Confusion concerning 3D-cards

[Koen]

Some advice concerning 3D-cards would be appreciated :

Sooner or later I'll buy or make a new PC to be able to play SB2.
I'll keep my current monitor : res. 1024 X 768 at a refreshrate of 80 mhz is possible (1280 X 1024 at a refreshrate of 65 mhz is possible as well, but this is suposedly not comfortable enough for the eyes - is it ?).

One of the decisions I have to take is which 3D-card to buy. The choice is vast : GF2 MX 400 - GF3 TI 200 - GF4 MX 440 - GF4 TI 4200 - Radeon - ...
Unfortunately, I'm also rather computer illiterate ...

I understand that with numbers and prices, also the FPS go up.
For ex. tested on Quake III (1024 X 768 - 16 bits) :
- GF2 MX 400 : 70 - 80 FPS.
- GF4 MX 440 : +/- 160 FPS.
- GF4 TI 4200 : + 200 FPS.

Also, unless I'm mistaken, only GF4 TI 4200 (or higher) supports DirectX 8 (not even 8.1, for which SB2 is developed) - all the other GF-cards support DirectX 7.
According to what I've read the main difference between DirectX 7 and 8 would be : no vertex/pixel shaders in DirectX 7.

Now here are my questions :

1. Are these indeed the main differences between the different cards : a) Speed (FPS) and b) Direct X 7/8 ?

2. Does one actually see the difference between for ex. 70 - 80 FPS and + 200 FPS ?

3. Do I miss a lot, if I opt for a DirectX 7-card only ?

If the answer would be twice "no", I guess GF3 or even GF 2 would suffice ? Especially knowing that my gaming horizon doesn't stretch much further than SB.

Thanks in advance for any help,

Koen.

[burner]

Video cards are very important because it effects what you see like having a good monitor & it can become a bottleneck if the video card can't handle the amount of data you are trying to view.

Gamers go for more expensive video cards that basically have more RAM. 1 year ago 32 MB was great these days folks are looking at least 64 to 128.

If you have a game you love to play they are coming out with a new version at the sametime you are looking at a new system you might wait till the game is out. Not all new games work with all graphic/video cards. I just finished beta testing a game & the developers had some major problems with Radeon cards & getting support from them.

Best thing to do is more reading at Cnet -

http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/1,10121,0-1110-402-0.html?tag=st.cn.sr1.ssr.hw_cards

[Ssnake]

One of the decisions I have to take is which 3D-card to buy. The choice is vast : GF2 MX 400 - GF3 TI 200 - GF4 MX 440 - GF4 TI 4200 - Radeon - ...I will limit my answer to SB2 relevance. You may seek additional support in the SimHQ Hardware forum.
Assuming that you will buy a new card, I suggest to look at one of the ollowing cards:

GeForce 4 Ti 4200 (64MB version). This one seems to offer the biggest bang for the buck, especially at high resolutions. However, since your monitor essentially limits you to a plain XGA resolution, "slower" cards may still do, like:

GeForce 4MX (which essentially is a GeForce 3 with some improvements). Again, Steel beasts doesn't need too much video memory, so 32 MByte will be sufficient. The question is how much money you can actually save with such a card.

The recent Radeon 9500 is sometimes a teeny weeny bit faster, often a small but noticeable margin slower than the Ti 4200, and it is on sale for a similar price. The ATIs seem to offer better full screen anti aliasing to make the image appear smoother which may be a reason why one would want to get one of these since speed does not justify here. On the other hand ATI's reputation in the quality of their drivers is... well, there's potential to improve. ;)

I have heard that some Ti 4200 cards are already in the $100 range. If that is the case, the question is if there is a tremendous savings potential by taking a slower card. In all honesty I can but recommend to wait until you MUST have the new hardware, you can but profit from further price drops.I understand that with numbers and prices, also the FPS go up.
For ex. tested on Quake III (1024 X 768 - 16 bits) :
- GF2 MX 400 : 70 - 80 FPS.
- GF4 MX 440 : +/- 160 FPS.
- GF4 TI 4200 : + 200 FPS.The question is whether these figures have any relevance for SB2 (or any other game than Quake, that is). The answer is No. Of course it is an indicator, but of vastly more importance is the question of frame rate variance. It is more of an annoyance if the frame rate is usually high but often drops shortly, or if it drops only in rare cases (but if these rare cases are the critical ones, even that can be a pain).Also, unless I'm mistaken, only GF4 TI 4200 (or higher) supports DirectX 8 (not even 8.1, for which SB2 is developed) - all the other GF-cards support DirectX 7.The Ti 4200 as well as all GeForce 4MX cards will be totally adequate to run SB2. Although SB2 is a DirectX 8 game, it does not use all features of DirectX 8, therefore even a GeForce 2MX may still run well in lower resolutions.1. Are these indeed the main differences between the different cards : a) Speed (FPS) and b) Direct X 7/8 ?Basically yes. However, you will see big variances between cards with the same chipset, depending on game bundles, TV in/out, and other features which you may consider "frills". (Depends on what you want to do with such a card)2. Does one actually see the difference between for ex. 70 - 80 FPS and + 200 FPS ? Like I said, it's the frame rate drops that can be a big pain. In SB2, the biggest challenge is to look into forested area with binoculars or the GPS. This because there is a huge overdraw factor, many many polygons overlapping each other. They all must be processed per scene, and that influences the frame rate.
If you don't occupy the gunner's place often, a slower card could turn out sufficient for you.
Of course we are working to optimize the performance in this special case. But it is likely to remain the bottleneck in future versions.3. Do I miss a lot, if I opt for a DirectX 7-card only ?With DirectX 9 knocking on the door, the question is why should you settle for less, especially if the "no frills version" of the Ti 4200 is as cheap as $100.

[SGT_McAmis]

Koen, dont get suckered into buying an Geforce4 MX, MX's are only slightly improved Geforce2 cards, you'd be better off getting a Geforce3. I think Geforce 4 Ti anything would be your best bet. I would also reccomend forking over the extra cash for the 128 MB version aswell. You'll be glad you did later down the road, instead of having to buy a whole new card. Just remember "Ti" not "MX"

[Rockape]

Hi Koen..
I can't offer much more than the solid advice already given here, except that when considering a new machine / upgrade the biggest investment consideration after your Motherboard, CPU and RAM must be your Sound and Video Hardware.

With Motherboards try to steer clear of on-board additives as this will ensure more resources, less resource sharing and less resource conflicts.

FWIW when considering video cards my advice would be get the best you can afford, forward planning can save a lot of frustration later, read the reviews on your chosen options visit a local store and try to get a demonstration of the cards in operation using various Games / Benchmark applications, treat factory specifications with an open mind, after all they want you to buy there product, Nvidia based cards tend to be the norm at present.

In short, Invest some time and effort now before you invest your hard earned cash and hopefully you won't regret your decision later.

[Ssnake]

Not sure if I agree with what you wrote:Koen, dont get suckered into buying an Geforce4 MX, MX's are only slightly improved Geforce2 cards, you'd be better off getting a Geforce3.If I remember it correctly, GeForce 4MX are (slightly) improved GeForce 3 chips (more functions, slower chips). A GeForce 4MX therefore by and large represents a GF3 card, and should be in a pretty similar price range.I think Geforce 4 Ti anything would be your best bet.No. Not just anything if you consider budgetary restrictions. A GF4 Ti 4400 offers maybe 10% frame rate increase at almost twice the price, and it's even worse with the 4600 versions. And these are really inferior speed wise to the new Radeon 9700 Pro.
There clearly is one mid-price contender, and that's the 64 MByte version of the GF4 Ti 4200. It features less, but faster RAM than the 128 MByte version, therefore - if frame rates are the main concern - the "smaller" and cheaper version can actually be the better choice.
The next question is whether the GeForce 4 Ti xxxx cards are of any significant additional value if your monitor doesn't support resolutions in excess of XGA. Because this is what makes them special: That they can provide high frame rates at high screen resolutions. At lower screen resolutions the performance increase actually is not very spectacular.
And that's precisely why I recommended the GeForce 4 MX. It is cheap (although not much cheaper than the Ti 4200), and given the limited screen resolution, pretty fast. It is, in other words, good enough. I would also reccomend forking over the extra cash for the 128 MB version aswell. You'll be glad you did later down the road, instead of having to buy a whole new card. Just remember "Ti" not "MX" Hardware should never be bought in advance. Given the negative exponential price over time function that dominates PC hardware, upgrades should be bought when they are needed. The Radeon 9700 may be a good solution today if you are a frame rate freak, simply because it seem to kick ass even in existing titles. But it is pointless to buy it today "because one day when the first DirectX 9 games are out, I can play them from day one without the need of a hardware upgrade". By then, either better DirectX 9 compliant cards will be out, or the currently existing version will be much cheaper.
Likewise, buying a card with more video RAM than you actually need (especially when the screen resolution as the main factor for the need of more video memory is limited to XGA) is expensive overkill.

[Hector]

Hey, I wonder... I am on a Kyro 3D Prophet 4000xt 64 mbs. Is this good to go? I don't intend to upgrade vid for a while. Only if SB2 can't be played will I rush upgrade, but I would rather upgrade processor/mobo first. I hope this one can make it for SB2


Héctor

[OddBall]

If I remember it correctly, GeForce 4MX are (slightly) improved GeForce 3 chips (more functions, slower chips). A GeForce 4MX therefore by and large represents a GF3 card, and should be in a pretty similar price range.

Wrong. :) GF4MX cards are nothing but overclocked GF2 cards, i.e. they don't have full support for DX 8.1 features. NVidia has great naming policy which lets them to sell crappy cards to uninformed people who think they're buying latest generation graphics card.

[colin]

Well I just download Direct X8.1 and it works fine with my SB game. As for the video card, I can’t remember which one I have, except that it does not have it’s own memory but draws it from the RAM. It’s on a PIII 600mhz machine with 256mb of RAM. I use the Wingman 3D joystick that works well. I did notice that the upgrade of Direct X did fix the graphics problems with my KA-52 Team Alligator game. Now if I could just get rid of the bizarre joystick problem (Twist right, goes left, etc) the game has, I would really enjoy it also. Sometimes I play both SB & KA-52 one after another and wish I could bring them together. However not before I get a ADATS system to protect my Leo’s!

[burner]

Troubleshoot your Wingman here -

http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm?page=support/products/categories&CRID=316&countryid=19&languageid=1

Check the Game Controls in Windows Control Panel

[Ssnake]

Get the latest WingMan software from www.wingmanteam.com (http://www.wingmanteam.com).

[colin]

It was while I was trying to install the new wingman software, I was duly informed that I had to upgrade to DirectX 8.1. So downloading 55 mb on a phone line, zzzzzzzzzzz. After all is installed I still found the joystick fault with KA-52 Team Alligator existed. Looking at reviews and comments, I think it is an inherent game fault. It is a shame that they did not continue to upgrade this game, I thought it had lots of promise and I was sick of playing on just the American side. Interesting note re helo-tank game KA-52 does have a little war going on quite apart from the player death and destruction and the lost AFV’s is counted against your score. Now a multi-player with manned tanks and helo’s hmmm……….interesting!