Video cards and monitors [Archive]

Direhit

March 13th, 2003, 01:03 PM

Q: I have recently installed a GeForce4 Ti 4200 (or whatever model you want) in my computer, and even though I have a powerful enough processor (Pentium IV 2.0 GHz), I still only get between 30-60 fps. How do I rememdy this?

A: The first thing to do is to uninstall your video card drivers. Then, reboot into safe mode, and do this:

Start -> Run -> regedit

Search through your registry and eliminate all references to whatever video card you were using before. If you previously had an ATi card, search for all references to ATi, and if you previously had a NVIDIA card, remove all references to NVIDIA.

Once your registry is clean of all of the old video card entries, install the appropriate drivers for the video card, and the chipset's Northbridge (if necessary).

Also, make sure that you have the right amount of memory allocated to your AGP Aperture in your BIOS.

As for getting beyond 60 fps in Windows 2K or XP with NVIDIA cards, read on further down...

Direhit

March 13th, 2003, 01:04 PM

Q: I want a good monitor, at least 17", but I don't want to spend a lot of money. What brands / models should I be looking at?

A: First, and most importantly, it's always a good idea to look at a monitor before you buy one. Recommendations by the folks here can be solid advice, but one man's food can be another man's poison.

The monitor companies are generally in three categories; the high end, the middle end, and the low end. In general, you get what you pay for, and the low end will be populated by companies such as KDS, AOC, GEM, Futura, Sceptre / Kommodo, Proton, KFC (who are arguably the chicken joke of the monitor world), Cybervision, CTX, Envision, etc.. While it's true that you can get a 17" monitor for around 100 bucks, that type of monitor will have a convex curved screen, which will distort your picture. These companies' 19" monitors generally sell for around 200 bucks. None of these companies produce what I consider to be CAD-suitable monitors.

In general, the flatter your screen, the less distortion your picture will have.

Companies such as Princeton Graphics (a slightly higher quality monitor put out by MAG), NEC, Viewsonic, Samsung, etc., occupy the middle range of monitors. Typically, their 17" monitors go for the upper 100's to low 200's, and their 19" monitors are usually sold for around 300 bucks. These monitors tend to have flatter screens, and often times, the companies advertise them as true flat screens.

If someone is searching for the upper range of monitors, then they probably already know what they want, and don't need my help.

Now... There are some truly good monitors that can be found at excellent prices. Hitachi, Iiyama, and a few others, make excellent monitors at prices that actually rival the lower-end monitor companies' prices, and yet exceed the quality of the mid-range monitor companies.

Direhit

March 13th, 2003, 01:06 PM

Q: Should I get a LCD-based monitor? What can I expect from it?

A: When it comes to buying a LCD-based monitor, the "general rules of thumb" that apply to CRT-based monitors are not quite the same.

On the plus side LCD's tend to be brighter than CRT's, and do not generate screen flicker compared to CRT's. So, for example, if you view a CRT picture at 1024 x 768 resolution at 60 Hz, you will have a picture full of flicker, and this will create a good deal of eye strain on you. However, that same picture with the same resolution and refresh rate on a LCD monitor, will look relatively flicker-free.

Also, LCD monitors will consume 1/3 to 1/2 the power that a CRT of equivalent viewing area consumes.

In terms of viewing area, what you see is what you get. If a company advertises that a LCD monitor has a 17" viewing area, then you will see the entire 17", whereas with a CRT monitor, those advertised 17" are going to be closer to 16".

Where LCD monitors do not do so well, is in terms of the richness of color. Depending on the model, many LCD monitors are going to look somewhat washed out compared to CRT monitors. If someone is trying to get as good of a picture as possible, in terms of sharpness and color richness, no LCD will beat out the better CRT monitors.

Also, there is a slight delay, known as pixel response, when it comes to pixel display, with a LCD monitor. In general, you do not want to use a LCD monitor that has a delay of greater than 30 miliseconds. Anything greater than that will result in blurred images or ghosting, which will prove very distracting to a gamer.

To calculate how many FPS you will get with this, divide 1000 by the pixel response time, and that is how many FPS your fps_max setting should be, if you want a shearing-free picture. Thus, the best LCD monitors that have a 16.6 ms pixel response time will give you 1000 / 16.6 = 60 fps.

Finally, and most importantly, LCD monitors are generally optimized for one specific resolution, and their display will look great at that resolution, but often times, will not look so good in other resolutions. This is not to say that you can't get good looking displays in multiple resolutions, but you are less likely to get the flexibility that you normally get with a decent CRT monitor.

Now, with these positives and negatives in place, the question still remains: Can a gamer be happy with a LCD monitor? The answer is, yes, but you have to be more picky about it. Typically, LCD monitor brightness is measured with its own units, and anything below 250 cd/m^2 may not be good for such a user. Also, it's critical that you pay attention to the pixel response time as mentioned above.

Lately, several companies have come out with LCD monitors that are optimized for gamers, and such monitors do a good job as a display, rivaling the "gaming quality" of the mid-level CRT displays. In general, such LCD monitos will have a pixel response time of no slower than 16 ms, and some models, such as Viewsonic's top of the line, offer an 8 ms pixel response time.

Direhit

March 13th, 2003, 01:07 PM

Q: I just upgraded to Windows 2000 (or XP) and now I'm only getting 60 fps, instead of my previous 99 fps. What happened?

A: Your card's refresh rate has been locked at 60 Hz, meaning that your screen refreshes itself 60 times each second. When vsync is on, your frames per second are limited by your refresh rate. If you try to turn off vsync, you end up cramming more frames than what can be displayed by your monitor, and you get shearing effects.

The best way to get greater than 60 fps is to read the specifications of your video card and your monitor, and set your refresh rate to something higher than 60 Hz. Make sure you also run a program that allows you to override the default 60 Hz refresh rate.

Do not use a refresh rate that is too high for your monitor, or else you could possibly damage it.

As for 3rd party programs designed to override the refresh rate lock

http://www.tweakxp.com/tweak1512.aspx

Use it. It works for all cards, not just Radeons. There are other programs for NVIDIA cards, such as NVREFRESH, etc. Use your search engines and find it, if you don't want to use the above program.

If you want to stick with NVRefresh, get version 2.1a, which supports the latest Detonator drivers for NVIDIA cards:

http://www.majorgeeks.com/getfile.php?file=1457&site=3

Direhit

March 13th, 2003, 04:39 PM

Q: Where can I get a replacement cooling fan for my video card?

A: Many companies sell cooling devices for GPU's. One such place is:

http://www.coolerguys.com

but you should use the combination of http://www.pricewatch.com http://www.resellerratings.com and http://bbb.org to find what's right for you.

Direhit

March 14th, 2003, 10:57 AM

Q: Help! My TFC causes my computer to freeze when I play in OpenGL mode using Windows 2000!

A: This is a problem inherent with Windows 2000, and can often be fixed with Service Pack 3.

SYMPTOMS
The Opengl32.dll file may access invalid memory when it shows clip planes across window boundaries.
CAUSE
Memory that is allocated for clip planes is too small, which can cause the Opengl32.dll file to access memory that is out of the boundary.
RESOLUTION
To resolve this problem, obtain the latest service pack for Windows 2000. For additional information, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:

260910 How to Obtain the Latest Windows 2000 Service Pack
The English version of this fix should have the following file attributes or later:

Date Time Version Size File name
--------------------------------------------------------
13-Nov-2001 13:09 5.0.2195.4626 691,984 Opengl32.dll

NOTE: There is no fix for Windows Millennium Edition or Windows 98 Second Edition.
STATUS
Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft products that are listed at the beginning of this article. This problem was first corrected in Windows 2000 Service Pack 3.

Direhit

March 14th, 2003, 10:59 AM

Q: Help! TFC causes my computer to freeze in Windows XP when I run it in OpenGL mode!

A: Read this:

SYMPTOMS
When you are running an OpenGL-based program that is rendering an OpenGL scene that contains extremely long lines to a bitmap on your Windows XP-based computer, you may receive an access violation error message.
CAUSE
This problem can occur because the algorithm that is used to calculate the coordinates for the line is inaccurate for very long lines.
RESOLUTION
To resolve this problem, obtain the latest service pack for Windows XP. For additional information, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:

322389 How to Obtain the Latest Windows XP Service Pack
The English version of this fix should have the following file attributes or later:

Date Time Version Size File name Platform
----------------------------------------------------------------
29-Nov-2001 01:50 5.1.2600.21 686,080 Opengl32.dll Intel

STATUS
Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft products that are listed at the beginning of this article. This problem was first corrected in Windows XP Service Pack 1.

Direhit

April 15th, 2003, 06:19 PM

Q: I just installed a new ATi Radeon 9700 Pro in my system, but now I can't even boot! What happened?

A: First, and foremost, make absolutely sure that your motherboard can take a 1.5 volt video card, and that you have the correct voltage setting.

Many motherboards will fry your new 1.5 volt video card if you do not have things properly set, or if they cannot accomodate a 1.5 volt video card.

If that isn't the problem, these newer video cards draw considerably more power than their predecessors. Many motherboards simply cannot supply enough power to these video cards.

If that isn't the problem, you may want to think about a stronger power supply.

Direhit

May 7th, 2003, 12:39 PM

Q: I went to a surplus sale, and found many Trinitron monitors that were used with Silicon Graphics systems. Can I use them with my PC?

A: It depends on the model. You should look at the monitor's back. If it has dual connectors (the proprietary SGI one as well as the standard DB15 / HD15 VGA connectors), then yes, you should be able to use them without any special equipment. All you would need is a monitor cable with male 15 pin DB15 / HD15 connectors on each end. These monitors are multisync, and do not have to work at a fixed frequency.

If you got one of the older ones, though, that only have the proprietary SGI connector, there are several complications that will get in your way. First, you need a cable that will connect the proprietary SGI connector to your PC's SVGA DB15 / HD15 connector. That's the easy part.

The hard part, is that you must have a video card that can display the fixed frequencies that the monitor uses, and your video card must also be capable of the "sync on green" feature found in these monitors. If you do not know how to do this, then do not bother with the older monitors. It's just not worth it, especially if you play games.

Direhit

May 22nd, 2003, 09:49 PM

Q: What features do the new GeForce FX cards offer? How do the newer GeForce FX cards perform?

A: A paraphrasing of Anand Shimplai's article:

The GeForce FX cards offer a key advanatage over their GeForce4 predecessors. They all use the 8X AGP bus, and

come in three "flavors."

The entry-level GeForce FX5200 is the slowest-performing of the bunch. This is the replacement for the GeForce4 MX, although it is far superior to what the crippled GeForce4 MX offered. Typically, the GPU is clocked at 250 MHz, and the RAM speed is clocked at 200/ 40 MHz (DDR). Its memory pathways are no longer crippled like the GeForce4 MX's.

The GeForce FX5200 Ultra is the same card, with no added features, except that now the GPU is clocked at 325 MHz, and the RAM is clocked at 325 / 650 MHz (DDR).

The FX5200 cards will be capable of 4X anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering, exceeding the previous 2X limits of the GeForce4 MX cards. Overall, performance can be expected to be somewhere between a GeForce4 MX and a GeForce 4 Ti4200 card, being closer to the GeForce4 MX performance level. When comparing performance using 4X AA / AF, expect the 5200 Ultra to perform at the same level as the GeForce4 Ti4200.

The FX5600 cards differ from the FX5200 cards, in that the FX5600 has a GPU clock speed of 325 MHz, and a RAM speed of 275 / 550 (DDR) MHz. The 5600 Ultra, as expected, has a more aggressively clocked system of 350 MHz for the GPU and 350 / 700 MHz (DDR) for the memory. The 5600 cards also utilize Z-compression, something which the 5200 series of cards cannot do, and can also perform color compression.

The FX5600 cards, under normal settings, will perform about equal to the GeForce4 Ti4400 / 4800SE cards, although when 4X AA / AF are enabled, you can actually expect about 50% better performance out of the FX5600 Ultra compared to the GeForce4 Ti4400 / 4800SE. Still, though, none of the above FX cards are anywhere near the performance of the ATi Radeon 9700 cards when these features are enabled.

The FX5800 Ultra, though, seems to be a true competitor to ATi's Radeon 9700 / 9800 series, especially when dealing with tests that enable 4x AA / 8X AF. The big problem here, though, is that you are going to pay out the wazoo for a FX5800 Ultra.

The FX5700 is the next step up, and is a bit of an improvement over the 5800 series.

The FX5900, and its stronger cousin, the 5950, are better, and have a full 8 pixel pipeline.

The GeForce 6800 series is currently the top performing NVIDIA card lineup, and comes in several flavors:

6800: 12 pixel pipeline
6800 GT: 16 pixel pipeline
6800 Ultra: 16 pixel pipeline, faster clock speeds

Direhit

June 6th, 2003, 02:19 PM

Q: I just purchased a Gainward GeForce FX 5600 Power Pack Ultra video card, and it seems to be slower than what I had expected. Isn't this supposed to be about the same speed as a Radeon 9600 Pro?

A: Gainward's product label is misleading in this case. The GeForce FX 5600 card listed here is a standard GeForce FX 5600 card, not the 5600 Ultra. Thus, you can expect to hit speeds similar to the Radeon 9600 NON-Pro version, not the Radeon 9600 Pro, and only when AA and AF are not really being used extensively.

Direhit

June 26th, 2003, 01:45 PM

Q: What are your opinions on Benq monitors? I see their 19" "professional flat screen monitor" advertised for under 200 dollars.

A: Benq monitors are nothing more than Acer monitors under a new name. They are OK for grunt work, where image quality, sharpness, and color depth, are not a big issue. Otherwise, the text isn't too good, and the pictures are a bit fuzzy compared to monitors that cost 75 dollars more.

Direhit

July 4th, 2003, 01:25 PM

Q: I have these two thin black horizontal lines running across my CRT monitor's screen. I only notice them when I use a light colored background. Is there any way to get rid of them?

A: The black lines you are seeing are the support wires used in aperture grille monitors. Monitors that use Trinitron tubes (also known as Diamondtron, etc) use aperture grilles.

If you want to get rid of those lines, just use a darker background. If this is not possible, then try not to pay attention to them, since it really isn't that noticeable with normal use.

Otherwise, the only practical way to never see such lines on a CRT monitor is to limit yourself to monitors that use shadow mask tubes instead of aperture grilles.

Direhit

July 28th, 2003, 01:07 PM

Q: What are the optimal resolutions for a given monitor?

A: Opinions on this will vary from user to use, so here's what I find to be the most comfortable resolutions for the various CRT monitor sizes:

15" monitor: 800x600
17" monitor: 1024x768, 1152x864
19" monitor: 1280x1024, 1280x960, 1152x864
20" / 21": 1280x1024, 1600x1200, 1600x1280

As I stated, these are what I find are the most pleasing on the eyes, without having to tweak things.

Some people enjoy using 1024x768 on a 15" monitor, or 1600x1200 on a 19" monitor, with larger fonts. Again, I won't argue with them, because it can certainly be done with a little tweaking.

Direhit

August 13th, 2003, 03:41 PM

Q: What about the video cards based on the SiS Xabre chipsets? Are these any good? They seem to be cheaper than the NVIDIA or ATi cards.

A: The SiS Xabre is a definite step up from previous SiS offerings, with the most common ones being the Xabre 400 and Xabre 600, but can hardly be called a top notch performer.

Performance for the Xabre 600 is generally inferior to the outdated ATi Radeon 9000 Pro, which is a step below the original Radeon 8500 LE. When it comes to vertex shading, the Xabre 600 performs at about 75-80% of the Radeon 9000 Pro, but can't even muster up 25% of the performance when pixel shading.

When any significant level of anti-aliasing is being used the Xabre 600 is all but crippled.

Image quality is inferior to what you would get with even the lower tier NVIDIA GeForce video cards, while the price is still hovering around 70-80 dollars these days, and for around that amount of money, you could just find yourself a new or refurbished GeForce4 Ti4200 video card that will blow it away.

Don't waste your money here. If you are on a budget, there are better cards for less money as well, such as the GeForce3 Ti200.

Direhit

September 8th, 2003, 10:47 AM

Q: I bought a LCD monitor that was advertised as having a pixel response time of 16 ms, but I can't get anything better than 40 fps without experiencing video shearing! What gives? I thought you said that a 16 ms pixel response time was good for 60 fps?

A: Check the specs again. A LCD can can get 60 fps without shearing, only if it has a maximum pixel response time of 16 ms. Often times, some companies will only tell you the minimum pixel response time, which is going to be significantly faster than the maximum pixel response time.

Direhit

September 23rd, 2003, 05:13 PM

Q: I am running Windows 95 / 98 / ME, and just installed a GeForce video card in my system that has 512+ MB of memory. Now I only get 16 colors in standard VGA mode. I know I have the right drivers, and that the card is perfectly good. What's going on here?

A: This is a bug with the 16/32 bit hybrid Windows (95, 98 and ME), where the system has problems handling 512+ MB of memory. Simply put, the operating system is too stupid to handle the extra memory. There are four ways to correct this:

1) Dump Win 95/98/ME. These operating systems are crippled, especially when it comes to robustness.

2) Physically remove the memory chips from your system, so that you have less than 512 megabytes.

3) Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes or less.

4) Use the System Configuration utility to limit the amount of memory that Windows uses to 512 megabytes (MB) or less.

Options 3) and 4) are going to be the least intrusive, but with Microsoft no longer supporting most of the older operating systems, it's probably time to dump the obselete software anyways.

Direhit

October 10th, 2003, 02:40 PM

Q: For some reason, I can't get AGP Fast Writes working in my system that uses a NVIDIA video card. Is there a way to enable them outside of the motherboard's BIOS?

A: First of all, fast writes aren't going to make much of a difference in performance at all. Also, enabling fast writes can result in reduced system stability. However, if you feel that you must enable it (because you fell for the hype), you can do a regedit:

Win 95 / 98 / ME:

For the registry value: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\NVIDIA Corporation\Global\System

ReqAGPFW=dword:00000001
DisableAGPFWDisconnect=dword:00000001
EnableAGPFW=dword:00000001
EnableAGPFWStrap=dword:00000001

Win2K / XP:

For the registry value HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\nv4\Device0

ReqAGPFW=dword:00000001
DisableAGPFWDisconnect=dword:00000001
EnableAGPFW=dword:00000001
EnableAGPFWStrap=dword:00000001

Before you even try this, manually write down the exact old registry values. You're playing with fire here, and you assume full responsibility for anything bad that happens. Do not ask us how fix it if something goes wrong.

Direhit

October 13th, 2003, 01:14 AM

Q: My monitor makes high pitched whining noises, and these noises are more evident when a large amount of white color is on my screen. What is causing this, and what can I do?

A: If your monitor is still under warranty, contact the manufacturer (the dealer will probably not help you, unless they were a factory-direct seller), and tell them about your problem. This is usually a simple fix, where they will replace the insulation on the high voltage transformer.

If the monitor company refuses to honor its warranty for a simple fix like this, contact the office of your State Attorney General, as well as the State Attorney General's office of the monitor company's location.

WARNING!! WARNING!! DO NOT ATTEMPT THE NEXT FEAT UNLESS YOU ARE PROFICIENT AT ELECTRONICS!!! IF YOU ATTEMPT THIS, YOU ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF THE RISKS, AND WILL HOLD NOBODY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY MISHAPS THAT MAY OCCUR!!!

If you do not have a warranty, and want to try repairing it yourself, first, unplug your monitor from the wall socket, and let the charge die away for at least several days. Open up your monitor, and find the high voltage transformer, and use some non-conductive, non-capacitative glue to keep it in place.

I would strongly suggest that you take your monitor to an electronics expert and have him do this for you. A ham radio hobbyist may be your best choice for this kind of repair.

Direhit

November 14th, 2003, 11:21 AM

Q: I have an older monitor that gives a great picture, but has started showing signs of burn-in on the screen. Is there anything I can do to fix this?

A: Yes, but as always, the fix will probably end up costing more than a replacement.

Your options are as follows:

1) You can take your monitor into a specialty repair shop for rephosphoring. This is very expensive, time consuming, and unless your system can only work with that particular monitor, not worth it at all.

2) You can buy a replacement cathode ray tube for your monitor. Beware, though, that since your monitor is already this old, the odds of finding one, much less a working one, are very slim, indeed. If you can find one, then the cost will be more than what you would pay for a quality monitor of equivalenmt size. Again, don't bother, unless your system absolutely can only work with that particular monitor.

3) You can invert the signal, but this will take at least a year, if not more.

4) You can get a glass monitor filter, which will help hide the burn-in.

Basically, as stated above, it's not worth trying to restore your old monitor, unless you have no choice. If you really have no choice, then you're better off just getting a new system.

Direhit

January 6th, 2004, 01:39 PM

Q: I noticed that the NVIDIA cards now have their own "SE" and "XT" designations. Does that mean that I should by the "XT" version? It seems cheaper.

A: When it comes to NVIDIA cards, think of it as the opposite of ATi cards. The GeForce FX XT versions are the slower versions of the card, which is why they are cheaper. The SE cards are the same thing as the XT cards for the GeForce FX-based solutions. Some companies will call their crippled 5900 cards the "XT," while others will use the "SE" designation.

The only other differences between the standard line of FX 5900 cards (no XT or SE designation) and the semi-crippled versions, is that the XT/SE uses 2.8 ns memory, compared to the standard 2.2 ns memory, but the 2.8 ns memory uses a lower latency timing. The memory interface remains the same 256 bit wide pathway, so the performance differences between the XT/SE versus the standard version might not be that large at all.

Direhit

January 20th, 2004, 11:42 AM

Q: What ATi and NVIDIA-based cards perform on a similar level? The nomenclature is kind of confusing.

A: As a GENERAL guide, here's what you can expect (still being updated):

ATi Rage 128 = Somewhere between the TNT and TNT2
Rage 128 Pro = TNT2 Ultra
Rage Fury Maxx = Original GeForce, but horrible compatibility in the NT-based Windows (2K, XP)
Radeon 7000 = Original GeForce / GeForce2 MX
Radeon 7500 = GeForce2 MX
Radeon x300 = PCI-express only. Very cheap, and not really suited for gaming.
Radeon 9200SE = Radeon 9200 with a 64 bit memory data path way. This card is crippled.
Radeon 9000 = GeForce3 Ti200 (slower than the 8500 by a bit)
Radeon 9200 = Same as Radeon 9000, but now with an 8X AGP interface. Expect GeForce3 Ti200 speeds
Radeon 8500 = Original GeForce3
Radeon 9600SE = Similar to the Radeon 9600, but with a 64 bit memory data pathway. This is a crippled card.
Radeon 9500 = Superior to the GeForce FX 5600 series, expect upper GeForce4 Ti performance
Radeon 9600 Pro = Between the performance of a Radeon 9500 and 9500 Pro
Radeon x600 = Similar performance to the Radeon 9600 Pro, PCI-express only.
Radeon 9800 SE = Approximately the same performance as a Radeon 9600 Pro. Do not buy this card. Do not be fooled by the 9800 tag; it's a crippled card. Do not be tempted by the alleged "9800 Pro hack."
Radeon 9500 Pro = Superior to the Radeon 9500, full 8 pixel pipelines
Radeon 9600 XT = Superior to the Radeon 9600 Pro, pretty much an even wash with the 9500 Pro.
Radeon x600 XT = Similar performance as the Radeon 9600 XT, PCI-express only.
Radeon X1300
Radeon 9700 = Superior to the GeForce FX 5800, and arguably better than the 5900 / 5900 SE/XT cards
Radeon 9700 Pro = Superior to the Radeon 9700
Radeon 9800 = Non-crippled. Superior to the Radeon 9700, and fully functional
Radeon x700 = About the same performance as Radeon 9800 Pro, but PCI-Express only. Soon to be discontinued.
Radeon 9800 Pro = Superior to Radeon 9700 Pro by a bit
Radeon 9800 XT = Faster version of the Radeon 9800 Pro, can come close to the GeForce 6600 GT in some cases, but still slower.
Radeon X1600
Radeon x800 Pro = GeForce 6800 equivalent (12 pixel pipeline)
Radeon x800 GT = 8 pixel pipeline, faster clock speeds
Radeon x800 GTO = 12 pixel pipeline, faster clock speeds
Radeon x800 XL = Superior to the x800 Pro, 16 pixel pipeline, superior to the NVIDIA 6600 GT and 6800. Now available in AGP.
Radeon x800 XT = 16 pixel pipeline version of the x800 Pro, faster core and memory speeds. PCI-express mostly, but does have some AGP configs.
Radeon x800 XT PE = Faster core and memory speeds than the x800 XL. Available in both AGP and PCI-express.
Radeon x850 XT = Mostly PCI-e.
Radeon x1800

Again, this is not entirely accurate under all circumstances.

Remember, this is just a GENERAL guideline.

Direhit

January 20th, 2004, 11:58 AM

From the NVIDIA viewpoint (this will vary, depending on AA and AF settings), from worst to best:

RIVA 128: ATi Rage Pro Turbo
RIVA TNT = ATi Rage 128
RIVA TNT2 M64 = ATi Rage 128
Riva TNT2 = ATi Rage 128 Pro
Riva TNT2 Ultra = Rage 128 Ultra
GeForce SDR = between Rage 128 Ultra and Rage Fury Maxx
GeForce DDR = Rage Fury Maxx
GeForce2 MX = Radeon 7000
GeForce4 MX = Between Radeon 7000 and 7500
GeForce FX5200 = Similar performance as GeForce4 MX
GeForce2 GTS = Radeon 7500
GeForce2 Pro = A bit superior to the GTS
GeForce2 Ultra = A bit superior to the Pro
GeForce2 Ti = A bit superior to the Ultra
GeForce3 Ti200 = Radeon 9000 / 9200
GeForce3 = Radeon 8500
GeForce3 Ti500
GeForce FX5600
GeForce4 Ti4200 = Between Radeon 9500 and Radeon 9600
GeForce FX5600 Ultra
GeForce4 Ti4400 / Ti4800SE = Closer to Radeon 9600
GeForce4 Ti4600 / Ti4800 = Between Radeon 9600 and Radeon 9600 Pro
GeForce 5800
GeForce 5800 Ultra
GeForce 5700:
GeForce 5700 Ultra: Falls a bit short of the Radeon 9600 XT
GeForce 5900 XT (or SE)
GeForce 5900
GeForce 5900 Ultra
GeForce 5950
GeForce 6600
GeForce 6600 GT Superior performance to the ATi Radeon 9800 Pro, can come close to the GeForce 6800. Mostly PCI-express, but some manufacturers make AGP ones at higher prices.
GeForce 6800 Similar to ATi x800 Pro (12 pixel pipeline)
GeForce 6800 GS 8 pixel pipeline, but can match the GT / Ultra. PCI-e only.
GeForce 6800 GT / Ultra: 16 pixel pipeline
GeForce 7800 GT
GeForce 7800 GTX

This list is constantly being updated. Don't assume that it's entirely correct, as this is just a general guide.

Direhit

November 11th, 2004, 10:28 AM

Q: The heatsink / cooling fan on my ATi Radeon 9700 / 9800 video card doesn't seem to be doing the job anymore. I'm getting artifacts on my screen after it's used for a while. What can I do?

A: The heatsink / cooling fan units that come with these cards can be replaced with a more powerful unit. I recommend the solutions by Arctic Cooling, which have a more robust heat sink, and will actually exhaust heated air out of the case through the adjacent PCI slot.

These units are highly effective, easy to install, and are very quiet.

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduct.asp?submit=manufactory&catalog=62&manufactory=2107&DEPA=0&sortby=14&order=1

Look for the "Silencer" models. There are several models that cover a wide spectrum of today's video cards.

Direhit

February 18th, 2005, 11:05 AM

Q: Why can't I get 99 fps in HL / HL2 with my GeForce4 MX PCI card? Can I get 99 fps using a better PCI card?

A: Read the above statements. You've already been told that your card, being a GeForce4 MX, is already crippled to begin with, and that the use of a PCI interface is further crippling you.

If you're willing to spend the money to buy the most expensive PCI card, take that money and buy a motherboard that has at least an AGP, or preferrably, a PCI-express slot. You'll get far better performance this way.

If you're unwilling to spend the money to buy a better motherboard, then you shouldn't be playing such games.

Direhit

March 3rd, 2005, 04:58 PM

Updated, as of 03 Mar 2005, to reflect new availabilities, performances.

Direhit

March 19th, 2005, 09:51 PM

Q: I've noticed that whenever I boot up now, the screen is terribly distorted, as if its pincushion settings are way off, but when Windows gets to its usual mode, it's OK. Is there anything I can do to fix this?

A: Such distortion can be caused by any number of things. First, try a different monitor, just to make sure it's not something wrong with your video card. Odds are, that it's not your video card, but try it anyways.

Try moving any sources of electromagnetic interference, such as speakers.

Also, hit the Pause button, and try to adjust the image with your on screen display controls, using your monitor's controls.

If none of the above work, and the system works fine with another monitor, then most likely, your monitor's power supply is starting to die, and it's only a matter of time before all of your resolutions start getting corrupted.