Video Card issues?

[Park Kraken]

I think I may be having issues with my video card. I haven't been able to play many of my computer games, some of them due to my new monitor being stuck on a screen resolution of 800x600 pixels, but the rest don't seem to work for a variety of reasons. I'm wondering if the slightly new video card is to blame. It's a NVIDIA GeForce FX 5500 graphics card. I'm not the one who bought it, so I can't say for sure whether or not it's a good gaming card. The only games that work right now are Battlefield 2, WoW, and AoE II.

If the card is the problem, can someone recommend a good card or series of cards? I don't want to pay too much for a new video card, but I do want something that I can play my games on.

[Morgan Evanar]

No, it's not a good gaming card. It's 3 generations old. What is your budget, and the specs of your current system?

[Park Kraken]

Preferrably I would like something under 200$, and the specs of my system are a 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 Celeron Processor, running Windows XP, with 1024 MB RAM, and a 80 GB Hard drive.

[Morgan Evanar]

That's pretty far behind the curve. Ok, have you uninstalled and reinstalled your nvidia drivers?

[Doc Milo]

Just to add to the installing of the nvidia drivers ... don't know if this is common knowledge (and I'm too stupid to have known it) or not, but make sure that no virus scanning program is running in the background while installing the drivers. I had a video-related problem until I came across that tid-bit of info and uninstalled/reinstalled the drivers turning off the virus scan.

[Morgan Evanar]

I haven't had any driver conflicts with my AV software but I am certain there are some that are dumb enough to screw it up. Its a posibility.

[Khendon Sevon]

You're going nowhere, and fast (or maybe just really, really, really super slow?), with a Celeron processor.

But, hey, ya' gotta' use what you gotta' use.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

You're going nowhere, and fast (or maybe just really, really, really super slow?), with a Celeron processor.

But, hey, ya' gotta' use what you gotta' use.


The system is perfectly adequate. My system at home is probably slower and older and yet I cant think of a legitimate reason it needs upgrading. The simple fact about computers these days is that if it's under three - hell sometimes up to five! - years old, there is simply no reason to upgrade except for Geek-penis waving or unless you utterly MUST run Far Cry at 1900x1400 @ 200 fp or some nonsense or if you become mad and Vista is something you cant live your life without.

Everyone else don't need to waste time bothering with upgrading anymore.

[Khendon Sevon]

Or unless you want to play video games that are remotely new?

If you're doing word processing and "browsing" and junk, who cares. I totally agree with that. However, if you're one of the many individuals I know that play games and run system intensive programs then you, sir, are wrong.

I'd also like to see a 5 year old system open multiple Office applications and not die.

Software evolves with hardware. Using older systems and new software just isn't realistic.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

Or unless you want to play video games that are remotely new?

If you're doing word processing and "browsing" and junk, who cares. I totally agree with that. However, if you're one of the many individuals I know that play games and run system intensive programs then you, sir, are wrong.

These so called 'old' systems are damn powerful and the fact is, you get to a certain point, even with video editing or the 'latest' games, there is simply NO point in upgrading because the performance is more than acceptible. I video edit and I dont need more than my 4 year old system. Compile code? Yes, you dont need to leave the desk to get a cuppa because it will be done. Play games? Oh NO problem there at all, even your so called latest and greatest with some good frame rates.

Older systems are perfectly fine.



I'd also like to see a 5 year old system open multiple Office applications and not die.


THEY CAN. It might seem amazing for a younger person but even ancient 5 year old machines were coming out with at least 256 mb and frankly that's fine for Office apps, they survive okay with 128 altho it's been well known for over 5 years any Windows OS needs at least 256 mb to run well. And it's not like memory upgrades are dead cheap - any older machine with 512 mb is absolutly and completely fine to run multiple apps open.

Dont tell the terminal servers I have with 4/5 year old hardware they cant run multiple applications..... they only have 100 concurrent users and 900 processes running at the same time. Lots of memory is all you need and that has been true for any Windows apps ever since Windows came out.

But on the other hand, the other terminal server I'm about to log in on cant run 5 users because a moron cant do code and it keeps chewing up 2 Gb worth of mempry and redlining the processors. I'm damn good with computers and networks but I cant come up with something that gets around bad coding.



Software evolves with hardware. Using older systems and new software just isn't realistic.

I've heard that too many times before and proven false for at least 5 years - for some years now HARDWARE has been by far more powerful than the applications that have come out, because there is simply a point where even for high end games or intensive use applicatiions, you just dont need to go beyond to achieve the desired results - hardware went past that point about 4 years ago and software when written properly hasnt increased it's resource footprint - thence a well designed application has become even faster as the standard PC even has become a dual core 64 bit monster. As a result there is nothing wrong with older machines - except when programmers come out with bloated and inefficent code like Vista that is truly retarded in the absolute resource hogging that it does when it is completely and utterly unneeded. Oh and some games too are exactly the same. Others get coded properly and are quite happy on lower end PC's as they should be.

You want to actually be a good designer and programmer? Learn how to design truly effective and efficient code instead. I dont feel like upgrading just because programmers cant code.

[Khendon Sevon]

You are, indeed, right. You can get decent frame rates on an older computer. That is, if you're running Donkey Kong or Tetris.

No, seriously, though. Grab a copy of Oblivion, run it on your ancient machine of doom and see what happens. You and I might define acceptable differently. 5 FPS wouldn't make me happy. That's barely real-time.

Seriously, reread my arguments. You'll notice your counter-points aren't actually touching what I said and your examples aren't addressing what I point out.

I do agree with your last comment, though. It's completely true. Spaghetti code is a trend that needs to be fixed, fixed, fixed. Still, you reach a point where even the best code can't make hardware faster.

I just so happen to have a professor right now that designed *AT&AT's processor (1B) for their telephone network. His team initially started out with a review of the code used for the 1A. They found the code was super efficient and that the processor itself was simply old technology and there was only one way to crank more speed out of it: design a new processor. So he did.

Sometimes you just need to use resources. Look at the Scheme programming language. You get awesome precision; but, it's not going to give you amazingly zippy results. Add to that the fact that most teams don't have years and years to develop their software and you get code that works but isn't super efficient. It's life.

That's one of the reasons for quantitative software engineering. It's all about managing time, optimizing code, working with people, etc. It's pretty cool.

I appreciate your experience. Really, I do. But, my own experiences and knowledge just doesn’t jive with everything you’re saying.

Yaaaay digressing from thread topic :)

*Edit:

Hah, I had originally put AT-AT. It didn't look right so I put AT&AT. Then I was sitting in class and went, "Did I make a typo?" I meant AT&T. lol. yay.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I know I need a new video card, mainly because I am still using a interergrated one. I am thinking about getting a GeForce 7300 right now. I see most places have them for around 100 bucks.
Oh I have an AMD Athlon 64 Processor 3400 2.21 GHZ with about 1 GB of ram. I figure I probably will buy another Gb of ram while I am at it.

[Morgan Evanar]

The GeForce 7300 is crapola. Is your motherboard AGP or PCI-Express?

Mark, all of your arguements are sound until you say this one single word:
Games. For general use the several year old Duron 800s on nForce 1 boards with a minor ram upgrade to 768 do all of the office apps my folks need to run just fine.

Play any modern title made after Doom3? Heh.

[Jedi Master Carr]

The GeForce 7300 is crapola. Is your motherboard AGP or PCI-Express?

Mark, all of your arguements are sound until you say this one single word:
Games. For general use the several year old Duron 800s on nForce 1 boards with a minor ram upgrade to 768 do all of the office apps my folks need to run just fine.

Play any modern title made after Doom3? Heh.
I have a PCI Express. What would be better for my processor then?

[Jaime Tomahawk]

Seriously, reread my arguments. You'll notice your counter-points aren't actually touching what I said and your examples aren't addressing what I point out.

I addressed them perfectly well and I will point out servers in the case of the Terminal Servers are no better than regular PC's, except in QA. They use the same parts as PC's, the same techniques of construction and cooling and if push came to shove, a PC would do just as well. The points stand.



I do agree with your last comment, though. It's completely true. Spaghetti code is a trend that needs to be fixed, fixed, fixed. Still, you reach a point where even the best code can't make hardware faster.

I just so happen to have a professor right now that designed *AT&AT's processor (1B) for their telephone network. His team initially started out with a review of the code used for the 1A. They found the code was super efficient and that the processor itself was simply old technology and there was only one way to crank more speed out of it: design a new processor. So he did.

That would have been some time ago, because simply put hardware and resources have become the least of anyone's problems in any computer system for some time.



Sometimes you just need to use resources. Look at the Scheme programming language. You get awesome precision; but, it's not going to give you amazingly zippy results. Add to that the fact that most teams don't have years and years to develop their software and you get code that works but isn't super efficient. It's life.

It still doesnt mean you need the latest and greatest toaster. Far from it in fact because if your toaster has 6 billion watts of power as opposed to 4 billion, your bread's still toast in a blink. PC's of a few years ago still are toasters of the hundred millions watt variety and you get hard pressed to tell the difference in toasting.


That's one of the reasons for quantitative software engineering. It's all about managing time, optimizing code, working with people, etc. It's pretty cool.


You want zip? Stop using high level languages and start working down low in the assembler level where real code speed can be done and the compilers are better able to produce optimised code. Or work below that, which I've done and immediately shot myself for being such a lifeless geek. The real speed and efficiency is not done working with other people either, it's by reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading and then applying. Software designed by one or a very small handful is almost always better than software by committee.



I appreciate your experience. Really, I do. But, my own experiences and knowledge just doesn’t jive with everything you’re saying.


You have a hell a lot more cynical to get with this industry. Only when you have been in it for years, will you realise just how right I am and how utter crap software has become. There is simply put bugger all even half decently programmed bits of software ANYWHERE outside of Russian made malware.

Now some of THAT is a work of art and so light on resource use as to harken back when programmers actually cared about such things.


Play any modern title made after Doom3? Heh.

Well yes and that PC of mine does allright...... but frankly mate, what ones are worth my time anymore anyway?

But lets not go there :)

[Khendon Sevon]

You want zip? Stop using high level languages and start working down low in the assembler level where real code speed can be done and the compilers are better able to produce optimised code. Or work below that, which I've done and immediately shot myself for being such a lifeless geek. The real speed and efficiency is not done working with other people either, it's by reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading, reading and then applying. Software designed by one or a very small handful is almost always better than software by committee.


Most high level compilers produce better ASM than one can do by hand. This is a well-known fact. That's why ASM programmers are hard to come by. Now, for things like HLSL and CG this isn't true. That's due to these ASM languages and their compilers being in their infancy.

High level languages speed up development time and allow different theories and systems to be explored with ease.



It still doesnt mean you need the latest and greatest toaster. Far from it in fact because if your toaster has 6 billion watts of power as opposed to 4 billion, your bread's still toast in a blink. PC's of a few years ago still are toasters of the hundred millions watt variety and you get hard pressed to tell the difference in toasting.


Computers aren't toasters. They're not doing a single simple task that involves one process. Rather, they have to manage over a hundred threads each with varying degrees of load and resource requirements.

I'd compare them more to an octopus trying to press buttons. The more hands he has and better able he is to coordinate, the faster he gets the job done. As he gets more efficient more buttons are added.

Friend, you're just cranky :) Don't let that blind you.

[Park Kraken]

I went to CircCity the other day looking for CS Source and ended up browsing for hardware when I saw that they didn't carry it. All the video cards that they had were under 200$. The cheapest looking one for gaming I guess would be the Radeon 9550, tagged at 80$. I'll have to do a little research first.

I think I might need RAM as well. When I first got this computer, it came with a gig of RAM, but the system startup only shows 256, so I'm thinking some of the sticks must of burned out (is that unusual for a 3 year old computer?).

Actually I think I'm just considering buying a new computer, period.

[Yog]

I know I need a new video card, mainly because I am still using a interergrated one. I am thinking about getting a GeForce 7300 right now. I see most places have them for around 100 bucks.
Oh I have an AMD Athlon 64 Processor 3400 2.21 GHZ with about 1 GB of ram. I figure I probably will buy another Gb of ram while I am at it.

In your situation, I would upgrade with another GB of ram, and wait until the month of may when the GeForce 8600 is scheduled to be released. Its the budget version of the 88xx cards. It will make you DX10 ready, and it should run faster than the 7th generation cards. The GeForce 8600GT should be around $150 USD, and the GeForce 8600 Ultra at $180 USD. Specifications here:
http://www.guru3d.com/newsitem.php?id=4834

[Jedi Master Carr]

In your situation, I would upgrade with another GB of ram, and wait until the month of may when the GeForce 8600 is scheduled to be released. Its the budget version of the 88xx cards. It will make you DX10 ready, and it should run faster than the 7th generation cards. The GeForce 8600GT should be around $150 USD, and the GeForce 8600 Ultra at $180 USD. Specifications here:
http://www.guru3d.com/newsitem.php?id=4834

I can wait if I need to. Would the GB of ram be enough to increase performance on certain games? In particular I am talking about NeverWinter nights 2. I stopped trying to play it becuase the performance was constantly laggy.

[Morgan Evanar]

Yes, if you get up to 2GB it will help with any game made in the past 2 years, pretty much. Yog's call on the 8600 is a good one. If anything else, it will drive down the prices of the various 7 series/X1xxx cards

[Jedi Master Carr]

Thank you I will probably wait.

[Yog]

You probably won't have to wait that long now. Release date set to April 17th:

http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4723

[Jedi Master Carr]

You probably won't have to wait that long now. Release date set to April 17th:

http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4723

That is great to hear. I don't have my taxes back yet so it doesn't matter either way. Where is the best place to go to buy one? A friend of mine told me to go to tigerdirect.com. I thought about Comp USA but I am sure it is cheaper online.

[Morgan Evanar]

Videocards in brick and mortar stores are hideously overpriced. Get it from Newegg or Mwave.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Cool thanks.