Frame rates and tweaking

[Roland]

Nice chart. The dramatic performance differences between different versions of the same line of cards is surprising. It kind of defeats the purpose of numbering them, doesn't it?
[right][snapback]68163[/snapback][/right]

Not really. Generally, cards in the same line share the same features (to an extent). For example, all the 6x00 line share Shader Model 3.0 and DirectX 9.0c support (for comparison, ATi does not have Shader Model 3.0 compatibility in any of their cards). The FX5xxx line gave birth to DirectX 9 support, which the previous generation (Ti series) did not have. Each evolution of cards brings about more than just increased performance. Part of that increased performance comes from improvements in the actual architecture (such as pixel / vertex pipelines, DirectX and Shader Model support, and faster clock speeds, and in older cases AGP compatibility {being replaced by PCI Express x16 these days}).

Sometimes, cards in the same line do have drastic differences. This generally comes from the "nerf stick" hitting the card in order to make it attractive to the "mainstream" or "budget" segments. Low-end graphics cards exist for the same reason the Celeron and Sempron do - to fill a gap without costing the manufacturer more money. After all, if they can scale down existing technology for a reduction in cost, and then sell that product for less than their other offerings while still making a profit, why shouldn't they? The consumer gets another option to choose from, and the manufacturer gets more money for hardly any work. After all, not everyone can afford the latest and greatest cards.

For example, when I bought my Ti4200, I got the lowest of the low. Long before the 8x AGP version of the 64MB card, there was the plain 4x AGP version. Rather than spend the extra money on the 128MB card, I got the 64MB, since the improvement in performance was virtually negligible (after all, what good are 128MB of RAM if your bus width is only 64-bit? That's what we call memory bottlenecking). Before that, an old TNT2 Vanta had served me quite well. Only now have I replaced my card with one that had more "oomph" and higher standing in the marketplace, rather than go for the cheap end. Part of this was because, for the cost, I was getting a tremendous deal, as the FX generation of cards were only marginally less expensive for far less power (a 5950 Ultra will cost you more than a 6800, but give you LESS performance or long-term viability). Part of this was because there WERE only the 6800 line - the 6600 line hadn't even been introduced, and even when it first was, they had NO AGP versions. And part of it was simply that I was sick of living in the "low end". Being a system-builder, I know the ins and outs of a computer, I know the cost / benefit ratios, and I knew that getting a higher-end video card, even if it was the lowest in the line, would be MUCH better than settling for what I was initially looking at for even $100 cheaper (or even equal priced!). Oh, and part of it was my old card was dying. PAINFULLY.

I can happily say that my card was worth every penny, and it will be worth that much more once I sink about $50 into it for cooling upgrades so that I may overclock it even more. But, then, I had the money to burn and the determination to invest it. My g/f understood that my old card was dying (being unusable in 3D for anything), and that I truly wanted this new card, and that if I could justify the cost, she could accept it without a fuss (I generally handle the monetary affairs, so I generally have a stronger grasp of our financial situation). Besides, I bought her around a grand worth of jewelry this past holiday season, so I think she can live with me buying a new video card for myself. ;) I spoil her so (although she spoiled ME this year with a brand new SLR camera, totalling ~$600 with all the extras; I was SUPER pleased). :)

The thing to remember is to always look at not only the specifications, the warranty, and the brand, but also the benchmarks, reviews, and accessories (such as cooling). If one card has, for example, 12 pixel pipelines, and another worth $50 more has 16, it's a good bet that the more expensive card will be more than worth the extra $50 (especially since half the time a reduction in pipelines is just a "switching off" of them, rather than an actual physical reduction). Likewise, a 128MB card versus a 256MB card that costs $100 more, with both having a 256-bit bus, may just be worth the extra money or it may not be. This is where viewing the benchmarks come into play. On the other hand, a 256MB card costing $100 more than a 128MB card, when both share a 128-bit bus, is almost certainly NOT worth any extra money, simply because the added RAM, while costing a bundle more, will offer virtually no performance gains because it will be bottlenecked in the bus. And when it comes to benchmarks, look at settings that you normally play with (to see how the new card compares with your current one), and then look well beyond your normal settings (to see how the card will handle future games). If the card performs really well in the low end, but terribly in the high end, is it really worth your money? Likewise, if a card performs incredibly well in the low end, and very well in the high end, but costs you an entire paycheck, is buying it right now worth all that extra money, or can it wait a couple months so the price comes down a couple notches? All these are things to consider when shopping for a new video card.

One final example:
Before my old card was on the fritz, I was looking for an upgrade. I had pegged a 5900XT as a possible choice, ranging in price from $150 to $250, or a plain 5900, ranging from about $200 to $300. The 5900 really didn't offer a significant improvement over the XT version, but the cost on some cards (XT high versus plain low) was slim enough that both were still a consideration, instead of me merely opting towards the XT. Unfortunately, I never really managed tp scrape the money together, so I kept putting off the upgrade. Finally, my card started to die one day, after years of service, so I began looking again. When I got into the Guild Wars and WoW betas, I decided it was time (especially since I HAD to get a new card by the time WoW went retail, or I wouldn't be playing at all!). By this time, the 6800 series had come out, and WOW what a difference. Using Doom 3 as an example, a 5900 XT averages around the mid 30's for FPS, while a 6800 pushes a whopping mid 70's! The 6800 FAR outperformed the old-generation top-of-the-line model, the 5950 Ultra, yet cost a whopping $200+ less! And where, in the high settings, the 5900 XT would slow to a crawl, the 6800 would barely go below a fast walk! The deal was settled, and the only thing stopping me from buying one was an INCREDIBLY limited supply. 6800 sold out in HOURS across a multitude of stores, and it was a long time coming before they got restocked. I was going to get a 6800 GT, since the performance in the high end was much better than a vanilla 6800, but still comparable to an Ultra, but it cost an extra $200 (which, when I bought my card, I didn't have) and none of the stores (online and off) had one, so I settled for my plain 6800. I'm exceptionally happy with my choice, despite (or maybe because of) the fact that I am now forced to get a CPU upgrade (LONG overdue; long long LONG overdue) to accomodate it since it's too powerful for my current rig. :D This new upgrade will cost me around $250 all told, but it also allows me to utilize all my old components (RAM, video card, sound card, etc.), swapping only the motherboard and CPU, and leaves me with plenty of room for upgrading. So, all told, $500 later and I have a virtually-new computer that will definitely last me a couple more years before I'm forced to build a new system. And when that time comes, $500 for 2 - 3 years will seem like a drop in the bucket. ;)