PDA

View Full Version : PC graphics question



someone
February 11th, 2004, 00:50
I am planning on buying a Compaq 8000Z, and if you go here: http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping...tomize_start.do (http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/cto/computer_customize_start.do) you'll see the product features. If you scroll down to "Graphics" in the features section, you'll see it says "8X AGP Graphics Card Slot."

Does that mean that the 8000Z model can give me any graphics card they feel like (ex. a 64 mb or any other "old" graphics card) or will they even give me the computer without a graphics card? If you click on the "Compare all series" link, you'll see that the 8000Z got 3/3 stars for gaming, so do think the will give me a graphics card (that is powerful like a 256 mb graphics card)?

Thanks very much,
Someone

Danny
February 11th, 2004, 01:27
256MB DDR ATI Radeon™ 9600 w/ TV-out & DVI cap

Click on the Customizable PC picture to see all the crap.

Spekkio
March 7th, 2004, 23:13
Originally posted by someone@Feb 10 2004, 11:50 PM
I am planning on buying a Compaq 8000Z, and if you go here: http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping...tomize_start.do (http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/cto/computer_customize_start.do) you'll see the product features. If you scroll down to "Graphics" in the features section, you'll see it says "8X AGP Graphics Card Slot."

Does that mean that the 8000Z model can give me any graphics card they feel like (ex. a 64 mb or any other "old" graphics card) or will they even give me the computer without a graphics card? If you click on the "Compare all series" link, you'll see that the 8000Z got 3/3 stars for gaming, so do think the will give me a graphics card (that is powerful like a 256 mb graphics card)?

Thanks very much,
Someone
256 MB is only marginally faster (often on par or even slower) than the 128 MB versions.
None of the games today even use all of it, so instead of getting a slower 256 mb card, invest in a faster 128 mb card, the difference will be much more noticeable.

Jet Set Willy
March 7th, 2004, 23:23
He's right, that much texture memory is overkill for the foreseeable future.

onewecallgod
March 8th, 2004, 14:12
dont buy a compaq...build your own

Zach
March 9th, 2004, 01:04
I was under the impression more ram could improve AA performance, especially at higher resolutions

Spekkio
March 9th, 2004, 09:54
Originally posted by Neco@Mar 9 2004, 12:04 AM
I was under the impression more ram could improve AA performance, especially at higher resolutions
It can, but none of the textures will fill the texture memory.
If you have a voodoo 1 with umpteenhundred megabytes of texture memory it will still suck arse and probably just crash with FSAA on.

A faster GPU with a better fillrate, more pipelines and all that technical mumbo jumbo will benefit your performance a lot more because it will calculate all of it very much faster.

If texture memory was the answer, we'd be using a geforce 2 with 1024 mb now.

Jet Set Willy
March 9th, 2004, 17:18
More texture memory can be used for other optimisations and yeah, you'll get some extra speed, but the money is better spent on a faster architecture.

DanielW
March 9th, 2004, 17:50
Originally posted by onewecallgod@Mar 8 2004, 02:12 PM
dont buy a compaq...build your own
:with_stupid:

Zach
March 9th, 2004, 18:59
Very good points.

El Fugitivo
March 9th, 2004, 19:52
Or if you're not comfortable with building your own, at least buy a Dell or something. Compaqs are terrible, almost as bad as eMachines.

Jet Set Willy
March 9th, 2004, 19:56
Don't buy a Dell.

Nick
March 9th, 2004, 19:58
Yes, please no Dell. You pay them, and they no longer care after that. I've seen one too many horrid things in reference to Dell, including terrible shipping/billing problems. eMachines used to be rather poor, but I believe since a year ago or two, they are under new management, and it isn't as bad as it used to be.

Jet Set Willy
March 9th, 2004, 20:06
The Dell computers are pretty cack, too.

DanielW
March 9th, 2004, 21:26
i wouldn't buy a dell regularly but they have all these promotions running and always have some coupons and free shipping and a bunch of other incentives that I would consider buying one, if i didn't build one myslef.

onewecallgod
March 9th, 2004, 21:32
even with all those promotions, i think i could still build an equivilent box for much cheaper and possibly much better

Jay
March 10th, 2004, 00:42
HP isn't a bad computer. Perhaps now that they own Compaq we will see a better Compaq.

suckthismeat
March 10th, 2004, 07:21
HP (now including compaq) sucks, they have horrible tech support, the machines are built with the worst parts, and they consume about 10 gig of your hard drive with non-sense software most of which is Trial software lasting for about 30 days(or in some cases less) they make a cumbersome machine and thier great software allows you to make 1 backup of your harddrive.... only one.

I hate to say it, E-machine or Sony at this point, if you must buy a premade computer, or hell go to tiger direct, even those have to be better than HP or Dell(I refuse to comment on Dell, as everyone else already has).

As to the video cards, no matter how you look at it, the more memmory, and the faster the clock the better the capabilities. A GF 4 256M will likely outperform a GF FX 128M when you crank the resolution up and break out 4x FSAA, Anisotropic(or however its spelled) Filtering, and Tripple Buffering.... its a sad fact of life, but doing that at say 1280x1024 res will take tons of video memmory....

Jet Set Willy
March 10th, 2004, 07:36
Tons? 5MB at 32 bit colour...

suckthismeat
March 10th, 2004, 07:47
now start adding the textures, and 4x FSAA, and please note that the textures start requiring more memmory as they get bigger as well

--correction--

More complex textures will require more memory

Jet Set Willy
March 10th, 2004, 07:56
And what does that have to do with resolution?

Also, filtering takes up NO texture memory. Because it's filtering. You don't really seem to have a clue about what you're on about.

suckthismeat
March 10th, 2004, 08:07
ok lets see here, if the Video card is using HARDWARE filtering, the Video card is going to be needing the memory, if the Video card is using HARDWARE FSAA then the video card is going to need the memory or how about Texture and lighting again HARDWARE PROCESSED - is this adding up yet, or need I go on....

If none of this is done by the video card (essentiall saying a software T&L) then how is it that those options are not supported on older cards ex Voodoo series did NOT support Hardware T&L (up to the Voodoo4 I believe, the Voodoo 5 did finnaly include that as I recall though - but that may not be entirely accurate) or the GF2 I believe was the last Nvidia series with a software T&L - and I learned that all from LINUX as UT 2k3 Requires a GF3 class or better so that I can have hardware T&L.

THAT takes memory does it not? and the more complex anything gets, the more it requires does it not?

Jet Set Willy
March 10th, 2004, 08:28
What are you talking about? What do you think memory is? You clearly don't know anything about hardware, so shush!

One example: HARDWARE filtering. It takes the plain texture FROM memory, and as it draws it across the polygon face it uses special calculations to improve the quality as it's interpolated between vertices. The hardware part comes from the built-in optimisation to make this a fast operation. Filtering is in fact designed to make lower resolution textures viable over a larger area - a memory SAVING technique.

If you insist on talking out of your arse, don't do it in the presence of people who are wise enough to prove you wrong.

Zach
March 10th, 2004, 09:15
I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING :ph34r:

Spekkio
March 10th, 2004, 16:41
Originally posted by Lemon@Mar 10 2004, 07:28 AM
What are you talking about? What do you think memory is? You clearly don't know anything about hardware, so shush!

One example: HARDWARE filtering. It takes the plain texture FROM memory, and as it draws it across the polygon face it uses special calculations to improve the quality as it's interpolated between vertices. The hardware part comes from the built-in optimisation to make this a fast operation. Filtering is in fact designed to make lower resolution textures viable over a larger area - a memory SAVING technique.

If you insist on talking out of your arse, don't do it in the presence of people who are wise enough to prove you wrong.
Fuck you.
You almost made me use a smiley to express my joy when I read this..

It was hilarious, and thanks for enlightening me on the exact process of what happens.
*bookmark*

suckthismeat
March 11th, 2004, 02:55
you just said it yourself though, it takes memmory to do that. meaning the fastest access to the texture to filter it it, IS ON THE BOARD, otherwise if has to use the system bus to access the main memory in order to fetch the texture.... A SLOW PROCESS, hence the need to increse AGP bus speeds, either way, using the system to get the information is a slower means that storing the texture in the Video Bards RAM, and those textures can be quite large....easlily chewing up 128 Meg of video memory if they wanted to.(3d mark does that as part of the benchmark, you think that 128M texture sits on your systems RAM?)

your a moron

El Fugitivo
March 11th, 2004, 06:46
I believe you meant "you're a moron."


You fuking idiut.

Jet Set Willy
March 11th, 2004, 08:22
Right, he's suspended for spreading misinformation as usual and being arrogant about it as usual. I'll campaign for a full ban. He has no use.

Spekkio
March 11th, 2004, 10:46
Originally posted by suckthismeat@Mar 11 2004, 01:55 AM
you just said it yourself though, it takes memmory to do that. meaning the fastest access to the texture to filter it it, IS ON THE BOARD, otherwise if has to use the system bus to access the main memory in order to fetch the texture.... A SLOW PROCESS, hence the need to increse AGP bus speeds, either way, using the system to get the information is a slower means that storing the texture in the Video Bards RAM, and those textures can be quite large....easlily chewing up 128 Meg of video memory if they wanted to.(3d mark does that as part of the benchmark, you think that 128M texture sits on your systems RAM?)

your a moron
And if you've got a GPU that can execute all the fancy calculations as opposed to a lot of texture memory, you'll outperform it.

If you fill your entire texture memory but the GPU takes 10 minutes to actually process all of it, you'll still have crappy FPS.

Jet Set Willy
March 11th, 2004, 10:53
Just ignore him, he has no idea. Seems to think that on top of the original texture, exta operations eat up video memory too.

Spekkio
March 11th, 2004, 10:56
Originally posted by Lemon@Mar 11 2004, 09:53 AM
Just ignore him, he has no idea. Seems to think that on top of the original texture, exta operations eat up video memory too.
That would be the day.
Delete his posts or something, before the topicstarter actually believes him and buys a card based only on texture memory.

Jet Set Willy
March 11th, 2004, 11:08
I'm just going to close this at the next off-topic post.

suckthismeat
March 15th, 2004, 19:04
Originally posted by Spekkio+Mar 11 2004, 09:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Spekkio &#064; Mar 11 2004, 09:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-suckthismeat@Mar 11 2004, 01:55 AM
you just said it yourself though, it takes memmory to do that. meaning the fastest access to the texture to filter it it, IS ON THE BOARD, otherwise if has to use the system bus to access the main memory in order to fetch the texture.... A SLOW PROCESS, hence the need to increse AGP bus speeds, either way, using the system to get the information is a slower means that storing the texture in the Video Bards RAM, and those textures can be quite large....easlily chewing up 128 Meg of video memory if they wanted to.(3d mark does that as part of the benchmark, you think that 128M texture sits on your systems RAM?)

your a moron
And if you&#39;ve got a GPU that can execute all the fancy calculations as opposed to a lot of texture memory, you&#39;ll outperform it.

If you fill your entire texture memory but the GPU takes 10 minutes to actually process all of it, you&#39;ll still have crappy FPS. [/b][/quote]
I never said the memory would take the place of the GPU, all I said was it is just as important as games grow and evolve, try to run any game on 5 meg video memory as Waz seems to think is possible (need I quote that post) and see how far you get.

and waz you are just pissed cause I am right, and dont bother suspending me, I shal do the same thing you have done, use a multiple screen names.... (this is the 3rd now that _I_ know of)

Oh yeah and waz, this does apear to go right with the topic so shutup.

Nick
March 15th, 2004, 19:23
Quit your pointless babble, OK?

You&#39;ll use multiple screen names and each one will be banned.

Jet Set Willy
March 15th, 2004, 19:23
No, I said that the screen buffer would only take up a small amount of the graphic card&#39;s total memory, you moron. You&#39;re just being harmfully stupid again. You don&#39;t know shit about computers, you can&#39;t even grasp the basics.

DAMN that guy is pathetic. Actually makes me depressed that somebody so damned stupid could exist. The sad thing is that he&#39;s a Linux zealot, so he clearly tries to learn about computers and still ends up being horribly tech-illiterate.

beefcakes
March 18th, 2004, 06:36
The Real use for video memory (http://www.dansdata.com/gz014.htm)

May be a little old, but acurate

Jet Set Willy
March 18th, 2004, 06:45
All that does is explain the size of screen buffers and texture memory. We&#39;ve already covered that. Not entirely helpful.

beefcakes
March 18th, 2004, 07:04
the point of that article of course being "The ammount of memory textures take up varies massivley, depending on how many textures are needed at once, and what resolution they are and what color depth they are"

also note that they mentioned the greatest use of video memory are in the textures, bump maps, and light maps

Jet Set Willy
March 18th, 2004, 07:06
Yes, games use texture memory differently. We know. Naturally a game could conceivably use 128MB for one texture, but none do, so it&#39;s best to get a fast card with a modest amount of RAM.

beefcakes
March 18th, 2004, 07:12
true, though if you have the money, you might as well get 256, the games will probably be using it soon enough anyway. Think about how quickly 64M became the standard, with 128 slowing replaecing it.