTX" abreviations. its there to confuse you for a reason. (weak cards that look strong because of an "XL" in the title for oem computer assembling). I was asking for help in that case. I do believe some ppl here are able to provide an answer... I still apreciate that you answered me, sorry if I sounded bitchy. I did understood that all 256MB cards are fit enough for FPS. but that wasn't the full question.

I did some intense research already, that is why I came up with a X1600.

I just wanted to see what people here are using and what would be useless to buy. I was also hoping for a more official participation of mods or programers of FPS. But first of all I am looking for a card which is good enough to play the rendered game AND which should not be too fast in order to have represantive test-environment (the mid-high card..) well, I am repeating like a parrot.

the manual and the FPS-product website are not very helpful regarding the graphic-card thing...

robert

B O B H U M I D @ F A T O F E X C E L L E N C E
audio production servitor / tech editor
s a v e o u r t r a n s i e n t s
bob humid
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Jan 2006
Location: Cologne, Germany
Posted: 11th Aug 2006 13:35
Quote: "I used to have that card and when I tried to run the demo of FPSC it ran pretty aweful, heck a lot of things did. "


thanx mate! .. yes the GeForce was cool back then... but the demo runs really terrible with it.. ok, so I will probably pick something between a 9800 and a X1600 with 128-256MB... I am very confused about the texel-fill rate. it differs awful amount between cards. actual high-end cards have up to 10.000 Mtexel/s while some older cards have only 2000-3500 Mtexel/s.

robert

B O B H U M I D @ F A T O F E X C E L L E N C E
audio production servitor / tech editor
s a v e o u r t r a n s i e n t s
Reality Forgotten
FPSC Reloaded TGC Backer
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Dec 2005
Location: Wichita Falls TX
Posted: 11th Aug 2006 14:20
Quote: "the reason for the exisitance of forums is doing questions. you can go to excellent forums like gearslutz or uaudio.com (which deal with audio-production not games) and nobody ever will send you away for asking a question that has to do with an experience that has not yet be made by the individual person. what is the problem with this forum?"


Your correct the purpose of a forum is exactly that Here is the definition for you. I was not knocking you because you asked a question, I simply told you to do some research and then make a purchase.

Quote: "n. pl. fo·rums, also fo·ra (fôr, fr)

The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.
A public meeting place for open discussion.
A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper or a radio or television program.
A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts and often including audience participation.
A court of law; a tribunal."


To run this program flawlessly you will need the following:

1. Source code that has the ability to Evolve (Darwins evolve)
2. any 128MB video card or better.
3. atleast a1 gig of RAM.
4. the ability to read

If you did not get the jokes for 1 and 4 stop now, sell your computer and move in to a distant cave. and stay there.

on a serious note:

There area several things that shoudl enfluence you when deciding on a video card.

1) BUS speed <---refers to how fast the data is transfered from the video card to the processor and back to the video card.
2) On board Video memory <-----remember this runs in bits. for those of you who want to do the math there are 8 bits to a byte.
3) Memory bandwidth <--important factor make sure that it is able to transfer the amount in wich you think you will need. You should never run in to a problem with a video card having to little bandwidth now-a-days.

There are motherboard issues you need to keep in mind.

The most important question is: WILL MY MOTHERBOARD SUPPORT THIS CARD?
You need to find out because not all motherboards will supprt the 512 and alot of them will not support dual 512 cards (both types dual card or dual card single expansion slot)

What type of expansion card do I want? Each one has their up and downs.
what type of chipset do you have? will this chip set support the new video card?
Ask yourself this question: Do I really need this new card?
can you sacrifice the new 512 card for a 256 and maybe a new 1 gig stick of RAM?
There are several ways to up grade your computer. though it is not always just buying the super delux 9gb video replace reality card system <--doesn't exist..sorry all of you who have digital girl friends at the end of the day she is still a .jpeg!

before you buy a card think of all of the different ways to suck performance out of yer machine.

I used an Nvidia geforce fx 5600 256mb agp for about 2 years, I never had a problem with it, the only reason I have a 512mb is because my wife bought it for me as a b-day gift.

I hope this helped you

RF
bob humid
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Jan 2006
Location: Cologne, Germany
Posted: 11th Aug 2006 14:57
Quote: "To run this program flawlessly you will need the following:"


gosh. you did forget reality! at least partially.

ok, for the 3rd time: the question above is secondary! I have seen the specifications in the manual, dude! I know i can rund FPSC on actual cards, otherwise marketing it would impossible... you might have misunderstod my 1st posting?

I need a representative card for game-developing that represents the average gamer's equipment. therefore i don't want to buy the high-end stuff.. what use is a card that will encoruage me to do games that only 10% of the gamers can play?

thank you for the rest of your mailing, i really mean it. especially the 512MB issue. it helps a lot. I am well informed about bandwith issues in my comp since I run a music studio, but graphic-cards are still a bit cryptic to me.

the card will run on an AMD system with an athlon XP3000+ (Barton - 512KB cache), 1GB DDR266 Ram (Kingston) and Win XP. I know this is enough to run FPSC and it will not represent the "latest" in technology for a reason... the board only supports 4x AGP so I guess buying high-end would be even stupid since the bandwith cannot be fully used by the board.

but I want to be able to develop some games that runs on middle-class (2500+ up) and high-end machines (DualCore etc.) at 30fps... thatz all.

robert

B O B H U M I D @ F A T O F E X C E L L E N C E
audio production servitor / tech editor
s a v e o u r t r a n s i e n t s
The Nerd
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jun 2004
Location: Denmark
Posted: 11th Aug 2006 15:03 Edited at: 11th Aug 2006 15:05
Hi,

I just got myself a new computer recently. It has a dual core AMD processer and 1GB of ram. I got myself this graphic card:
http://www.club-3d.com/productshow_vga.php?gpu_brand=&ordercode=CGAX-RX186&show=&p=&filter=&l=en

The Club 3D Radeon x1800 RX 256 MB GDDR3 Ram - 256 Bit.

I find this card very good. I can play BF2 with everything on the highest(except for anti aliasing). Looks good. I'm also able to play something like the lost coast demo from Valve with everything on high with a good framerate.

Also, this card is with 256 Bit interface instead of 128. This means that there's a lesser chance of the framerate slowing down when it needs to process polys quick.

I think it's a good card. And I sure haven't regret this purchase!

Also, I got the PCI-Express x16 version. I'm not sure if there is a AGP version.

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 11th Aug 2006 16:50
Quote: "Your correct the purpose of a forum is exactly that Here is the definition for you. I was not knocking you because you asked a question, I simply told you to do some research and then make a purchase."


To be honest, when I was looking for a card myself, I wasn't sure, I did my own bit of research but wasn't completely, sure, I asked around and got some good recommendations, I was going to get a 9800 myself, but with the money at the time I could only afford a 9550 which I was completely satified because people did help me make the right choice.

Reality Forgotten
FPSC Reloaded TGC Backer
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Dec 2005
Location: Wichita Falls TX
Posted: 11th Aug 2006 22:10
ok man if you are thinking about using a card to make a game so that the average player will be able to play it on their machines.

That is what you want to know right?

ok there is a wide range in video cards that the average user has, I would say that the most common card would be a 256mb card. If you try to make a game for a target hardware group your going to have a really hard time in doing so. you have people using very low grade machines and people using top end machines. take mine for example:

AMD Athlon 64 fx 3700 clawhammer
4 Gig RAM
1x 250 gig HD
1X 150 gig HD
512 nvidia 7800 Geforce video card


My machine can handle a lot, but the next user may have something like

Intel 1.8 gh processor
1 Gig RAM
80 Gig HD
256 video card

there machine can handle most things properly but still lacks in other areas. The best thing in my opinion is to make two versions of every game one for high end machines and one geared to low end machines. You are never going to make everyone happy so don't try. if a machine can not handle the game I wouldn't worry as much. just make sure you are happy with the game. cause if your happy then 9 times out of 10 other people will like it and be happy as well.

but if you want to solely make game sfor the average user then i reccomend the following hardware:

Nvidia or ATI 256mb video card
atleast 1.8 gh processor (AMD equivalent)
2 gigs of RAM

With these minimal parts you will be able to make games for the average user here. I hope I helped out a little more in this post.

RF
gps
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Dec 2004
Location: England
Posted: 12th Aug 2006 09:19
Quote: "My machine can handle a lot, but the next user may have something like

Intel 1.8 gh processor
1 Gig RAM
80 Gig HD
256 video card"


Oi, get away from my computer!

If you'd written 'AMD' instead of 'Intel', that would have been too spooky, and I would have had to insist that you be burned at the stake

For the record, with the above specification I've been able to play every FPSC demo I've downloaded so far, but some have definitely chugged a bit in places - not unplayable, but not fun either.

BTW, the 256 MB graphics card in question is a GeForce FX 5500

Cheers

- Graham

Reality Forgotten
FPSC Reloaded TGC Backer
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Dec 2005
Location: Wichita Falls TX
Posted: 12th Aug 2006 13:36
I am partial to AMD so it is natuaral that I mention intel when dealing with bad situations.

the 5500 is not a bad card a bit old but not a bad card. Like I stated earlier i had the 5600 and it was a great addition to my machine.

It still boils down that if bob humid wants to create a game for the average user he is going to have a fairly hard jo0b sinc everyone uses different equipment.



RF
bob humid
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Jan 2006
Location: Cologne, Germany
Posted: 12th Aug 2006 16:49 Edited at: 12th Aug 2006 17:08
Quote: "AMD Athlon 64 fx 3700 clawhammer
4 Gig RAM
1x 250 gig HD
1X 150 gig HD
512 nvidia 7800 Geforce video card"


thatz some hot machine...

thanx for all your answers mate.. considering all you ppl said i guess doing two versions would be the most professional way. it shouldn't be too difficult to switch off some complexity in the rendering process for the "light" version.. still I'd like to have one version that suits most people.. I think I will head for a 256MB card with a minimum of 128bit bandwith, Ati-Shaders 3.0 or 3.2 and a middle-class but modern GPU.. letz say X800 / X1600 ... the X1800 / X1900 look awesome (10.000 Mtexel/s) but thats simply too fast for my purpose and pricey... also if I buy a GPU from 2004 like the 9XXX I'd be forced to upgrade to a new card in a year or so - which I want to avoid...

Quote: "For the record, with the above specification I've been able to play every FPSC demo I've downloaded so far, but some have definitely chugged a bit in places - not unplayable, but not fun either. "


I estimate a lot of people here are not following the guidelines effectively to keep the framerates up, don't use very high-end-ish textures plus don't use the profiler very much... it doesn't have to be your equipment... its also an art to make the game performant. I remember those oldschool 3D-games which still look "okay" in my eyes and they were running smoothly on GeForce 2 and below .. i.e. Descent... FPSC has a more superior engine to Descent 3 (1999!), yet Descent 3 looks better then most of the FPSC-demos I have seen so far... its an art to set good lighting and textures...



robert

B O B H U M I D @ F A T O F E X C E L L E N C E
audio production servitor / tech editor
s a v e o u r t r a n s i e n t s
Reality Forgotten
FPSC Reloaded TGC Backer
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Dec 2005
Location: Wichita Falls TX
Posted: 13th Aug 2006 16:09
that was an awsome game though!
bob humid
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Jan 2006
Location: Cologne, Germany
Posted: 14th Aug 2006 00:44
Quote: "that was an awsome game though!"


absolutely! i feel like installing it again... a pity we can't generate this kind of free-axis floating-vehicle-thing in FPSC.

B O B H U M I D @ F A T O F E X C E L L E N C E
audio production servitor / tech editor
s a v e o u r t r a n s i e n t s
bob humid
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Jan 2006
Location: Cologne, Germany
Posted: 17th Aug 2006 02:20 Edited at: 17th Aug 2006 03:52


ladies\\\'n\\\'gentlemen:

after evaluating time, space, money, the position of the stars and the future I came up with this:

the most suitable, affordable, not yet outdated, and best \\\"High-Mid\\\"-class grafic-accelerator for the dying AGP-port is the

ATI 256MB All-In-Wonder X800GT AGP
8 pipelines, 128 Bit connection and compatible to Catalyst driver package...

this baby costs around 99,- affordable €uros and has a texel-fillrate of approx. 3100-4800 MTexel/s which is about the double of a Radeon 9600 Pro ...

developed in 2005 its the perfect high-midrange I was looking for...

maybe this recomendation is useful for someone else.. what a pain in the arse to figure out what all these XT, GTO, GT, SE, Pro, XT and XTX-horsepucky means..

homework done

robert

B O B H U M I D @ F A T O F E X C E L L E N C E
audio production servitor / tech editor
s a v e o u r t r a n s i e n t s
Les Horribres
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 17th Aug 2006 03:00
uhh, just for the note. FPSC can run on a 16mb intel graphics xtreme with only 128mb of ram and a 1.6ghz intel crap chip at a decent rate (15fps [lol]), you most certainly don't need 1 gig to run it, nor evolving source code nor the ability to read.

You need the ability to use your brain and work with what you have.

Quote: "ok there is a wide range in video cards that the average user has, I would say that the most common card would be a 256mb card."

No, it would be 128 (given 64's are dying out). You are talking about a GAMING system, those are 256-512, regular pc's will use a 128 or lower. Most people just want to play the game, running every little addition isn't the highest perogative people have.

Quote: "there machine can handle most things properly but still lacks in other areas. "

That system meets the 'recommended stats' so it lacks only in the most graphically and systematically intense games. IOW, it's faults are negligable.

Quote: "cause if your happy then 9 times out of 10 other people will like it and be happy as well."

shakes head, if a game can't run on your system you aren't happy about it. If a game can't run on a certain gfx card more people aren't happy. The truth is that gameplay has to be smooth and transition well, making a game to run above average stats will mean that the average person simply won't play it, They aren't gonna be happy and tread along slowly ignoring the ill responsive controls.

Furthermore, the AVERAGE user has 512 ram. Just check the requirements on every game box "Min Ram 512 MB" some people may have 1GB but those would be dedicated gamers, and fewer have 2GB. Only the obsesive gamers actually go for the full 8 gigs. Now if you USE that with intensive applications (including high end modeling) then it is okay but psychoanalysis says that men buy big toys to make up for their own shortcommings. The system is 'awsome' but isn't needed to run most games.

Robert, for the record, running the low level stuff that fpsc runs probally won't make much of a difference between cards, see, these new cards are increasing support for higher level functions (pixel shading for one) so subsequentally the real difference between the render speed should be negligable (within a few years span). The speed probally would come from the ram in the card, that determines how much render information the card can store which increases the overall speed.

Quote: "gearslutz "

hmm... sounds... kinkay. Where are these grease monkeys?

Your Mod was deleted by the Government.
bob humid
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Jan 2006
Location: Cologne, Germany
Posted: 17th Aug 2006 04:04 Edited at: 17th Aug 2006 04:05
Quote: "Robert, for the record, running the low level stuff that fpsc runs probally won't make much of a difference between cards, see, these new cards are increasing support for higher level functions (pixel shading for one) so subsequentally the real difference between the render speed should be negligable (within a few years span). The speed probally would come from the ram in the card, that determines how much render information the card can store which increases the overall speed."


Merranvo... wise words. thanx... indeed, most ppl have 128MB on the card and most ppl have 512MB in the main RAM and something below 3500GHz... I was curious: I rendered the "Sci-Fi Game1" test-level fromFPSC today on a GeForce 2MX (on a slow 1GHz duron that was in my reach) and it run with about 4fps (outch)..

.. anyway I'd be happy to keep the new card for 1,5 years or so... I guess FPSC will always be 2 years behind actual commercial game-engines...

Quote: "
Quote: "gearslutz "
hmm... sounds... kinkay. Where are these grease monkeys?"


well.. yes, it sure is kinky sometimes... in a weird machinesex way -> http://gearslutz.com/board/ I just joined there recently.. I am more often in www.uaudio.com ... but if you are looking for half naked girls pushing jackhammers you could be dissapointed

robert

B O B H U M I D @ F A T O F E X C E L L E N C E
audio production servitor / tech editor
s a v e o u r t r a n s i e n t s

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-25 10:51:06
Your offset time is: 2024-11-25 10:51:06