What graphics chip are you using?

Genii Lodus · Post by **Genii Lodus** » 2005-06-15 01:17pm

An ATI Radeon 9700 Mobile with 256MB RAM on my Laptop.

An ancient NVidia Geforce2 440MX with 64MB RAM on my PC.
Expect to see a reccommend me a new PC topic soon.

(First Post!)

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2005-06-15 01:21pm

NVidia GeForce 4 Ti4600. Pretty old but still good for my purposes.

Comosicus · Post by **Comosicus** » 2005-06-15 01:34pm

Radeon 9800SE 256 biti cu 128 MB RAM on my desktop. Previously I had a Riva Vanta 16 MB.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2005-06-15 01:46pm

ATI R420.

(you asked for the chip

. Anyway, a X800 XT PE)

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2005-06-15 01:53pm

Radeon PCI-E X600Pro 128mb.

Quadlok · Post by **Quadlok** » 2005-06-15 02:13pm

Radeon 9600 XT w/128mb.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2005-06-15 03:18pm

GeForce 4 ti4600 128mb. Was gonna upgrade to a GeForce 6800 or something (or a 6600 GT, but whatever). Might wind up waiting to see what the mid-range of the next gen cards offers....

Miles Teg · Post by **Miles Teg** » 2005-06-15 03:24pm

Hmm.. A GeForce2 MX AGP2x 64MB... heh

Doom3 Low Quality at 1024x768: 6spf (yes, spf, not fps). I just *had* to see.

However, if I don't get layed off next week, it'll be upgraded (along with my system) to a GF 6600GT PCI-e or something better if the proces drop a lot when the G70 comes out.

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2005-06-15 03:37pm

GF 6600GT AGP

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2005-06-15 07:08pm

GeForce 6800, 128 MB.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2005-06-16 09:26am

GF 6800 GT 256MB (from BFG, so its oc'ed by default). It runs everything beautifully at 1920x1200 or 1600x1200 (damn punkbuster FOV detector...) with 2/4 AA and 8/16AF.

I can't wait to see the R600 and the G80.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-06-16 09:30am

Arrow Mk84 wrote:GF 6800 GT 256MB (from BFG, so its oc'ed by default). It runs everything beautifully at 1920x1200 or 1600x1200 (damn punkbuster FOV detector...) with 2/4 AA and 8/16AF.

I can't wait to see the R600 and the G80.

Why? not intrested in the G70 and R520?

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2005-06-16 09:35am

Behold my elderly card! For I have a GeForce4 MX440!

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2005-06-16 09:46am

Soontir C'boath wrote:Behold my elderly card! For I have a GeForce4 MX440!

Ha, on my old computer it was one generation behind that .
(cant remmember the name, i dumped the whole shebang on my sister's once i got my x800xt platinum

)

Ypoknons · Post by **Ypoknons** » 2005-06-16 12:09pm

Ace Pace wrote:Why? not intrested in the G70 and R520?

Probably because he already has a 6800 and doesn't want to just upgrade to the next generation, wiser to wait 2 generations and then upgrade ...

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2005-06-16 12:17pm

Ypoknons wrote:
Ace Pace wrote:Why? not intrested in the G70 and R520?
Probably because he already has a 6800 and doesn't want to just upgrade to the next generation, wiser to wait 2 generations and then upgrade ...

Exactly. And none of the rumors surrounding the G70 and R520 have me excited (now if the Xenos was coming to the PC, then I'd be excited).

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-06-16 03:16pm

Xenos won't be that effective on the PC, not enough bandwidth.

And I thought you wern't intrested from a tech prespective, I'm holding a 68GT PCI-E, I have no reason to buy a new card.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2005-06-16 03:59pm

Ace Pace wrote:Xenos won't be that effective on the PC, not enough bandwidth.

I just want the EDRAM and "free" AA. I wonder what the technical reasons for not using EDRAM are? I seem to remember on of them being multiple resolutions, vs the three resolutions supported on the 360. Is it because of implementation issues for supporting everything from 800x600 to 2100+xWhatever? Or is it just a pricing issue, where the cost grow at an extreme rate to support additional resolutions?

Unified shaders would be good too (looks like that will be in the R600).

Oh, and from a tech prespective, it doesn't sound like there's a lot of new tech in either chip. But I'd be glad to be proven wrong on that point.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-06-16 04:03pm

I'm assumming the differing resolution, I'm assumming that it adds alot to add the differant 'styles' of doing the AA.

And its not that big an improvement, just the FINAL evolution of the R300. It really is an amazing chip.

Now the G70 looks sweet.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2005-06-16 04:18pm

Soontir C'boath wrote:Behold my elderly card! For I have a GeForce4 MX440!

Bah! My TNT2 pwns all!!

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-06-18 11:08am

Arrow Mk84 wrote:
Ace Pace wrote:Xenos won't be that effective on the PC, not enough bandwidth.
I just want the EDRAM and "free" AA. I wonder what the technical reasons for not using EDRAM are? I seem to remember on of them being multiple resolutions, vs the three resolutions supported on the 360. Is it because of implementation issues for supporting everything from 800x600 to 2100+xWhatever? Or is it just a pricing issue, where the cost grow at an extreme rate to support additional resolutions?

Unified shaders would be good too (looks like that will be in the R600).

Oh, and from a tech prespective, it doesn't sound like there's a lot of new tech in either chip. But I'd be glad to be proven wrong on that point.

BUMP!

Update from Beyond3d.com

Update: ATI have clarified the daughter, eDRAM/sample logic die count to be 105M transistors.

Now thats for 3 resolutions, I don't think it would be that complex to add more resolutions, but the transistor count can easily spiral, and ATi is reportedly having serious yeild issues with the R520.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2005-06-18 01:41pm

Well the max resolution supported by the chip should dictate the transistor count. I'm thinking that there's some limitation in the current implementation that prevents the logic from working on, say, a dozen resolutions, as opposed the just three.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-06-18 01:46pm

Arrow Mk84 wrote:Well the max resolution supported by the chip should dictate the transistor count. I'm thinking that there's some limitation in the current implementation that prevents the logic from working on, say, a dozen resolutions, as opposed the just three.

Or maybe adding each resolution needs more logic, since it appears its three distinct modes, not just scale up.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2005-06-18 01:59pm

That shouldn't be the case. You need enough logic to handle the max resolution you're supporting. After that, it should be matter of allocating the logic for a specific resolution (say your max res is 1920x1200, but you're running at 1024x768, you'd only use enough logic to do the 1024x768 rendering, and you disable the rest of the logic, because its not need). But, some designs do require an all or nothing approach, which would require each res have its own logic.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2005-06-18 11:23pm

3 systems all AGP:

Leadtech 6600GT
Leadtech Geoforce 2 GTS
Abit Suliro TI4200 vivo